Open Letter to the Proles ... Real Answers Wanted

I'm pretty neutral on these issues. I think it would be a great idea to implement but only if and when MLS can confidently say it is financially viable, when there are more preexisting teams capable of playing in MLS than can be contained in a single league, and only if all divisions involved stayed within the single entity system should that continue to exist at the time. But I can answer a few of them from the perspective of someone who is genuinely in favor of it.

1 - This one is pretty simple. What is the point of pro/rel if there is no way to get to the top flight? At least Peterson has entertained the idea of an NASL-2 sometime in the future.

2 - This same thing could be said about the formation of the First Division in England or anyone else for that matter. Did the English clubs which turned professional not spend plenty of money keeping the league afloat before instituting relegation? So long as there are more teams that could financially compete in a league and willing to take on the financial risks of keeping the league afloat, why should we keep them from ever doing so? We can make strict minimum standards that clubs can adhere to or prevent them from being promoted should they not meet them. We can make parachute payments to teams which fall down to lessen the financial blow. In this way we can ensure that all the clubs in the first division are truly worthy of being there.

3 - Even the four major pro sports miss some big markets; simply put, there are more then 30 major-league cities in America, and to maximize interest in local soccer they should all be given the chance to experience first division soccer, given they show genuine interest in the stands and meet certain standards (attendance, facilities, market size, etc.)

4 - I'd argue that is related to the lack of financial rules keeping the big clubs in check. Even in pro/rel we can have a salary cap (albeit I'd prefer a high one which only prevents the big teams from getting out of control rather than one which limits everyone) and playoffs. And if the second division were a part of the single entity system (even as second-class citizens when it comes to revenue sharing) there would be less financial disparity due to the sharing of media revenue. Denmark has a system where the first division clubs simply hand money to the second division clubs to maintain parity and stability, specifically because they recognize how the pyramid benefits them and soccer in their country. So it's not like pro/rel has to or is even a factor in financial disparity.

 

I really think there's a huge difference between a bunch of teams coming to be in what was essentially an amateur market and a very small country in the late 1800s and teams forming in a fully professional market today.

 

Well we could use Japan as a better comparison.

Then again Japan also had lots of pro-semi pro teams, so setting up pro/rel was easier since they had more than enough teams for multiple divisions.

The biggest issues for us, and NASL has the same issue with USLPRO is the expansion fees, Japan set up standards that teams have to meet to be allowed in the pro leagues, we set up a payment to be allowed in, is hard to then turn around and tell an owner that paid millions that he will be dropped next year to play at lower divisions.

 

We have to realize that pro/rel debate is rarely about actual pro/rel. Its not about the 'excitement' of watching CUSA go down and SA Scorpions go up (or whatever). Its ACTUALLY about a collective reset button of everything that exists today in pro soccer (franchises, sponsorships, TV deals, salary caps, drafts, etc) and when pushed turns us into Germany or England instantly (or in a few years).

Don't believe me?

OK, ask anyone who supports Pro/Rel what they think of the idea of MLS splitting in 2 and just using pro/rel right now within their current teams (2 divisions instead of 2 conferences). The same single entity. Same rules. Same drafts. No pro/rel beyond those teams. Just basically using pro/rel as a format within MLS. See if the 'reformers' are on board.

What we all want is hundreds of professional clubs with deep (century old) connections to local communities and zero franchise fees at any level. I wish support was so great that every club had enough money to pay for fully-funded academies. I think that every soccer fan is on the same page as WANTING the same stuff. I just don't think everyone is on the same page as understanding how difficult it is going to be to get that stuff.

 

Someone needs a blog.

 

[QUOTE="4door, post: 30773973, member: 76871" I just don't think everyone is on the same page as understanding how difficult it is going to be to get that stuff.[/QUOTE]

End of discussion.

 

You don't like comedy?

TBH, at some point it's on you. The couple of guys you argue with could care less about facts, or if what they say is reasonable or practical. As long as they keep you engaged and arguing, no matter how silly or non sensical it is you make it matter. They feel validated. All 5 or 6 of them....out of thousands.

Their justification is your arguing a non realistic/sensical issue.

 

Yeah...but internet victories are hollow. I know u are just be amusing yourself, as I have done here many times, but in the real world they are lost and have nothing. This is there only form of recourse, and when push comes tp shove it becomes sad.

 

Ever visit a Freddy Adu thread over the last decade? No diff.

 

You're not going to find it. Over the years there have been some good points made in this thread but it's like looking for undigested corn in elephant shit.

 

Hey, Dr Satler found berries pretty fast in that "big pile of shit".

 

Other than a gulf in tv money distribution, there isn't one really. Before the premier league formed there were no parachute payments. None were needed, and teams promoted to the top flight were much more competitive than now.

There's rarely any noticeable drop off between the potential of clubs in the lower half of a top division, and most in the division below.

There are some crappily supported 2nd tiers out there, but few places, if any, have quite the same major/minor league mentality that exists in the USA (although not exclusively, if you look at crowds in the Aussie Rules state leagues, for example)

Of course, even if pro/rel did exist, there's no guarantee at all that American fans of teams in that 2nd tier would suddenly be enthralled by pro/rel existing, and have crowds doubling to levels you probably expect if the USA had had a pyramid in place since the year dot.

