FYP BTW, Nashville FC, one of the most recent investor who you tried to name as a NFL owner using the team for empty dates, is privately funding its stadium,
But the clubs that received Tepper's largesse will also have that. My point is that Charlotte will always be playing with a $315m handicap to Toronto, a portion of which Toronto also received to use as they wish. MLS is the sole provider of D1 soccer in the US. Mansueto's only options were to buy an existing team or make an expansion bid. USL is not competing with MLS any more than Applebee's is competing with a Michelin starred restaurant. That's fine, but that's also artificial scarcity, which drives up prices. See above. If you want to own a D1 team, it has to be granted by MLS. And yet they provide a major revenue stream for the federation. What is their influence in the pro league council? Not really, because they're made up of hundreds of members with their own agendas. It's herding cats. ? "Name calling". C'mon... So we should just blindly support anything they do? Nothing can be scrutinized? I know they're distributed between the league and the clubs. League profits go the owners. I mean, yes - it's really more like buying into a partnership at a law firm. But that has some of those characteristics, as well. OK? Show me where I have attached a value judgment on MLS's monopoly status? From a potential investor's perspective, however, there is a difference in that those leagues aren't the same as the teams. Uh huh. "Bomb thrower". OK. Yes, what a hot take that expansion fees are outpacing revenues. Maybe you're right. Maybe it would have been better to call it a bubble.
Orlando - privately funded LAFC - privately funded Minnesota - privately funded Nashville - privately funded Inter Miami CF Stadium - privately funded Miami Freedom Park - privately funded Austin - privately funded Charlotte - existing stadium Sacramento - privately funded St Louis- privately funded While all the above were privately funded, the city or state may have secured land and built infrastructure for the new stadium. In Sac's case it was $27 million, in Nashville's case $35 million but they'll get that back from the club.
But they're not the promoter of a single league. And it's up to members to recuse themselves if there's a potential conflict of interest. NASL felt that there was a conflict of interest over the non-renewal of waivers for D2 status and are suing. Hopefully for them their case is better than the one that went to CAS.
What part of players services and competitive tournaments do you NOT understand? Professional soccer isn't only about wanting to own a D1 team. Source? Nothing, pro council is made up of MLS, NWSL, NISA, NASL and USL. My point still stands. You have the right to not support US Soccer by not attending any of their sanctioned national team matches, support your local club instead. Nothing you can do more than that. If you want change, you can always apply for a position at a state soccer association. Complaining online to others is the easiest/laziness thing you can do.
In the form of allocation money. So let me state how I see the near-term future for domestic soccer. By 2024 there'll be 30 clubs and at least 24 purpose built stadiums. There will be 600 US and Canadian players, plus permanent residents, earning an average of $500k a year traveling to away games on chartered flights (per CBA), supplemented by top young Latin-American talent. At least 600,000 fans will be watching MLS teams in the flesh on a regular basis and hopefully via the medium that was called television. There will be an academy system that the rest of the world will envy because it doesn't revolve around just 5 or 6 of the biggest domestic clubs. There will be thriving second divisions in the US and Canada, with the possibility of promotion and relegation on the horizon, and a successful "independent league" growing organically from the bottom up. What's wrong with this picture?
Do you really think they would have had two clubs from Nottingham in the prem? Or are you saying you would have taken Forests spot? I didn't start following the Prem until 94/95 so I have to admit ignorance about this specific time but it seems unlikely from the little I know that Nottingham would have gotten two clubs, or that Notts County would be "chosen" over Forest. Sure but there is a fundamental difference between not likely to not possible. So I guess we'l have to agree to disagree, respecting that you know a lot more about Notts County then I do. But the reality is teams do make that ascent. It's not just theoretical. I remember listening to a BBC Radio Wales broadcast of the South Wales Derby in the spring of '99. At the time both clubs were in the 4th tier.14 years later and they're playing that derby in the prem. Guess we're different people. I just got a local lower division club to support, and I did buy season tickets to give it a go, but the fact that there is no promotion* does act as a bit of a buzz kill. So far. (they have only played 2 matches). *The reality is my club may actually get a chance at what some call "promotion" because the San Diego market has always been on the radar screen for MLS expansion. So the reality is I am hoping that my support of the club will help it join MLS. I don't know if I would be this supportive if I knew there was NO chance of this project eventually leading to a MLS team.
