You’re looking at this from the wrong angle. The leagues’ “brands” matter to investors. The problem is who those investors are. NISA is going to appeal to some at all points of the spectrum. But because USL is tying their wagon so heavily to real estate (which I’m not knocking, by the way - it’s a smart angle), it means league perception means a lot to people who are working the levers of the deal, who are going to care more about what the league they’re getting in bed with says about them. To further strain the analogy, NISA can be a buy here/pay here dealer: you may fine a perfect condition off lease Volvo, or a base model Mirage. If you can afford the Volvo and don’t have to finance through the lot, who cares where you go it? If you’re on the other end of the spectrum, maybe they can fit you into a Mirage today. Certainly, it’s not where you’re going to purchase a company car, but maybe they have a Miata on the lot that looks like it might work for the weekend. Tesla and Nissan aren’t putting buy here/pay here lots out of business, because it’s a completely market. Is this a flattering comparison for NISA? Not really, but it fits where USL was a decade ago, too.
you still haven't explained why you asked when nisa lost its d3 sanctioning. a d3 league made up of mls reserve teams only would be even less popular than usl league one. it would be a glorified reserve league from 2005. given the original rationale for putting reserve teams in usl in the first place (meaningful matches against high level professional competition), i don't see how this would advance their cause. (unless it is simply cheaper and easily controllable, perhaps because after, what, seven years of the experiment, actual results are mixed?). the nisa braintrust doesn't exactly inspire me, not when commissioner's kid says things like, "where is it written these things have to lose money?" when it is written literally everywhere you look. p.s. i drive a nissan. i quite like it. we are not really going to start doing car smack here, are we?
(it was sarcasm) This has been months in the making though. Previous interviews of USL head honchos did say they wanted to emphasize expansion rather than relying on MLS reserve sides. The writing was on the wall. Most don't realize this but MLS 2 sides in USL Championship were a burden since most of the reserve teams had losing records and much older players from USL independent sides were outclassing a developing 16 year old academy player. It's also not 2005 anymore. MLS have more coaches and rosters due to in part of academies. When did he say this?
For now. Fact is several NISA teams aren't playing in stadia that even remotely meet minimum standards. How long USSF will let that go is anyone's guess.
They gave NASL about 5-6 years to get their shit together. I’d imagine NISA will have the same treatment.
I think as long as a certain % of member clubs meet the pls and the established clubs consistently invest in facilities there will always be waivers. But by its nature professional football doesn't come for free.
and they had no idea this could happen by entering teams in a league full of adults who make their living playing soccer because..... in a self-serving story (is there any other kind?) that has since been memory holed from their website, the prutch kid said: (emphasis mine) "just because you can prove it doesn't mean it's true."
That’s because of COVID, though. New Amsterdam will likely be at Fordham as soon as they’re allowed, and 1904 will probably be back at the high school field they were playing at prior to the pandemic. USSF isn’t going to force D3 teams to rent some stadium in a situation where they may not be able to have fans.
https://web.archive.org/web/2020081...5/interview-nisa-vp-of-expansion-josh-prutch/ “To be clear, I do not want to come across as naive to say any, or all, of our Clubs are going to be profitable; but I am equally not willing to accept the status quo that doesn’t believe a sustainable model of success exists for professional soccer. We have Clubs in our league that have done it.” Literally three sentences after your quote in a league written PR puff piece interview with the nepotistic “VP of expansion”. I’m not sure I’d read a lot into the guy whose job is to find investors to commit to burning tons of money playing in his league saying “hey, you might find a way to not burn tons of money if you join our league, who knows?”.
The second misperception of professional soccer is that a Club needs to expect to lose money and to lose a lot of money. Who says? I know that this might be backed up with historical and statistical analytics, but we are entering into a new chapter of professional soccer. It will be a chapter without exorbitant franchise fees, where Clubs are no longer required to over-leverage, overburden, or sell the soul of the Club just be able to have eleven players take the pitch. But no-one in MLS or USL seems to be complaining about losing money due to expansion fees. In fact anyone who pays a MLS "expansion fee" gets a tangible share in MLS the company and the owners that have sold have got a premium on their original investment. And the D3 PLS still require a wealthy investor with $10 million, plus proof of the financial capacity to operate a team for 3 years.
