A pro/rel discussion

SignGuyDino · Mar 8, 2010

I have been following the pro/rel debates over the last few days. I don't pretend to know it all, but I am getting ill of the political and personal attacks that have little to do with the discussion.

To me, the discussion about whether we should have a promotion/relegation system for soccer in America is based on two things: Culture and logistics. Both are very difficult to overcome.

To preface: I currently would lean against it. I'm really trying hard to support the idea. I hate the MLS' way of keeping salaries down. It scares our top players overseas and I think will eventually hurt Team USA. I usually am anti-union but I'm with the union this time. I know I'm a bastard for saying this but I root for a strike.

Americans will support a developmental league only to a point. Star Trek fans remember than in Klingon culture a boy is a man when he can hold a knife. Americans do not support second- or third-tier leagues for long. These marketing deals with our teams and other leagues' teams are ridiculous and needed to be ended.

It's not just the wage suppression that bothers me. What bothers me more is how markets like St. Louis, Cleveland, Orlando, Atlanta, San Antonio, Phoenix, etc., are not allowed in the club. Major league cities can't be in Major League Soccer?

I'm currently writing a paper on the subject, in case I decide to use it as a thesis as I pursue my Masters in Sports Management next year. I'm trying to make the idea of pro/rel work but it's very difficult.

Before anyone can talk about a pro/rel system, they have to address certain issues of logistics or all of this is moot (these are just some issues):

1. If you are looking to avoid gridiron football lines, you cannot have a 38 game regular season most likely, if you are playing from February to August (to avoid gridiron lines), with a 20 team top league, you're looking at 28 games you can cram in to include the US Cup and CONCACAF Champions, which is each confererence playing home and away, and playing out of conference splitting home and away.

2. Some lower level teams have to look at colleges to host their games. Most college football stadiums do not allow the sale of alcohol. Even if they allow tailgating there is serious loss of potential revenue. Also, some of these venues also do not allow alcohol advertising, which would bar a team with a beer sponsor on the jersey from playing.

3. Those same college football stadiums also have football lines and maybe artificial turf. Unless you're willing to bring in a grass field to cover it or buy a new turf with no lines, that's going to be a hard issue. Not to mention that the football team there is going to want to practice on the turf in the spring. I know there's a company called SportEXE that's designing a turf where you can change the lines with a mouse-click, but that's conceptual and maybe several years away if ever: http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/02/01/whoa__that_is_one_big_flatscreen/

4. With multiple-use stadiums, there's going to be a lot of games on artificial turf. That alone doesn't concern me, there are newer turf systems that takes the rubber infill out altogether. GeoTurf USA uses an organic infill of crushed coconut shells and cork that's much safer and cooler than crumb rubber (www.geoturfusa.com). Other companies will follow suit before too long. But other people my have an issue with turf (I too play the "Balboa 'artificial turf sucks' comment drinking game.") But it's hard to imagine having third- and fourth-tier cities having local governments supporting a stadium for just one soccer team as a tenant.

What I'm seeing is that while I'd agree wholeheartedly that we SHOULD have set up pro/rel to start MLS, expecting them or any other group to start one is more unrealistic than realistic.

I do think if MLS started a pro/rel system for a futsal league in the winter, that actually would be a very good idea. It'd get the game in the inner cities, keep people thinking of MLS, and would get lots of good players out there playing to get noticed.

The issues that would keep pro soccer out of college football stadiums (the lines) would not stop a rugby league competition, if done right. I created "gridiron rugby" as a conceptual 11-a-side variant of league rules that would work perfectly there (www.gridironrugby.org).

The real issue to me is seeing "major league cities" get a shot of playing top-level soccer in America (and real free agency and decent pay for MLS players, a whole different topic).

So here's my idea: FIFA awarded the last World Cup to the States on the condition that we start a pro soccer league. Since all indicators are we are stuck in a "closed" league, how about FIFA propose we get to host the World Cup on these conditions:

1. MLS has to commit to developing a real minor league system within 6 years after the Cup is played. Each MLS team must have their own "AAA" level team. That's the thing the MLS does not have. (The reserve league does NOT count.) They don't want pro/rel but they don't have a real minor league system. They can't have it both ways. MLB, NBA, and NHL have one. The NFL has one if you count college football and/or the CFL. MLS can't claim at this stage it's too young to develop one credibly anyway. Why do you think baseball is so deeply popular? People follow players from A level all the way to the major league. It's a helluva hook.

