Because all of those countries have an open system, population/land mass greater or similar to the US, already had multiple clubs/leagues folded before, all with consideration that soccer isn't the most popular sport there.
Louisville, Indianapolis, and NCFC are all either building or trying to build an "MLS-level" stadium. Louisville is clearly building rosters to compete for championships year in/year out. Phoenix has a fully pro reserve team in L1. OKC Energy play in a HS football stadium and have missed the playoffs as much as they've made them; Charlotte Independence play in front of friends and family at a soccer park way out in the suburbs; we've got half a dozen teams playing in baseball stadiums with no plans to leave; the The Athletic article that reported Reno giving room and board only contracts; the Soctakes article which had a similar situation in Hartford. So, yes, there is definitely a divide.
You didn't answer the question at all but merely obfuscated. The point of the question is to remind some of the anti pro/rel folks on here that there is no evidence that pro/rel creates more instability than a set of closed minor leagues.
I know it's a bit of a "chicken and egg" proposition but I'd argue that regardless which system does it better, you at least need a measure of stability in the lower leagues before pro/rel is adopted. If the various upstarts and collaborations going on outside MLS are any indication, it's as much mismanagement and clashing ideologies causing instability as anything else. Just look at the schisms during the formation of the Founders Cup. There's also the fact that many of the clubs mingling in leagues like the NPSL, PDL & UPSL are somewhat transient in nature anyway, largely there providing a place for college athletes a place to play in the off-season or just being high-level rec teams.
I think Louisville is a perfect example of a team building for life in the second division. They have spoken to MLS HQ and said they will evaluate a potential bid down the road. OKC have a couple of modest stadium proposals on the table. Charlotte isn't exactly the pride of USLC and I'm sure that will be dealt with later as the league matures.
You're going to need to detail this a little more: Founders Cup's problem wasn't really clubs not working together, it was an inability to find a sanctioning body. For a lower division (non-division, really) effort, it held together remarkably well until everyone realized they needed to find something else or risk not having anywhere to play at all. If the height of their ambition was D2, they could probably have built a stadium like Phoenix's and nobody would have cared. They drew massively playing in a baseball stadium with one of the worst fields in the league. We know Indy XI and NCFC have higher aspirations. It helps when the taxpayers are chipping in almost $40 million, but yes. "Dealt with". Sopranos style, most likely.
Not every chairman, at the end of the day ANY of the tens of thousands of football clubs in the UK can be mis-managed, just like ANY business, if Leeds United, Notts County or Sevenoaks Town spend what they haven't got it's bad management, it's a risk for each individual club to decide to take if they want to but not all clubs go down that route.
They are the most similar to the US in terms of both geography and soccer's place in the sporting landscape. The average lifespan of a club in the Russian third division is just 3-4 years; most of the clubs that claim more than 10 years of history have gone under and been phoenixed multiple times. India and Indonesia have had a lot of clubs fold; most of the clubs that made up India's top flight 15 years ago no longer exist today. China hasn't had as many clubs fold, but the top two divisions in Chinese soccer have seen more club relocations in the last two decades than all US pro sports combined.
My recollection was that despite this being a competition under NPSL, who are sanctioned by the amateur body, USASA, Silva & Commisso once again wanted to have their cake and eat it and push this as an upstart pro league. That's the only reason sanctioning was an issue, so teams started dropping out in favor of safer-looking options like NISA, who had gone through the available channels to get sanctioned. I certainly recall a bit of consternation on social media over teams leaving or being removed and not all parties pulling in the same direction.