So the investors willing and able to pay the expansion and franchise fees aren’t complaining about the fees they’re obligated to pay to be in the league? And given that USL relaxed their fees last season indicates that this a pain point in franchise budgets. The point he’s making is who that is gatekeeping out of the system. It’s enormously risky and obviously expensive to start a pro team. You point out the PLS requirements, that’s out of NISA’s direct control, but expansion fees and high league fees are startup debt added that provide no material benefit to the club. For L1, that’s a significant part of a single season’s operating budget. It all adds up when those are relatively low to begin with. If you’re trying to attract existing amateur clubs, who have a pretty clear idea of the realities of how their budgets work, immediately burdening their club with a debt like that can make that one bridge too far.
Meh, that isn't surprising coming from an inexperienced father-son tandem that's been at this for an hour and a half and has no real previous experience other than "my other half plays travel soccer." Professional sports never was a profit-generating venture. Investors don't get into professional soccer with the intention of profiting off their backs, but they certainly do not want their investment to be unsustainable or a failure on the field. Old saying goes of "How do you make two million dollars in professional soccer? Start with ten million." As with a sustainable model, I'm still not convinced the expansion fee or territory rights is a problem. More teams are joining in at an expanded rate. There's no perfect or true sustainable model in sports, but some has worked well than others. I've been told that instead of investors wasting money on a down payment fee, or paying annual fees, they can save that money and reinvest it in their team on academies or infrastructure. That way they instantly become the most fiscal-friendly soccer league in the nation and not have teams fold like an Atlanta or Philadelphia or having Stumptown's main investor leaving or Chicago already having investors leaving before the team can kick a ball. It's interesting the way you think hard about it. A Colorado Springs Switchbacks isn't investing because "their down payment fee were startup debt added that provided no material benefit to the club" apparently. Always a good opportunity to scold others on how they want to spend money. They would have built their new downtown boutique soccer stadium without expansion fees, oh wait, both of those scenarios happened, they both invested in the team and paid an expansion fee.
They tried to buy both Sheffield Wednesday and Tranmere Rovers over a decade ago, which seems a little longer than "an hour and a half". He doesn't say it should be profitable. He just says it doesn't have to lose millions. Certainly doesn't help if your ten million is required to even join the league. There are countless ways that that money could be better spent than going to NuRock. Meh - the "original eight" are a pretty different era for NISA. The problem with this approach is that you're basically limiting your potential investor pool to real estate developers. Which is fine, it's USL's strategy and it's clearly working fine for them, but I don't think it's the only way a league needs to grow. It's definitely hard for existing clubs to join and NISA offers an alternative for them. I don't know that the fact that there are investors buying into USL's vision is necessarily proof that it's a better way to do it: just like many businesses, there are options to franchise and there are options to build your own and there are advantages and tradeoffs to either. Just because a developer franchises a Red Robin around a mall doesn't mean it's a better or more valid business decision than opening your own restaurant in a former Pizza Hut location in a lower rent part of town. They're different choices based on the differences in abilities and resources and potential audience at your disposal. But if everything cost upfront what it takes to stand up a franchise in a high-value commercial area, you'd see far fewer independent restaurants, which would be a shame, imo.
For Championship. I don't think anyone has paid that yet, though. The Roots would be the only team that I can think of that would have joined at around the time USL raised the price to that, but I'm pretty sure they bought their franchise from USL East Bay. League One is $2 million.
easy to see who is a shill for the league his team is in. the whole 'these expansion fees could be better spent on our team' ignores the fact that it almost never is. expansion fees in mls are a one-time offset against the dilution of shared revenues in a single entity situation by virtue of the pie being split more ways. expansion fees in usl help keep riff-raff out. unless you really enjoyed the 90s when 70%+ of franchises failed.
like detroit, which did it by not paying players and almost never leaving the state of michigan. good luck replicating that model in a national pro league.
