Yeah, that's just not true. USL doesn't own the teams and lease them out to individual operators. They cannot strip you of your assets, they can only terminate your right to operate your club in the USL. In this case of a USL, a "franchise agreement" refers to the right to operate/field a team in the USL. USL doesn't own anything about, say, the Pittsburgh Riverhounds. The Riverhounds (and it's corresponding trademarks) are owned by Pittsburgh Pro Soccer, LLC, which owns and operates the team. Note that Pittsburgh's big restructuring and bankruptcy a few years ago in no way involved the USL at the ownership level. Earlier you pointed to the Rhinos earlier (or perhaps another thread) but it doesn't prove what you think it does. These things happened, in order: The City of Rochester terminates the Rhino's stadium lease on December 1st due to non-payments. Owner of the Rhinos (Rob Clark) said he wasn't going to operate the team in 2016 (ie the Rhinos no longer have an owner). USL terminated the franchise agreement between Clarke and itself (ie Rob Clarke no longer has the right to operate the Rhinos in the USL but he still technically owns them). Rochester Rhinos are acquired by the USL (the trademarks for the Rhinos in USL's name were filed 12/31/2015, after Rob Clarke abandoned his ownership earlier in December). USL operated the team until the Dworkins finalized ownership. It's no different than the NASL operating the Silverbacks for 2015. In both cases the owner essentially walked way from the team and the league continued to operate the club instead of just letting it fold.
I was almost gonna be the one to say it, but just let it go. Thank you, however, for picking up the baton.
Where can I read more about the agreement between USL and the independent operators? I admit, I am probably missing some information but I have read from multiple sources that they cede ownership & branding to the league and rent it back off of them and this is how the USL makes money. From what you're saying, if Pittsburgh Pro Soccer LLC wanted out of the USL and to move to some other league, they could take the name, branding, U-23 team, players contracts, FO, stadium and all and join the APSL that it would happen smoothly and USL would just find another person to hold the license for Pittsburgh? The Rochester example was a different thread. Clarke -in everything I can find about the topic- wasn't paid money for the team. I realize he had huge debt problems and wanted to walk away, but I think its a different scenario than the Silverbacks where the owner simply didn't want to stay the the NASL anymore. Boris still holds the park, restaurant, and NPSL team, the Silverbacks were not insolvent and were purchased off of him by the league. The only similarity I can see between those two scenarios is that the leagues ran the team for a period of time.
If you've got sources, I'd love to see them. You're not going to find a copy of the current franchise agreement, though. You're also not likely to find an article outlining the agreement between USL and it's club owners because there is nothing there about which to write an article. It's a dull operational agreement. Just look at announcements, though, which always mentions owners or owner/operator instead of just operators or something similar. USL makes money off one time franchise fees and yearly participation fees. Just think about it though, why would someone pay the USL money to operate, but not own, a D3 team that's going to lose money? There's no upside. It just doesn't pass the smell test. If you want to take a look at an old USL Franchise Agreement, you can peruse this one from 1998. Obviously it's quite old now but it gives you an example of some general guidelines of how the franchise agreement system works. If the club left at the expiration of it's franchise agreement, there shouldn't be any issues moving to a new league. Plenty of teams have moved on from the PDL to other leagues with their branding and the USL/USL-1/USL-2 has had teams move to MLS, NASL, PDL, Puerto Rico Soccer League and other regional leagues throughout it's existence. Player contracts are a whole different kettle of fish, though, despite the fact that all player contracts are held by the team, not the league. It would be a question of if the contract they signed is still valid after moving to a new league, not whether the USL has claim to that contract (they don't). I suppose it is different but I'm not quite sure the NASL actually purchased anything from Jerkunica. He retained the name and branding, so what exactly would the NASL be paying for? The NASL owned the franchise rights (which would have been forfeited by Jerkunica) and they probably also acquired whatever player/front office contracts the Silverbacks had under contract for 2015 (which also isn't something the NASL would pay for). Jerkunica basically pulled out and retained the name and marks for the Silverbacks and leased them to NASL for 2015. Atlanta was propped up by the league, and Jerkunica was paid to lease things that he owned (name, branding, stadium) but the NASL never actually bought the Silverbacks from him. The fundamental difference is that Jerkunica was likely working with the NASL for a while anticipating that he'd not be operating the club next season while Clarke didn't inform the USL about not operating the club until sometime after December 1st (when he was told the league would be terminating the stadium lease for 2016). It's an important distinction to be made because in the Silverback's case, no contracts were broken, but in the Rochester case, contracts were broken which allowed the USL to step in and assume control. Assuredly both the NASL and USL have rights to step in an assume control of clubs whose owners bail mid-season or don't give proper notice. If Jerkunica told the NASL early December 2014 that he didn't intend to operate the club next year, you'd probably see something akin to what Rochester has done this season (though obviously Rochester found a buyer nearly immediately). The main point is, though I didn't articulate it, isn't that they're identical but that either scenario could happen in either league.
