The Case for Pro/Rel

I agree that it "doesn't mean," but it also gets down to the unknowable at that level. Is Oxford Tom happier than Leicester Tim, etc...

 

A very good, logical post. One quibble, on: the "it can't work any time soon but maybe down the road" argument are deluding themselves because there won't be any reason for it in the future either' bit. Right now, pro/rel simply cannot work in the US. There are not enough fully professional teams. Down the road, you are correct, it is very unlikely to make sense to MLS owners, but if the US is approaching a top league of 30 to 36 and has a strong d2 and a d3 that exists even outside MLS affiliates, so a total of 70 to 80 clubs or something north of that, then it can happen. But i would agree with your reasoning, it probably won't.

 

I need to address what @owian suggested about Americans and college sports. That we support college sports with such vigor is unique but easy to understand. First, we do not expect these teams to be pro. The exist where they exist and freely move around the divisions and conferences as they choose. Second, and this is extremely important, the sports teams provide something around which the student body and alumni can rally. They promote school spirit and a sense of community. There is often a very deep sense of connection between students and alumni with their schools. These are also widespread communities. They aren't limited to the often small college towns. They can be regional and national depending on the school's reach.

 

Which really is not much different than other sports in North America. It doesn't seem to hurt hockey, which I think is really similar to soccer in our neck of the woods.

 

And in many cases, there is more to it than students and alumni. When the college in question is the state university of a particular state, residents of that state often regard the football team as their team, whether they have any personal connection to the college or not. This is particularly true in states without NFL teams, like Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Nebraska, but it is not limited to those states.

 

Sorry, but I've to burst your bubble, as your second attemp still describes people looking for entertainment only, while fans stick with their clubs whatever it takes.
I'm a Feyenoord fan since childhood and in those decades had the highest highs possible and steep lows.
The difference between what we over here call a theater goer (=what you described) and a true fanbase I can illustrate from my own painful experience that went over the world (even CNN mentioned it, the bastards).
On the 24th of octobre 2010 PSV wrecked us in Eindhoven 10-0. We already werenot faring well before that disaster and the next match was at home against the bottom club and relegation candidate VVV Venlo. The rest of the country expected as a result of all this to see empty spaces in the stadium. But in the days right after that trashing the sales for the VVV match went through the roof and was sold out as the fans (real fans) wanted to give a clear statement to the players: "At Feyenoord you never walk alone" and we will support you always.

That's what fans are!

 

? I'm well aware of these facts, thank you. The point in arguing against pro/rel in America is someone doesn't "have to go down."

 

Esp when you're talking about any kind of mass market appeal. Soccer doesn't really have mass market appeal in the US. It wasn't that long ago that sports editors at major newspapers, magazine and tv stations would insist that MLS was a minor league that didn't really merit being taken that seriously. And by not that long ago, I mean I had arguments on this topic as recently as 2010.

 

If you use the term as a short form for fanatic, yes, that's true. If you view it as US team owners view it, it means people willing to buy tickets/shirts/parking passes/whatever to see your team play. the owners have learned through decades of trial and a lot of error that fans stop turning out for losing and unentertaining teams. I realize this might seem odd, but applying your definition of fan to US soccer fans leaves most clubs struggling to find 3000, and maybe never more than 10000, fans.
So that is not what US fans are talking about when they mention "fans." You're more likely to find that sort of fan on here, but this is a tiny and not representative sample of the US fanbase for soccer. Most are very casual. Hell, I know a bunch who enjoy the atmosphere but still wonder why the players can't just use their hands.

 

You can flog yourself all you want about your team's losses on the field. You can have all the romantic notions you want about your connection to your favorite team. Doesn't make you any different from what I just described, from a business sense.

Look, I'm really passionate about soccer itself and the sport in my country. I have a season ticket to my local MLS team, wear lots of their merchandise, talk about it whenever I run into a fellow fan. That doesn't mean that I don't acknowledge that it's a business and I'm one of the #1 customers. That's not a bad thing at all.

As for average American fans and their viewing habits, you can castigate the vast majority of casual fans all you want. Doesn't change the facts on the ground in the U.S. that they are the majority and where the greatest potential for growth comes from. While you wish most Americans watched sports like hardcore Feyenoord fans, that won't be the case any time soon.

 

I understand it from the owner's side i the USA, you're a customer and nothing more. But I was having the take from the customer's side and then you can make the distiction between a fan of the club who's connection to it is an unseperable part of the entertainment quality and the entertainment per se seaker, who just happens to have a preference for club x, but when the entertainment for a while doesnot meet expectations, just as easy calls it a day and says goodbye.
But when an owner has the choice between 50,000 long run loyal fans like Feyenoord has or 50,000 entertainment seekers, that are there as long as he delivers what they expect, what do you think he prefers?

 

Why are you so negative and defensive? I wasnot castigating anyone, just giving an analysis that hasnot got any judgement in it. Simply seperating soccer spectators in entertainment seekers and fans with a connection. Both exist and no one can blame one of them for being so.

 

I know what I'd celebrate more! Although Leicester, or any other team not among the usual subjects, finishing in the top 4 would make a nice change.

