Soccer United Marketing

These games would be in direct competition to MLS, unlike say the ICC where the games are non-competitive.

From USSF's perspective, what's to stop Charlie Stillitano buying Santos Laguna and playing half their home games at Hard Rock Stadium?

Nothing wrong with a viable competitor to SUM but they have to have the best interests of the US game at heart. Most feds negotiate their own TV deals. USSF has a partner which shares many on the same interests, some of which conflict, but not nearly as many as the conspiracy theorists claim.

 

Well yes it does. The game would need to be sanctioned by the Ecuadorian League, the Ecuadorian FA, CONMEBOL, CONCACAF, USSF and FIFA.

 

Paul,

Thanks for the prompt reply. Why is it USSF's interest or duty to protect MLS from competition? According to skim172's prior post, that's not their mandate at all.

Here's a direct quote from the USSF website:

the Federation’s mission statement has been clear and simple: to make soccer, in all its forms, a preeminent sport in the United States and to continue the development of soccer at all recreational and competitive levels

Hosting games from foreign leagues seems right in line with this mission statement while denying competition for MLS seems contrary.

Thoughts?

 

As a profit-making entity, SUM is not focused on the best interests of the US game at heart. Their mandate is to maximize the value for MLS (given that USSF effectively has a debt position in the partnership with no equity upside).

In any event, I can't see how having more competitive games in the US is detrimental to the best interest of the US game at heart.

 

Yes, it would be a direct competitor to MLS. But the USSF is not the MLS. The USSF is a non-profit that is charged by the USOC to oversee the sport. The MLS is a for-profit enterprise that is not affiliated with the USSF. If a rival soccer enterprise started up tomorrow, the USSF would have no mandate to shut it down to remove competition for the MLS. The USSF isn't (supposed to be) responsible for protecting the MLS's interests.

And if Santos Laguna wanted to play their home games in Miami, then the USSF would have nothing direct that they could do about it, unless they could successfully argue it was detrimental to soccer to play soccer games in the country. Of course, indirectly, the USSF could use its influence in CONCACAF - which does have direct authority over Santos Laguna - and probably they wouldn't get permission from the city of Miami anyway. And of course, Liga MX and FMF would never allow it.

 

“Following a request for guidance from the Spanish FA, US Soccer and CONCACAF, the FIFA Council discussed La Liga’s proposal to host an official 2018/19 regular season league match outside Spain (in Miami),” world soccer’s governing body said in a statement posted on the FIFA website. “Consistent with the opinion expressed by the Football Stakeholders Committee, the Council emphasised the sporting principle that official league matches must be played within the territory of the respective member association.”


"The Spanish soccer federation must first sign off on the deal, however, and it already has expressed an unwillingness to give its approval."

"There are still a number of steps that would need to be taken before Girona and Barcelona — the two Catalan teams tabbed to play in the United States this season — take the pitch in Miami on Jan. 26. If the Spanish soccer federation gives its approval, it would then trigger a request for approval to UEFA, the governing body of European soccer. If UEFA approves, then the U.S. Soccer Federation and Concacaf — the governing body of soccer in the North and Central America — must also give the go-ahead."

The USOC has nothing to do with USSF. The USSF has existed since 1913.

I don't know, maybe USSF would consider that a foreign league playing it's home games on US soil as detrimental to it's growing flagship professional league. I can't see Stillitano stopping at Ecuador. His dream must be to have top 5 league and UCL games being played in his Hard Rock Stadium in front of sell out crowds paying upwards of a couple of hundred bucks.
It's just a shame that he doesn't see investing in the US game as a viable option. It sort of defies logic that if SUM has so much influence over the American game that Stillitano and Silva don't want a piece of it.

 

The FA just signed a $1 billion international TV deal for the FA Cup. That's on the back of the success of the Premier League. The 2 organizations' fortunes are entwined.

Now look at the US U17 World Cup qualifying cup and tell me where those players would have been 10 or 15 years ago. Those who could have afforded it would have been at pay to play academies, the rest probably lost to the game.

GOALKEEPERS (2): 1-Damian Las (Chicago Fire; Norridge, Ill.; 13/0), 12-Chituru Odunze (Vancouver Whitecaps FC/CAN; Calgary, Alta.; 4/0)
DEFENDERS (7): 4-Axel Alejandre (FC United; Chicago, Ill.; 14/0), 3-Adam Armour (North Carolina FC; Cary, N.C.; 11/0), 13-Mauricio Cuevas (LA Galaxy; Los Angeles, Calif.; 2/0), 14-Tayvon Gray (New York City FC; Bronx, N.Y.; 10/0), 5-Kobe Hernandez (LA Galaxy; Los Angeles, Calif.; 14/1), 2-Joseph Scally (New York City FC; Lake Grove, N.Y.; 14/1), 15-John Tolkin (New York Red Bulls; Chatham, N.J.; 3/0)
MIDFIELDERS (5): 7-Gianluca Busio (Sporting Kansas City; Greensboro, N.C.; 7/2), 20-Gilbert Fuentes (San Jose Earthquakes; Tracy, Calif.; 13/0), 8-Bryang Kayo (D.C. United; Poolesville, Md.; 0/0), 6-Daniel Leyva (Seattle Sounders FC; Las Vegas, Nev.; 0/0), 16-Adam Saldana (LA Galaxy; Panorama City, Calif.; 17/1)
FORWARDS (6): 18-Jack de Vries (Philadelphia Union; Wayne, Pa.; 0/0), 17-Tyler Freeman (Sporting Kansas City; Shawnee, Kan.; 3/1), 19-Alfonso Ocampo-Chavez (Tacoma Defiance; Kent, Wash.; 14/5), 9-Ricardo Pepi (North Texas SC; McKinney, Texas; 6/1), 10-Giovanni Reyna (Unattached; Bedford, N.Y.; 8/1), 11-Griffin Yow (D.C. United; Clifton, Va.; 6/3)