Sure... Well it does, that's part of experience, you lose money and you gain it. MLS or USL has some teams operating at a loss, that doesn't always mean is unsustainable. Say if Team A in D3 loses 6 million this year in expenditures, but they regain 10 million in revenue in the same year. That's a net positive of 4 million. How so? It's not your money or mine. Most teams are doing just fine. Again with the passive-aggressive scolding... I'll like to see evidence of USL "limiting" potential investors to real estate developers. Pretty sure Landon Donovan isn't a real estate developer. Neither is Orange County or Tormenta or New Mexico or Birmingham. Charleston Battery has been around for years, even before MLS. They were owned by a Brit that wanted to bring his knowledge of the game with him. Now they are owned by a savvy former CEO of a startup company. I find Richmond Kickers business model to be the most interesting one. They used to be owned by the huge youth organization bearing the same name. Now their new owners consists of former local professional and collegiate soccer players turned businessmen and the youth organization has a minority stake. Pro players playing for Richmond coach in youth soccer as part of a side-job. The Kickers are still kickin' on for 28 years now. The key here is to have a sensible, long term business model. Yes, building a new soccer complex is a real estate venture, but there's some positives of owning and/or operating your own venue where you control revenue and gate concessions rather than renting like what some NISA teams are doing. USL teams is learning from Lamar Hunt. Expansion fees (one-time down payments) keeps the deadweight out. Wouldn't the consumers decide that? Those aren't mutually exclusive aren't they? As long as NISA isn't this: "Hey, we are going buy a $10 million McMansion as our league foundation but all 8 of us alone can't pay the mortgage!"
This is a stupid argument: the alternative is an expansion fee that inherently can’t be spent on the team. Why should it go to capital equity firm? I fully understand how buying into MLS works and it’s pretty irrelevant to anything that isn’t MLS. This also makes no sense: there are about a half dozen franchises still playing in either the Championship or League One that predate the franchise fees being more than pocket change. Franchise fees didn’t prevent Reno or Lansing or Fresno from folding. Not to mention Fort Lauderdale Strikers or SF Deltas. Franchise fees don’t prevent what we saw in the 90s, PLS does.
No idea what you’re disputing here You have an incredibly unrealistic idea of D3 revenues. Citation needed. Here are some preemptive counterarguments: https://www.soctakes.com/2019/12/10/nurock-significant-beneficiaries-usl-revenues/ https://www.soctakes.com/2018/04/18...s-of-owning-a-lower-division-pro-soccer-team/ https://www.soctakes.com/2018/07/30/usl-franchise-fees-shepard-tone-or-progress/ Who, pray tell, am I scolding? Landon Donovan isn’t the primary owner. Andrew Vassiliadis is. And guess what, he’s a real estate mogul! Orange County way predates this era of USL, so I’m not sure why you included them. Tormenta? Real estate developer! https://www.wtoc.com/2021/01/26/construction-statesboro-development-expected-begin-may/ So, sure - New Mexico and Birmingham are both owned by investment bankers, so I guess you got me there. Whose father is on the board of a construction company that builds stadiums which I’m sure had nothing to do with buying a team that just sold off their stadium to a real estate developer. Also, not an expansion team, so I’m not sure why we’re talking about them. Yep, and like Charleston, not really who we’re talking about. In fact, I’m not sure why these two fall under “this is what you get if you don’t have franchise fees”. I have already said that I don’t have an issue with USL’s strategy of attracting investors with real estate ties: it’s a sensible model. It’s just not the only model. Again, let’s point to all of the deadweight it didn’t keep out. PLS, even with all of its specific problems, is a much more effective filter for fly-by-night teams. This is exactly what I’m saying. But if you only have USL, you only have the one option. As long as NISA isn't this: "Hey, we are going buy a $10 million McMansion as our league foundation but all 8 of us alone can't pay the mortgage!"[/QUOTE]
"Tried to buy a English lower division club" isn't a good example of professional soccer business experience. "I tried to fix the clog I had in my toilet, therefore I'm a licensed professional plumber." Private business don't have to share their financial statements. I gave that as an example. Depending on the team might be more, might be less. If you can provide me the exact details of the financial statements of a typical third division club, let me know. The first is a rehash that USL is a franchise model? Ok, I knew that already. The others is sharing the author's myopic views three years ago. Good for you getting 1/4 of the the entire ownership right I guess. Still had to pay expansion fee. Darin Van Tassell No mention of him being a real estate developer in the article, but he has quite an extensive sporting experience as well. I've said this before but every soccer stadium facility is a real estate deal. In any sport. No one is disputing this. Here's the thing. @aleaguer is right about the 70% failure rate pre-Professional League Standards. Now, with a robust central league office (USL), and league standards, less teams folded than in 1990's to 2010's. Has it been perfect? No, but it's an improvement than before. What stopped new leagues like NISA from popping up and pushing the boundaries? Would you like one league, one direction, one say like the English Football League controlling the lower divisions, or here where theoretically various entities with ambition and skin in the game can apply for D1, D2 or D3 sanctioning?