IIRC all of the above is true, but don't the franchise agreements place (or used to place) restrictions on the right of the trademark owners to use their trademark in another league without the USL's consent? At least for a specified period. It would be fairly standard procedure for these kinds of deals. There's also restrictions on the Riverhounds, say, jumping to the NASL and opening up shop as the Pittsburgh Dynamos or some such.
He obviously isn't. I'm not and I hate American football and college football most of all, and even I know what the SEC is. Edit: Maybe he's Canadian? Maybe "Canadian Ted" Cruz has found another bunch of brains to f*&k
There is an interesting dynamic right now because of two factors. We have soccer only fans with little to no understanding of other professional and amateur league setups in this country and Foreign fans that have the history and beliefs of their own country all giving their opinions on how our setup should look in the US. The flip side is we have soccer developing just like every other pro sport in the US and they don't understand why. It's fascinating right now in US Soccer.
It is. But there are two big differences between U.S.-soccer and the other big four pro team sports: the Open Cup and continental competition. Even in a no pro-rel environment soccer still here still has regular competitions where teams from different leagues compete against each other. There's some greater competitive integration of all the levels and leagues and with teams in foreign leagues. It's a great feature, and remains a unique selling point for lower division teams.
Continental competition can and will be carried by MLS...The CCL spot for the Open Cup is their to make MLS teams care about the competition and still most do not and casual fans don't care either. The open cup is kind of like College Football Bowl season...some neat match ups between leagues but it doesn't matter much.
Oh, I agree entirely. I just think that creates an interesting point of differentiation for the league as the top division: they're part of a global conversation in a way that (so far) the other's aren't. Again, I don't disagree. My point is that for fans of lower division teams it gives them an opportunity to see their team play against and host teams from higher divisions. Not being able to win doesn't make that participatory-effect irrelevant. My feeling is that as lower division teams continue to develop their own fan bases that effect will only increase, even if winning the Cup remains unlikely to the point of impossible. Yes, college football was the closest comparison I could come up with. The difference being that college teams play out of conference opponents as part of their regular season, so the opportunity itself is less novel.
Now don't take this to mean that I am anti independent at the minor league level, because I am not. I think that we are on our way to a minor league split pyramid. I don't think there will be two D1 leagues in this country or at least for very long. NASL moving to D1 would be signing their own death warrant similar to the USFL to the NFL. The only thing that will come out of NASL moving up will be an increase in salaries in MLS...which wouldn't be a bad thing...but will happen very soon any way IMO. As the similar that is with Liga MX to MLS and that will keep driving the numbers up. Here's what I think will happen to Minor League Soccer in this country. USL is about to get D2 and NASL will stay D2. This will split the pyramid. Not long after USL gets D2 you will see a group of the higher performing PDL sides join a new D3 league under the USL banner some are already pro in PDL. Similarly once NASL gets to 20 teams they will look to develop their pyramid as well and raise some NPSL teams up to that league. It will be fascinating to watch how it develops. On the MLS side of the pyramid I want the MLS team to have two affiliates similarly to the Houston/RGV setup within their region. From there I want those affiliates to have academies that count as part of the parent clubs homegrown territory. So you would have 1 MLS team/2 Affiliates/3 Academies. Once MLS gets to 32 teams that would be 96 pro teams and 96 Free to play high level Academies across the US and Canada. Let's put roster sizes at 25 players so that would be 2400 pro players underneath the MLS umbrella outside of independents. That's what I want to see on that side of the fence. Independents will be welcomed in this side of the pyramid as well but academy requirements would be lessened. The NASL can build how every they like completely separately.
There likely are some non-compete type clauses in this vein but I don't claim to have knowledge of any of the specifics.