Whether the teams in the makeshift second-tier this year are in there or not is a secondary issue. The teams must be somewhat regional to the parent club.

2. The stadiums must seat at least 12,000 but be able to expand to 21,000 or more down the road and be "soccer-preferred." So cities like Phoenix, San Antonio, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Orlando, etc., are suddenly in play.

3. After 10 years of this minor league, each team is sold off and at a pre-determined year, and a pro/rel system begins just between the top two flights. Teams are split to conferences for the pro/rel determination to keep a balance of teams in the country.

4. MLS will be permitted to allow the promoted teams in each conference of the second tier a chance to play in the MLS playoffs, but in a ladder system with the 4 and 5 seeds of MLS.

That answers the question of "what's the incentive of a city to build a stadium for a team that might end up in the second tier?" It's not the best solution, but it sells hope. And friends, the whole premise of buying tickets is based on hope. Hope of winning some title.

The NBA are masters of selling hope to fans for franchises that deserve no support. It will work. I would propose the only tournaments they are in are US Open and CONCACAF Champions anyway.

5. Rename the league "American Premier League" or "North American Premier League." The fact I own those domains is not a coincidence. Seriously, our league would be taken much more seriously than the current developmental league it's correctly perceived as now.

Cities that know this system is coming that are not in the MLS now will suddenly be more involved in stadium drives. They know that they only have to build a decent 12,000 seat stadium, and will basically commit themselves to a bigger venue if the team is promoted.

Then by the time of the next generation, most of the infrastructure for the third-tier would have naturally developed, so when FIFA makes a demand for MLS to commit to a third tier in pro/rel for us to win World Cup 2034, we're almost ready to go.

It's a compromise. Everyone gets something.

So instead of Garber just stating "at this time" there's no chance of pro/rel, here's a logical way to develop it. What he wants to avoid are commitments to deadlines for anything.

"Pressure makes diamonds."-- General Patton.

I don't think we can have 11 tiers or more like in England, but I think it is very possible for have a three-tier system over the next 25 years, provided the MLS is NUDGED to commit to pushing for goals on specific dates.

I know none of this will happen, I don't think FIFA would ever think or dare propose this, but I wanted to communicate some ideas.

Thank you for wasting your time reading this.

Bolivianfuego · Mar 9, 2010

Re: Is it possible to have a pro/rel discussion without soccerreform's input?

Good writing! But i think the most realisitc chance of any of this happening, would be taking the new NASL/USL league and latch that into MLS 2, they have tehir own setups, and once MLS gets established, and gets their own stadiums, and gets their money resolved, it can finally have NASL/USL top 2 maybe teams come up and MLS bottom two go to the MLS2.

HailtotheKing · Mar 9, 2010

Re: Is it possible to have a pro/rel discussion without soccerreform's input?

[Snip]

Good stuff, and very good for this discussion/debate. The best part of what you have down, is that everything is pretty much on the "realistic" side of things and that's the key.

My biggest issue with this whole debate is the culture/support side. Any number of people can come up with the "business" side of it and determine a feasable/plausible way of making the shift. I have yet to see anyone even attempt, let alone get a decent proposal out there, an answer to the sporting culture of the United States. That is the biggest hurdle. It's bigger than the current owners in the league and it's bigger than working out the schedule/stadium situations. Just how in the hell are you going to give incentive enough to the current owners as well as the fans in this country to gut their entire sporting culture and implement a structure that potentially demeans their team ?

CCSUltra · Mar 9, 2010

Re: Is it possible to have a pro/rel discussion without soccerreform's input?

And coming from Cleveland, I really wonder if we could support an MLS team

Timon19 · Mar 9, 2010

Re: Is it possible to have a pro/rel discussion without soccerreform's input?

CCSUltra said: ↑

And coming from Cleveland, I really wonder if we could support an MLS team
Click to expand...

I don't have a whole lot of concerns there.

If I had more time, I'd address a specific point in the OP's post specifically regarding Cleveland, but I'll just say that it was more than just Mean Old MLS "keeping major league cities" out.

Maybe Archer can chime in.

teucer · Mar 9, 2010

Re: Is it possible to have a pro/rel discussion without soccerreform's input?

[Snip]

Anyhow, to respond to the OP - yes, it's possible we could get pro/rel in a couple decades. It has advantages and disadvantages, so overall I honestly don't know if it would be an improvement. But it's not gonna happen overnight, and I suspect that if it were done gradually and deliberately the steps along the way would happen in a way that makes the end result work out better for the sport.

