2024 LH US Open Cup

Discussion in 'US Open Cup' started by newtex, Jul 19, 2023.

  1. msilverstein47

    msilverstein47 Member+

    Jan 11, 1999
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    So if MLS Next is PRO and they are REQUIRED to enter the tournament, then why can't MLS sue US Soccer for entry?
     
    AZUL GALAXY repped this.
  2. newtex

    newtex Member+

    May 25, 2005
    Houston
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    MLS Next Pro is a professional division league. But there is a restriction for lower division teams owned by higher division teams. They are not allowed into the Open Cup. So only independent MLS Next Pro teams are eligible. Rochester NY FC was allowed to (actually had to) participate previously since they were an independent team in MLSNP. This rule has also disqualified some USL League One teams owned by USL Championship teams.
     
  3. Owen Thornhill

    Dec 22, 2012
    Club:
    Cork City
    I'm surprised this tread hasn't blown up. I'm annoyed with the ML$ over this. Not surprised though. Like if a CONCACAF Champions League spot went to a USL club then so be it as far as I'm concerned. USSF needs to stand up to them and denying them their request is ok but working with CONCACAF and FIFA to hurt the ML$ is another way to go.
     
  4. DonJuego

    DonJuego Member+

    Aug 19, 2005
    Austin, TX
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    VioletCrown repped this.
  5. kenntomasch

    kenntomasch Member+

    Sep 2, 1999
    Out West
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    For the kabillionth time: It's not "the MLS."
     
    Chesco United, Doogh and JasonMa repped this.
  6. DonJuego

    DonJuego Member+

    Aug 19, 2005
    Austin, TX
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Lets review the status. The following is my understanding: MLS teams announced their intent to not play in USOC and would need USSF to waive the requirement that, in order for MLS to be our one and only top tier Div 1 league, they play in the USOC. USSF announced such a waiver would not be approved.

    Since, I have seen it reported that MLS teams may still intend to not play. That the permission that was denied was permission to field MLS Pro Next teams in the USOC -- and that was denied. I have been assuming those reports are erroneous, and that MLS teams will enter into the tournament as planned. The esteemed detail expert Newtex has pointed out that the MSL Regular Season schedule has no mid-week games on USOC weeks.

    Is there a chance I am wrong?
     
  7. msilverstein47

    msilverstein47 Member+

    Jan 11, 1999
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  8. newtex

    newtex Member+

    May 25, 2005
    Houston
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    There are reports that only some of the MLS teams will participate. There have been negotiations between the USSF and MLS about what the tournament might look like this year.

    The USSF has said that the tournament will be cancelled if MLS does not take part. The hosting fees/attendance portion paid by MLS teams basically fund the tournament.
     
  9. newtex

    newtex Member+

    May 25, 2005
    Houston
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
  10. DonJuego

    DonJuego Member+

    Aug 19, 2005
    Austin, TX
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Its not too much ask of MLS that they help make the USOC as financially successful as possible, in return for being granted certification as the sole Div 1 team in the United States.

    Some USL teams may not participate in protest. One cannot equate that with MLS's decision.

    MLS is part of American soccer. Living by the standards you agreed to is not too much to ask.
     
  11. jaykoz3

    jaykoz3 Member+

    Dec 25, 2010
    Conshohocken, PA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Actually, yes it is. It's not MLS' tournament, nor is it their responsibility to fund/subsidize US Soccer's tournament.

    Do the individual Colleges and Universities fund March Madness? NO, the NCAA funds, promotes, markets gets sponsors, TV deals etc for THEIR tournament.

    MLS's owners are taking their stand. There are those of us who don't agree with it, and/or how they're going about it. Still doesn't change the fact that for decades US Soccer has barely done the bare minimum in regards to the USOC. The USOC is 110+ years old. There've been exactly 10, TEN, editions of the USOC where all professional clubs that were eligible participated.

    MLS hates lower league soccer!!! Bull;Sh!t. USL wouldn't be what it is today without MLS. What did MLS get for their efforts??? USL said: We no longer need nor want you. IMO, USL needs to get off it's sudden high moral horse.

    If you're one the putting in 80% of the work in a relationship/partnership..... you wouldn't be very happy either.
     
    AZUL GALAXY and JasonMa repped this.
  12. DonJuego

    DonJuego Member+

    Aug 19, 2005
    Austin, TX
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Here is my list of value MLS owners get from USSF:
    - Being given a monopoly as the only Div 1 league in the United States? MLS has no fear of competition.
    - USSF having to fight lawsuits over it, protects MLS market position by preventing competitive games by European teams in the USA.
    - MLS gets multiple teams into the Concacaf regional championship, which gives them the chance to play in FIFA Club World Cup. All because we have a world structure of FIFA/Confederations/Federations (as imperfect as all of those orgs are).

    In return for all of that (and more) they have to play in the USOC. For most teams that is two games played by reserves. Doesn't seem too much to ask.

    MLS owners agreed to a deal when they accepted USSF adopted league standards, including playing in USOC, in return for their Div 1 certification.