 

As I said in the other thread, it has to be a solution to a problem, but I think it could be.

We've all talked before many times that MLS seems to be very competitive selling a home town team to a local market. It might not be the best soccer in the world, but it's the top soccer a U.S. fan can watch in person. As soon as the audience becomes national -- television for example -- that advantage is lost. The TV ratings consistently show as much.

I've long advocated the best way to improve quality (and the appeal of the league to a TV audience) is to spread that national revenue over fewer teams. But what if the opposite is true? What if the better approach is to expand the league into a lot of bigger cities, essentially creating a national audience from a patchwork of local audiences -- audiences MLS has been more successful in growing -- with local, not national TV deals providing much of the revenue.

Remember what Forbes said about the most recent MLS revenue estimates:

"In fact, of the $26 million the typical team generated in revenue in 2012, we estimate that over 90% came from in-stadium revenue streams like tickets, sponsorships, luxury seating and non-MLS events."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2013/11/20/major-league-soccers-most-valuable-teams/

As long as that remains true, and I think it might for a good long time, MLS really isn't vulnerable to a huge drop in national TV revenues because a big market club gets relegated -- they just aren't significant enough. MLS does benefit from increased attendance though, and certainly relegation and promotion would give the bottom half dozen teams in MLS 1 and the top teams in MLS 2 something to play for.

At 1.14 million people, Salt Lake City is the 48th largest metro area in the Country. In fact, MLS could have over 50 teams in the U.S. and Canada in markets of at least a million people. So just how big can MLS get? Does anyone really believe that it can't get to 30 teams? And if it can get to 32 teams? Or 36? Or 40?

What's the best way to organize a league of that size?

A two division pro/rel does provide some advantages IMO. It would distinguish the league from its non soccer competitors. I think it would boost attendance, and unlike national TV MLS depends heavily on attendance and in-stadium revenue streams. And as long as MLS owns and operates the teams in both MLS 1 and MLS 2, the lower division would be secure enough.

I'm not suggesting open pro/rel between MLS and the NASL, or even scrapping the single entity system, I'm suggesting a two division MLS. MLS LLC has two classes of stock now, one owned by the I/Os, one owned by the investors who don't operate teams. Presumably, they just don't share revenue in the same amount. If MLS can have owners who don't even operate teams, you'd think LS could certainly have another class of stock for those who operate second division teams.

 

Won't work, Americans don't attend minor league games in big enough numbers. The minute a team gets relegated its attendance wouldn't just drop it would fall off a cliff.

The only 'minor' leagues that get attendance rivaling 'major' leagues is college football and even in that the only level of college football that gets that kind of attendance is the top division. And honestly college football gets that because of its unique history in this country coupled with it being American football.

No offense but I think its faulty to think pro/rel would increase attendance. You'd be better off having a 48 team top division split into 4 twelve team conferences that only compete against each other in the US Open Cup, MLS Cup playoffs, and Champions League than trying to create a 24 team division 2. The minute fans hear 'division 2' many quickly lose interest. A huge division 1 would be more profitable.

Not that I think MLS should grow that large but division 2 with teams playing in stadiums big enough to also be division 1 is a losing proposition. MLS would be foolish to get involved with pro/rel.

 

Wow. I haven't seen a "come at me bro" post like that in a long time.

 

MLS is, globally speaking, a "minor league".

That's triplet's point: fans in the local market go to watch MLS because their teams is the highest level of soccer they have access to in a live environment (with a professional game presentation*). That wouldn't change if their team gets relegated.

Finally, pro/rel has never been really tried in North America, so it's unfair to assume that fan behavior (and perception of what it means to be "minor league") wouldn't change if it was.

*IMO the biggest difference between the poor and well attended D2 teams in North America. If it looks and feels professional more and more Americans seem willing to watch even D2 soccer locally.

 

There are plenty of reasons pro/rel may not work but just about none of them are in this post. Speaking of minor league attendance, it was 41 million in 2013 and it has been increasing.
http://www.milb.com/news/article.js...t_id=60843450&fext=.jsp&vkey=pr_milb&sid=milb

It's funny most of all in this thread that we try to convince each other that we take a certain position because we have facts on our side but in reality we like something or another (for unknown reasons) and try to use facts to justify it.

For instance I like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla ice cream but I'm not going to post alot of links to justify it.

 

This is a too often overlooked point. IMO, as an insurgent brand, MLS's best option is to position itself as an option for sports fans who are looking for something different. Part of the includes format. To some extent it already exists with the USOC and CCL as the idea of teams competing in multiple tournaments in one season is something of a novelty in North American pro team sports.

But pro/rel inside MLS would really lay down a marker. And though you downplay it, I feel that sort of product differentiation would, over time, actually help with creating a national TV audience as well.

I don't think it's likely -- as the fear of change and uncertainty would make it nearly impossible to get enough owners on-side -- but that's a don't think it's impossible legally or contractually in terms of the league's organization and relationships with sponsors and TV partners. And the league is quickly getting to the point where at least a limited implementation (with a crossover schedule) would be viable from a scheduling perspective.

As I will always point out: it took England, the birthplace of organized soccer leagues, nearly 100 years to create a fully open pyramid and they started with pro/rel between divisions INSIDE their (then) top league long before then.