The Prem was formed by the teams in the existing first division, which included smaller teams like Notts County, Oldham and Wimbledon (4,196 attended Wimbledon vs. Notts County the previous season). If there had been a total breakaway I'm sure Forest would have been invited over Notts, but multiple teams from each of Liverpool, Manchester, London and Birmingham would surely have been included. Prior to the Premier League being formed 5 clubs, Arsenal, Tottenham, Manchester United, Liverpool and Everton had tried to break away, even signing a contract with a TV company. The idea was only to include "big" clubs but I'm not sure who they were planning to invite. Anyway, the contract was invalidated as it would have breached an existing TV contract and the FA jumped into to create a compromise known initially as the FA Premier League.
What does this have to do with Joe Mansueto buying the Fire? Besides, a player is not free to choose MLS or USL. Not once have I said it is. But MLS is the only game in town for D1 soccer. https://cdn.ussoccer.com/-/media/pr...70be782&hash=D7D906C524CE02B9492D47F4112FFB4B Page 13: "Revenue under the agreement approximated $28,500,000 and $27,250,000 for the years ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, respectively." Roughly 25% of total revenues. I still think it is disgusting that the mens 2nd division has more votes than the womens 1st division.That's not even mentioning that the two 1st divisions are not equal which is disappointing. This is disgusting...#USSF #USSFAGM #ReformUSSF @NWSL @USLChampionship @MLS pic.twitter.com/qw8fwFFccN— Chris Kessell (@THEChrisKessell) February 16, 2019 MLS has more votes than the rest of the leagues combined. On what? Do you have examples of them voting as a bloc? So you're going with "USSF: Love it or leave it?" There are far more qualified people than me to run the state soccer association, and, besides, the executive director in my state seems pretty simpatico with my views. It can't all be allocation money, because that doesn't nearly add up, not does it seem like a sustainable way to continue it.\ But if they're all shareholders in the corporation, the whole purpose of the expansion fee is to offset their diluted shares. That certainly says to me that there is some going directly to the shareholders in some capacity. I'm not sure why can't admire what MLS has built and at the same time ask if it has adverse effects on the rest of the soccer community. I don't think I can be accused of saying it has, definitively, either. I do think there will be an increasing income inequality problem, and I do think MLS has a chokehold over the entire sport in this country. I think it's reasonable to be concerned that the rich aren't feeding off of the poor while also hoping that I'm wrong about it and wanting this whole thing to work. No league/club/federation is perfect, which means there is always room for improvement.
Right, they have to earn their way to the top by competing. Players services. Kinda like how Ozzie Alonso, Luke Mulholland, Miguel Ibarra, et al started their professional careers from the amateur divisions to MLS. It doesn't have to be the only professional game in town. Chicago is home to many soccer clubs. US Soccer isn't a business, though. That revenue goes to cover their expenses made. Seem fair for a nonprofit organization. By 1 vote. Why should the 9-team NWSL have the same votes as 26-team MLS? Any more posts from the PrOrElFoRUsA truther? .@NPSLSoccer endorsement just confirms what's already become obvious. The vast majority of leaders in adult & amateur soccer are supporting @EricWynalda for #USSF President. My informal canvassing finds Wynalda supported by about 80% of those I speak to in the amateur ranks.— Kartik Krishnaiyer 🇺🇦🌻⚽️ (@kkfla737) January 6, 2018 Then you don't get to complain when one private league choses not to mandate pro/rel, or assume that a city deserves a second D1 pro soccer team without looking at the harsh realities. One person from one soccer association aligns with your views. Whoop-di-doo. What does the head of Oregon Soccer Association say? The Youth and Adult councils isn't just Tennessee.
