---- I know PDL is now USL-2. The person who was talking to me made it sound like yet another USL level. I told him my feelings is that really doesn't make sense right now when the league still needs to fill out USL-1 and keep all USL-C teams rolling along and improving. Not even to mention the turnover in USL-2 every year. The more I think about it, I wonder if he was speaking of NISA or whatever that NPSL thing that is also currently considered a 3rd division level. - I would also find it funny in the future that if USL finally comes up with some kind of pro-rel, what will all the other people and leagues who wanted that think or do? I am thinking mainly of the proposed NPSL> NISA >NASL pyramid that never really got off the ground.
Setting aside the logistics of pro/rel and expansion fees, it doesn't change the fact that USL has territorial rights: pro/rel doesn't help Rochester get a team. If (e.g.) the Bugeaters grow to be more successful or popular than the Union, they're not going to be able to join (leaving aside the obvious example of this that already exists). Access to any pro/rel pyramid will be based on whoever is the first to buy the franchise rights to the market. Oakland Roots? Oh well, somebody already already staked that claim.
The turnover isn't that great in USL2. Membership is now around 84. Turnover is much less than NPSL. Pro/rel isn't possible, no matter what people are claiming USL is or wants to do. Until the PLS are abolished by USSF, there's no way any pro/rel system could happen.
This isn't true. While PLS would make it more difficult, it doesn't prevent pro/rel, it just means that any team that moves up will have to meet the standards for that level. USL could "easily" implement pro/rel by setting up a certification process that validated which level(s) a team could operate in and then require teams to have a level's certification before they can be promoted into that level. Japan has a similar system and it has worked out fairly well for them as it allows smaller teams to still enter the Japanese Pro/Rel pyramid without meeting the standards they've set for all of the levels.
It does prevent pro/rel, as the PLS are currently written. Anything dealing with how much ownership is worth, definitely prevents pro/rel. Add in the time zone restrictions and such. Not good for the system.
Again, that does not prevent pro/rel, it just means that any team moving up would have to meet the criteria before they can move up. If a team places in a promotion slot that doesn't meet the criteria, they don't move up, if they do meet the criteria, they can move up. The same thing happens in Japan. Particularly with the requirement that prevents corporate ownership. Honda FC acquired the nickname of "J's Gatekeeper" because they perennially challenge for a top spot in the JFL and make it harder for teams to get promoted into the J-League's pyramid. Currently the JFA requires teams to pre-qualify to join the J-league, finish top 4 in the JFL, be 1st or 2nd of the J-League qualified clubs, and several other requirements. As a result of this, the last time the JFL champion was promoted was back in 2012, the last time more than one JFL teams were promoted was in 2011, and there have been a number of instances (the last in 2017) where no teams were promoted. Even within the J-League, teams must meet certain requirements to be allowed to move up a level. While no team has failed to meet the promotion requirements between J2 and J1, a J3 team, Blaublitz Akita, won the league, but failed to be promoted because they did not have a J2 license.
This is an issue that really doesn't exist in many other countries. Our population and dispersal is compounded by this issue.
Joel Waterman from Cavalry will become the 1st CPL player sold to an MLS club, Montreal Impact. Actually thought this was hilarious...If this goes through, the #CanPL will have sold 1/3 the amount of players to MLS in one year that the @USLChampionship has in 12. https://t.co/0FViK9nk7f— Duane Rollins (@24thminute) January 14, 2020 There have been three player sales in total from USL to MLS. Sales. Not teams signing players in a free.— Duane Rollins (@24thminute) January 14, 2020
MLS hasn't needed to. USL has, traditionally, primarily done 9 month contracts. So any players MLS from a USL club can usually be acquired for free.
Time zones don't matter for USL, since that could easily be handled by promoting/relegating into the conferences. There is already an expectation that L1 stadiums meet D2 standards and, it appears, they might be doing the same thing with ownership groups. Basically, if you set the bar to entry at the D2 specs, PLS doesn't really become an issue. There's the metro size, but it would take 9 teams in metro areas < 750k before this became an issue, and USL is in a pretty good position to lobby for that restriction to be changed if it became a problem (better than if a new league argued against them, for instance).
While I would have a hard time arguing for no financial regulations for the clubs, the current standards do make it difficult for other ownership models than "rich person's hobby". Others have mentioned that there's no reason that a club couldn't be owned 30% by a supporter's trust, but D3's net worth expectation is for an owner with assets worth $10m, not $10 million in the bank. It would be nearly impossible for an organization to raise that, much less the $20m for D2. But the point isn't that the owner could bail out the team by bankrupting themselves, it's that they have the means to take losses. It would be great to see an amendment that caters to that scenario.
If 4 of us got together and we were each worth $9m, we couldn't qualify to own a D2 or D3 pro team in the US. That's rubbish. Even though we have a collective value of MORE than what each one truly requires from a singular owner. Not just more, it can be 2-3x more than the requirement. What's better in this situation for owners to stomach? 1 owner losing $2m 4 owners losing $500,000 Some of these people have some play money they are okay with losing. But, when restrictions are so high, even just to buy-in, we'll continue to have the ups and downs of lower division in the US. It's not sustainable. Especially when there's no one out there fighting for true media rights and sponsor revenue sharing.
I agree that of the PLS requirements, the ownership one is the most ham-handed, but I also don't really know how likely it is to change. MLS certainly has no incentive to change it, and USL probably doesn't, either. Maybe, if they want to goose investment in L1, but it feels a little hard to square with the franchise model. NISA would stand to benefit the most, and that, more than anything, probably makes it a non-starter.
The PLS mention a primary owner but precedent suggests that owner could be a company See LA Galaxy, LA Galaxy 2, New York Red Bulls and New York City FC.
This is sort of my point: if the supporter's trust or whatever legal entity you wanted to use was your primary owner, it's harder to get there than the $10 millionaire (or the heating and air or sports entertainment or real estate company worth > $10 million or whatever) because those assets are almost certainly primarily going to be cash, whereas in the the personal or corporate case they are almost certainly a mix of holdings. At the end of the day, USSF is not expecting the D3 primary owner to spend $10 million of their worth on the club. The rationale is, if you have $10 million, you're more likely to be able to absorb the operating losses of tens or hundreds of thousands or whatever. However, if the primary owner was a corporation whose only fiduciary commitment is to supporting the club, that limit could be considerably lower, since its existence serves no other purpose. It doesn't need to sell part of its classic car collection or whatever to meet payroll.
Tell me ONE person who is worth 9 million that's okay with losing 500 K on a plaything soccer team for one year ?
I thought it was since 2016. Asked if the Cosmos had other options for 2020, Commisso replied, “Not if people don’t let us play. We already have one lawsuit. Let’s see what happens from that lawsuit. It’s just unfortunate that we have people in place, elected to be on the board of the USSF whose primary job is to make sure the Cosmos don’t have the light of day to play. “It’s sad, it’s disgusting.” He later added: “It’s sad for the players. I could afford to lose money. I think we’re up to $30 million here. So, it’s not a penny. There’s principles and I will fight those principles and they know that. But they know that they can’t pull me down that fast. There are laws in this country. There is a major lawsuit going on and the depositions have already taken place. I feel good. I feel good as to our chances of getting a final judgment in the court system.”
Rocco Commisso is worth considerably more than $9 million, though. I feel pretty confident that that was an exceptional situation, however.