That guy must be smoking crack. No other explanation. I thought Pro/Rel people say communities would support their local team? They clearly aren't and that's why these teams are folding. If their communities would show up to games, pay for tickets and consume in their stadium then teams can survive. But no, communities don't care at all.
The US. NASL and the ASL both disappeared in the early 80s. USSL didn't fare any better. I do seem to remember that someone had a spreadsheet of all historical American soccer teams. But it's probably safe to say that almost every professional team that existed between 1967 and 1980 had disappeared by 1994. Some may have existed in 1994 in name only.
Well you have to ignore the teams that disappear within a year or two like the Deltas. Bad planning, bad marketing, bad location, inadequate financing and a bunch of other basic errors.
I went to funwhileitlasted.com and made a simple spred sheet using only the NASL, the ASL, the United Soccer League (84-85), the Western Soccer Alliance (84-90) and the APSL (only including teams that folded before 1994 just give the benefit of the doubt to the impending MLS potentially influencing a team to reconsider their future). I tried to take out the Canadian teams but may have missed one or two. Rebrands were more difficult. I tried to take out any that I knew of. From 1970 to 1993 there are 150 teams that folded minus any rebrands like Toronto Metros to Toronto Blizzard.
Blaming MLS for other team's mismanagement and for their communities lack of interest in their team is plain idiotic. Which brings me to another point. Why doesn't USL implement Pro/Rel and become the most popular league overnight? I know, I know, "but but but they'll never be D1". Well, they don't have to right away until they become more popular than MLS and become the "league of choice". And by that I mean the more popular league with better attendance and better viewership. With that the better TV contracts, sponsorships etc will soon follow and then put MLS out of business or....wait for it....RELEGATE MLS to a lower league status in the US. Sure, millions of dls will need to be spent and lost but MLS did it in its first decade and a few owners were willing to lose millions to keep MLS going otherwise it would have folded too. It takes money to make money, no? USL isn't willing to do it? Then gather a bunch of millionaires who are willing to start their own league with Pro/Rel. It will only be a matter of time before that league becomes the "league of choice" and more popular cause of Pro/Rel. Could even put teams in MLS markets just to compete directly with them and put them out of business since the Pro/Rel model is so much popular. We had NASL and USL both classified as D2 leagues not to long ago and both competing to stay relevant. USL won at the end and NASL started losing teams to USL. Exact same thing can happen with a new league with Pro/Rel that can challenge MLS even in MLS own markets. So why isn't anyone doing it?
Sort of. Different investment group, different stadium, and different name, though there were a lot of links. It's a shame as they were doing so well in the NASL.
I can imagine the local headlines for my team: Riverhounds Relegated to League One. No one would know what that means except for probably 1,000 diehards who already go to every game.
This is what some of the P/R advocates don't get. Outside of (generously) 10% of the soccer fans in this country, nobody cares what certification USSF gives a league. The idea that P/R is being held back because USSF is protecting MLS as the only D1 league is just a conspiracy theory. . If there really were the support and money behind P/R that Ted and his ilk claim, they could found a league (and/or buy out USL), establish P/R, pour those resources in, create the best product in terms of talent and presentation, and the vast majority of the fans wouldn't know or care it was just a D2 league. The only thing they might not get is the CONCACAF Champions League spots, something that most fans don't know/care about anyway right now. The fact that none of that has happened is the biggest piece of evidence against their idea that there's this groundswell of investment just waiting for P/R.
The issue isn't whether soccer fans care, it's whether people willing to invest in soccer care. I don't have an opinion on that, but what I do know is that the USSF's professional league standards are palpably biased against pro/rel leagues. That's not a conspiracy theory. I also know that a Ryan Reynolds-type story couldn't happen in a closed league system. Again, that's not a conspiracy theory.
How so? USL has even talked about implementing pro/rel, as discussed earlier in this thread. Seems like that's not something they would consider if this bias were in place. Which is not at all germane to my point.