RedRover · Mar 9, 2010

Re: Is it possible to have a pro/rel discussion without soccerreform's input?

The big factor in the whole U.S. pro/rel debate, that many people overlook, is television and the contracts they hand out to sports leagues. Large market cities are an important factor in rights fees.

If MLS were to implement a pro/rel system, you'd run the hypothetical situation where you could lose a New York and Los Angeles to relegation and have in their places a Rochester, N.Y. and an Austin, Texas. Just imagine how ESPN or any other major carrier would react to that. No way they would hand out big money for such a risk.

If MLS or any other D-1 league in these parts were interested in pro/rel, they would have implemented it right from the start. As it stands, it's next to impossible to do so unless you blow the entire league up and starting over again.

Timon19 · Mar 9, 2010

Re: Is it possible to have a pro/rel discussion without soccerreform's input?

Also, as a quick aside, I'm not sure how Orlando is a "Major League city". Yeah, they have the Magic, but that place is such a literal and figurative Mickey Mouse town (forgive me) full of transplants that it really can't possibly qualify.

SignGuyDino · Mar 9, 2010

Re: Is it possible to have a pro/rel discussion without soccerreform's input?

I only listed Cleveland as one of a few examples. My point is if MLS suddenly said we are going to a 1-for-1 minor league system by say 2018, and go to pro/rel in 2028, suddenly cities will come out with more motivated plans. (I mean, seriously, isn't that what city government's sports commissions are for? Seeking out ownership groups for things like this?)

In my own pipe dream league involving rugby league, I had an idea where I would get 8 initial markets, but expansion markets would depend on hardcore fans' support. I would come up with team names for teams that technically didn't exist and sell jerseys. The more jerseys I sold to a city, the more likely they could support an expansion team.

You'd be amazed how logistic issues can be resolved when there's a big enough demand for a team.

What I think Garber could do to help the cause is say look at what the Philadelphia fans did. They had the Sons of Ben when there was no team, look how motivated they were. How motivated are fans in other cities to get in the game? I think a lot of fans in Cleveland, St. Louis, Orlando, etc., would organize like they never had before. It would be great fun to see that just in itself.

Also, the number of years gives smaller markets like Charleston time to decide do they want to pursue a larger stadium (Blackbaud can't be expanded much more than it is now), or wait it out and try to be a part of a regional third-tier league, which is their more natural fit.

Another question to be determined is do we stay in NFL venues? I think yes only if they have some way of changing to soccer-lined fields only. I'm think the new Cowboys stadium is an ideal location. They actually have three artificial turf fields (high school/colleg football, pro football, soccer) that can be rolled out in one day. Also, they've already shown they can lay out a grass field if they have to. Jerry Jones gets credit for one thing: He markets to the Hispanic population very well. It was argued the Cowboys are "Mexico's team" arguably more than they are "American's team." And he wants tenants to his palace. If he tied his Hispanic supporters to a Dallas MLS team it could be magic.

Same with the Phoenix team since their field actually is rolled in on a huge tray. Pretty cool stuff.

Blatter could make this easy. He could say "some sort of promotion/relegation system" as a condition to get the World Cup. The plan above is the general concept to do that.

SignGuyDino · Mar 9, 2010

Re: Is it possible to have a pro/rel discussion without soccerreform's input?

Timon19 said: ↑

Also, as a quick aside, I'm not sure how Orlando is a "Major League city". Yeah, they have the Magic, but that place is such a literal and figurative Mickey Mouse town (forgive me) full of transplants that it really can't possibly qualify.
Click to expand...

I would argue Orlando as much as some argued for Tampa. The big advantage is Orlando has a venue (Citrus Bowl, albeit it would need serious renovations). It clearly is at least a AAA city worthy of a minor league team if done right.

It is very conceivable that if this happened other markets would jump in and Orlando wouldn't get in at all.

I'm just throwing out a conceptual idea that might work for America.

I appreciate the civil nature of the discussion. Refreshing.

SignGuyDino · Mar 9, 2010

Re: Is it possible to have a pro/rel discussion without soccerreform's input?

RedRover said: ↑

The big factor in the whole U.S. pro/rel debate, that many people overlook, is television and the contracts they hand out to sports leagues. Large market cities are an important factor in rights fees.

If MLS were to implement a pro/rel system, you'd run the hypothetical situation where you could lose a New York and Los Angeles to relegation and have in their places a Rochester, N.Y. and an Austin, Texas. Just imagine how ESPN or any other major carrier would react to that. No way they would hand out big money for such a risk.