Please get in touch with reality. AGAIN: The Premier League was literally created because "MONEY" Real and Barca had separate TV deals from the rest of Spain because "MONEY" PSG was bought and turned into a CL cow because "MONEY" Those are just three high profile examples of how, yes, soccer IS A BUSINESS and IS ABOUT MONEY. They aren't opinions or my take on things. They are FACTS. Yes when the finally turned around and spent like they hadn't in 15yrs and completely changed their money stance ... the competed on the European level again. That doesn't do your take any favors, you realize this yes? LOL dude ... get your head out of the sand. The ENTIRETY of soccer is shady as all hell https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/...aks-is-exposing-corruption-in-european-soccer "But, for years, the teams with the wealthiest owners seemed to benefit from suspiciously generous sponsorship and marketing deals, which helped to keep their finances in line." That's a bit different than clubs literally spending themselves into oblivion because they almost have to, or clubs having to stretch/spend simply to tread water ... That's not dictated or influenced by the league structure though. You can CHOOSE to chase MLS just like a club can choose to chase promotion. The difference is that not being awarded an MLS franchise doesn't mean anything necessarily, but the chase for promotion and failing has quite a different set of consequences. Also, the clubs choosing not to chase MLS (or that know they aren't an MLS market/support base/etc) are able to be fine with what they are. They don't have to "do more" just to stay where they are and be a USL-C, USL-1 or NISA club. Clubs can take the long road approach if they want. They can try the flash in the pan ... the effects of those choices for both them and the affects on other clubs is nothing like it is for a club in a pro/rel set up. Well, other than the instability of lower leagues in pro/rel set ups across the world there's no evidence. Not sure this is true though ... There are some damn fine MiLB stadiums (and relatively speaking nicer than some MLB ones). These are teams that are not just KNOWN to be feeders but some are feeders to other feeders. Sure, you want to build nice/comfortable/will attract fan to seat facilities ... but there's more than a handful that are well above and beyond that given what they're purpose is for.
Pro/rel encourages risk taking. Isn't that like asking why wouldn't Derby County build a stadium like Northampton's? Which is peanuts in terms of local government subsidies to private businesses.
This hasn't been true for generations. You're delusional. Team owners in Europe are just as greedy and soulless as their American counterparts.
Odd how people are down on team owners for trying to make money, yet barely bat an eyelid when clubs splash 9 figure sums in a single transfer window and players are paid six figures in a single week.
I don't blame anyone (owners, players, agents etc,) for trying to make as much money as they can off the sport. I just can't believe that there are still people out there, in 2020, who believe that European soccer is some pure virgin praying at the shrine of sporting purity, rather than a jaded prostitute (granted, a very expensive one) selling herself for media rights deals.
Completely agree. I've lost count of the number of Americans who I've debated with about MLS who are outright vitriolic against the league & wealthy owners ruining the sport, only to find they're fans of someone like Man City.
What's wrong with risk taking? It's what most businesses do at some point. In fact, it's one of the things that makes capitalism vibrant rather than stagnant like with closed leagues.
I wouldn’t have bothered paying for that Dortmund/Benfica friendly I saw a couple of years back if I knew Euro clubs weren’t concerned with making money.
Done cleaning up. I'm stuck at work following Bremen's slide towards relegation on Twitter. Don't make my day worse!
No, it was always going to be a pro league, although probably more "semipro" in the literal sense. The general idea was to have whatever budget worked for you, so some clubs might not have salaries for the 18-25 or whatever, while other teams might be fully pro. There were concerns about Miami and Cosmos spending at uncompetitive levels, but I think this would have worked itself out eventually: either they would apply salary caps, or split into tiers, or those two would have left for more appropriate leagues (like Miami eventually did, anyway). DCFC proved in the Founders Cup that Cosmos can't just buy their championships, though.
The acceptable amount of risk is different in a niche sport (soccer in the US), as compared to the overwhelmingly dominant sport (soccer in Europe). When you're a niche sport, failing clubs are harder to replace. Multiple failing clubs are much more likely to bring down the entire league with them. It's happened a bunch of times in the US. Also, every league failure fed into the narrative of pro soccer being doomed to failure in the US; the initial investors in MLS believed it was a distinct possibility that MLS was pro soccer's last chance to get off the ground. The acceptable level of risk is much lower when the main objective is to keep the lights on.