 

Good point. 50,000 hardcore fans per team is certainly a laudable goal. It took Feyenoord many decades to build such a good fanbase. It will take decades for every MLS team to build that kind of fanbase. Most NHL teams don't have numbers like that. We need every fan we can get, both hardcore and casual. Pro/rel won't create any new fans in North America while it also has large potential downsides,

That gets to the crux of the matter... Pro/rel is all risk and no reward in North America.

 

We agree on that point. I apologize if any of my text came off as negative and defensive.

 

For all the MLS folks who are watching the FIFA Club World Cup. The J-League is far better than the MLS, and Guangzhou would shatter any team from your league. Surprise is, both leagues are the same age as the MLS.
Facts.

 

Which is fine and dandy in countries that have essentially one team sport. The US doesn't have that luxury. Most markets with pro teams have multiple teams in different sports. As a result, fandom is more fluid than what you are describing. Lets take the Seattle Mariners as an example. Historically they are a pretty bad team with significantly more years where they finish the season below .500. For roughly an 8 year period between 1995 and 2003 that changed and the Mariners were playoff contenders. During this time, their attendance went from averaging 22,000 in 95, to a peak of almost 44,000 in 2002 and M's merchandise was everywhere around town. After 2002, the M's returned to their sub-.500 ways and attendance slowly dropped down to a low of just over 21,000 in 2012 and it is fairly rare to see M's merchandise around town.

Additionally, take the Seattle Seahawks, it doesn't really show in attendance since they are popular enough to basically sell out every game regardless of how the team is doing, but the 90s were a pretty dismal time to be a Seahawks fan. The Hawks only made it to the playoffs once that decade. During that time, games weren't selling out (well, they were, but don't get me started on the NFL's blackout rules) and you'd see Hawks uniforms around town, but they'd be pretty scattered. Since then, the Hawks have been perennial playoff contenders and have been to the Super Bowl three times (winning once). Hawks uniforms and merchandise are now ubiquitous around town.

Now, the M's level of suck is pretty rare in US sports, but it does illustrate my point.. In countries that have one team sport, people pretty much have the choice to support one team, or no team. Here in Seattle, we have the choice to support up to three. If one does poorly, we just drift away and spend our money on one of the other teams. In the case of Seattle, people that were gung ho about the M's in the late 90s, drifted away as they continued to perform poorly and, for many, started to spend their money on the Seahawks as they became one of the best teams in the NFL...

 

First, the "who is better bit" is opinion, not fact. The fact bit, though, is incorrect, as Guangzhou isn't a part of the J-League, being from China. They were beaten by a J-League club from Hiroshima, though.
And you're basing this on what, watching a game or two? A less than compelling case.
J-League and MLS are both fine, improving leagues.

 

That's okay, let's move on.

This point convinced me pages ago already that P/R makes no sense yet, given the circumstances, if ever. The point with "true fans base" is the gradual growth of the club, the generation after generation built up loyalty. Indeed Feyenoord started as an amateur club with limited resources and in more than a century built a loyalty that is engrained in whole families generation after generation. Rumours have it that fathers have been spotted to enlist the new born in the "Feyenoord kids"club before they officially declared the birth at the city hall.
So it will take soccerclubs in the States indeed decades to get into a "secure" fan base position. But that also asks from the owner of a club to "share" it with the fans, invest in the emotional side of it and not only from the merchandise point of view.

 

It also demands societal change in the US. the commitment to a sports club doesn't exist for a number of reasons. One is the emphasis on youth sport (after peewee) being through school teams. The Dutch may do this differently than Germans, but here competitive sport begins in fifth grade, before that it's a very healthy outlet for active kids. By that time in many parts of the US, kids are playing for their schools. Be true to your school, etc, but in any case school trumps clubs.
But, IMO, a bigger factor is the intense mobility of US residents. I've moved more than 20 times, lived in 14 different cities, six different states and four countries (actually been a legal resident of three others, but those were only three to 8 month stays). My mobility may be a bit much, but it is hardly freakish. In these places (in US), I've found it's more common to meet people who have moved in rather than who were raised in a community.
The cradle to grave sport club commitment you talk of doesn't really work when people are constantly moving to new places, and in the US moves very often take someone out of the range of engaging with the sport club of their childhood. hell, in my childhood I'd have had a lot of clubs to which I'd have to have been dedicated. So, instead, we pick our teams. And the closest thing we get to the European club member experience is through our college sport programs, where we can be members/deeply connected even when not part of a sporting venture (I'm not, but that's me and unusual).

 

Well, this is indeed a very interesting new point on club loyalty and potential growth of it. Thanks.

 

Scotland was one of the first places that popped into mind. I think the other UK countries could benefit from it as well and so could Ireland.

You still haven't failed to address the "major" and "minor" viewpoints (this is absolutely a thing) in regards to "splitting" the MLS. You also haven't addressed why the league should RETRACT from having more than 15, or 20 TOP TIER clubs (which is what this would be doing).

