A pro/rel discussion

it isnt half a season. thats a full season, and they have two full seasons within a year.

 

Re: Super crazy pro/rel idea

I never really take sides on the issue but I do always like to point out that there isn't a very good argument against pro/rel. As the sport grows in this country pro/rel might be the best solution for the same problem that had it created in the first place.

 

Re: Super crazy pro/rel idea

how is that not taking sides?

what would that problem be btw? It was created basically (A) out of competitive spirit when sports wasn't a big business and it seemed a big deal to give every sports club in every little village a shot, and (B) it helped cope with instability of sports teams. Instead of having closed leagues with teams that fold all the time and cause headaches, you can have them slide out of sight and get replaced by better ones. Extremely important in the early days when soccer was amateurish. Still important today anywhere where there's lack of control at league level.
Not an issue for MLS.

 

Re: Super crazy pro/rel idea

Sounds like you thoroughly answered your own question...except for adding, "but it is for lower leagues in the US."

Pro/rel does have a lot of issues in implementation at this time. All of which are either highlighted above or simply should be apparent to anyone who even remotely overhears an intelligent conversation on the topic. (the basics of which can be boiled down to SEM and SUM)

However, that willfully ignores the non-AYSO grass roots growth of the sport in areas where it isn't nationally televised...yet. I'm sure a handful of you remember the olden days of like 7 years ago when we had barely half the teams in MLS we do now (or will next week anyway).

Once that 20th team is decided upon, that won't mean there will be no more interest in expansion. Rather than expanding to a 32 team league, with all the scheduling weirdness that would make this seaon seem reasonable, it would make more sense to halt at 20 teams with the resultant 38 game season, and create a real "MLS-2"..the simple announcement of which would likely cause at least the requisite 8 teams to flock to MLS' banner. Hell, USL itself would probably sell out directly right this minute to become MLS-2 if it could...and whether NASL likes it or not, some of their teams would too.
Which, also, would be necessary for MLS because it loves SEM/SUM so much. I'm sure they could work out the math, etc..
Then it's just a matter of "expanding" into MLS-2..
As far as pro/rel from that point, it's simply a matter of deciding how and how many.. Maybe MLS-2 could operate like a regionalla, or at least east/west, to keep operations costs down, and then have a playoff for promotion between the two "conference winners".
As far as who goes down, we can start with Matt Reis' mom, and work from there...

All of that is in the future though...which is why I said, "At this time."

 

that isnt a full season.its a season argentinian style.

 

If they say it's a full season, then it's a full season. That is the way they have decided to format their league. Two seasons per year. Two league champions per year.

 

They can say it's a "full season", but it's single round-robin. Giving all the gnashing of teeth on BS regarding MLS' decision to limit some teams to playing once per season, I don't see why anyone would think that's sufficient.

------RM

 

It's just a season, and they don't follow the idea of home/away like some other leagues with weird schedules that shall remain nameless.

Whether you consider it a "full" season is just a question in how much importance you place on the home away issue.

But it's definitely a season with its own champion.

 

Re: Super crazy pro/rel idea

so basically, you want the MLS to stay as a 19 team league for ever?

 

Re: Super crazy pro/rel idea

First, no way we are slowing down expansion at team #20. Secondly, how hard is it to schedule a 32 team league. You play every team in your conference home/away (30 matches) and play 4 teams from the other conference once (rotating every 4 years just like the NFL). Total 34 matches.

Lastly, what expansion fee are you going to charge MLS-2 clubs?

 

Re: Super crazy pro/rel idea

it's an interesting perspective re contracts.
But MLS already gets American players that matter. Players who make the jump either go through MLS or bypass American pro level altogether.
So basically the question behind this would be --- if there was no pro/rel, would MLS and MLS academies lose control on talent that matters to lower divisions? I don't think so.

Scheduling issues have everything to do with travel times, playoffs and midseason friendlies rather than pro/rel. You can't realistically replicate the English system here unless you remove some of those extra games.

I don't think there would ever be 60 top division teams btw.
At some point, adding teams starts to dilute TV/sponsorship revenue more than add to it.
It happens regardless of the system. The EPL was created because D1 teams considered lesser teams deadweight and didn't want to share revenue. American leagues stop at ~30 for the same reason.

 

Re: Super crazy pro/rel idea

If only there was like a 98,000 post thread explaining, in tremendous detail, why it would hurt MLS, the 19 current MLS clubs, the 'promoted' NASL clubs, NASL, the USSF, and American Soccer in general.

Then people could just read that and we wouldn't have to repeat ourselves (or, we wouldn't have to until DCU decides to 'forget' that his arguments have already been refuted.)

 

Re: Super crazy pro/rel idea

I'm not sure where we'll stop but I think we all know 60 teams is too many for a top division. I only mention it because of our population. There are plenty of other sports that take top athletes away but ultimately there is the potential for a lot of high caliber players.

Add in the fact that we're in the same time zones as Central and South America, and we could field a lot of teams. If we're the springboard to Europe while keeping players in the same time zone for international matches, it could prove to be a huge boost to the player pool and, of course, player sales.

We'll need places for these players to play though.

