I am not a routine visitor here, so if I bring something up that's been discussed before please don't flame me. Reading Garber's comments on St. Louis has left me wondering, is MLS getting too cocky? My thinking is this. MLS is demanding these huge franchise fees, for starters. What if, say if NYC investors and investors in another high population major media city said to MLS screw you, we're building a stadium, we'll give the USL it's $500,000 franchise fee, and use the $39,500,000 we save on payroll to build a couple of USL super clubs. A couple of high profile super clubs can raise the profile of USL and enable it to compete with MLS, maybe???? Do you think that this model could pose a challenge to MLS?
MLS has locked-in sponsorship and TV money that would make it pretty difficult for USL teams to be profitable in head-to-head war. Not to mention the issue of starting up teams in big cities; MLS has most of those now or is trying to expand there. I really doubt what would be pretty similar to the CART-IRL war, which nearly killed both of those circuits, would turn out better for American soccer. Plus I doubt the USSF would let it get there. MLS is statutorily considered the "Division 1" league by the USSF. IMO, even if MLS/SUM didn't have close ties to the sanctioning body through player development and handling a lot of the MNT/WNT's marketing/media rights, US Soccer could hurt a rival league through economic pressure, such as effectively preventing that competitor's US teams from claiming spots in the CONCACAF Champions League .
I know MLS is considered division 1, but how is that and what does it mean. Does the USSF make that determination, FIFA, or who???
Is MLS too cocky? There's a million ways to answer this and on any given day my opinion may differ. But in terms of the perimeters you mentioned, no I don't think so. Is $40 million a huge asking price? On the surface one would think so but we never know publically, at least to my knowledge, what, how, or why $40 million is the figure. I guess there are legit reasons. I'd actually like to know how that money breaks down. I'm sure it covers everything from franchising rights to some type of insurance. There's is no stopping investors from saying "screw you MLS and the your $40 million I'll save money and start a USL franchise". However, historically speaking there's higher profitability and stability in MLS franchise. That's why potential investors want an MLS franchise. Of course there are exceptions in the USL like Montreal, Portland, old Seattle, and Vancouver, and it's no surprise these clubs and investors want a piece of the MLS pie. You could theoretically build a "super club" in the USL based on their franchise set-up but would it really happen? Probably not because it would be hard to promote such a club because the league dosen't have the same revenue from TV rights, the exposure, and the quality to compete on a regular basis with MLS. I like the USL, always have and support it, but there are many reasons it is not on the level with MLS. I'm just hoping, fingers crossed, at some pint USL and MLS can join forces and create a true 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Division system. Of course without promotion and relegation (though I'd love to see it) because it simply wouldn't work and jive with the landscape of American sports.
I believe it is the USSF who makes that determination. Having the number of applicants MLS currently has for two expansion bids is a good problem to have. It is like if you are selling a house, and you have six active bidders trying to buy the house. If you are the seller, you don't have to accept the first bid, you accept the best bid. MLS is in a position where it can be "picky" about who they award franchises to. As far as dumping money into USL, sure, someone can do that. However, the return on investment is probably not worth the risk, or else it would have already been done. The Sounders have already made the jump from USL to MLS, and Montreal, Vancouver, and Portland are/were bidding to do the same. If I were someone who owned a USL team I'd be quite nervous about the value of my team.
I'm not sure how "picky" MLS can be at this point given the economic downturn. Montreal? Gone. Atlanta? Gone. Ottawa? Hard to take such a small (Canadian) town seriously (no offense Ottawans). St. Louis? Still don't have a sufficient enough capital base from what Garber seemed to imply just the other day. Barca/Miami? How to work around the Barca player development issues just to name one issue; plus there's the stadium. Portland? Probably has as good as chance as any, but still walking a tightrope with the City Fathers/Mothers. I can imagine the $40M price tag coming down in teh same way deflation may be effecting all assets throughout our society. Basically I'm saying I'm not completely convinced MLS can be as picky as they seemed they could be just a short 6 months ago.
