State of the union: http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/...issioner-gives-state-of-the-union-4359407.php
Interesting that he mentions three MLS markets as potential expansion sites. LA is certainly big enough for a minor league team to coexist with the Galaxy, but Chicago and Dallas? Questionable for sure.
Only if you can show me that he's really serious in those statements. A commissioners job isn't to speak only and all of the truth to the public.
Doesn't really matter what he says. He doesn't have to spin anything, because the fanboys are misinterpreting what he said. When he says they don't want to be a minor-league system for anybody, he's taking a swipe at USL (remember how that's bad when USL people do it?) and saying their league is valuable for itself (which it is), not that they plan to or want to "challenge MLS."
I get the swipe at USL, but I don't think that what USL is doing and what Peterson is doing are at all comparable. It's one thing to take verbal pot-shots at another league; it's quite another to actively expand into the other league's territory. (And I'm assuming here that those expansion cities he mentioned are nothing more than words. Cause the league officials would have to be pretty deluded to go after those markets. I'd be the first to come out against NASL if they start trying to splinter already-struggling markets.) But in this case, I don't actually think you can make the case that Peterson is taking a cheap shot. He's making a sales pitch, and USL's current agreement with MLS forces him to make it in this way. He has to differentiate the product, and he has to hammer this line home consistently to differentiate the product. In this case, it's not about denigrating the USL just to do so, but rather it's about pitching the viability of a second division to potential owners (and fans alike).
I think when the dust settles, and all the umbrage over "independence" dies down, Peterson is going to find that his message to potential investors/owners isn't as good in comparison as it used to be. I think that as the financial realities and public perception of the USL/MLS deal sink in, Tim Holt is likely going to have a more appealing sales pitch. The silliness in Tampa aside, there are so many major markets in the U.S. that don't have a professional soccer team, that the distinction between D2 and D3 isn't particularly relevant. Add in the fact that MLS teams will be covering a chunk of USL team payroll. Not to mention the publicity boost that USL teams will be playing MLS (reserve) teams in league play. Right now the NASL is in a bit of a no-man's land. I'm a big fan of the USSF's D2 ownership standards. I would hate to see whither away on the vine, but Peterson is going to have to work hard to keep forward momentum. I think the USL/MLS deal effectively slams the door on any USL->NASL franchise moves. Additionally, Traffic is still footing the bill for three teams, the Cosmos - while signing a few players - are still vaporware, and the Islanders are gone. I would also think that some of the weaker NASL teams might be susceptible to getting recruited to the USL with its promise of lower costs and player payroll subsidized by MLS - (FC Edmonton, anyone?). I don't begrudge Peterson's job at this point. The more that I think about the financial ramifications of the USL/MLS deal, the more I think that the NASL is going to have to work to survive. NASL teams just can't break even at 3-5k attendance. We're seeing positive signs in several markets. San Antonio is off to a great start, and Carolina - after years adrift - is making great gains under Curt Johnson. I think the NASL needs to get teams up over 5k and more likely in the 7k-9k range. Of course the last group of D2 teams to average that much have all been replaced by MLS teams. But, yeah, I don't take seriously any bluster about entering MLS markets. The Cosmos are an oddity, a curio. If and when MLS NY2 is announced, I just can't see the Cosmos surviving.
And everyone ripped on USL for putting a team in the Tampa Bay market when there was already an NASL team there (and for continuing to talk about a San Antonio franchise after the founding of the Scorpions). There's already a (PDL, potential USL Pro) team in Austin, so putting a team there would either be fair play or hypocritical, and there is (for now, anyway) one in Phoenix, so same deal. It would probably be silly to do so and potentially counterproductive. Unless you were just going to completely bigfoot the market and bludgeon the other guy to death. The market will decide, inevitably, which of two competing teams (if it comes to that) will survive. The one that does things professionally, markets itself, makes grassroots efforts and attempts to matter will usually be the one that wins out. If the attempt doesn't end up bankrupting both of them, that is. I agree, to a point. If it's not a cheap shot, it's definitely a dig (one with a smile, I'm sure). Point being: he's not talking about raising the NASL to Division I status and actually competing toe-to-toe with MLS because they simply don't have the resources to do that. He's been offered (inadvertently) a point of differentiation and he's taking it. USL's point of differentiation now is its affiliation with MLS, which brings a certain cachet with it. But the NASL's ability to say they're independent and in the business of winning is certainly valid and attractive as well. As he says, in the end, if NASL clubs matter to their communities, it really doesn't make a difference what number designation someone else puts on them. It certainly hasn't kept the Scorpions from being relevant.