 

Re: Super crazy pro/rel idea

Just want to add a couple items for the pot:

1) The whole "MLS owners would never go for it" thing is rooted in the days of 2.1.x guys even being at the table. (Anshutz/Hunt.Kraft.everyone else)
Now you got 16 separate groups there...or is it 17?

1b) I think we all can recognize that, even as it stands now, the vast majority of all scenarios would see teams with disinterested/neglectful/incompetent ownership being in danger of relegation anyway. And those guys don't have any pull at the big table nowadays...

2) Incoming franchise fees would be lowered dramatically, I realize that SEM has been way too greedy for that in the past, and come out mostly unscathed, but I think we're nearing the pooint where that shouldn't be the focus, financially or otherwise. This isn't a falsely inflated league anymore.

2b) As for potential investors: Even if it was only for entry into MLS-2...with lower fees and the promise of an MLS promotion jackpot, I actually think that would incline a much larger number of interested investors/groups. Sure, they start out in D-2...but if they get their shit right, they might be right up in a year or two...

3) MLS-2 doesn't have to be 20 teams to start out...just 8. In that pool, any team that did manage to get relegated would probably stand a pretty damn good chance of getting promoted the next year anyway...

3b) And if they didn't...if they faded away into obscurity...then why the feck should MLSllc care anyway? It would be to their own self interest to have only solid stable successful clubs in their stable...wouldn't it? I mean, ask San Jose if you think I'm wrong there.

4) As far as I"m concerned, it's not a matter of rescuing lower leagues as they exist now. At all. Who cares about those guys? It's simply a matter of the most intelligent future footprint for the current league as it continues to grow.

4x) The NFL only has the number of teams it does, and the scheduling it has, because two completely separate league merged. Sure, there's been a small bit of "expansion" since then, but mostly it's been teams picking up and moving town. Baseball is pretty much the same way. Ditto for the NBA. I don't have any idea about the NHL because I don't give a crap about hockey...but if I had to guess, I would hedge my bets and put down on the same thing being the case there at some point in the past.
I'm not talking about merging leagues here (even though I think that's what NASL is aiming for)...I'm simply talking about expanding the current existing league in an actually manageable way.


xx) As far as the math, most of it would seem readily apparent...or easily negotiable at least.. 2nd division has smaller fees, salary cap, cut of television rights and league sponsorships (if either can be secured for d-2), stake in SUM, etc...separately or within the whole... The exact numbers are workable but unimportant to me.

But meh, whatever...I'm not so into the idea of pro/rel that I want to make it work no matter what... I just honestly think it's a more logical step forward from where we are now than the simple expand til you burst model some people seem to be favoring.

 

Re: Super crazy pro/rel idea

Actually it's rooted in MLS 4.0. Guys who own Toronto, Portland, Seattle, Philly, Vancouver etc who will never allow a franchise come into their market for $10m (or some dramatically lowered amount) when they paid $10m to $35m and invested another $100m over 20 years to build the value of their club.

 

Re: Super crazy pro/rel idea

I do wonder about the language of the expansion agreements, would the relegated teams be able to sue for breach of contract if they fall to MLS 2.

Also could they sue if new teams coming into the league (even MLS2) have to pay lower extortion, I mean expansion fees to join.

 

Re: Super crazy pro/rel idea

it's not an extortion if those teams are valued that high. If you can find an Oscar De La Hoya or Red Bull GmbH buying stock at higher valuations than expansion fees, it's a fair game to ask for these expansion fees.

It's also nothing to sneeze at if some group approaches MLS and says "we want to pay you 10 mil per team; we'll be named MLS-2 and we'll get much smaller shares of SUM."
Considering MLS was willing to sell a piece of SUM to private equity firm, I have to think MLS would strongly consider.

The problems start when you add pro/rel to that MLS-2 idea.
You tell the current owners that they'll risk relegation. And then they'd get smaller revenue sharing, smaller cap and unless they get promoted, their franchise valuation could eventually drop closer to 10 mil than what they spent on expansion fees themselves.

And that point, they'll just sigh.

If any of them would still be interested at that point, they'll just have to remember that in a heavily restricted, capped system all you need is a few injuries to go from best to worst.
So the risk to get relegated would be great.
The chance of getting promoted quickly won't be overwhelming.
All of that for 10 mil a pop, or 500k per MLS team.
High risk, low reward. A joke of a business.

 

Re: Super crazy pro/rel idea

I'm having a tough time following your logic here. The current owners are the ones who have, collectively, poured several hundred million dollars into the league. Very few of them, if any, have actually made a profit on their investment at this point. And you're proposing that they agree to a system that will limit their future profit potential by making it cheaper and easier for teams to enter into the league going forward.

If, as you seem to be claiming, there are enough potential expansion markets to create 30+ MLS-level soccer teams out there, that translates to at least $500+ million in expansion fees. Why would the current group of MLS owners decide to leave that money on the table?

I personally doubt MLS will grow beyond 20-24 teams any time soon- there simply aren't enough viable markets and/or owner groups out there to grow the league very quickly at this point. But, if there is really enough demand to allow to MLS rapidly expand beyond that number in the relatively near future, what possible reason would MLS owners have to limit that growth, and their own financial upside?