USSF has delegated many of its growth activities to MLS, especially in reaching out to underserved communities through MLS Works and other local initiatives with city authorities, while USSF regulates the amateur game.

Now, should SUM face competition for marketing and TV rights? Certainly. Is there a conflict of interest probably. Is SUM perfect, based on the marketing of domestic USMNT games, definitely not. Would development of the domestic game be better if marketing was in the hands of Traffic, Silva or Stillettano? You decide.

Certainly their prevalence for taking USSF to court at the drop of a hat makes me distrustful.

 

Stillitano was MetroStars original GM. Perhaps he sees the flaws of MLS/SUM and thinks he can do better.

 

I'm confused. What does the USOC have to do with the USSF mission statement
as shown on their website: https://www.ussoccer.com/about/

Again, it plainly states that it's mission is to grow the game "in all its forms" and I think that eliminating competition to its growing flagship professional league is antithetical to its purpose but others can read the language differently, I guess.

In summary, you (directly here) and other seems to conflate the US game with MLS and that's simply not the case: they are different and it's the USSF job to look after all of soccer and not focus primarily on MLS.

 

But is it in their interest to promote Ecuadorian futbol? How many American hgps play in Ecuador? How much money is the Ecuadorian League investing in underserved areas of American cities.

I doubt Stillittano has any interest in developing Ecuadorian soccer. This is a straw man for bigger things such as the UCL.

No, he officially sucked. Garber implied as much in public.

https://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2015/09/03/charlie-stillitano-jose-mourinho-sir-alex-ferguson-icc

 

I'd love to see Barcelona S.C. and their ace Leo Marssi play here. Would be huge for the game.

 

Their interest is in promoting soccer, in all its forms, in the US. Is two Ecuadorian teams playing in Miami not a form of soccer in the US?

Next, what's the problem with having UCL games in the US? I think the ability to watch the best players in the world compete against each other in a truly competitive match in the US would be awesome for US soccer. Absolutely amazing and even better if an American like CP or TA was involved.

You seem to be implying that allowing these games would have some sort of debilitating effect upon MLS and I just don't see it. Even if it did have a negative impact, MLS is a professionally run organization and they can respond on the field rather than in the boardroom/courtroom.

 

I forgot about the arsenal of trophies and string of sell out games after Charlie was canned. My apologies.

 

USSF's charter to oversee the sport of soccer in the nation is granted by USOC. You're correct in that it exists independently - it's not part of USOC and was founded well before USOC was created. However, its mandate as the overseeing authority of the sport in the nation is given to it by USOC - which derives its power from federal law. In other words, USSF is a private organization, who is contracted to regulate the sport by USOC.

If USOC decided, for some reason, to remove that charter from the USSF, then the USSF would continue to exist - but it would no longer have power to regulate the sport and any national teams it put together would not be the "official US national team" and would be ineligible for Olympic, FIFA, or CONCACAF competitions.

This prevents USSF from doing whatever it wants. Its bylaws and policies must be in line with USOC and federal regs. If, for example, the NFL decided tomorrow that all its players had to wear silly hats, then the government would have no direct power to stop that. But, if USSF decided all National Team players had to wear silly hats, then there are direct appeal mechanisms to USOC in place for players to resort to.

That's why Hope Solo lodged a complaint with USOC against the USSF a couple years back. USSF is required to have a complaints procedure in place that allowed her to do that. If they had their way, USSF would probably shut down any avenues for potential complaints and end it there.

Yes to the Ecuador league, the Ecuador FA, CONMEBOL, and FIFA. Because those organizations directly govern the clubs involved, their direct approval is required.

As for USSF and CONCACAF .... technically yes, their sanction is needed. But their ability to deny sanction is strictly limited and burden of proof is on them to show why an exception would be needed. Like a notary or a public official, yes - they're empowered, but their decision-making is limited.

USSF technically have power ... in the same way your postman technically has the power to choose not to deliver your mail. Unless he can show he's got a very good and exceptional reason why your mail shouldn't be delivered - he has to give it to you. Even if he doesn't like your face.

Of course, he could just delay giving it to you - maybe put it in the wrong box, "accidentally" not take it out of the bag, drop it accidentally back at the main office, and just generally piss about so you don't get your paycheck for friggin' weeks.

Which is similar to what the USSF is doing.