I don't think the Division 1 designation is that big a deal or much of an impediment -- FIFA doesn't regulate what the teams spend on payroll. Without promotion and relegation, the designation matters even less in the US, especially if, as you say, a USL premier division with a couple super clubs was formed. But honestly I think for now that question has been asked and answered. It would be very difficult for the USL to pull this off, even with a couple disgruntled billionaires who wanted to try. Just think about the investment in stadiums and the difficulty in getting them built in urban areas where MLS has a billion dollar head start. The only possibility I could see -- and I stress possibility because I think it's very remote -- is for a group of big foreign teams who, I suspect, have never liked the single entity restrictions to essentially take over USL and form an elite division. If you could get Club America in Houston in partnership with Bob McNair, Boca in New York or LA, Barca (if MLS doesn't take them), flip Chivas from MLS and put them in Chicago (where they might perhaps avoid any non-complete), you have Pachuca in Florida. Get four or five clubs to make the investment, and the stadium investment that would follow, let them run academies that can feed the parent clubs, and have them fund payrolls that, while they are feeder teams, would still be much larger than MLS, and you might have the makings of a serious competitor. That's a lot of "ifs" though. But for a disgruntled owner or two, I think they would hemorrhage money.
No the owners are not even in the same league as the current owners. nor do they have the resources to compete. The USL as much as I have enjoyed here in Seattle is perceived as minor leauge. Also, FIFA as deemed MLS as the only First Division League in the US Cocky? No. Having smart business savvy during the worst recession in our lifetime? Yes. It is not enough to have the money to get in and build a stadium. One has to have a sustainable business model and the finacial resources and have the ability to keep a business running when there is an economic downturn. MLS is not just looking for a team that can pay the bills but sustainable growth. Owners that do not have the re$ources to go for the long haul are not the most desirable to the other owners that have a lot of skin in the game and have already invested millions of dollars. It has nothing to do with Ego. It is about business and sustainable business growth.
Exactly. They are more than willing to wait if they didn't like the bids, especially with the economy being what it is. The fact that they are going to announce two clubs and grow in this climate is not being cocky but being confident. Cocky, is not how MLS was able to survive and grow. Being savvy and having the right folks involved is.
There have been "second leagues" in other US sports - AFL, WHL, WBA, USFL, etc. - so it can be done. The key for the "second league" is the TV/media partnership. If someone like Versus or FSC is willing to partner up with the investors, there's no reasons why this shouldn't work. The league would probably have to play in the American football stadia but, if it's wiling to play reasonable quality soccer, it can certainly be an alternative. For example, one could try the Southern (Atlanta, Miami, Tampa, Charlotte, Birmingham) and Southwestern (Phoenix, San Diego, Las Vegas, San Antonio) cities, as well as those with an indoor arena (St. Louis, Detroit, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, New Orleans) without any city overlap with MLS.
I think the "huge asking price" is one way to make sure that the owners have access to cash and ongoing deep pockets, unlike the ownership group of the NASL, which quickly ran out of money. I say keep the entry fees high to weed out the posers.
TV might not be that hard to come by. Should FSC lose the EPL to ESPN, for example, they would probably look for more content. If Mexican clubs were involved, Univision or another Spanish outlet might also be persuaded. In the current fragmented world of niche channels, I think their prospects might be pretty good. But the relative dollars TV wouldn't be huge, at least at first. Like MLS, they would need to put people in the seats to survive, and it seems unlikely they can be any more profitable than MLS teams were if they are rattling around in NFL stadiums, paying very high rent for the privilege. On the premise of the thread, that MLS is somehow being greedy or unreasonable with regard to expansion, I don't think so. Expansion should be hard, IMO, if MLS hopes to both increase its footprint and strengthen the league. The idea is to add teams that are comparable to the strongest markets, not the weakest. By making it tough, in the end I think the candidates will effectively pick themselves and those who survive the process will be be credible additions to the league. Those passed over, I suspect, won't have the same financial strength or commitment to stadium solutions, which doesn't make them ideal candidates for starting a new, even riskier venture in a competing league either. Would you build a league around guys like Saputo?