If MLS or any other D-1 league in these parts were interested in pro/rel, they would have implemented it right from the start. As it stands, it's next to impossible to do so unless you blow the entire league up and starting over again.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree.

1. The fact it is designed to take a certain of predetermined years is more likely to get AAA markets in the game and building stadiums. It's not blowing up the league, in fact, the league is laying out a sound foundation they will cash in on when the minor league teams are sold off and pro/rel begins.

2. It is very likely that a second-tier under this plan gets a decent TV contract of their own with Fox Sports Regional or another set of networks.

3. I set up a modified playoff system where second-tier teams that are promoted are put into the MLS playoffs. The formula is a tournament of second-tier and 4-5 MLS teams for a "wildcard" which is deliberatley hard for a second-tier team to make it (second-tier teams don't even get to host a game and it's 3 games in 2 weeks, any team in the wildcard has to win 6-7 games to win the championship), but it at least can be marketed as a CHANCE they can win. That way if a LA or NY team falls, they can at least market the CHANCE they can compete for the title as well as getting promoted right back.

I'm not very high on the idea myself, but it sells hope, which is the foundation of most fans buying tickets and jerseys.

4. LA and NY does not deserve top flight status if they can't keep a team deserving of it. Look how the NY Knicks drag down the NBA. Hasn't stopped the big TV contract, has it? LeBron James arguably can make a bigger name in Cleveland than New York. New York fans notiously do not watch the World Series unless the Yanks or Mets are in it. St. Louis fans will watch regardless of whose in it . The Subway series between the Yanks and Mets was a disaster outside of NYC (ratings show this). Athletes and teams with compelling stories drive ratings, not just big markets. All we need is for the teams in the big markets the chance to be in the big dance.

Timon19 · Mar 9, 2010

Re: Is it possible to have a pro/rel discussion without soccerreform's input?

SignGuyDino said: ↑

My point is if MLS suddenly said we are going to a 1-for-1 minor league system by say 2018, and go to pro/rel in 2028, suddenly cities will come out with more motivated plans.
Click to expand...

It's this and soccerreform.us's more direct pro/rel == explosion assertions that most of us question the premises of. It's rank speculation presented as foregone conclusion. I don't think anyone can say that one necessarily follows from the other, and certainly not in the timeframes often indicated.

Now I don't want to lump you in the same category with that twatwaffle, because you seem far more reasonable and less of a spammer-in-advocate's-clothing, not least because his argument would be that we would fill NFL stadiums to the rafters almost immediately across the league if we had pro/rel now.

Timon19 · Mar 9, 2010

Re: Is it possible to have a pro/rel discussion without soccerreform's input?

SignGuyDino said: ↑

I would argue Orlando as much as some argued for Tampa. The big advantage is Orlando has a venue (Citrus Bowl, albeit it would need serious renovations). It clearly is at least a AAA city worthy of a minor league team if done right.

It is very conceivable that if this happened other markets would jump in and Orlando wouldn't get in at all.

I'm just throwing out a conceptual idea that might work for America.

I appreciate the civil nature of the discussion. Refreshing.
Click to expand...

I have biases against Orlando, I must admit (most of them professional), but really, that place is full of rootless, young workers chasing the latest tech jobs of the month (which are leaving the area in droves, BTW). That's a recipe for tears in the wake of a Lost Decade like we might be entering.

SignGuyDino · Mar 9, 2010

Re: Is it possible to have a pro/rel discussion without soccerreform's input?

Orlando didn't help itself with its bad grass field at those bowl games. Probably cost them a shot at hosting a World Cup game if the US does win the bid.

They're putting in artificial turf just because of that. A few years from now that could change but a potential owner has to address that.

I think MLS can do a modified pro/rel of two flights to start but it has to have some minimum standards and a definate timeline. A lot of people would prefer the 12K stadium that can be expanded to 20K than putting them in football stadiums, unless there's no other alternative. City governments will find that far more palatable.

teucer · Mar 9, 2010

Re: Is it possible to have a pro/rel discussion without soccerreform's input?

CCSUltra said: ↑

And coming from Cleveland, I really wonder if we could support an MLS team
Click to expand...

There are more cities that could support one if the right ownership group came along with the money to invest than there can really be room for in the top league. MLS has to pick markets to leave out; pro/rel is one way to choose, but there's also something nice about the current system of choosing by looking at the ownership and assessing the viability of the proposed franchise.