That's just a fundamental difference in how the different cultures view things/think. The Royals had a GREAT season and were absolutely a success LAST season when 'all they did' was make the World Series after not having done jack since the mid 80's. The Bills lost 4 straight Super Bowls ... they still had a great run and accomplished something never done before or since. Would winning just one of them have made the whole thing better? SURE, but not winning one of them doesn't erase what it is that they did do though.

The goal is to get in ... because they only way to play for the championship is to make the playoffs.

Not winning the championship doesn't erase the fact that they had the opportunity to play for it. If that's the case those promotions are meaningless if you just get relegated again ...

Exactly ... which is part of our point. We hear constantly about "deserving" sides ... when in reality nobody "deserves" anything (again, as it is most often used in this debate).

Not the same thing ... and you know it. I knockout competition is simply that ... if we really wanted to do that we can discuss the merits of world cup "qualification" well into next year.

My point to that is that all too often the 'merit' and 'purity' and all sorts of other hot mess is put out about the pro/rel aspect of the game. In reality it has become the exact opposite. "Winning it on the field" has become much more the formality of many other things that don't quite line up with argument put out.

That's not what we're talking about. The consequences of what you've stated are nothing in regards to the consequences of being removed from the top flight of your pyramid and placed in the 2nd tier.

That said, it'd more often than not, be better for England that the best equipped clubs are the ones playing in European competition.

Well now that's a bit of a change of tune ...

Depends ... there have been seasons in which that would have been the difference between the playoffs or not.

Check out the 2010 MLS playoffs for example, the Western Conference.

You can keep trying to turn this into an "as important as relegation" spot all you want, but that's not what you said. You said that teams in closed leagues don't have anything or any meaning when they're eliminated from playoff contention. That's simply not true. Whether or not it is as "important" as relegation is irrelevant to the fact that there are things there.

Yes, with a small sample size the separation has yet to take hold. Yet, Stoke were 4pts above the line and 3pts off of European play on October 25th and occupied 11th. They finished 9th ... and well out of either "race" ...

"Having a season with something riding on it, but with the risk of relegation, or a season that was over in October, and the matches had absolutely no meaning?"

^ Yeah, actually it is what you said and what you questioned. You don't have to be at the bottom of a closed league to have your season over in October. The very club that was being used as an example, I found comments stating that they would rather have mid table obscurity (no meaning to their matches) than go through the "excitement" of relegation.

If you want to change your tune or try and pretend you were meaning/saying something that you didn't actually say that's fine. However, what you put in the thread, I found an answer too and it doesn't line up with your opinion. That's something you simply have to deal with.

Not in the numbers that are HIGHER even after the games meant "nothing" ...

NCAA sports ARE NOT minor leagues ... it is an entirely different animal and you know that. Of course, if you don't then we've got a whole different problem.

Not sure why you've added this one except to have more points. If this incredibly unlikely scenario happened it makes sense that it would be done in partnership with the TV partners or part of a new contract.

That is the LAST thing you should ever say to anyone on these forums.

Holy crap ... you try so hard to make things into something they aren't that it's getting laughable now. SPORTS <---- are popular to the point in this country that YES, the local team will be on local tv regardless of what sport it is.

Wouldn't it be a bit disingenuous to blanket state that [insert team here]'s promotion would mean more to them than say Leicester or Stoke or Palace making the CL would to them?

Seems so to me.

It's the increasing narrative being played out across the world of soccer that you and others want to ignore or pretend doesn't matter. Everyone wants to trumpet little 'ol Leicester but they don't want to mention the King Power billions that they've walked on.

That already exists right now as a thing. It's one of the main reasons pro/rel talk truly ISN'T ...

If more of the acceptance and support was for DOMESTIC soccer there'd me more to talk about. That's not the case and no, as much as you'd like it to be, it's not the fault of the MLS. No, it doesn't HAVE to be this way but the way you and others are trumpeting, at best, isn't any better for our landscape.

You don't have to put your ass in the seat to be a fan of a team and support them. YOU also don't get to tell anyone else whether or not they're a fan or if what they do or don't do makes them one.

Actually, those 50K "feyenoord" isn't going to change .... the 50K "entertainment seekers" is being pulled from a much larger source and interchanges, and can grow.

Um, no guy .... you were judgmental as all hell with your THIS IS WHAT FANS ARE rant. That was a personal diatribe, not an "analysis" ...

Speaking of FACTS .... the JSL was founded in 1965 and soccer was very popular for nearly two decades in Japan with a functioning top tier. The J-League as it exists now is the same age as the MLS, however the sport and national visibility goes back to the JSL which has a 28 year head start.

 

Denying J-League is better than MLS is like us south americans denying european teams are better than ours. Is that just an opinion? Of course not. No matter how bitter it is to us, that's how it is right now.
And no, J-League is not a improving league. It's an already well established one.

Of course I know Guangzhou is from China. I was naming two cases of teams younger than the MLS, from two different leagues, who are playing the CWC, that are better than any team from the US.

 

That's exactly what Scotland had until last year. They only introduced (a chance at) promotion into the the bottom of the SPFL last season.

Just like in England, there were occasional suggestions for ideas like closing of the league higher from some club chairmen, but they were consistently shot down immediately.