I have modified my opinion over the years that a lot of the issues in European football are not caused by pro/rel.... ...but pro/rel sure as hell isn't making them any better.
The business is sports which by definition is based around dreams. One of the main things that gets people to buy tickets or turn on the TV are dreams. Without dreams, many of which are incredibly unrealistic, we're basically watching a skills competition. Now to be clear when I am talking about "Dreaming" I mean the supporters and giving them a chance to dream, which would include seeing THEIR club at a higher level. So you agree that dreams and romance are helpful for leagues to market themselves, and in that specific area the pro/rel system offers more of that. (cue arguments that somehow the US system can offer the same when actually in that specific area it can't)
Are there any issues that are being caused by pro/rel and in your opinion are so bad that they warrant scrapping pro/rel ? (not a gotcha question, guessing we disagree but just curious)
As the most experienced pro/rel "victim" in this forum, the glory of pro/rel from the perspective of a small team fan is that you get to play the elite teams a home and away for a few seasons, before sinking back to the abyss. Alternatively you may be able to get one up on your biggest rivals. Between 1973 and 1995, our big local rivals were Forest, Leicester and Derby. After 25 years of struggle they're now Mansfield, Chesterfield and Lincoln. Mansfield are living the dream, a division above Notts and Chesterfield. They once got to the Second Division with a bunch of ex Notts County players but really the 6 fingered inbreds love lording it over their biggest local rival.
I was giving an example of a promotion scenario that wouldn’t interest me, showing it's not quite as simple as pro/rel = good and non-pro/rel = bad. I don't have any particular loyalty to MLS other than it's one league of several I keep an eye on, so no, I don't get too frustrated. If anything the vendetta some people have against the league makes me laugh.
Genuine question do you think Nott's County would exist at least as a professional club with it's own stadium without the Pyramid? Let's say for argument sake the premier league dumps pro/rel in 1992 when it's formed and creates a 24 team league of the biggest clubs in England, which at that time would almost for sure include Forest. What does the Pyramid look like? Does Notts County survive with Forest guaranteed the prem and County guaranteed to never join them? I am assuming you would never cross the Trent and call The City ground home but what about the next generation?
Which is why investors that love soccer, invest in leagues in pyramids with pro/rel. Investors who need a side piece to keep the stadium warm while their NFL/MLB/MiLB team is off invest in the US...
Makes sense and I personally don't believe that pro/rel is that big for the neutral. I think it brings some interest and reduces dead rubbers but that alone wouldn't be worth the uncertainty for me. So it's makes sense as a neutral following the Italian or German league pro/rel might not be a big deal. Especially if the predictability of the champion reduces your interest in the league as a whole. But would you be more interested in pro/rel if it involved a local club? That's the key.
Outside of Portland Seattle and El Plastico, what other scrimmages rise to the level of authentic rivalries? Maybe Colorado & RSL?
Investors that invest in pro/rel systems do it for spending less money = more value. Investors that invest in MLS do it for spending more money = more value in the future.
No, you're not. My Rotterdam clubs Excelsior and Sparta beat your experience in promoting and relegating. And I'm much older, so more time to experience it too. Add to that my amateur teams I supported.
First of all we were one of the First Division clubs to vote to break away from the Football League and probably would have played in the inaugural season had our chairman decided to replace our central striker to Rangers for a backhander and not replace him. Therefore our stadium was designed to meet our Premier League ambitions and is rarely more than a third full. Had we been permanently excluded I'm confident we would have survived, playing in the same stadium (guaranteed by the city council) with a smaller capacity and similar attendances to what we have today. People choose Notts over Forest for a reason and that reason is obviously not the prospect of Premier League football any time in the near future.
For the majority of leagues, no. However, I think England is in such a financial mess that the only way out might be to halt pro/rel for a while. Not that I think they need to get rid of it for any other reason but English football is fundamentally broken, and a lot of it is due to owners chasing the brass ring of promotion and failing, or being relegated with too much debt. I also think Spain is financially a mess, but I'm not sure pro/rel is as much the root of the problem there, but I'm not ruling it out. I generally believe though that areas where pro/rel has already been established should keep it, and areas where they've gone a different direction should not be forced into pro/rel and would largely not be benefited by adding it.
MLS also got a leg up from the USSF in its founding. And continues to derive benefit from the SUM deal that the USSF, as regulator of professional leagues, should not be involved in.
QUOTE="M, post: 38692604, member: 7386"]MLS also got a leg up from the USSF in its founding. [/quote] I think it was the other way around. USSF would never have hosted the World Cup if it weren't for MLS. QUOTE="M, post: 38692604, member: 7386"] And continues to derive benefit from the SUM deal that the USSF, as regulator of professional leagues, should not be involved in.[/QUOTE] And yet they keep winning their lawsuits. I assume they get TV money from the SUM deal.
A predictably empty comment from you. Too bad you can't at least acknowledge the realities surrounding interactions between MLS and the USSF.
Well at least you decided your "Yawn!" response wasn't kosher. I guess we should be thankful for small mercies. On MLS's founding, Rothenberg was both USSF president and MLS chairman. Hmmm, conflict of interest anyone? On SUM, are the full details of the business arrangement between SUM and the USSF publicly available? Are full accounts publicly available? Why is the regulator of US leagues in a commercial arrangement, through SUM, with a league it regulates?
I don't think they'll ever suspend pro/rel, it's too entwined in the English culture, not just in football but in the sense of Victorian values and fair play. And to be fair, every time a club looks like it's on its last legs a billionaire or local businessman pops up and saves them, a few clubs like Bury excepted. (Covid-19 may change that) In 2003 Notts were saved by a £3.5 million donation from an anonymous supporter and even when his name was revealed nobody knew him.
Name a national governing body that's not closely entwined with its largest professional organization. As I remember, MLS was the only serious bidder when it came to fulfilling USSF's obligation to launch a national professional soccer league and the eventual investors risked $100 millions to fulfill Alan Rothenberg's vision.