Difference is that USL is adding multiple franchises a year at D2 Ownership standards while NASL is struggling to find groups. Right now minor league soccer is snow balling for USL. Independents moving into markets that NASL should be trying to get while NASL is putting teams in MLS markets. Its only a matter of time before the event horizon is passed for NASL IMO. USL getting D2 and NASL being denied D1 would remove any advantage that NASL might have.
I guess adding 3 teams this year, with 1 already announced for next year and will most likely be joined by at least one other team is struggling to find groups.
I agree. MLS needed a bridge from the Academy and the 1st team. There will be turnover on the MLS2 teams because as soon as a team figures out if a player has a future on the MLS team (or doesn't) they will act quickly, resulting in a high turnover. I don't think there is going to be an issue with MLS2 teams locking players into a bad situation for 2-3 years. That's investment years that they don't want to spend money on and spots on the roster to find their next great MLS player are somewhat limited. They'll likely move on from players quickly IMO. Each team will be different, but if they're making the investment into having a full MLS2 team, they aren't going to waste that investment with players rotting on the bench for 2-3 years. They'll cut them loose quickly IMO. And I don't think an MLS team will be able to hide players that they do plan to keep for years on the USL roster, stunting/delaying their development just to "hoard" players either. Other MLS and non MLS teams will contact the agents and the player/agent will find a way to get to the MLS or into another situation IMO.
I forgot about draft picks, but the point I wanted to focus on was the high turnover rate year after year. Out of those 11 (or less without including picks) how many were resigned from last year? This is the kind of typical turnover I am referring to, it's hard to say it was due to his time at LA II specifically. If an MLS team wanted a player that fit their financial structure they'll get the best available to them. This includes input from their scouting, coaching and management. Steres being at the right place at the right time isn't really a good example of how this system is supposed to benefit US soccer. I wonder if that 24 year old academy grad on RB2 will stick around after next year? I agree the system is better than it was. I don't necessarily think its the best to alleviate the problem you address. There are other options and some of them are working elsewhere. The hybrid system is good, but not ideal, it is ad hoc to bandaid the problems at hand. I was aware of the RSL facility plan but doubtful that what they currently had was world class. Glad we cleared up the other stuff. RE: Europe vs USA for development path I would say Europe has more of an upside at this moment, particularly in the agency of the players own development. However, I do agree with you it may depend on the individual, and then it just devolves into what if's...
They are struggling to find groups or SF wouldn't come in by themselves. 40% of the teams wouldn't be in Florida and the Caribbean. Live in denial if you want to, but SF was a desperation move for a west coast team that had to happen because they weren't even within standards of US Soccer's D2 standards. They are lawyering up right now to try to sue for D1 status. That will fail and with it will be the one carrot that keeps some teams in that league...NASL as a first division. Without that all that is left is that NASL is the 3rd best run pro league in the US. It makes sense that without D1 Indy may look to move into a league with regional games they can sell out. The same can be said for Carolina. That is more likely...much more likely than 17 independents leaving USL. That isn't going to happen. All signs point to ownership being thrilled. Remove the D1 saber rattling and things change for NASL. USL may be at 40 teams by then with a better product on the field.
@Blando13 I hope you're opinion is right. I think the idea of leagues jumping in status risks losing the bridges necessary to further the growth of the sport. The pyramid isn't as established here as elsewhere and is relatively young. I don't want to discuss pro/rel but down the line (a decade or so) when everything is more stable I would not be opposed to a hybrid D2 that included reserve teams. The current balance and posturing of these leagues is a bit worrisome to me and I don't want to see the MLS take over. Not because I think MLS is evil, rather because it's still unclear to me whether or not what they're doing is best for NA soccer. We don't see the finances of any teams (in any leagues) here and can only assume/speculate on their financial health based on the ownership groups value and what little information we can gather from the media. Big four leagues in NA lose money and relocate too, lockouts can ruin hinder leagues for years; I don't know if soccer could recover quickly from that here in NA until there is a lot more independent teams in various markets across the continent.
