As long as (most/important) clubs are only businesses and not like for instance Barcelona foundations or in the BuLi clubs with a minimum majority of the shares in control of the club/foundation itself, pro/rel is a business risk and owners do what's necesary to avoid it becoming reality. Is it possible for soccerfans in a city to form a foundation and collect the money needed to buy a place in mls to indeed buy their spot? Iirc even if you have the money, you cannot. How would that fare in a lawsuit against mls by them?
Yeah agree he was respectful as I'd expect him to be, and from reading the article he sounds like a majority of Pro/Rel supporters like myself who can balance wanting pro/rel while still not hating MLS. But it is still interesting that someone who knows American Soccer as well as pretty much anyone on this planet believes that we'd benefit from Pro/Rel.
On what basis would this fan group be able to sue MLS? MLS is under no obligation to allow just anyone to buy a share of their company and then participate in their league. There are other leagues that such a group could enter in the U.S. Other leagues are completely free to have pro/rel if they really want it. At this point those other leagues have to abide by the USSF division sanctioning system. That situation is being litigated in the NASL v. USSF anti-trust case. If the NASL prevails, unlikely but anything can happen, then that particular situation might change as far how leagues are classified by division but I don't see any possibility where MLS would be forced to allow teams to buy into their organization.
And that's the central point of the argument. From a strictly business perspective there will won't be a day where it will makes sense in the short term, or probably even the medium term, if we are only talking the bottom line.
The expansion fee for MLS is about $350 million, plus MLS requires an incoming team to have a viable plan for a soccer specific stadium. Before they ever play their first match in MLS, a new team will have spent at least $500 million. So, the idea that a group of fans are going to come up with a viable plan to buy into MLS is pretty ridiculous.
It’s possible, as long as one of those fans is a Arthur Blank level money man. Besides, LAFC’s ownership looks like a “group of fans” at this point.
To piggy back on this leagues in the US have been able to decide who joins and who doesn't. I'm not a Lawyer so I don't know the specific legal arguments but I don't remember a case of a group successfully suing a league after an expansion process or a sale. And I do remember examples of group being specifically and openly blackballed. Like the case of Rush Limbaugh not being allowed to buy the Rams because the Players Union objected to his race baiting. I think the only hope would be through FIFA as others have pointed out. But would be shocked if FIFA wants to open the Pandora's box of domestic league politics.
Wouldn't be MLS. USSF Division I standards call for each team to have a principal owner with a net worth of $40m, not including the value of their team or personal residence, with the overall ownership group having a net worth of $70m (so half a Paul Pogba). I don't know if legally the "principal owner" has* to be an individual person, or if it can be a legal entity, as these can have their own bank accounts. *=of course, we're talking about USSF standards which allows for the provision of waivers, so it's absolutely possible. I'm sure that if a supporters foundation was able to meet the financial requirements and liquid net worth thresholds and were already running a successful, lucrative team, drawing 20k people a game in the minor leagues, the requirement would be waived. The requirements after all, are stated to be in place to ensure financial viability.
No. MLS has turned down bidders in Rochester, Tampa Bay, Raleigh-Durham, San Antonio, San Diego, Indianapolis and Detroit. MLS is a private company. It sells shares to whom it wants to. As does the Premier League for that matter.
There's also nothing they can do if another group of owners that meet the reqs gets together and forms their own D1 league.
The Premier League doesn't demand cartel membership fees off potential members, so I don't see any reasonable comparison between the two.
Yawn, the splitting hairs over why money is demanded is a bit old. Its perfectly fine for a league to demand improvements or capital expenditures that could bankrupt a team (La Liga, anyone making the jump from non-league to league, etc.) but labeling it a "cartel" makes it bad and wrong. Your issue isn't with the "cartel" its with the amount. If MLS asked for $50 and a scratch ticket you wouldn't care about the single-entity format.
