Sorry, you're wrong. At the AllStar game, Don Garber said that there were five MLS teams making money--Toronto, LA, Dallas, Colorado, and Chicago. I would guess that almost every MLS teams with their own stadium will have a shot at making money in the near future. Salt Lake certainly will when their stadium is completed in late 2008. Houston will do great. And once the financial black hole in New Jersey is closed, the league should be on a pretty sound financial footing. But remember, it took the league 12 years to get to this point, and it wasn't easy. Why should they give any of it away to the USL for free? The people in MLS have a long memory and they won't easily forget the bad-mouthing that went on by some USL owners. In short, the USL will sink or swim on their own, and it's going to be really tough for them to survive if they lose many more cities to MLS. Don't expect charity.
Alright, fine, five MLS teams are making money. So, after 12 years, the league now has about 38% of it's teams turning a profit. And, due to timely contraction/relocation, smart growth, improved exposure and the construction of RCSs (revenue controlled stadiums - a more honest term than "soccer specific stadiums") the future is bright. But this thread is suggesting a "temporary guest worker" program (you can come and play for one year, but then you have to leave and reapply - oh, and you don't get benefits while you're here) in a league where less than half of it's current teams actually make money. And that's just a touch insane. In order for it to work, the USL team would have to have rich enough backers, and an RCS (and/or super-sweetheart lease), and a desire to compete in MLS. And, if a USL team has all of that, and plays in an area where there isn't already an MLS team, and MLS still has both the ability and desire to expand the league, then the ownership group of the USL team should "promote" their team into MLS for good, as an expansion team - not just organize annual visits as a gracious guest. The "guest" arrangement adds little (if anything) to MLS, and it actually hurts the USL by creating franchise instability and potentially depriving the league of it's best markets and/or rivalries. Man I can't believe I get sucked into these threads... I have no self control.
An incentive for USL teams to field a quality side would be to finish in the top 4 spots and be invited to the Superliga the next season. Yes, it's improbable, but at least it's a carrot dangling out there for these teams to aspire to. Also, money spent on talent could be recouped by selling the player at the end of the season.
I'd like to think that if the Railhawks were ever tempopromoted, they wouldn't invest that much in players, they'd just take their lumps. But they could charge more for tickets, and they could get more local publicity, and expand their footprint, and their attendance would go up a bit. So handled intelligently, in the short run the team would get a marginal windfall, and set themselves up well for growing once they're back in the USL.
Why do you doubt it. I don't really know from observation. But I will say that pro/rel provides a whole different set of incentives. CCC teams have an incentive to spend more than they can afford in an effort to get promoted. Or teams that just came down from the Prem have their parachute payments. The USL is what it is. The level for clubs is static, and it's the same clubs. Logically, the gap should be much larger here than in England. It would be remarkable if it weren't true. But I admit I don't really know. I will point out this...every year, a handful of CCC players get bought by the Prem and become prominent players. That's not nearly as common in the US. There's the very rare Brian Ching, and the far more common Preston Burpo or Alan Gordon.
I would guess the level should be less static than in the MLS (in theory). Why? Because of no salary cap. If a billionaire decided to buy a USL franchise, s/he could (if they wanted) spend money and field a team that is as good as if not better than an MLS equivalent. I would hope that the lack of a salary cap will eventually lead to a better on-field product and competition. One of the things I find interesting about the USL is its potential. If the league ever got its act together around the notion of getting bigger and becoming a viable rival to the MLS, I really think they could do it. There just doesn't seem to be an appetite for it right now (that I can see). Cheers!
That sounds likely. Handled intellegently, it should be a benefit to the team in the long run. As for the gap, looking at the USOC this season (through the quarterfinals, I won't comment on the semis since that was yesterday), USL teams are doing reasonably well. Yeah, those are one off games, but USL teams don't get destroyed 5-0 on a consistent basis. And MLS rosters are salary cap and numbers limited, which Premier League teams are not. I think that would help keep the gap artificially smaller than it would be in a totally free market. I do think the USL teams would struggle to make the playoffs without significant investment (which they wouldn't have much incentive to do), but they aren't going 0-30 either.
Right, in theory. But in the real world, USL salary budgets are way less than MLS salary budgets. And the USL couldn't become a real rival with MLS because FIFA wouldn't allow it.
The gap between the best 2-3 MLS teams and the best 2-3 USL teams is probably less than the gap between the best 2-3 teams in the Prem and the CCC. At the same time, after the tsp 4 in England, the clubs start to drop off pretty dramatically, through 16 more places. By the time you get to the bottom 5 teams in the Prem and the top 5 in the CCC, the gap isn't that great. If the gap in the US were small, that would mean that the gap between the players would be small, too. Movement of players from one league to the other shows that's not true.
Can you explain this to me? I don't think FIFA would stop anything of the sort. Assuming that the USL had the desire to become as good as, or better than the MLS it would be good for soccer in general in North America. What FIFA probably wouldn't like is the USSF/CSA designating two leagues as the top division in North America. But, if USL became bigger than MLS (yeah, I know, haha) then the USSF and CSA would need to move the top division designation from one league to the other. What would be weird is if USSF and the CSA both chose opposite leagues to certify as top-flight Cheers!
OK, for example, the USL champion could never go to the CCC. I don't know how official the Superliga is, so maybe it doesn't apply to that.
If the USSF made the winner of the Open Cup the CCC entrant, then a USL team could get into the tournament, no? Cheers!
We used to have this discussion a lot, when it looked like USL might actually try to compete with MLS. We never really got an answer. On one hand, the USSF would be violating antitrust laws if they tried to restrict another league in going about their business. Conversely, the USSF couldn't be forced to cooperate--provide referees, etc. In any event, something like this would buy a whole lot Beemers for corporate lawyers. Good thing that's it's becoming a moot point.