That is not accurate. The MLS Sounders were very much the successor to the USL Sounders, it was only the name that was going to be different (thankfully even that got reversed). The owner of the USL Sounders was the person who put together the ownership group that got the franchise. He was a minority owner of the MLS Sounders until last year when he became majority owner. He was also the GM of the USL Sounders and was GM of the MLS Sounders until a year and half ago when Garth Lagerway was brought in. The head coach of the USL Sounders was the assistant coach of the MLS Sounders until a couple months ago when he became intern head coach. The technical director of the USL Sounders was and is the technical director of the MLS Sounders. While the whole squad didn't move up, 1/3rd of the 2008 USL Sounders became 2009 MLS Sounders. Even if they had gone through with the 'fresh start' name change the 2009 Seattle MLS team would have been a successor to the 2008 Seattle USL team.
What does this mean in reality though? What tangible benefit does this 'more control' confer to an ownership group?
Put another way, I've been trying to fill in this blank today: If I were going to invest in a professional lower division club I would invest in the NASL over the USL because ________. So far I have: Cannot get USL rights for city of choice. Nostalgia. Not understanding American soccer landscape and/or hung up on DII v DIII designation. Don't like USL leadership/structure. What are the other ones? Once we have the list then we can then break them down and see how valid/important/real each is.
Believe in the Cosmos/Peterson division of building a competing D1 that doesn't require buying into the MLS business structure. I'm not saying it's a good reason, but if they could find six to eight more investors who believe in it... The real problem is that it is forcing out the other owners who were merely interested in building a good D2 league.
If all the owners who have bought into NASL were as bankrolled and concerned with winning at any cost as the Miami and Cosmos ownerships, NASL would be in good shape. The problem is that the other owners meet at best only one of those criteria. The other owners seem a better fit for USL as it exists now. MLS is where ownership groups go that have big money and want a safety net below them and a high ceiling above. NASL is where owners should be going that have good to big money and want full control over everything with no safety net and no ceiling. USL is where ownership groups with varying amounts of money should go to take risks that vary with the money they have available, but in which costs are lower. The floor and ceiling is whatever the ownership wants it to be.
It looks like they have at least temporarily backed off that drive: The NASL has argued that being labeled ‘second division’ has hampered its ability to attract fans, sponsors and the political support required for venue upgrades. It threatened antitrust litigation last year, but in an interview this week NASL commissioner Bill Peterson told SI.com that the league no longer is considering legal action. “We took a decision over the winter that we wanted to step back and try to re-engage with U.S. Soccer and discuss the [sanctioning] standards and where we fit in and our feelings about them … in a more productive manner than pulling the trigger on any sort of legal activities. And that’s what we’ve been doing,” Peterson said. “It’s incredibly important that the Federation and the NASL have a positive relationship because there are so many different aspects and facets to the game. It doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything, but it does mean we have a partnership … [A lawsuit is] not looming there as a threat, and it's not something we want to do.” http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/201...tawa-fury-tampa-bay-rowdies-usl-bill-peterson SF Delta's owner on the goal of the NASL League Summit: "Our focus will be on the future path and how we can do what is best for fans, players, and the sport in the US in general. We want to do it in a collaborative way with the USSF, MLS, and USL. In my humble opinion, we all love this sport and there are lots of opportunities to collaborate. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...-hand-nasl-timely-boost-by-reaffirming-commi/
I didn't say the USL has a ceiling. Certainly Cincinnati is proving that they don't see one. However, Harrisburg, Charleston, Arizona, and the like have a ceiling dictated by the finances of the owners. Cincinnati can aim big because they have a billionaire owner. Harrisburg et al. have self-imposed limits because of their finances. Yet both can work in USL because there are travel cost controls and no one trying to outspend on overpriced players so they can win a championship.
You said the NASL was the place for an owner who wanted to operate without a ceiling. If the USL also doesn't have a ceiling how is it a differentiating feature of the NASL?
I read that narrowly in reference to the threat of litigation and relations with the USSF, not necessarily "ambition." My gut says they're still selling a sales pitch of "no salary cap, you own the players' registrations, can be as big as you want, clearly superior business model, global brands, blah, blah, blah" to potential investors. Particularly foreign investors who may fall into the first part of your fourth rationale above. Edit: For clarity:
I said NASL should be the place for the types of ownership groups I described. Right now it isn't, which is a reason NASL is in the state it is in. In the NASL you can spend whatever you want to achieve whatever you want on the field. If you want to spend millions of dollars on transfer fees and salaries for washed up MLS players or foreign players to win a championship, you can do that. That doesn't happen in USL (presumably because of NuRock's USL rules and the USL players CBA). NASL is a bunch of almost completely independent teams teams playing in a league of convenience. USL teams play in a league where the rules are set forth by the owners of that league (NuRock).
That doesn't happen in USL (presumably because of NuRock's USL rules and the USL players CBA). Do we have any evidence of this? Or just supposition?
That is also a reasonable read. Maybe I am overestimating NASL leadership but I read it as commitment to solidify the league in DII instead of fighting for DI.
Ooo! I love this argument. It's super nit-picky. But nits are meant to be picked, are they not? The 2010 Timbers and the 2011 Timbers? Not the same franchise. It's best demonstrated by Orlando City - they moved the old Orlando City to Louisville. For demonstration purposes, assume they don't move, you have Orlando City MLS and Orlando City USL. Different teams. Different franchises. Same brand. And that ownership group really tried to distance themselves from the Sounders name until popular support came in. Real Salt Lake aren't the successor of the Utah Blitzz. In practice, given the most successful minor league teams by the attendance metric play in USL, not a whole lot, apparently.
Now it could be as many as 6 teams home in the offseason. These rumors don't seem to be getting better. Constantly having to replace teams that leave is not a way to build stability. Spoke to 3 well-placed sources re: #NASL fiascoBad news: Range of 3-6 current teams exploring exit.Good news: Same # trying to get in (1)— Nipun Chopra, PhD (@NipunChopra7) September 28, 2016
How many times have we heard about NASL teams coming in that never panned out? Hartford, Virginia, LA, LA, LA, LA oh and LA.
And how many are/would still be interested if there is a mass exodus out of NASL this offseason? One has to think that if there a multiple teams going under/switching leagues, it is going to scare away potential investors.
I don't see why any new team unless they were already too far along to back out would invest in NASL now. 3 to 6 teams might leave out of 12 teams. Plus Minnesota is leaving for sure. Looks about as risky as investing in a coal mine right about now.
1) NASL is a league of independent clubs as opposed to USL being MLS's minor/development league mostly filled with farm clubs or affiliates. 2) NASL has a higher ambition of future D1 sanctioning (which I don't think they're recent statements have disavowed) whereas Usl's locked into their being MLS's minor league and they're future aspirations stop at D2 if they can someday achieve it and move up from D3. 3) Profile & Media : NASL has a higher profile and quality of play than USL. Media deals for the NASL include 3 National TV deals (CBS, beIN Sports, OWS), 1 international TV deal (Miami FC), and all NASL clubs have local TV deals. ESPN3 is streaming many NASL games as well. USL has no National TV deals and only a small hand full (5-6) of clubs have local TV deals. Recently this summer USL gained the ESPN3 streaming for a select few games. I think the types of league's the NASL & USL are as I've outlined above and what the potential expansion groups vision for its own club is will determine what league it feels it fits better in most cases.
From the NASL only one. The only one announced from NASL that was accepted but didn't come to fruition was the Virginia Calvary.
They actually got that one up and running tho. May wish they hadn't, but Rayo OKC does have a season under its belt.