MLS has 26 teams USLC has 8 MLS and 27 non-MLS clubs USLL1 has 7 MLS and 5 non-MLS clubs NWSL has 4 MLS and 5 non-MLS clubs (1 USL) Other pro leagues have 8 teams So MLS owns 45 out of 90 teams. And you could claim that NWSL teams are represented by their parent organizations. Yes, MLS' marketing division gives a minimum of $27 million a year out of MLS, USNT, MXNT and CONCACAF TV and marketing rights. NASL has claimed a conflict of interest and taken USSF and MLS/SUM to court. EXPANSION FEES ARE NOT PAID TO OWNERS! They are used for player salaries, allocation money, other salaries, marketing, administration, MLS Works and all the other things out takes to run a major league in the US. Teams make money from ticket sales, stadium sponsorship, local advertising, TV rights, concessions, parking etc. Both the revenue and profit/loss for each team is published by Forbes every Fall. The owners benefit from the rising value of their investment in the MLS single-entity. If Jonathan Kraft sells the Revs tomorrow he'll get many times what his Dad invested in the early years. Charlotte's owners have spent $315 million on a chunk of MLS they hope will be worth far more than that in a year or two, if not now, and they don't need to invest in a new stadium. Remember MLS isn't competing against NASL or NISA or NPSL or NCAA. It's competing against NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, EPL, BL, La Liga, Liga MX, UCL and Serie A. And while it's well behind them its catching up and will be boosted by the World Cup in 6 years time. Yes I'd prefer not to have a single-entity, I can't stand Garber and pro-rel can make things interesting but we have to sacrifice some things if we're going to have a world-class league in a few years.
Please, this resurgence in the thread started when you used bundesliga fan beef over hoffenheim to imply the pro/rel movement are hypocrites for claiming to value sporting merit then whining when the wrong kind of teams sport meritoriously - you brought those tall aussie rules football posts to the stadium, don't act shocked when the game turns into Calvinball....
Well, you could look at it as D1 should have the same votes regardless of the gender. I think USSF will defend that the PLS for Women's D1 match the PLS for Men's D2, therefore the voting strength is tied to PLS, even though thts not explicitly stated anywhere in the bylaws. WVa and I think Illinois Youth were trying to get that changed...
But 69.5% of attendances came from teams already represented in MLS and USL. Does Merritt Paulson get 2 votes, or 3 if you include T2, or 4 if you include T-U23?
Why should an amateur state association like Illinois Youth Soccer or West Virginia dictate whether or not the PLS rules should be changed? Like, MLS doesn't tell US Club Soccer or a state association how to run its business, or change their rules. Pretty sure its the professional leagues and an independent task force to decide.
Paulson gets about the same number of votes as you and I. The Don decides how his 291 votes are gonna go, tells the Athletes what to do with their 228 and the soccer machine keeps rolling....
They don't dictate anything. As members, with rights, they can propose amendments and such to be brought before the membership for vote. Keep believing that that a longtime MLS executive being put in charge of US Club wasn't MLS telling US Club how to run their business...
Clarification - WVa wasn't asking that the pLS be changed, but that the pro council represent the divisions equally. MLS and NWSL as 1st divisions get equal votes in the Pro council.
Rothenberg is I think dead so that "issue" has resolved itself. Also at the time this was a problem there was exactly ZERO other leagues wishing to be a Division 1 league. What's more MLS was created by my understanding as a "legacy" project that needed to happen to be awarded the 94 world cup. So blame FIFA for MLS coming to pass not anyone who started the it. By the by MLS has grown to a point where no one is afraid of losing a team in pandemic. Think about that for one minute. The United States has a soccer league that's resilient enough to weather this lack of income and yet people still want to do away with it because it isn't European enough.
You could consider MLS as an umbrella under which we have the most vibrant professional and amateur scenes, on both the male and female side, in history. The 2020 Lamar Hunt Open Cup proper for instance, has the highest number of entrants and the highest number of professional teams in the modern era. There are 147 home-grown players on MLS rosters this season. I think there were 40 in 2014. And interest in foreign leagues continues to grow which is a good thing for soccer in general. The shame is that the USNT sucks. Maybe things will look better when Berhalter is be able to field his best players in the same starting XI. Canada is looking good though.
I don't think Rothenberg was dead when he was president of the USSF.and running MLS? But, yes, I don't think FIFA should have awarded the US the world Cup until it had a professional league up and running. After all, that is one of the prerequisites for a country to host. My objection to MLS is simply that it has been able to operate as an effective cartel, aided and abetted by a pliant USSF. Imo it should have been given a period of, say, 20 years where it was allowed to operate in this manner, before being required to open itself up. By allowing MLS to continue to operate in this manner - and actively helped it through the SUM deal - it has set in concrete the dominance of a closed major league with a gap that is unlikely ever to narrow with other leagues.
I don't think anyone was thinking 5 years ahead never mind 20. But a big part of the business plan was soccer specific stadiums. Rothenberg and others didn't think MLS would survive by playing in cavernous NFL stadiums. So once you've plonked down $50 million+ you've already created a massive gap. And USL is doing fine without pro/rel for now. I mean even Nebraska has a professional club, Nebraska!