That's just it though, that IS the only point that matters in any of it. Romantics just don't want to admit it out loud because it destroys every other talking point one can dream up. Why was the Premier League formed? The bottom line. Why is the Euro Super League even a thought? The bottom line. Why were Italian clubs being bought out/moved so a club could still be in Serie A? The bottom line. Why are Mexican clubs bought out/moved to stay in LigaMX? The bottom line. Why does MK Dons exist? The bottom line. Why do Chinese clubs move on a whim? The bottom line. Why is it so important to get into the Premier League? The bottom line. If pro/rel romantics truly want to advance the conversation and actually get things moving, they'll speak in the terms and address the variables that matter. The ones that affect the bottom line; it all boils down to that. Period. And here is the perfect illustration of what I'm talking about. "oh no, not about realism" .... srsly? When did we get turned down? Our original bid was scuttled by a new mayor at the 10th hour. This most recent bout was scuttled from the beginning when MLS ********ed us over by having/knowing the Austin clause with CLB but told us to go right on ahead and bid away. Hartman/Scorpions never actually bid or put in for it; they had conversations to see what the bar was and then only ever had discussions with investors/etc. The cost of obtaining Premiership promotion and then sustaining membership is significantly more than the expansion fee (team 30 paid 325m). (in pounds) 39m to buy Leicester in 2010 6.4m spent in 10/11 19.75m spent in 11/12 6.45m spent in 12/13 .55m spent in 13/14 25.2m spent in 14/15 54.9m spent in 15/16 100.8m spent in 16/17 97m spent in 17/18 126.1m spent in 18/19 117m spent in 19/20 That's 593m pounds (760m US) spent on Leicester JUST in buying the club and transfer fees. For instance they bought the stadium for 17m pounds.
This makes no sense. MLS demands not only a cartel membership fee but also a stadium of a certain standard. So comparing this with a team making the jump from non-league to league is positively silly, especially as teams are given a race period post-promotion to bring their ground up to the required standard. And once in the Football League, the requirements for Premier League play are essentially a drop in the ocean compared to what MLS requires. Heck, Bournmouth happily play in a 10k capacity stadium. Through in the USSF's requirements on the net worth of owners and you end up with a vert cartelesque situation.
And again you choose to focus only on England (and while doing so, ignore the teams who have actually said that requirement jump from non-league to league could break them) while just skipping the other leagues. Why did Eibar have to raise the capital expenditures they did when they were promoted, in one off season, and why was that acceptable?
I think we should only talk about Mexico, as it's the closest "major" soccer league to the US and and in many ways has a similar pioneering culture. León, who currently sit in second place on Liga MX aren't the León who played in 1999/2000. They were purchased by the owners of relegated Puebla who stated "we're from Puebla and it's our duty to our fans to have a club in first division... now." The former owners of León immediately acquired the assets of their city rivals neighboring team, Unión de Curtidores, and called them Club León. A phoenix team called Unión de Curtidores acquired their former colors and history and play in the Tercera league. Another one. After Atlante were relegated in 2001 they paid $5 million to buy their way into a Liga MX expansion playoff where they beat the team which was then playing as Veracruz. In 2007 Atlante relocated from the Aztec Stadium in Mexico City to Estadio Andrés in Cancún, a mere 19 hour drive each way for their supporters. This sounds an awful lot like the original NASL. Maybe American fans should be careful about what they wish for.
The USSF stadium and net worth requirements are justifiable in light of both the long history of undercapitalized pro clubs in the US and the much higher basic operating expenses here. EPL clubs never have to pay for a single flight or a single night in a hotel in all of their league play, never mind flying and staying overnight almost every single away game.
Germany, Italy and France has strict stadium requirements and league standards. A third tier French team had to move to a bigger FIFA-approved stadium once they got promoted to Ligue 2 because their current one didn't meet the standards
I donot think Manchester/Liverpool clubs go to Bournemouth etc. in the south by bus. Anyway. No professional club is going to spend more than two hours on a bus to play a match with epl kind of money at stake.