Carrot in the USL is the dream of the MLS. You even buy that one and think that SAFC left the NASL for the USL to get into the MLS. You are the same sabre rattler you are negatively referring too. My point about the 17 or less teams leaving was meant to be demonstrative of how odd what you are thinking about seems to me. Why are you beating the drum of the soccer wars of the past? One thing that is not going to happen is all the independent teams in the USL being able to sustain competition financially against MLS2 sides. I get you dream for the Indy 11 to join the USL but no team from either league has moved from one to another to date. The potential is there but it has not happened. Aside from the Cosmos and the Rowdies, I don't think any ownership group in the NASL is sabre rattling for the league as a whole to move up either. Remove the D2 sabre rattling and things change for the USL. NASL may be at 20 teams and financially better able to compete with USL independent clubs.
I completely agree. Different approach's and different ideas is what makes this country great, and potentially this "Soccer Pyramid" the way it currently is ... IDEAL for the US. I don't think one way to do it is better than the others ... it's great that we could be getting a bit of the benefits of having multiple options. Also, I think the "teams losing money and relocating" thing is too big of a deal. You can own a MLB team, lose $5M a year for 10 years but if the value of the club increases by $100M over that 10 years (not unreasonable) then you made $50M on your "hobby". Not a bad return! Year to year profits tell me nothing about most NA teams. D3 soccer is different, those teams value's don't grow that rapidly and the owners aren't as well financed, so the year to year is important, but it's not the only thing.
I honestly don't know what changes if both NASL and USL are designated "D2" by the USSF than what is done now? What changes? I don't think it hurts NASL ... it may help USL get more corporate sponsors ... I just don't really think it's much of anything ... except for on BIGSOCCER ... it's a big deal here.
@Blando13 This is true, the big four are light years ahead of soccer. A relocation of an MLS franchise would sting the soccer fans a lot more, as would a lock-out with no alternative options. IMO the worst would be a combo of the two and one or more teams folding in the aftermath. That's just way too Cassandra though.
Attendance figures don't bear that out. In cities with independent USL teams, interest in games isn't any lower when the visitor is a MLS2 team. As a matter of fact, in Sacramento it's the games against Galaxy II that sell out fastest. Dramatic playoff encounters in consecutive years, plus the NorCal vs SoCal aspect of it, assure that.
MLS had a reserve league, but most teams did not take it seriously (tv annoncers being allowed to play and all) the increased profesionalism is what helped, dropping the reserve league for B teams in USL makes sense economically, teams that set it up profesionally will benefit the most.
I don't dream for any team to move anywhere. I don't care enough for that. The point is that in NASL you have 5 teams in Florida or further south. From there you have 8 teams scattered over North America. Attendance in Indy is great, but every where else it is down (Not counting Minnesota due to them leaving). NASL right now has a problem and that problem is that the other minor league is figuring a lot of this stuff out. They also are more cash rich due to the numerous $3-$5 Million expansion fees that have filled their coffers and they are investing in the league. NASL has to battle out of this rut they are in right now and fairly quickly or USL will move past them. That's just the reality of sports and business in this country. So with all of the factors above it causes two big problems for NASL. First the lack of financial health of the organizations as a whole leads to less money being spent on development and infrastructure. The longer this goes on, the league will continue to be a consumer league at the mercy of buying players. Second this push for D1 will cause them to overspend on 40 year old players in hopes of a name bump for an unnecessary push. Maybe they pull a rabbit out of the hat, but right now their owners are losing money.
"If you are fed up with US Soccer and MLS (or anything connected to either), you can finally enjoy an American soccer league on TV that’s more your style. So it’s up to us to decide. The NASL has made bounding strides towards competing with MLS this year. Ask yourself, are you happy with US Soccer? If you’re like me and you just can’t say that you’re happy, look into the darkness of our system and stoke these growing flames. Find a team to support. Learn the schedule. Watch the games. Realize that your interest can shape the future of American soccer and, together, let’s invest in a better American system." Call to action issued, no one answers: Miami vs Jacksonville NASL draws 4K viewers on beIN These people think they are some sort of "silent majority" of American soccer fans disgruntled with MLS, but in reality...