More importantly, why would soccer fans in this country support artificially excluding teams from the top tier of American soccer? If your local team has the facilities, fan support and financial ability to be an MLS team, why would you want to deal with the annoyance of pro/rel when your team could just be permanently in MLS.

Why? If MLS can keep adding succesful teams, why wouldn't it want to? If there is a market for 60 MLS teams divided into 2-3 conferences, why wouldn't the league go with that approach, rather than forcing the majority of teams to play in a lower-tier?

At the end of the day, pro/rel is a solution looking for a problem. We don't have more division 1 teams than division 1 spots. If your concern is that MLS will grow to 40 teams (assuming that 40 teams in MLS would be a bad thing), I'd say that's not a problem anyone posting on this board will see in their lifetime.

 

Re: Super crazy pro/rel idea

You might not be good with economics but as the price of a product or service drops, the market for that product increases in size. As long as the size of the market increases at a faster pace than the price drops, you should see increased revenue.

As to your other main point, I don't think anyone believe there will ever be 60 "Division 1" caliber teams in the league. That's why some people say 2 conferences isn't necessarily the best solution. You'll have super star teams playing shit teams on a regular basis. Save those games for Cup competitions.

 

Re: Super crazy pro/rel idea

Damn, no wonder everyone is buying iPhone 2's these days...

 

Re: Super crazy pro/rel idea

So, you're arguing in favor of letting in a ton of teams into MLS at a discount? Rather than 10 teams at $50 million each in expansion fees, MLS should let in 20 teams at $30 million?

So, does MLS have a potential problem with too many teams, or not? If not, why even bother discussing pro/rel?

 

Re: Super crazy pro/rel idea

Weren't you the same person who, only 2 posts above, claimed there weren't enough investors to grow beyond 20-24 teams?

I actually agree with that. The blustery "$100 million" call for NYC-2 notwithstanding, the current valuation of MLS franchises will only continue to climb, and will soon out-price any real legitimate interest.
But we're not talking about entry into MLS...we're talking about buying into MLS-2. And non one said the mechanics of pro/rel itself had to be so simple as #1 goes up and last place goes down.

Also, it may seem a little counter-intuitive, but the more people around a table, the easier it is to actually get big changes passed.

And you can't assume that every single decision the MLS BoG makes is based solely on short-term profitability. In fact, that's demonstrably untrue. Saying otherwise make you appear even more cynical than I am..
Not to say they are necessarily in any way as altruistic as some people on the other end of the spectrum sometimes make them out to be...but MLSllc has always been about cautious and controlled prospecting for the future...only "heavily sprinkled" with cash-grabs.

Another thing... "Owner" does not equal "Team". Hell, the entire League is a limited liability company. I don't think I'd be going out on too far a limb to suggest that every Owner(ship group) is making money...even if the Team they own technically isn't.

I bet, if we were all sitting around the "MLS Owners Table", and someone proposed a particularly well packaged deal with significantly lower operating costs and other appropriate perks to offset the lower revenue that "relegation" into MLS-2 would generate...every head in the room would swivel toward 3 chairs...because they would expect those 3 Chairs to be honestly tempted by that offer.


Sick of typing...maybe I should change my username to that lol.

 

Re: Super crazy pro/rel idea

If a group of investors approached MLS with a viable plan to establish an MLS-2, I think MLS would be willing to listen.

However, I don't see any realistic scenario where pro/rel could exist between MLS1 and MLS2. There's really no incentive for MLS1 owners to allow teams into the league without an expansion fee. The idea of MLS2 strikes me as a way for investors to get a team into MLS1 on the cheap. I don't see any reason why MLS1 would be interested in allowing that.

I guess it comes down to this: if there are teams out there that have what it takes (in terms of a stadium, fan support and deep-pockets owners) to come into MLS as an expansion team, there's no need for them to hang out in MLS2. As for teams that don't meet the standards of becoming an MLS expansion team, there really is no reason why MLS would want them in the first place.

That depends on the terms of the MLS operating agreement. I would imagine that instituting pro/rel, in any shape, would require super-majority approval of the current MLS owners, if not unanimous consent.

I think it's pretty clear that the MLS ownership has an eye on the long-term. But, I don't see how pro/rel, in any form, would make owning an MLS team a better investement, whether in the short- or long-term.

Which 3 owners would be in favor of something like that? The problem is, relegation wouldn't just lower revenues for relegated MLS teams- it would slash them disastrously. And a lot of the teams have costs (such as stadium-related costs) that can't really be lowered through relegation.

What pro/rel people are asking MLS owners to do is to make their investment more risky. I can't see any of them agreeing to such an approach.

 

Re: Super crazy pro/rel idea

Hold on. If the valuation continues to climb why would that price out legitimate interest? The value of NFL teams has climbed over the last 20 years and there have been lots of bidders.

When the top clubs (LA, Toronto, Philly, Seattle etc) are worth $300m you will have more legitimate interest not less. And the interest is going to be front heavy hitters who want to run a club properly not Oil Barons who want to dump $500m in the transfer market hoping to buy a league title.