There is a difference between "finding investors" and being promoted based on performances on the field of play. Has the USSF fixed its professional league standards so they actually cater for pro/rel leagues?
But the top level structure has to exist regardless of how teams qualify for it. And there's nothing that's stopping USL from creating that structure (which yes, like it or not, requires investment and thus investors). So the idea that because there's no promotion to MLS somehow retards USL's pro/rel is false, because there's nothing MLS does that USL couldn't replicate if they wanted to. (CCL slots aside)
The PLS doesn’t stop pro/rel. Many federations have standards that promoted teams have to meet before they can actually be promoted….
Standards the individual team must meet. Nothing to do with standards such as these that the league as a whole must meet: i. U.S.‐based teams must be located in at least the Eastern, Central and Pacific time zones in the continental United States. (These three time zones are required because the majority of the large population centers are located in these time zones.) ii. At least 75 percent of the league’s teams must play in metropolitan markets of at least 1,000,000 persons. My question was whether these league-wide requirements had been removed from the professional league standards so as to create a level playing field with pro/rel leagues and their more fluid membership based on performances on the field of play. It would be a pretty straightforward change for the USSF to make and the "excuse" there's no pro/rel league is apparently about to go away.
It's not that difficult, although for those not trying too hard I guess I should have added a comma after "league".
What’s your definition of a league? Is it only a single stratum, or is the entire strata a league? Do you know what USL’s structure is going to be if/when they implement pro/rel? How strict is USSF in enforcing the PLS?
I see you didn't address my question, but in answer to yours I presume - from Expansion's comments - the USL has a division 2 and a division 3 league. So, again, my question is whether these league-wide requirements have been removed from the professional league standards so as to create a level playing field with pro/rel leagues and their more fluid membership based on performances on the field of play?
There doesn't seem to be a consensus to ask USSF to change the PLS. But there have been waivers. It becomes problematic when you give waivers but the recipients don't follow up. On the other hand, if you look at who's top of the USL conferences at the moment, they've all got a pathway to a bigger league. Well maybe not El Paso, yet. Eastern Conference: Central Louisville: has the stadium (cap 15k), has the organization, has the fans, but needs a primary investor. Eastern Conference: Atlantic Tampa Bay: has the owners, has approval to expand their stadium. Western Conference: Pacific Phoenix: has a stadium plan, has the financing, has the owners, has the fans. Western Conference Mountain El Paso: newbies owned by the local MiLB team, has the fans (6.5k av), has talked about a soccer specific stadium and MLS but they're in a very small market. My point I think is that there are teams with ambitious plans in USL today and they're proving that the Championship is a viable league in itself as well as preparing for possible "promotion" to MLS. If the USLC wants pro/rel with MLS, which I doubt at the moment, they need more of them to make it a viable and money spinning option for MLS owners. But, from the MLS perspective I see teams like Dallas investing in youth and willing to risk having a bad season or two focusing on the long-term benefit, to themselves and to the league. Cannon, Reynolds, Richards, Che, Pomykal and Ferreira may not have got the chances they've had if Dallas was worried about losing their place in MLS. Sorry if I'm rambling, I've been in hospital all day and I'm a bit drugged up.
And here I thought you might want to have an actual discussion rather than just condescend. Seriously though, how does your question about a league vs. a team relate to my point about how a league needs infrastructure regardless of the teams in it, and how there's nothing blocking USL from building the same level of infrastructure as MLS?
Says the guy who wrote "I don't even understand this response" as their entire response. Because it's exactly the point. Your approach requires an entire league to reach a required standard; the pro/rel approach allows an individual team to demonstrate through results on the field of play that it can play at a higher level.
I’m just level setting before I respond… You didn’t answer my question. I didn’t ask what USL’s structure is now. I asked if you knew what their structure would be after pro/rel was implemented. Which brings me back to what is the definition of a league… You seem to be saying that only one stratum is a league… Is this really true? Why couldn’t the entire strata count as a league? We are talking about a situation where all of the teams are part of the same umbrella organization, all the teams, allegedly, already meet D2 standards, and would be connected by a system that allows teams to move between strata..
I don't understand why the USSF PLS review team would unilaterally do something that none of the existing leagues have asked for.
Because I literally did not understand the response. What standard? The standard of being seen as as much major league as MLS? My whole point is that in the fan's eyes there are no "standards" making MLS the top league. MLS is seen as the top league because they act like a top league. They spend money like a top league. They conduct their business and their PR like a top league. These are all things USL can do as well. If pro/rel is the key to unlocking soccer in this country as people claim then they can enact pro/rel and build themselves up to that level. And nothing in the USSF's sanctioning or the existence of MLS prevents it. Literally the ONLY thing that MLS gets that is any sort of tangible benefit from USSF's sanctioning right now is the CCL spots, and the vast majority of current MLS fans and potential fans don't care about CCL. There's nothing stopping USL from becoming as major league as MLS other than itself. That's my whole point.
And they're the only league sanctioned as a division one league by the USSF... Again, you're still not seeing a difference between an individual team, based on its performances on the field of play, playing in a division one league and an entire league being of that standard. Literally the ONLY thing that MLS gets that is any sort of tangible benefit from USSF's sanctioning right now is the CCL spots, and the vast majority of current MLS fans and potential fans don't care about CCL. There's nothing stopping USL from becoming as major league as MLS other than itself. That's my whole point.[/QUOTE] Except USSF got into bed with MLS and created a large first-mover advantage to MLS. And is still in bed with MLS through the SUM deal. The playing field is hardly level enough between MLS and USL for your utopian world to exist. And you
Most of that I agree with. I just don't think the whole of USL has to become D1 standard, just a critical mass of maybe 12 or 15 clubs for MLS to even think about promotion and relegation, whether it be with USL or MLS 2. I wonder what's in it for NuRock, you know, the people that own USL.
But that's like a golf club telling its paying members that they have to play with left-handed golf clubs because they're the flippin' regulator. Why would USSF force something on a system that nobody really cares about? The studies and polls have suggested that the majority of fans and players would like pro-rel but it's not a high priority.
lol. Has it applied to change or does it plan to change it's current division 2/division 3 structure? So the answer to my question is?...
Changing/extending the professional league standards so that they cater equally for closed and pro/rel isn't forcing anything on anybody. It's merely creating a level playing field between the two types of league. So your golf club example is a fail.
I don't see it that way. There are standards to meet to become a D1 club, so as a second division club you need to meet those standards if you want to become a D1 club. Phoenix Rising have everything they need to become a D1 club with a short-term waiver, why can't other USL clubs do that. Louisville, Indianapolis, Tampa Bay, Sacramento are almost there although Sac are proving what a stretch those standards can be. As @JasonMa suggested, why even bother with pro/rel into MLS, why couldn't USL just become a league 1 itself? The D1 PLS are actually lower than what MLS demands.