I've heard the talking points about the benefits of the USL/MLS partnership, but I think we'll have to wait and see whether it will actually be beneficial to anyone but MLS. Long term, the deal will mean USL will fundamentally have to change it's expansion strategy, which has at least in part insulated the league from the financial losses of its teams for over a decade. As for the benefit of getting to play league games against MLS Reserves, I think the effect will be precisely nil--at least beyond the very important effects of playing more meaningful games. You're not gonna be drawing crowds for these things, and you're especially not going to be bringing in people who are not already fans of your product. All of that said, Peterson certainly does have his work cut out for him as commissioner. He currently has a pitch about the benefits of being a self-owned league without a single-entity structure, but if he's smart, he'll also start marketing the league (behind closed doors) as way for wealthy individuals to both benefit their communities and hide personal revenue streams (as MLB has done for years). My guess is he's already doing that. But again, you're right--these teams will have to start drawing more than 5k before they can be viewed as sustainable or valuable to the US soccer landscape.
A small chunk. This can't be overstated. It's four guys. Probably <20% of a roster. This is nice, but it's found money (in some respects) and not a huge pile of it. Plus, I've heard the MLS Player's Union isn't completely sold on the idea, and that MLS loan players might end up costing their hosting team a bit more than expected. Yeah, but who are they going to play? They still have the travel issue, and it's possible that if they cut to USL and remove some line items they can't afford, they'll actually generate much less revenue and be less likely to survive. It costs money to generate money, and I don't know if the fine folks of Edmonton would be as appreciative of DIII as they've been of DII.
Wow. Thoughtful and interesting debate. Amazing what happens when the children go outside to play and leave the adults to talk. The next two years will be interesting for minor league soccer (and MLS player development as well). I am of the opinion that both USL and NASL have some positive momentum and could coexist if not cooperate. The NASL has been a bit lucky in the past year. The league could have easily ended up on its last legs if Minnesota had folded. We would be down to six clubs for the spring season and Traffic or other ownership groups (including the future expansion clubs, Indiana for example) could have reconsidered its involvement in a league headed down the drain. Now, the Minnesota club seems to be in good hands and the league might have a home run with the new Indy group. The jury is still out on Virginia, the Cosmos, and Ottawa, but the NASL dodged a real bullet and hopefully 2013 and 2014 will proceed without any more unpleasant surprises. I do agree with Andy that the average attendance in the NASL needs to grow to sustain the investment of its owners. If that happens, then a solid second division will exist in North America that will develop players, coaches, and markets for MLS for years to come. USL Pro, despite the naysayers, have a potential good thing hitching their wagon to MLS. Obviously MLS is sticking their toe in to the water with just four partnerships this season, but it will be interesting to see what develops from this experiment. I think that the USL might be able to find some groups in the PDL to make the commitment to the pro league if the MLS deal works out. That would be great for development of soccer players.
Okay, I might be one of the kids that just came inside from playing, but I'm a little confused by the is discussion, and if you guys don't mind, I'd like to ask some questions about what's going on here in this thread. I realize I could probably google most of this but I'd like to hear an explanation from someone that knows what's going on with all of this. 1. MLS has a Player Development league? I mean the same way that the NBA has the D-League? Are there actual farm teams or is it similiar to the English version of "Reserve Teams" that play against one another? Or is the development league under the USL? 2. I am really excited about the changes with NASL and the new management, and I like to see the expansion happening. Peterson was just here in San Antonio last week talking to the team and it's owners. What do you guys think of Peterson as a strategist. Nothing specific, but is he good or bad for the leagues future do you guys think? Too early to tell?