If this is your opinion I do not think you are very knowledgeable of the situation. Like I said they added three teams this year in OKC, Miami, and PR. They are adding SF next year, and most likely Chicago. Las Vegas almost had a team, but the NASL told them no for whatever reason. That does not sound like a league that is desperate. Sending one strongly worded letter last year is hardly "lawyering" up to sue for D1 status.
What I'm talking about has nothing to do with attendance figures, at all. What I said is: USL independents will not be able to sustain both their competitiveness and their independence. Aside from the groups behind teams in serious consideration to goto MLS (FCC, SRFC, SSE) the rest of the independents in the USL do not have the financial capacity to compete with the MLS2 teams. A cost-benefit analysis of moving the whole league to D2 does not effect the MLS2 teams at all, however I think it may seriously effect certain USL independent teams in a negative manner.
I don't think so...There is more there than you realize. The independents in USL would be better positioned from USL because they get a break in travel and greater access to subsidized loans from the top flight. That will leave more salary budget for the player pool. All owners that have come into USL during this boom are at the same standard as is required for NASL. As a D3 league they didn't have to do that, but they are anyway.
USL & MLS combined only have one market in Florida, which explains the inverse relationship in distribution. When the USL had multiple teams in PR and the caribbean and the NASL only had 1 it was not a death sentence for one league or the other. It's just like when you play monopoly and someone gets one corner and your scattered all over. That being said Florida is not a good sports market anyway. Since when is the expansion fee to the USL $3-5 million? I don't place as much importance on attendance as you do but to be fair should we not count the attendance in the USL teams that have stated they are going to the MLS? From what I know, no independent team in the USL is building their own stadium except SRFC. SSE is renovating the one they bought from an NASL ownership group that built it, but their financial health has nothing to do with expansion fee distribution either. There are more than a few teams in the USL who are not financially healthy at all. The only part of the USL I see maintaining consumerism is the MLS2 teams and the USL independents who came to the league with big coffers starting out. Again why are you beating this drum of league wars?
Yes, it costs more to play at D2, thats why the ownership groups (Aside from the aforementioned 3) in D2 are bigger and better than the ones in D3. Player loans are not significant enough to make or break a salary budget as an independent USL owner, also NASL gets player loans as well. New owners being vetted to meet D2 standards only means that the USL will have a more difficult time finding investors to expand its league.
This has been happening through out the this whole expansion boom for USL. They are finding them at a significantly better rate than NASL right now. Even a place like Reno is owned by the owner of the Indiana Pacers. Ownership is not an issue in USL.
Expansion boom of D2 ready owners?? Where last year 2 out of the 5 new teams were independents and both of those 2 are gunning for the MLS? Or the year prior where 5 out of the 13 expansion sides were independent. Of those 5 independents 2 of them do not meet the stadium requirement for D2 and one will likely goto MLS. That's a total of 7 independents in the last two years. Lets take out Austin (just because its not relevant to this right now), SAFC, FCC and Saint Louis your left with 3 new independent teams in the last 2 years. Of those; Colorado and Charlotte didn't enter the USL meeting the D2 requirements on stadium criteria alone. So 1 possible independent expansion (Tulsa) who meets D2 criteria -without delving into the financials- in the expansion boom you are referring too. ^This means that your statement: Is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Yes, the boom of MLS2 teams meets the D2 requirements, and the USL didn't need to do that... Of course not! The "boom" of USL independent teams that meet D2 is not because the USL "didn't have to do that but are anyway" is because those teams are run by huge ownership groups gunning for the MLS. Not because the USL is vetting groups who only meet D2. And good for Reno, I really hope they succeed. If anyone thinks the Pacers being behind them is for MLS aspirations then they're fooling themselves. It probably is just a real estate play to set up and sell the ready made MLS2 team for SRFC.
Simon also owns the Reno AA baseball team. The soccer team fills more dates for the stadium to be used.