Those of us whose ownership groups can't or don't wish to run a team at that level of finance can always get lower-division teams - and frankly the difference between the average MLS team and the average D2 team in this country is noticeably smaller than the difference between the EPL and the Championship (not that I'm saying MLS is at the Premiership's level, just the magnitude of division gaps). Any team in MLS could conceivably win it all, though some are more likely than others. The better D2 teams might not be up to becoming league champions if you put them up against the MLS field instead of the rest of D2, but they'd certainly hold their own - and there's enough parity that while I'd be pretty damn surprised if Miami won the D2 championship I can conceive of it happening if they play a lot better this year than last.

The way I figure it, it might be nice to have a major-league team in my area. And we're a bigger market than a lot of people realize - there's over a million people in the MSA, and the way the Census Bureau defines that it leaves out about a third of the market (including me). If we had a bigger stadium (as opposed to a small but really nice one), and we really felt like competing with NCAA sports (less of an issue with a summer season than if we followed the European schedule!), we might be able to support a top-tier team.

But at the same time... well, I can't really be all that hungry for something better, because in a way we're already supporting a top-tier team. In a friendly last year we beat the Revs, who are not exactly one of the worse MLS teams, and in two weeks we're planning to do it again. I believe that if the RailHawks got promoted into MLS, the amount of changes to the roster required to field a seriously competitive side at that level is only the amount of changes that every team makes every year. That's not just me boasting idly about my favorite team, either - I think the same is true of half the D2 league.

In other words, I can see a game played that comes pretty damn close to the best quality soccer there is to see in this country, and pay half as much for the cheapest tickets as I would to see an MLS team (and, thanks to a smaller stadium, have those cheapest seats be better than their counterparts in MLS venues). As I am presently lacking in disposable income, this is a pretty sweet deal.

So I guess what I'm saying (and I'm saying it in bold since it's also the tl;dr version of the whole post) is, I don't know what I want. I don't know whether pro/rel is better for the sport or not. It's good in some ways, since it gives cities a chance to break into the top league. It's also not perfect, since it doesn't insist on the organization being up to the rigors of top-tier play. Maybe we should have it; personally I'm in favor, but I don't really know if that's the best answer. Still, I do know this: I would love to have the bragging rights that come with seeing my RailHawks move up, and I would keep supporting them even if they got relegated. But there's plenty to like about our current status; it's the same glory and the same dejection if they win the league title, or if they fail to even make the playoffs - and right now the selfish part of me is glad to be following a strong minor league team. I'm glad we've got a fanbase that's all part of the local community. I'm glad the team's office can choose not to worry about things like paying rent on a venue that could support a bigger crowd than we've ever drawn so far, just in case we get promoted and become more popular. I'm glad that (with the supporters' group discount) a ticket to a soccer game costs less than a ticket to a movie in the theater. Pro/rel would still be kinda nice to add, but it's not what I'd want anyone in charge to be focusing on.

Pro/rel might be the way to go overall. I kinda like it, in principle. But at the same time, being a continual minor-league fan has its advantages too. I grew up watching a minor-league team in a different sport regularly; in my house, the occasional trip to the Durham Athletic Park (and later the new DBAP) to see the Bulls (our town's baseball team) was one of those key pieces of what defined summer. I happen to like soccer better than baseball, but the principle is the same - spend an evening out at prices a casual fan can afford, and enjoy the atmosphere in the park, enjoy being part of the community of fans, eat overpriced-but-delicious stadium food, and cheer on the home team. And since nobody in the family cared enough about baseball that we'd have kept doing that if the Bulls suddenly joined MLB, it was kinda nice that they never could.

I like soccer enough that given money and a local MLS team, I would be a major-league fan. And as a minor-league fan, it would be awfully cool to make that transition because my favorite team earned it on the field. So on balance I think I lean toward pro/rel being an improvement. But as long as a minor-league fan can see soccer played as well as it is in D2 today, and as long as you can still meaningfully say our teams in D2 don't quite belong in MLS, it won't ever be my priority. I'd rather the league commissioners focused on raising awareness of the sport, bringing in enough revenue to raise the quality of play at every level. Assuming they can make it work from a business perspective (not an easy task), I'd enjoy seeing pro/rel added - but it would be a neat extra, rather than something vital to the game.

HailtotheKing · Mar 9, 2010

Re: Is it possible to have a pro/rel discussion without soccerreform's input?

RedRover said: ↑

The big factor in the whole U.S. pro/rel debate, that many people overlook, is television and the contracts they hand out to sports leagues. Large market cities are an important factor in rights fees.

