Its difficult for me to accept promotion and relegation as the magic bullet to make the USA World Cup contenders. Take Japan for instance. They use it in the J.League, but does anyone see them winning the World Cup any time soon?
It's fair to say that beating a pool of inferior opponents isn't always an indicator of your capacity to compete at a higher level. There is a much bigger difference in terms of potential revenue and associated risk between Iceland replacing the Netherlands in the Euros and Rochester replacing Seattle in MLS. The point is, the USA aren't terrible. There's also nothing to support the claim that the actual world beaters are that way because their leagues have pro/rel.
"So let's pretend MLS never happened. USSF played a fast one on FIFA. They got the WC and never actually started a league. Instead you have the pre-mls world. But now let's put that pre-mls world in the middle of this soccer boom. IF mls didn't exist someone else would be coming in looking to take advantage of the desire for soccer. To say that without MLS the US league system would look like 1995 just isn't true." has this person done any research about what soccer in the country was like before the 94 world cuP?
How do you define growth in this case? The number of people playing it? The number of people watching it in the stadiums. The number of people watching it on tv? Any other measure?
Player development? The US would never have gone on that run in the 02 WC if the players from the MLS weren't leading the charge. Huge difference from the 98 WC to the 02 WC.
Is it better for player development for clubs to have a baseball type system than a P/R type system and why and how? Is it better for player development for their to be a very large top flight than a first and second flight with P/R?
Typical attempt to belittle and marginalize the opinions, views, and facts of those you disagree with by trying to ostracize any and all who would honestly like to see a Pro/Rel system exist in the US. You and the others have been playing this tune for so long, you fail to notice that the majority of non-bigsoccer following American soccer fans think you're tone deaf and no better than the zealots on the other side you're so fond of condemning.
How come, when people suggest that you answer questions or back up your claims, you frequently come back with "I don't have time" yet when it comes to pointing out each and every comment you find objectionable, you have all the time in the world?
I think you're naive. Having lived through the period between the NASL and MLS, I don't think you can assume the performance of the US at the World Cup and the growth of soccer in tv happens absent MLS. Even up to and around 2003-2004, MLS was still on shaky ground. We are in a better spot now but there's still a long way to go.
What's not to get? Cities that support their clubs "deserve" a better fate than cities like Atlanta that traditionally don't. I tire of the prevailing wisdom on bigsoccer that fans don't deserve teams, just fans in large markets with billionaire sports-centric sugar daddies. Criteria that doesn't obsess over metro area sperm count. Criteria that recognizes Louisville may be a better market for MLS right now than San Diego... http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/news/2015/04/09/capacity5.html I don't think the markets deemed worthy by MLS in 2015 should have cradle to grave single-entity security while those on the outside looking in are sentenced to cradle to grave obscurity. What I've found fascinating about the general idea of Pro/Rel is the concept that clubs, as long as they can meet some baseline standards, can rise and fall in prominence based on their on-field performance. And it isn't always based on having the highest payrolls... I think Rochester fans in the late 1990s proved they were worthy of a team playing at the highest level. I think Tulsa fans in 2003 proved they were worthy of a team playing at the highest level. To say I think both cities deserve a team now would be a bit presumptuous. Last night's USL Championship game attendance in Rochester? 5,247 I believe the Rochester fanbase is now "damaged goods" and Tulsa's will need years to be rebuilt after having no professional soccer at all from 2000 to 2015. Many older fans base their blind support of single-entity MLS on the lack of any major league in America from 1985 to 1995 and I was once one of those people. But now, I base my current critiques of MLS and single entity on a systematic failure that contributed to a once proud market in Tulsa not having any pro soccer at all for the past 15 years...
It isn't the fans, players, or coaches they are complaining about with the claims of white priviledge. It is the lack of Hispanic owners. They claim that the high expansion fee for MLS is exclusionary and racist.
Japan is markedly improved as a result if the foundation of the J-League. But it isn't because of pro/rel(Japan has had pro/rel since at least the 70s), but because the J-League professionalized the sport. Prior to J-League, the JFL required players to have a full time job at the company that owned the team they played for. Admittedly, some of those jobs were essentially "go sit at this desk", but the majority were legit workers at the company who worked a full day, then practiced after work and played games on the weekend.
Facts? What facts? Look, when someone makes a claim, repeatedly refuses to back it up with anything, and simply denies any inconvenient facts that have been brought up in this thread, it's fair to call that person "off the rails."
5 minutes of research would disabuse them of that notion. Both LAFC and Beckham's Miami team have Hispanic individuals in their ownership groups, for example. The idea that MLS is not interested in having super-wealthy Hispanic businesspeople join the MLS club is ridiculous.
FACT: Rochester was a very successful team both on and off the field, especially their first few years. FACT: You claimed Rochester was comping "the majority of its attendance." FACT: You then stated Rochester was giving away 40% of their tickets, but gloss over when that started to happen, because it sure as hell wasn't from the very beginning. FACT: 60% will always be more than 40%. FACT: My city will very likely have a soccer stadium initiative on the ballot early next year, and a major (league) selling point for its construction will be Tulsa's potential for a future MLS team. OPINION: Rochester would have benefited handsomely from a Pro/Rel system, and surely wouldn't have fared any worse in MLS than did Chivas USA. OPINION: If Sacramento doesn't get an MLS team, they too may resort to comping a large number of tickets to try to match their interest the first two seasons. OPINION: If Tulsans aren't sold on the potential for a future MLS team by constructing a soccer stadium, the proposal will be voted down and that stadium will never see the light of day. Ditto for Louisville, Indy, St Louis, OKC, etc...
40% free and another 40% at deep discounts. 20% paying full price. 40% is a minimum, admitted by someone who was trying to downplay the comping. And where do you get the assertion that it "sure as hell" wasn't from the very beginning? Link, please. Historically comping is something teams start out doing. There's also another post in THIS thread, from someone who was in Rochester at the time, saying that 50% comps would appear to be a low estimate. You're making a whole lot more unsupported assertions than anyone else here.
As for Sacramento "resorting to comping a large number of tickets": keep in mind that Sacramento's average ticket price is more than 3 times Rochester's average list price throughout the Rhinos' high attendance period. So far, the only non-sellouts at Bonney Field are international friendlies for which the club was charging 60-70% above its regular ticket prices -- the average ticket prices for those matches were actually higher than the LA Galaxy's, which are the most expensive in MLS. Also remember that we're talking about a metro area population that is well over double Rochester's size. On a pure population basis, even if the fans "lose interest" to the extent that Rochester's fans did (which I doubt, seeing as Rochester's paid attendance actually increased as reported attendance dropped), they'd still sell out Bonney Field every week.
It's not that MLS doesn't want super wealthy Hispanics, it's that Hispanics are under-represented in the ranks of the super wealthy. So by having such a high price of entry, MLS is using economic discrimination to unfairly limit the access of Hispanics to be owners. They claim that pro/rel would eliminate the economic barrier of entry and, as a result, Hispanics would be better represented as owners... But then, the person making this claim also thinks pay for play isn't economic discrimination because pay for play clubs have scholarships that allow poor minorities access to the elite training that he just happens to provide.
Really? Being someone who attends MLS matches, I know quite a few people who aren't on BigSoccer, and I don't know a single one who thinks promotion and relegation is a good idea.
^^^^ this While I think relegation and promotion is outdated, most US soccer fans I know think it's an interesting idea that won't work here and isn't necessary here
Well, duh. Of course not, you're in Columbus. Entitled Crew fans think they should have cradle to grave security in MLS.