Unless, they can get more money in their pockets, from the big and powerful boys as well. (fact is, they don't really care from where the money comes, as long as it keeps on flowing.....)
I've never ever wanted to see a soccer team in the US dissappear after the decades I have been through, but... ....I would be all for a Cosmos flag burning and Silva tar and feathering at this point. Hope the teams die, get buried, and become the joke they truly are. In the words of the immortal master.....I hope they die in a fire.
I never want a team to die in a place where there is no other soccer option. Cosmos fans have plenty to choose from when the team collapses.
I still think you are wildly overstating the danger here from FIFA. The U.S. government is not involved in this case at all, other than it being heard in federal court. Civil suits are heard all the time time invoking federal laws and regulations that having nothing to do with the involvement of the U.S. government. Even if the NASL wins there might not be any government involvement depending on what the USSF does in response. Just because an organization loses a civil case in federal court because a judge thinks they are violating federal law still doesn't mean that the government would get involved. Does the existence of the federal anti-trust statutes automatically make the USSF run afoul of FIFA? I don't think so. FIFA only gets involved if the government uses those statutes against the USSF. Has that happened? Has the U.S. government interfered in any way with FIFA or the USSF? No.
The minimum seems to be 15,000 in the top 4 European leagues. FC Crotone in Serie A played 400 miles from home while their stadium was being upgraded. Eibar, CD Leganes and Bournemouth were given conditional approval by their leagues. Eibar are employing Portlandesque ingenuity in building upper decks overhanging the streets. Carpi played one season in Serie A in a 4,144 capacity stadium. I'm not sure what would have happened if they hadn't been relegated.
I loved it. But it also lost a ton of money through self-inflicted wounds, so there are similarities.
This article has been updated: Understand @FCEdmontonNow were not part of voting process. Found out about litigation via a phone call. https://t.co/295gnaUEzs— Nipun Chopra, PhD (@NipunChopra7) September 20, 2017 I'm guessing meeting the other ownership with CPL last week confirmed that FC Edmonton already checked out and NASL didn't like that it went public
People can just do that now. People have always been able to do that. I have never understood why people who claim to like soccer don't just go and watch soccer. You can remove the labels if you like. But all I have been hearing for years is that MLS is crap compared to "real" leagues that the cognoscenti watch on television. Stands to reason that even without labels, those type of folks would be able to tell if a league had second-rate players playing for second-rate coaches in second-rate stadiums in second-rate markets, regardless of any label. And that sort of thing is okay with people who, you know, kind of like the experience of going to see their local team if second-rate is still pretty decent and it's not a Cincinnati Saints situation.
What you say over the issue is comprehensible, and basicly correct, but to FIFA it really doesn't matter. If they believe there is government or external interference with calls that affect their interests, they'll simply ban you and only allow you back in, after your ban time has finished or after you take the case to the CAS (court of arbitration of sports), whom decide that FIFA are legally wrong in doing so. And for the case, even the negative publicity, that comes from cases as this one, is a direct blow over FIFA's interests. Specially considering that their current image and reputation, is not preciselly at the top for those considered to be honest in any way. Besides, not doing anything over it, sends a very poor message to everyone else, whenever they want to exercise a ban over similar issues to others (which in fact, they have, in the past).
I think there is something to be said for having the "major league" status in the USA. Obviously more people are watching Atlanta United than ever watched the Silverbacks. Same is true in pretty much every city where a team existed in the NASL, USL, or any other leagues. I know personally I only went to a couple Sounders games in A League/USL days. I got season tickets right away for MLS. Even back in 2009 it was obvious the level of play was better and the growth was going to be in MLS. In USL 2008, I got to watch Macoumba Kandje, Cristian Arrieta, Bill Gaudette, and Jonathan Steele (who was MVP). In 2009 MLS I got Kasey Keller, Landon Donovan, Brian McBride, Dwayne DeRosario, Claudio Lopez, Guillermo Barros Schelotto, Juan Pablo Angel, David Beckham, Temoc Blanco, and Freddie Ljunberg. That, to me, is why there were around 3,200 people at Sounders games for years, and 30,500 or more starting in 2009. I get it. I didn't care much about the NFL until the Seahawks were invented back in 76 either.
So the major league label came with a massive difference in investment and dare I say higher expectation and standards. If the NASL was serious, then it could have gone a similar route, rented met life stadium and other big venues in other markets and spent big on teams, ignoring the label. It didn't.
I would just go back and look at the USFL's suit of the NFL. The court ruled against the NFL, the USFL got a check and then folded. This means nothing.
Well, sure. The experience is better, for the most part. The Silverbacks played in a never-quite-finished little place in DeKalb that (IIRC) was short on amenities. "Major league" teams HAVE to provide a major league experience because they're competing with other high-quality entertainment options. And you can't survive anymore without doing that because a good overall experience (from the time you arrive until you leave) is no longer a luxury. Fans have become more likely to expect that they won't have to deal with splinters anymore. Also, you know, all the teams that have moved up to MLS have spent shit-tons more on sales and marketing and staff and have upgraded their infrastructure. I don't discount that playing in the top league helps as well, that's obvious. But my point is that even with or without labels, there is nothing - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - stopping a team in a lower division (as long as we currently have divisions) from providing a top-quality experience. Sacramento does it. Cincinnati does it. Why didn't Fort Lauderdale do it? And why can't someone just go and enjoy the experience now? I just took issue with the idea that you'd have to remove the labels for someone to go enjoy live soccer in their backyard. You can do that now. You've always been able to do that. It's become a better overall experience in the last several years, granted. But when Arizona United SC was bouncing between baseball stadiums on opposite sides of the Valley, my son and I would go to maybe two games a year. Now that Phoenix Rising have their own yard and better amenities and the ownership actually spends money on things and they do things in a much more close-to-major-league manner, they're far more worth it to go to now and we have gone to four or five games and will probably get to another before the season's out and maybe the playoffs. And they're STILL A LOWER DIVISION TEAM. But so what? Now I'm not saying anyone has the obligation to do that. The whole Cincinnati Saints guy whining about how no one gave him a chance when he was playing at a bad high school stadium and running amateurs out there with minimal anything and players sharing uniforms was insane. You can't just roll out the ball between 22 players and expect that people will support you. But you can provide a quality experience regardless of level or label. In fact, you have to, now. We don't have any lower-division (non-MLS2) sides drawing 200 people a game like we used to. The number of crap high school stadiums is down. Play is better. The experience is better. That was my only point. Yes, people who spend more money on their teams and the overall experience are going to attract more paying customers. But there's never been anything stopping other owners from doing that no matter what level their label says they are. Seattle invented the Seahawks.
Fun facts for those who may see the USFL thing trotted out in these days: The NFL prevailed on eight of the nine counts in that lawsuit. The USFL prevailed on one - that the NFL was a monopoly - but which they jury believed they did not achieve through the nefarious means the USFL wanted to try to prove. The NFL got there by spending the money when others didn't, by coming to terms with competitors they didn't drive out of business, by being able to draw on decades of history and by having the highest level of the perfect television sport just as television was becoming the most important medium in the culture. In short, they were there and the USFL was late to market. They could have stayed in their niche and been more successful (though they were bleeding out in the spring as it was and barely made it to the end of the 1985 season), but hubris made them over-reach. Sound familiar?
How? These aren't arguments in the alternative. What they're asking the court to do in the underlying action establishes that they won't suffer irreparable harm if division distinctions are eliminated and the NASL ceases to be sanctioned as a second division.
I didn't say it was a well-written complaint, but logical fallacies contained within a complaint aren't fatal.