If MLS were to implement a pro/rel system, you'd run the hypothetical situation where you could lose a New York and Los Angeles to relegation and have in their places a Rochester, N.Y. and an Austin, Texas. Just imagine how ESPN or any other major carrier would react to that. No way they would hand out big money for such a risk.
Click to expand...

Kind of like the NFL had issues with their current gazillion dollar tv contract even though they don't have a team in LA ? Or, how the MLS is just getting so much wonderful attention thanks to NYRB ?

I hate how people continue to make the mistake of big market automatically = good market.

SignGuyDino · Mar 9, 2010

Re: Is it possible to have a pro/rel discussion without soccerreform's input?

I also doubt all three current LA and NY teams (possibly 4 someday) would end up in second tier anyway. I do think it would be funny for Chivas fans to put down Galaxians if the Galaxy were demoted or vice versa.

Again, right now, I'm still leaning against this. I'm playing Devil's Advocate. If MLS started a separate pro/rel futsal program in each MLS city that would make a lot of sense just on the marketing end. It'd also be a test case to see if it works without spending much money.

As to the culture question from a previous poster, I would only state that sometimes soccer culture overrides what we think American sports culture is. We tried to Americanize the game with shootouts and countdown clocks and it didn't work. Soccer culture eventually won out, and could win out here eventually.

I don't believe in changing rules just to appease Europeans. But I think traditions are fine as long as traditions make sense.

I'm just saying IF Blatter were to say "the U.S. must have some sort of plan for a pro/rel system in place to win a World Cup bid" or "the U.S. would have won the World Cup bid had they set up a pro/rel plan" this would be the way to go, generally. Let's be blunt: He's said things a lot of us think are crazier than that.

The MLS wouldn't be hurt, in fact, they stand to benefit because they would be in charge of the minor league system they are developing, and would sell off the teams before the pro/rel. Every owner going in understands each expansion makes their own chances of winning the MLS Cup that much smaller, they do it ultimately for the good of the sport.

HailtotheKing · Mar 9, 2010

Re: Is it possible to have a pro/rel discussion without soccerreform's input?

SignGuyDino said: ↑

As to the culture question from a previous poster, I would only state that sometimes soccer culture overrides what we think American sports culture is. We tried to Americanize the game with shootouts and countdown clocks and it didn't work. Soccer culture eventually won out, and could win out here eventually.
Click to expand...

That was me.

And what you just quoted, and what I was talking about are two entirely seperate things. It's one thing to tinker with the rules of the game. It is quite another to uproot, gut, and then try to re-work the very fabric of sport philosophy/understanding of an entire nation.

It's one thing for me to wake my son up every morning to pancakes ... and then all of a sudden give him waffles. It's quite another to wake him up and all of a sudden not make him anything to eat.

PhantomTollbooth · Mar 9, 2010

Re: Is it possible to have a pro/rel discussion without soccerreform's input?

SignGuyDino said: ↑

1. MLS has to commit to developing a real minor league system within 6 years after the Cup is played. Each MLS team must have their own "AAA" level team.

3. After 10 years of this minor league, each team is sold off and at a pre-determined year, and a pro/rel system begins just between the top two flights. Teams are split to conferences for the pro/rel determination to keep a balance of teams in the country.
Click to expand...

This is one of the more interesting proposals I've seen regarding how to create pro/rel, but as an owner, why would I do this?

I create a minor league team (at a heck of a cost) stock it with players, staff, etc and then hand it over to someone else? After 10 years, I can't imagine the net worth of those clubs is going to be enough to get the sort of return on investment the owners would want from selling them. MLS is just now 16 years later lurching towards profitability.

This also assumes that you're going to find ~20 owners who want to buy these teams in whatever market they are in.

There's also a problem of player contracts. If this truly is a minor league team, I would think all of the players on these teams would be under contract to the parent clubs. Do they suddenly lose all the players they spent money on discovering and grooming for a move to the big club?

All of this aside, I'm not against pro/rel, but pro/rel exists to solve a problem we don't have yet -- more viable D1 teams that can reasonably fit into the league. Once we get to around 40 stable pro teams, that's the time to start worrying about this.

Someone should start a thread on how to keep teams from flaming out of D2 after a couple of years. We'll never get to 40 teams with this sort of record: http://mlsdebris.blogspot.com/2009/03/usl1-instability.html

SignGuyDino · Mar 9, 2010

Re: Is it possible to have a pro/rel discussion without soccerreform's input?