Plenty of discussion on this earlier in this thread. How so? It's an example of someone who could presumably have invested in a team either in a closed league or a pro/rel pyramid. He chose the latter and made it very clear as to what attracted him to Wrexham. "One of the most intriguing prospects of international football that attracted McElhenney to Wrexham was the idea that the team can be promoted or relegated based on their yearly success. The English football league system, or the football pyramid, is a series of interconnected leagues." https://www.rogerebert.com/streaming/welcome-to-wrexham-tv-review-2022
A celebrity buying a club and marketing it as a feel good story absolutely can happen in our set up. PLS aren't biased against anything but folks that talk a lot of talk but don't want to walk said talk. MLS, right now, could say "we're splitting into MLS 1/2 and doing pro/rel starting next year with 19 in the top flight and 10 in the second flight" and absolutely nothing about PLS would keep that from happening. It's about the folks willing to invest in soccer ... the PLS is biased against the ones that SAY they are, and those that ACTUALLY are.
None of which actually showed anything preventing a rival P/R league from starting, other than a lack of will to make it happen. Just because MLS got there first and as such has established legacy ties to markets, broadcasters, and other relationships doesn't inherently mean there's a bias in place. It means MLS earned its spot by sticking its neck out and somebody's going to have to do added work to knock them off. So why didn't he invest in setting up a P/R league in the U.S.? That question is actually germane to my point. Not the fact that Wrexham couldn't happen in a closed-league.
It is but just because an idea is old doesn't mean it is good. And of course I am not advocating a completely "open" system either. I do think there needs to be some gate keeping. But again this isn't a far off point. Where do we need to be for pro/rel to work? What kind of attendances in MLS? What kind of attendances in lower divisions?
There's actually no reason for the PLS to be written the way they are and it would be quite simple for the USSF to change them to create a level playing field between closed leagues and a pro/rel pyramid. If there was a will to create such a level playing field. So you're equating setting up an entire pro/rel pyramid of leagues with investing in a single team? Really, the question you should be asking yourself is what was attractive about investing in a team in a pro/rel pyramid versus investing in a team in a closed league. I think we know the answer, but it seems that you don't want to acknowledge it.
Again, how is this germane to the point you were replying to, other than you wanting to shoehorn in a point that wasn't relevant?
There actually is a reason--the existing leagues asked for them in order to establish standards that would protect against recurring problems they had with things such as underfunded owners and poor facilities. If it's simple to change them, then they aren't really an obstacle, are they? If someone has a plan for a pro/rel league, they can apply for sanctioning and request any necessary changes to the PLS.
There was an "Athletic" article in I believe summer of 2021 that said Pro/rel had been talked about at the league meetings. That setup a flurry of discussions but nothing else has come up since then. I personally would love to see them try but it isn't the same if you can't promote up to the top division in the country. It could but not nearly as compelling This is a line that drives me nuts. The idea that "anyone" can just go start a league is BS. Yes it took a hell of a lot to start MLS and to keep it going, but now that it's here and established it would be really hard borderline impossible to surpass them in the real world. If you were in the Burger industry does it make more sense to start a new Burger Joint next to an In and Out or maybe try and buy a struggling In and Out and make it better? One has a lot of systematic advantages over the other.
But that right there is my point. Nobody in this country outside of a few (relatively speaking) die-hard soccer fans cares about which league has the D1 status. Run a league like its the top league in the country and the fans will treat it as such regardless of what sanctioning the the USSF awards. Tough. That's called competition. And yes, obviously you or I can't start a league but if all this investment is just waiting for P/R to be implemented really exists like some P/R advocates like to claim, then yes, the money is there to do it. Or maybe their claims aren't so valid. Its one or the other because there's nothing that stops a P/R league from starting and becoming the dominant league except a lack of will to invest the resources. Usually that lack of will is because the investors realize its a losing proposition.
MLS was built around protecting investments and I think that's the number one challenge. Without that protection we'd still be back in the 1980s (or we'd be playing some sort of badtardized 7 a side with "attack zones" and "offense timers"). You also have an issue with USL's business model. USL is owned by a private company and they're not going to give up their best teams that easily. Losing teams occasionally is one thing but building a business model around it is more difficult. I think USL would need at least 10 teams averaging 10,000+ with dedicated stadiums expandable to 18 or 20k. And it would need to be profitable if teams are going to make the drop. Years ago I said it would be 2036 before we would see any sort of pro/rel. That still seems realistic. A lot of things have to change. Maybe the biggest thing would be post 2026 for the top 10 or 12 teams to put pressure on the league to make them more profitable. Victorian fair play principles are quaint but money talks.