I cannot imagine anything is going to satisfy your discerning standards…So what about Justin Papadakis’ resume stands out, I might ask? I mean, come on. Put a little effort into your false equivalency These were USL’s projected costs for League One (prior to them rebranding): https://www.reddit.com/r/USLPRO/comments/9dn5s8/the_cost_of_running_a_usl_d3_team_official_league/ Presumably the actual operating costs are probably more at the “high” end. So they all have to be real estate developers to count? The principal investor and chairman of the club seems like it meets the criteria. You know who else paid the expansion fee that year? FC New York Antigua Barricuda River Plate Puerto Rico Sevilla FC Puerto Rico Puerto Rico United Sure kept out the riff raff. https://thegeorgeanne.com/1541/news/publix-shopping-center-getting-closer-to-finish/ “Darin Van Tassell, Tormenta FC Owner, land developer and owner of the Clubhouse in Statesboro” No one is disputing this, either. But when you raise the bar to entry really high, it’s no surprise that your failure rate goes down. But regardless, soccer is a much more popular sport in this country than it was even a decade ago. This affords to them to be more discriminating, but there it also a leaves a gap in the entry-level market. Logistics? Resources? Communication? I’m not sure what kind of question this is. A whole crop of amateur clubs popped up last decade and they grew. They grew the amateur game to a larger presence than it has been in living memory. Something like NISA prior to now wouldn’t have had a whole lot of prospective takers. I would prefer an open, centralized system than a competing set of leagues fighting over market and mindshare, yes.
The Papadakis family were former collegiate and professional soccer players. Alec played with the Atlanta Chiefs of NASL while Justin played college soccer. No strangers to soccer before, although after their playing days were over, Alec went to practice law. Sure, whatever you say guy who has real estate developers living on his head rent free It doesn't have to be a prerequisite? Noncontextual strawman. FC New York later played in NPSL before they folded. The Puetro Rican teams were all founded before Professional League Standards existed and before NuRock became the owner of USL. Division 3 standards are lenient. The standards haven't been revised since 2014, so not sure about raising the bar to entry unless if you're talking about franchise fees, which isn't the problem given more expansion teams are entering in the league. It's all in the business model, and expansion clubs that are ambitious enough to harness it. If an ownership group is hot and bothered with USL's business model, they can try NISA as you eluded before. Detroit and Chattanooga? Great stories. Was I disputing that? NISA would be great for you, except for the centralized part, or that an open system is unrealistic.
So how does this qualify them for running a league? Except that their primary owner is literally a real estate developer - as is another of your examples of "not a real estate developer". No, it's not literally a requirement to join USL, but one of USL's main focuses is real estate development, so it stands to reason that one of their preferred investor bases is... real estate developers. I thought expansion fees were what kept out the riff-raff? It's PSL now? So what's the issue with NISA not using expansion fees? And, no - NuRock bought USL in 2009, so the "International Division" is totally on their watch. D3 standards are lenient, USL's aren't. This is what I was saying - USL can work towards greater stability by being far more selective, but that's going to filter out a lot of prospective candidates. NISA is a market for them, but that inherently carries with it more turnover. And Little Rock Rangers, and Asheville City, and Grand Rapids, and Ann Arbor, and Buffalo FC, and Tulsa Athletic, and Fort Worth Vaqueros, and Denton Diablos, and AFC Mobile, and Des Moines Menace, and MPLS City, and Cal United, and Cal FC, and Fresno Fuego, and SF City, etc. Amateur soccer clubs took a massive, collective step forward in the last 10-15 years. Nashville SC, Memphis 901, and Birmingham Legion all trace back to NPSL clubs. Same with Lansing Ignite. CFC and DCFC have been able to lead the way into the pro game, but only because they had the resources to jump in first. Most established and successful amateur clubs can't afford to be early adopters, which is why it's so hard to get a league like NISA off the ground.