HailtotheKing said: ↑

That was me.

And what you just quoted, and what I was talking about are two entirely seperate things. It's one thing to tinker with the rules of the game. It is quite another to uproot, gut, and then try to re-work the very fabric of sport philosophy/understanding of an entire nation.

It's one thing for me to wake my son up every morning to pancakes ... and then all of a sudden give him waffles. It's quite another to wake him up and all of a sudden not make him anything to eat.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sorry. To that end, I would say if you're saying MLS should match American culture, why is there no serious minor league being talked about, let alone implemented?

Major League Baseball has a huge footprint due to the minor league they all but totally control. MLS can't deny pro/rel forever and not have a minor league system. I happen to think it can be set up to where eventually the minor league teams are weaned after a set number of years to a two-tier pro/rel. It also creates interesting storylines. Imagine if DC United founded a Baltimore minor league team, which in 10 years becomes part of the pro/rel system. Imagine the rivalry then.

Either of those plans will eventually grow our American player base and with enough years planned ahead will help address the issues of diluting talent. A second-tier team will have second-tier talent. Problem solved.

There is another valid issue of my proposal. I did state the MLS team's minor league team has to be somewhat local. Well, that's not possible in the southwest and especially the southeast. The MLS may have to expand to 20 teams to fill those spots, or at least one team in the southeast (like Atlanta) to make it easier. I see some affiliations will be further out than others. I should revise and say it should be preferred the minor league team is somewhat local, certainly in the same half of the country.

In that case, Las Vegas is a prime location for a minor league team. Same with San Diego.

As to the point about ownership groups, the money's there. The right plan is not. Hell, my local baseball team, the Asheville Tourists, is an A level club that sold for $6 million. Once the team is established the value goes up.

Looking at the World Cup bids, I tend to think Europe will win the 2018 Cup (England is the favorite), and the States are the favorites for 2022. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't see anyone who would be a serious threat for us not getting the 2022 Cup if Europe is picked for 2018. Qatar has the money but it's too hot. Australia has never hosted but there are scheduling conflicts with their other sports. Russia is considered part of UEFA or they'd be the top threat.

Forgive my ignorance and stupidity: IS there a World Cup bid forum? I'm just blind and can't find it.

So unless one of those countries appear to be a serious enough challenge, Blatter may not have leverage to even threaten the Cup without the MLS pledging a pro/rel plan anyway. Except maybe Australia, who supp. will develop one themselves "someday."

Timon19 · Mar 9, 2010

Re: Is it possible to have a pro/rel discussion without soccerreform's input?

Believe it or not, heat is the least of Qatar's problems with a serious bid. You can probably tell what I think of it.

But never, ever forget that Sepp's top henchman outside of the traditional power base of UEFA is none other than Mohammed Bin Hammam, head of the AFC, who is from Qatar.

teucer · Mar 9, 2010

Re: Is it possible to have a pro/rel discussion without soccerreform's input?

SignGuyDino said: ↑

Oh, I'm sorry. To that end, I would say if you're saying MLS should match American culture, why is there no serious minor league being talked about, let alone implemented?
Click to expand...

I'd say our minor league, at least at the level just below MLS, is pretty serious, thanks.

Major League Baseball has a huge footprint due to the minor league they all but totally control. MLS can't deny pro/rel forever and not have a minor league system. I happen to think it can be set up to where eventually the minor league teams are weaned after a set number of years to a two-tier pro/rel. It also creates interesting storylines. Imagine if DC United founded a Baltimore minor league team, which in 10 years becomes part of the pro/rel system. Imagine the rivalry then.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the details of how American minor leagues work outside of soccer vary from sport to sport. Baseball has the farm system, which seems to work brilliantly but depends on there being a lot more interest in the game than soccer currently has. On the other extreme, there are no serious minor leagues in American football - there are things that aren't the NFL, but they don't draw much of a crowd and the players don't have any chance of making it in the major league. Basketball has the D-League, which is a farm-like system except that its teams can be associated with more than one NBA team, but it's still new enough that it's not yet a big thing the way MiLB is.

Soccer's got lower-level leagues that mostly don't have ties to the higher-level ones, but where players develop until they're ready for a higher level of play. This mirrors hockey, although some hockey teams have farm-type setups that are basically absent in soccer (though I'm convinced that's only because there's not enough money in play in our game). Of course, any minor league structure where the teams are owned by the top-tier ownership groups is incompatible with pro-rel - the team that players get called up into is always going to be better than the lower-ranking one, which means they can't possibly compete in the same league. (Multiple affiliates for one higher team in the same league works, though.) So if you want pro-rel, you should be glad we don't have a farm system even though experience seems to suggest that it's good for building the minor leagues.

