I put it forward purely as a hypothetical to see if people really think American fans are so different that they would never accept pro/rel even if the sport was big enough to sustain it. But in that hypothetical I would put forward "College Football" as the place but this is a world where College football has gone completely professional. Not only the NIL stuff but are now straight up paying the players. Once the payers are being played the universities realize they need more revenue and look jealously at the money being made by NFL franchises who in many cases actually have smaller fan bases than college programs. There are easily 20 and maybe 40+ college programs that have bigger fan bases than the Jacksonville Jaguars or the Los Angeles Chargers for instance. In Georgia the Unversity of Georgia football program is bigger than the Falcons. And the NFL is liking the revenue they would bring in too. BUT they don't want to expand beyond 32 nor do they want to kick out already existing franchises. Then one night Roger Goodell's wife is watching an episode of "Welcome to Wrexham" and there's the solution. Again I don't think this is every going to happen but that was a hypothetical I came up with.
How is that sustainable? It seems to me the low attendance would limit what players can be paid, and the schedule would make it difficult for players to make a living as anything other than full-time pros. (I'm guessing the answer is probably "It's not.")
A big problem for soccer and gridiron football relegation is that the first and second tiers in the US are run by different organizations. In baseball, pro/rel might have made sense in the pre-WWII era.
They make their money more through the one day/T20 games, plus memberships. Test cricket and other international cricket also generates a lot of money, and that money filters down to county level. Run of the mill County level players also do not earn large salaries. It's above national average wage, but not hugely. It should be noted that for four or five day games, each day requires a different ticket. Seeing all days of a test match, where prices for regular tickets can top £100, is not a cheap undertaking. County games are more like £15, and T20 games twice that.
This seems to me like a complete waste of time. No matter how much effort the game developer puts into trying to be realistic, the player attributes in the game reflect nothing more than some other human's evaluations of players who have rarely-if-ever played with or against each other.
To the NFL Championship and from the Championship you get relegated to NFL League 1 and then League 2. Lowest level of the pyramid will be Jr High football.
Not sure nationwide but my city lost it's NFL team and the baseball team has seen significant increase in attendance. Now a large part of this is the owner is investing heavily in the team which took the Padres from the longest active streak out of the playoffs ('07-'20) to a World Series contender. But part of the reason the owner is willing to invest in what has historically been a "small market" is because there isn't any competition. San Diego is now the largest market with only one Major Pro franchise. We'll see if it works, been a little like the Chelsea situation (without the FFP implications) where the owner claims he is creating a new paradigm but a lot of people just think he is nuts. To bring back to soccer one of the reasons/excuses people give for MLS struggling in the largest markets is the saturation in those markets.
MLS will do well in San Diego if they choose to award a team there. Wouldn't shock me if Warren Smith and Ron Burkle are involved in that endeavor in some way.
It could very well be which is why Pro/Rel works so much in other countries where soccer is the most popular sport. Here in the US you have a lot of options in sports and leagues in the big cities. I don't live in a big city but I can't imagine trying to "support" (attending) your city in NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL and MLS. It will get expensive quick!
People have been saying that for 30 years I'll believe it when I see it. In the fall the rumor was it was all but a done deal, expect an announcement in April and that it would involve the USL Loyal. Now it's, expect an announcement in December, and it won't involve the Loyal. Who knows.
Also could be an argument for pro/rel in that the clubs find their own level. Well run clubs that generate support can gain access to a higher division even if they aren't as big a market.
This is where USL comes in. They are doing a good job of going into markets that have no Pro teams or not as many pro teams yet they suffer a lot from support. There are a few exceptions though. Their attendance problem isn't because of lack of Pro/Rel either. For example the RGV Toros; they won't get full attendance just because they get "promoted" to MLS. Liga MX is the main soccer league that is followed here in the RGV (specially Tigres/Monterrey are big here) and that won't change even if Toros buy their way in to MLS or "promote" to it. And the RGV is considered a small market.
It depends. It's a very different market than the 19th, early twentieth century. When granddads are showing their grandkids signed photos of Steve Birnbaum maybe.
North Carolina FC were relegated because their owner didn't think they could sustain a Championship club.
The thing about clubs finding their own level is that they need to exist first. And that had to be enabled top-down: most of the current USL clubs would not exist if not for MLS reserve teams entering the league and creating the critical mass of teams necessary to allow regional scheduling, which then allowed enough independent clubs to jump in and make the MLS reserve teams superfluous. Progress has had to come top-down in the US because of the combination of soccer's historical minor sport status and the high expenses that come with our geography. Before we talk about a pro/rel system within the USL, we probably need USL League One to reach that critical mass of clubs to make it stable, and we need the USL as a whole to mature enough that it doesn't have the vast majority of its players on one-year contracts.
NEVER going to happen here, fans ADORE pro/rel and won't let it happen (see what happened when they tried it on with that Euro Super League bollox). You'll notice we don't have these type of pro/rel 'debates' over here.
Owners have their say. The fans are important, but they're not the last word. The Americas have a less fond view of pro/rel.
Wrexham had Ben Foster in goal on Saturday. I wonder how they're going to deal with financial fair play in League Two. I saw a video before Christmas which said they have 7 of the top 10 highest paid players in the National League and they've made a couple of big signings since. Sincerely, bitter and twisted Notts County fan.
It seems that way in other countries too. Veracruz decided they need a Liga Mx club, so if they get relegated they just buy a team. The Argentinian league brought in rules to try and stop big clubs from being relegated but failed.
Of course, it's a 140 year-old tradition, and probably goes back before that in different sports. However you do see leagues in other sports sometimes suspending relegation for financial reasons. Both rugby codes have done it. You also have a surfeit of "big" clubs in England. I think there are 4 former champions in level 3. Most, if not all, USL League One teams are at that level because that's the level they've chosen. Why would they want to be promoted to a league they can't afford to operate in? If the Championship was to stop accepting new clubs and clubs could only enter the Championship through promotion you may see a demand. If Detroit and Oakland had been forced to take that route for instance. I think the Championship could loo go to 40 clubs before thinking about shutting the doors.