 

Stilitano was part of MLS when it first started. In some ways he does have interest in seeing the game grow here in the US. He's a larger than life personality, and is very opinionated (as anyone who has ever listened to him on SiriusXM can attest). When he appears on SiriusXM he generally throws backhanded compliments towards MLS, while also trashing the league at the same time. Champions World and now Relevent Sports are direct competitors to SUM. Plain and simple, he's trying to make money for himself and his boss Steve Ross (who needs events to fill Hard Rock to pay for the renovations)..

Charlie nor Relevent sports has the best interests of US Soccer or Soccer in the US at heart in these matters. They are out to profit.

Now, as for those who feel that USSF should part ways with SUM and go it alone when marketing and negotiating it's TV deals.............Who's to say that they could do better. Being a non-profit agency, that's a lot of money to be forking over to create an in-house marketing department. That's less money to be put into the game in terms of grass roots initiatives and development.

If anyone thinks that Traffic has the best interests of the game in the US in mind I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Traffic (it's in their f'n name for gods sake) was a third party ownership group of pro soccer players. Just ask Gale Agbossoumonde how much they care about the growth of the game in the US..........The fact that their owner was indicted should tell you everything.

Riccardo Silva? Children please............the man's company was wound up in UK court for not paying money it agreed to to its clients......http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/mp-silva-wound-up-high-court

And this is the guy everyone holds on a pedestal for his $4 Billion TV Offer to MLS??.......https://www.fourfourtwo.com/us/feat...hts-about-forcing-uncomfortable-conversations

Who else is there? Show us someone else who could get a better deal and do a better job.

How much are the TV rights for the Spanish FA? The German DFB? The English FA? How much do people really believe the rights to the USNT's are?

 

Hearing in New York last week, per AP - (USSF, promoter clash in court over international matches - May 23, 2019)

USSF requested a stay, on the basis that Relevent should go through FIFA's arbitration process, not the legal system.

Relevent, meanwhile, really wants to fight it out in the USA.

No decision announced yet.

 

So Stillitano has signed a contract with FIFA agreeing to resolve any issues through arbitration, then takes USSF to court.

 

I think there are other threads on that subject.

 

As you say, it sounded like they got it right.

The problem with advertising is not that it would require effort by SUM, but that it would require money. Advertising is expensive, particularly in large cities, particularly in NY. And then there's the higher costs associated with a big stadium along with bringing in grass (or deciding to play on turf). I'm not saying they couldn't have done it, just that its not at all obvious that they should have.

 

First of all, it's always better to watch soccer in a soccer stadium on a grass pitch. Secondly --->




Admittedly this was a Nike rather than a SUM campaign.

 

The basic idea here is to avoid the cross-national big spender super leagues (that the snobs back) which get theorized every few years by people bought so far into meritocracy they think ManU shouldn't have to bother playing Fulham or Bournemouth. So FIFA responds that leagues are supposed to be within borders, and then to try and clamp down on that, you have to play your games within the same borders. That way you can't endrun the rules by having a nominal Tijuana team on paper registration, that actually plays most of its games in San Diego.

To be fair FIFA does allow some grandfathered cross border teams (Derry City, the Welsh and Scottish teams in the English pyramid, etc.) as well as MLS going into Canada.

I also know I watched Club America and Jamaica's Portmore play a neutral site CCL game in Texas. But that was Portmore looking for a CCL legal venue to play someplace, not America making a play for US fans.

That being said, is it in the best interests of MLS and US Soccer for foreign teams to be playing routine league games here? I've already expressed my thoughts ad infinitum on the trend towards more foreign players in MLS consuming more of the lineups. As with foreign league games and cash cow friendlies, I think it offers an improved spectacle but doesn't really help the domestic game along one bit.

I would also be curious if this site was approached as a temporary Miami MLS home, demurred, or demanded too much rent, but now willing to host Ecuadorian league games. In which case, yeah, best interests of the domestic game, cite FIFA rules, nitpick whether some promoter in the process of renewal is technically listed to do his job with FIFA.

 

When the NFL plays games in London it is not stepping on the toes of an existing first division pro football league, or playing some sort of a political or mind game with an expansion football team struggling for a site in that same city.

I get some of you think watching elite foreign soccer is a better watch, or that MLS and USSF are too close, but big picture you have to defend your domestic leagues. I tend to skip friendlies not involving at least one US team because I don't think it promotes our leagues, teams, and players.

The tension I see in US soccer is that for the sport to grow you need Seattle style crowds to watch our teams. But we seem to want to take payroll and roster rule shortcuts to getting there.

And then the snob thing is replace the domestic product with foreign teams for games, to me, is a lot of the interest and money goes out the door to other countries. That does perhaps slightly encourage kids to play, and perhaps makes the stadia/promoters some money. But I think something is lost when we aren't involved or when too much money heads out of the country.

Houston vs Monterrey or NYRB vs Leipzig RB or LA vs ManU promotes "US soccer." Milan vs Juve promotes "soccer." Two somewhat different things. And when it ticks over to "can you approve my foreign league game in your struggling expansion city during your domestic league season," I think the "protecting our interests" response is, jump in a lake. Our job is not to make the Ecuadorian league better or richer.