Prune · Mar 10, 2010

Re: Is it possible to have a pro/rel discussion without soccerreform's input?

SignGuyDino said: ↑

I have been following the pro/rel debates over the last few days. I don't pretend to know it all, but I am getting ill of the political and personal attacks that have little to do with the discussion.

To me, the discussion about whether we should have a promotion/relegation system for soccer in America is based on two things: Culture and logistics. Both are very difficult to overcome.

To preface: I currently would lean against it. I'm really trying hard to support the idea. I hate the MLS' way of keeping salaries down. It scares our top players overseas and I think will eventually hurt Team USA. I usually am anti-union but I'm with the union this time. I know I'm a bastard for saying this but I root for a strike.

I know none of this will happen, I don't think FIFA would ever think or dare propose this, but I wanted to communicate some ideas.

Thank you for wasting your time reading this.
Click to expand...

If the players go on strike the salaries will go down not up. The league spent a ton of money fighting the lawsuit brought by the players over Single Entity and they will simply wait the players out. If they have to go back to the days of a $1.5m cap then so be it.

As to pro/rel I have only one question. If say Vancouver and Portland get relegated in the same year where does the $70m come from to pay back their expansion fees?

4door · Mar 10, 2010

Re: Is it possible to have a pro/rel discussion without soccerreform's input?

Prune said: ↑

If the players go on strike the salaries will go down not up. The league spent a ton of money fighting the lawsuit brought by the players over Single Entity and they will simply wait the players out. If they have to go back to the days of a $1.5m cap then so be it.

As to pro/rel I have only one question. If say Vancouver and Portland get relegated in the same year where does the $70m come from to pay back their expansion fees?
Click to expand...

any system suggested no matter how long term or complex needs to exclude current franchises from being regulated. if not it will never be agreed on. I don't care if Fifa holds the world cup over their heads, they would rather be guaranteed no relegation forever than a quick WC boost. i mean how much did the WC really help the K-League? Americans go to WC and watch WC in record numbers, the domestic league gets a boost no matter what. I hear this all the time about FIFA using the WC as leverage but I just don't see it.

The Championship has 24 clubs, and with such a huge country (2 actually) a 24 team 1st division within a decade or two is very possible. Especially at our rate of growth. Sell MLS franchises 1-20 and leave the last 4 to a 2nd division pro/rel. Then allow investors (NASL/USL/other) to buy limited MLS franchises with limited SUM money. Lets say they ask for 20 new clubs to share the values of 4 MLS franchises (each would get 1/5th of the SUM $) and they would pay 1/5th of the fee (so like 7-8M for an MLS2 franchise). Now the Jeff Coopers of the world are in play, and you could see development in the 2nd division grow. The question would be only operating off 1/5th the salary cap. There could be ways to supplement revenue for the lower divisions so they can make a little more and use that for their cap. For instance take a smaller piece of their game day revenue (difference goes to salary), allow them to keep higher % of transfer fees, get a league wide naming fee (Visa MLS2) which sends them some revenue. It gets tricky and this is obviously a quick proposal but it allows for many of the objectives of a 2nd division without changing the structure or threatening franchise clubs who paid fees. And as a club grows, the owner could try to buy the rights to a permanent 1st division club in exchange for their 2nd division rights and cash. So lets say 10 years from now AC STL battled back and forth through the 1st and 2nd division but now has the investment to get a permanent slot. They can approach Chivas and offer them a 2nd division spot and a chance to move up and maybe 30M or something.

how would pro/rel work? The 2nd division would compete with itself. Have a single table (or 2 tables) and no matter where the 2nd division clubs place the top 2 stay up and the bottom 2 go down. Full franchises are not effected by this.

1. creates more clubs/development
2. does not drive down costs of any franchises
3. sponsors/media have guarantees about hitting certain markets
4. we have a pro/rel battle
5. does not need to change the current set up

Stan Collins · Mar 10, 2010

Re: Is it possible to have a pro/rel discussion without soccerreform's input?

I found it fascinating that ESPN's daily sports talk shows, Around the Horn and Pardon he Interruption, were both talking about baseball's radical 'floating realingment' proposals, and no less than 4 of the 6 of the pundits on those shows had something positive to say about European-style relegation. Almost all of them thought it a better idea than anything baseball was contemplating.