Great question and definitely the answer is YES! Forget MLS and bring the money over to the USL!! Invest that money into the teams, infrastructure and salaries. Bring the quality of play up to par with other leagues in the Americas and I would say you would have a bonafide hit from the start. Team up with clubs from other countries that now how to run soccer organizations and now you can compete worldwide for players, and cups! Bring it on.
good conversation, good information. Does someone have a link for which entity actually has designated MLS division 1?
I agree with your points about MLS, but honestly you probably could build a league around guys like Saputo (and teams like the Impact)--if you had enough of them.* Saputo believes the extent to which he's built up the club so far means it brings something to a 'merger' that another club starting from scratch wouldn't. In another business context, he'd have a point. But as a club in a soccer league, he's kind of limited in his potential by what his colleagues can pull off. Also, an inter-league war is expensive and always has an uncertain outcome, and if he wanted security the simple thing to do would be to pay MLS's fee for it. * (In 2009, that is, and based on the progress that soccer and MLS have made already. In 1996, not a chance.)
Hmm. I don't know. It would be old--in fact, so old that technically MLS's guaranteed right to be the only Division I league has, IIRC, expired. I believe the exclusivity USSF granted to MLS as the only Division I league was only for 5 years. I believe a new league could apply to also hold that status, but I don't know what the criteria would be to achieve it.
FSC still is tied to MLS in prime time but Versus isn't. Except Versus may want more than 30,000 eyeballs (or 60,000 eyeballs, if you prorate) on a Saturday night. Right. I thnk you mean (must mean) Telemundo, because they want to stick it to MLS/ESPN. Correct. There are no guarantees that it will work. However, the North American Football League could choose a different model, essentially the type you and I favor for MLS, ~ $5,000,000 salary caps, greater independence of franchises on rosters and transfers and an emphasis on attacking football. Get well-to-do Mexican clubs, some Euro clubs interested in selling shirts in the US, some well-heeled individuals and corporations and give it a shot. The only thing is that the Saputo-Impact is the "old" MLS business model - low cap, small stadiums, out of the way franchises. There could be - there's doubt, to be sure - a more feasible model somewhere in between the cheapskate Kraft and Kroenke on one end and and ManCity's on another's. Given the ever growing supply of the semi-capable NCAA players and the market prices of Central and South Americans, one can build pretty decent squads for $3-$5M, the one that would blow your average MLS team out of the water. Of course, then the most important question will still remain - will the American public buy it? They just may.
At the end of an informative, interesting thread, comes an ESC doofis. No surprise there. Enjoy shilling for your energy drink with a soccer team on the side.
There are published standards, but I can't find them. The only parts I remember are a minimum of 8 teams, and teams in either 3 different time zones or in the 2 coastal time zones. That's not all there is to it, though. I assume the 8 team thing is why I haven't heard anything about WPS having Division 1 status. The WUSA was official designated a Division 1 league. A league doesn't have to have any "division" status. It can just be a league sanctioned by the USSF.
True enough, but he now seems motivated to tweak MLS as much as anything at this point, which doesn't exactly make him Anschutz material IMO. And that's the problem any new league would face if it relied only on the disaffected -- often they were rejected for a reason. As for the team and the stadium, yes I agree, there is nothing wrong with that structure.
I was thinking about the mythic "standard" the other day watching an InterLiga rerun, and I'd take Pachuca. They play attractive, well organized soccer IMO. It's clearly a higher standard, but not so much higher that MLS teams couldn't achieve it with a bit more to spend. Organizationally they also seem well run: They do a good job at developing youth. They are well coached. They don't have huge attendance, but they do utilize a newer, modern stadium. To me, they represent a good benchmark.