    When I look at the entire relationship I see MLS owners as the ones putting in 20% while getting 80% out of it. And that is with them playing in USOC.

    I don't make the "MLS hates lower league soccer" argument.

    That USSF has not done right by the USOC I agree with. That does not mean MLS can now abandon the deal they agreed to.
     
  13. jaykoz3

    jaykoz3 Member+

    Dec 25, 2010
    Conshohocken, PA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Your first "point" is [patently false. There is nothing other than money preventing anyone from starting a rival D1 Men's Pro Soccer League.

    Your second "point" is also false. The USSF is not the only entity preventing competitive league matches of non-american leagues happening in the USA. La Liga said nope. YEFA and FIFA have also ruled against it.

    Your third "point" literally has nothing to do with US Soccer and is entirely up to Concacaf.

    Your final "point." What exactly is the USSF putting into the USOC? How much are they putting in for prize money? How much effort are they putting in to gaining sponsors, media partners, etc? What exactly are they contributing in the 80% you claim they do?

    Who helped US Soccer save their plan for a national training center? Who's footing the bill for all of the world class training facilities, youth development academies, and soccer specific stadiums in the USA that directly and indirectly benefit US Soccer?

    The PLS are the one thing that is pointed to.... MLS has kept that end of their "deal". The issue is that US Soccer hasn't kept up[ their end of the deal. Nowhere in the PLS does it say that the Division 1 league has to fund the USOC......

    MLS isn't abandoning their "deal" nor are they violating the PLS as is sometimes claimed. They're exercising their right to tell their partner (US Soccer in this instance) that the USOC is simply not good enough and they need to put forth more effort. Sending what are effectively their U23 team to compete in the USOC, does fulfill their PLS obligation. We can be unhappy about this, we can disagree about it, however, the Next Pro team is an extension of the organization/team.
     
  14. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Also even if it was just the USSF, that's not out of line. In fact its exactly how FIFA has it set up to work. The nation's FA has to approve any FIFA games played in the country. Do you think the English FA would be good with La Liga playing a round in London? The German FA being good with PSG playing a home game in Munich? Of course they're all going to say no to that.
     
    jaykoz3 repped this.
  15. DonJuego

    DonJuego Member+

    Aug 19, 2005
    Austin, TX
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    For clarity, no argument was made that USSF action was out-of-line.

    The point that European Federations would do the same reinforces mine point. MLS exists within an international ecosystem of FIFA, Confederations, and Federations. That ecosystem provides rich benefits to MLS owners.

    It is true, not false, that the money required by the PLS prevents additional Div 1 leagues. That is the point. The PLS also requires Div. 1 leagues to participate in the USOC -- because it is not too much to ask.

    I find the statement that a Concacaf decision has nothing to do with a Concacaf member federation to be quite odd.
     
  16. kenntomasch

    kenntomasch Member+

    Sep 2, 1999
    Out West
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No, it doesn't.

    It would take a whole lot of money and you'd be 30 years and billions of dollars in investment behind, but it doesn't prevent it.
     
    jaykoz3 repped this.
  17. DonJuego

    DonJuego Member+

    Aug 19, 2005
    Austin, TX
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The PLS would require a huge investment upfront, all put at risk. MLS in its early years could not meet today's PLS. Look at provision II.a.1. requiring 12 teams to apply. Spread out across the nation in 1M population markets. (The most expensive markets to penetrate.) MLS started with 10 teams and, IIRC, was down to eight at one point. So the PLS looks like a practical barrier to me.

    BTW. I don't have a problem with the PLS.
     
  18. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    MLS started at 10, expanded to 12 just two years later, and contracted back to 10 after 2001, going back to 12 in 2005.

    Given how quickly (for better or worse) Chicago and Miami joined the league I don't think a requirement of 12 teams would have slowed MLS down much. maybe it would have meant starting in 1997 (moving Miami and Chicago up a year) instead of 1996.
     
    AZUL GALAXY and jaykoz3 repped this.
  19. jaykoz3

    jaykoz3 Member+

    Dec 25, 2010
    Conshohocken, PA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I dunno man, there's a LOT of US Markets with more than 1 Million people.....

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/183600/population-of-metropolitan-areas-in-the-us/

    Not to mention that now on hiatus NASL were instrumental in the PLS. Primarily to punish (and the prevent the future growth of) the USL for the TOA Split.

    It's not a barrier, it's a fact of pro sports life for a nationwide league in a country the size of a continent.
     
  20. DonJuego

    DonJuego Member+

    Aug 19, 2005
    Austin, TX
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    While I still believe the PLS, and the whole USSF/Concacaf/FIFA system makes it very improbable that a second Div 1 league could appear — your point about the number of 1M pop metros in the USA is a good point.
     
  21. jaykoz3

    jaykoz3 Member+

    Dec 25, 2010
    Conshohocken, PA
    Club:
    Philadelphia Union
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    There are now TWO professional women's Division 1 leagues in the US......
     