The NPSL & PDL pro sides should be looking to collaborate to form either an extended season/tournament or another league all together. That is something some have been talking about ever since the PDL+ was first mentioned. I don't know if this could viably replace D3 in USA but it would be good as long as it had a lot of teams to keep the costs down and the regionality up. I do not think the NASL could nor should build their own pyramid with NPSL teams, I'd much rather see a 80-100 team league of semi pro sides across the country. IMO I'd like to see this sort of thing happen before the USL goes to D2. I also think if you expand the home grown territory of the MLS clubs it will hamper the independents across both pyramids you're describing. Maybe if a restriction on the number of MLS academies was in place this could help. Such a restriction would also keep the USOC interesting with more independents in action. I agree MLS will always dominate the cup, but it would be terribly drab if the lower level independents didn't have anything going for them; academies of their own, USMNT prospects, avid SG culture etc... To be the leader in development and number five in the big leagues, the MLS doesn't need to squeeze out the independents at all. Collaboration and integration would work better than the soccer warz we see between the former TOA and USL. They won't work together in the near future but it would be a lot cleaner and better. This maybe true, but it's irrelevant.
Honestly that is a lot of typing, but you lost all credibility when you didn't know the SEC. And if you don't know college sports in the US, you don't understand the sporting systems in the US and how they have each evolved over time to deal with the vast spaces here. Without understanding out how these sports got to where they are today, you honestly don't have any idea about how soccer will grow here. Best of luck to you.
Please stop using the word honestly like that, it doesn't suit you well. Knowledge of what the SEC as a league is not relevant to this discussion at all in any way shape or form. Knowing all things about college sports in the US doesn't equate to the ability to have idea about soccer in the US. I really fail to see the connection you make between these above and your assumption about my knowledge of sports in the US. Please do elaborate on that. Once again sawillis, you are assuming things about me that are not pertinent to the discussion at all.
Knowing how college sports evolved and the league structure that emerged of 300 or so independent Universities covering the vast space of the US has no bearing on this discussion? It is literally the closest mirror of your chosen method for the minor league set up in the US. You not seeing that is a credibility issue for yourself. So again, I don't think you understand US sports and why they are setup they way they are.
Knowing the name of a conference in that system is not relevant to this conversation nor credibility about this discussion. Again I said "knowing of all things...". Continue to strawman me all you like, it doesn't prove anything.
You are aware of the fact that the PDL and NPSL are largely amateur leagues right? That the teams in each consist of amateur (College players) players? This is why their seasons are what they are and cannot be extended.....if their seasons are extended they won't have any players, as their players have to return to their colleges.
Yes I am aware of that. I am talking about the non-NCAA compliant teams that consist of pro's which there are some in each league but not enough in either to form their own extended season/tournament.
But that's a small minority of either NPSL or PDL clubs. Why exactly are we discussing this in a NASL thread? There's places for this conversation and it isn't in the NASL forum.
The American model is familiar to MLS owners and they chose to team up with the USL, so it's possible that - in the long run - the independents will get some form of financial support for teams to be kept strong enough to to be competitive. It's unlikely IMO, since negotiating and managing that support will be a legal and administrative minefield. OTOH the (Continental) European structure allows X players - usually 3 - to be above a cut-off age - usually 23 - on the field and the rest are young prospects. The reserve squads of BL1 and (upper) BL2 teans are 25-28 strong, but more than 95% of them have only three over-23 players and maybe four 23 year-olds in their squads. The over-age players are usually lower-division lifers who never quite made the grade looking to get into coaching long-term. Players that don't fit either category hang around getting garbage minutes until the window opens and they can go out on loan. Since club and player are the ones looking for help, the usual 50-50 split on wages doesn't always apply, and the D1 club picks up up anything from 60% to 100% of the wages, which is another form of financial support. This structure is more likely to be adopted because it's simpler and easier to organize and implement. "Player's Birth Certificate or passport please. He's under 23 at the start of the season? OK, he can play for your reserve team until the transfer window opens again." And then you're done. I'd say that - for once - the European model should be adopted without much adaptation.
Like everything else there will be some sort of a hybrid model in place. http://www.transfermarkt.com/jumplist/startseite/wettbewerb/USL According to this the youngest teams in USL are all the 2 teams. Now the age issue won't be as low as in Europe due to roster restrictions on the first team. So there will be what would be some first team squad players that stick around on the 2 team as potential depth options, similar to the MLB AAA teams. I am watching RGV to see if any player movement happens this season to check to see how Houston is using them. Now I have said before, I am not anti independent but I am not necessarily pro independent either and would be perfectly fine with a multi tiered farm system moving players up through the ranks.