Welcome to the boards! Glad to have you with us, and hope to see you posting lots more in the future. 1. MLS has had an on-again-off-again Reserve League which, in theory, is similar to the English version. The problem was that they didn't get very many meaningful games per year, and the "league" itself was pretty expensive to run. So it went away for a while, but now it's back. In addition to the Reserve League, MLS inked a deal with USL which would form links between top tier and third tier clubs. This allows MLS teams to send up to four of their reserve players to a USL team. The MLS team continues to pay the salary. MLS teams also have the option in the future to start their own USL team if they don't have an existing regional club to affiliate with. Last, USL teams will play a few games each year against MLS Reserve League teams, and the points will count toward the teams' regular season USL standings. 2. I'm not sure what to think of Peterson yet. Sometimes I think he's spot on with his league strategy and other times I think it's clear that he's still finding his legs. I like that he's been so visible around the league thus far, because it helps the clubs have something to publish leading up to the season. Any time a team can say that the league commissioner came to visit, even if it's just a cookie-cutter speech and a press promo, they have the opportunity to drum up coverage and publicity they wouldn't have otherwise. A lot of what he's done so far, he was saddled with. I hope he figures out his strategy and leadership style, and if all goes well, that he sticks around for more than a couple years.
This is a tough gig, and you can find fault with anything any commissioner does if you so desire. At least this is not a situation where it's someone who's either inexperienced at the business of sports or who has little soccer experience. It's been a bit of a whirlwind, as it would be for any commissioner with a job of this scope in the early going, but the bottom line is that Peterson is experienced, smart and soccer-savvy. You'd take that most of the time. Quite frankly, the NASL wasn't going to get someone with an impeccable resume or tons of experience running something of this scope. Ivan Gazidis wasn't going to come back from Arsenal to do this, and you weren't going to get an upper-echelon guy from MLS or a team or another sports league.
Exactly. Your other options were likely either folks without leadership experience, or lateral sports business moves from people without soccer experience (other niche league commissioners, for instance). Despite some complaints, I can't see anything in his resume to be concerned with.
Peterson will do fine I think as long as he keeps a lid on the crazy talk. He needs to promote the league in a way that positions itself as relevant without talking about rivaling MLS. Deepening ties to MLS on its own terms would help as well. The length of the NASL season does give them an edge over the USL Pro league if MLS clubs are looking to send their players on season long loans. His other big contribution would be to help be selective in what types of groups are admitted into the league. Better to have slow, solid growth. The league can't afford too many whiffs in the expansion area. Peterson needs to ensure that the Indianapolis template is followed to the letter in future markets. Speaking of which, Ottawa and Virginia are already behind in that regards.
I really really don't like the split schedule this go around. I've never really like that schedule, but it's what we have. I am also not real happy that Puerto Rico and NY are coming in the second half, but I'm assuming all of that was decided before the new commish.
Puerto Rico Islanders will not be back for the fall season, they're now aiming for a 2014 return : http://www.prislandersfc.com/index.php?id=153&newsid=3719 Hope they make it back.
I'd love to see every expansion city start out as successfully as Indianapolis, but the truth is there is no real template to follow. That's not to say that Peter Wilt hasn't been doing things deliberately or methodically (he always does ), but it's important to remember that Indy already had a grass roots movement of soccer-hungry fans to work with. So unless you've got one of those, you can't really follow Indy's "template". There's also only one Peter Wilt, and he's booked. I think most NASL markets would be hard-pressed to find someone with that much experience and success in soccer start-ups. Different expansion cities will have to take different tracks toward success; there is no cookie cutter template--even a rough one. And if there were, it would have to be as simple as identify your target demos, spend money marketing toward them, hire a very professional staff, give a great gameday experience, and put a winning team on the field. Ottawa and Virginia may yet be successful. I don't think Virginia probably (realistically) will be, but they might at least be able to shoot for stable, and I'll take that any day. The bar for "success" is pretty low in DII soccer.
So as a city are we throwing good money after bad building a stadium and such if most people on here seem to think that the league is falling apart and that we have 8 fairly stable teams and then a couple exansions and coming and only 1 of them will survive and Puerto Rico probably won't come back...
I don't think anyone believes the NASL is "falling apart." It's slightly too early to tell if it's significantly more stable than USL-1 was, but it certainly doesn't appear to be significantly less stable. (One of the selling points was that they were going to do things better, but there may be some things that are just nature of the beast.) I don't believe there is public financing involved in your stadium, is there? If not, your city isn't throwing any money after any money at all. And if you continue to draw and have a good stadium situation, at the end of the day, it is less of a concern if Puerto Rico comes back or if Virginia makes it, isn't it?