    JasonMa repped this.
  22. EPJr

    EPJr Member+

    Los Angeles FC
    United States
    Mar 21, 2009
    Richmond VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    OFFICIAL: All 24 USL Championship clubs will participate in the 2024 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup
    http://bit.ly/4bWnE9S

    [​IMG]

     
  23. EPJr

    EPJr Member+

    Los Angeles FC
    United States
    Mar 21, 2009
    Richmond VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    MLS has officially announced earlier today that it will only send eight MLS teams out of 26 eligible and 11 MLS NEXT PRO teams to the U.S. Open Cup this year.
    MLS initially announced in December that the league will only send MLS NEXT PRO teams, the reserve/youth teams of MLS, to the U.S. Open Cup in 2024.
    However, after pushback from fans, journalists, pundits, and former players, the league entered the discussions with U.S. Soccer and made the final decision to send eight teams out of 26 available.
    The U.S. Open Cup is the oldest soccer competition in the U.S.— which started all the way back in the 1913/14 season and is contested by approximately 100 clubs from the professional leagues sanctioned by U.S. Soccer.
    It’s a competition where smaller teams from smaller leagues have a chance to play against MLS sides, whether hosting them in their grounds or playing them in modern MLS stadiums.
    The competition has produced many fairytale stories, as recently as in 2022 when Sacramento Republic from the USL Championship beat three MLS teams to reach the final.
    Houston Dynamo are the current winners of the competition, beating Inter Miami in the final in September. You can see how much winning the trophy meant to them during their celebrations.
    [​IMG]
     
  24. newtex

    newtex Member+

    May 25, 2005
    Houston
    Club:
    Houston Dynamo
    2024 US Open Cup
    Home team first.
    Times are ET
    Broadcast/Streaming info TBA

    First Round
    Tuesday, March 19
    Chattanooga Football Club (NP) v. Miami United FC (USSSA) 6:00 pm
    Brave SC (USL2) v. Savannah Clovers Football Club (NISA) 7:00 pm
    Forward Madison FC (USL1) v. Duluth FC (NPSL) 7:00 pm
    Vermont Green FC (USL2) v. Sporting Club (USL1) 7:00 pm
    West Chester United SC (NPSL) v. Maryland Bobcats FC (NISA) 7:30 pm
    South Georgia Tormenta FC (USL1) v. FC America CFL Spurs (USSSA) 7:30 pm
    Tulsa Athletic (NPSL) v. Northern Colorado Hailstorm FC (USL1) 8:00 pm
    Austin FC II (NP) v. Foro SC (UPSL) 9:00 pm
    Timbers 2 (NP) v. El Farolito (NPSL) 10:30 pm

    Wednesday, March 20
    Richmond Kickers (USL1) v. Christos FC (USASA) 6:30 pm
    A S Frenzi (UPSL) v. Club de Lyon FC (NP) 7:00 pm
    South Carolina United FC (USL2) v. Greenville Triumph SC (USL1) 7:00 pm
    Asheville City SC (USL2) v. One Knoxville SC (USL1) 7:00 pm
    Chicago Fire FC II (NP) v. Chicago City SC (USL2) 7:00 pm
    Apotheos FC (NPSL) v. Georgia Lions (NP) 7:30 pm
    New York Red Bulls II (NP) v. Hudson Valley Hammers (USL2) 7:30 pm
    Chicago House AC (USASA) v. MNUFC2 (NP) 8:00 pm
    FC Folsom (UPSL) v. Central Valley Fuego (USL1) FC 10:00 pm
    Irvine Zeta FC (NISA) v. MesoAmerica FC (USASA) 10:30 pm
    Capo FC (NISA) v. Des Moines Menace (USL2) 10:30 pm
    LA Force (NISA) v. Redlands FC (USL2) 10:30 pm
    Ballard FC (USL2) v. Spokane Velocity FC (USL1) 10:30 pm

    Thursday, March 21
    Steel City FC (NPSL) v. Michigan Stars FC (NISA) 7:00 pm
    FC Motown (NPSL) v. NYCFC II (NP) 7:30 pm
    Chattanooga Red Wolves SC (USL1) v. Brockton FC United (UPSL) 7:30 pm
    Crown Legacy Football Club (NP) v. South Carolina United Heat (UPSL) 7:30 pm
    Western Mass Pioneers (USL2) v. Union Omaha (USL1) 7:30 pm
    Vereinigung Erzgebirge (USASA) v. Charlotte Independence (USL1) 7:30 pm
    Carolina Core FC (NP) v. NoVa FC (USL2) 7:30 pm
    Lubbock Matadors (NPSL) v. Arizona Monsoon FC (NISA) 8:30 pm
    Colorado Rapids 2 (NP) v. Azteca FC (USSSA) 9:30 pm
    LA Galaxy II (NP) v. Irvine Zeta FC (UPSL) 10:30 pm

    The winners advance to the 2nd Round, April 2-4.
     
    AZUL GALAXY repped this.

Share This Page