Whataboutism. NASL: Bankrolled by Traffic Sports, millionaires and billionaires. Had the independent model of owners keeping their brand in turn owning a stake of the league. Poor business management, players didn't get paid, poor vetting process, questionable leadership. Never had more than 12 clubs and when they reached 12 clubs, SF Deltas was the final nail in the coffin. NISA: Like NASL, but one or two differences: No expansion fees and territory rights. NISA is ran by a hedge fund manager (Pratuch) which manages a decentralized league of isolated "independent" clubs, questionable leadership and management optics. So, NASL 3.0... or maybe not. USL: Owned by Papadakis, teams are separately owned by millionaires/billionaires (keep your own brand), more pragmatic and organized than NISA or NASL, has a 10-year head start on D2/D3 leagues, more centralized governance than NISA/NASL, less clubs folded (in part of PLS and MLS partnership) compared to 1990s to 2000s USL.
Your argument was how single entity is better than an independent model. It seems pretty relevant to point out that MLS’s success is exceptional. The league still exists, which sort of supports my argument. I am super skeptical that you would see a successful D2 or D3 single entity league because the initial outlay is going to be massive on minimal returns. Exactly the problems AAFL and XFL had. MLR is probably in a similar situation. They inherently have to be millionaires. I’m pretty sure teams owned by billionaires aren’t in danger of folding. I guess I don’t really see how single entity would make these leagues more stable.
I wasn't finished... MLS: Speaks for itself. Never failed to pay players under single entity, unlike some professional leagues. It exists as a vehicle for lawsuit proceedings and fees. There's no "league" anymore, most of the teams moved on from Rocco's BS antics. Don't you want stability? You can have "independent" soccer or whatever label while having a centralized model of player contracts. Then I guess no one has figured out how to soccer efficiently enough than the longest continuous-running professional D1 soccer league this country ever had.
I mean, let’s see MLS operate as a minor league and make this same claim. Your comparison doesn’t make a ton of sense. MLS worked because a handful of billionaires saw the long term potential. Frankly, a lower division league is never going to have that. Again, where is your capital coming from for these player contracts? AAFL players didn’t get paid what they were contracted because there was no money there. Single entity is enormously expensive upfront. Certainly decentralized is more expensive overall, but it’s spread out among a lot of diverse investors. Again, let’s see their model at D2 or D3 and get back to me, but I’m pretty sure it will never happen because it makes zero financial sense. USL’s franchise model is far more realistic. Single entity requires a lot of returns to justify the costs upfront, and when there’s at least one league above you, that ceiling is pretty low.
We clearly talk to different people... You think Louisville, Charleston or Pittsburgh wanted to splash a million around they'd have been able to sign a fringe MLS DP to shore up their USL title chances?
Also I’m not sure there are actually any billionaire USL owners, but I’ll admit I’m not a regular Forbes reader.
No, they got a MLS-caliber player a year early when they could. Obviously. But that STILL doesn't show any evidence that they were helped by MLS in order to win the league so that their elevation to MLS would be more legitimate. Because, again, that's the strawman you created in order to bash MLS, and you have yet to provide any evidence of its accuracy.
At least one. Reno 1868 is owned by Herb Simon who owns Simon Malls and the Indiana Pacers. He is worth 3.2 billion per Wikipedia. Possibly others, but I'm too lazy to check.
That's a direct rivalry ... that makes sense. Though, what potentially could have come from them winning it certainly would have shone a nice light on their Cup Rivals indirectly and that ain't a bad thing ... especially when y'all had been in control of the rivalry to that point. Contextually that's not happening with MLS fans though, even those that are a bit TOO MLS fann-y ... ... and discussions like this or on twitter where it IS happening doesn't equate. It's two different things. Fans aren't in CCL matches chanting "MLS" but they ARE championing things for the league as a whole OUTSIDE of the stadium. To me, that makes perfect sense especially given the overall state of top flight soccer history as well as what the league is trying to evolve from, and into ... which: Yes, it did. I'd argue that in the Donovan to LA era it NEEDED to happen. "Metrics" of the league at the time point to it. Dempsey to SEA? I have a feeling if it weren't the golden USMNT boy at the time it wouldn't have happened, but yeah that's a WTF hit. It isn't happening today though (that I'm aware of). .... but you ask why MLS fans are still insecure Even if we all were past it (for the record I am) perception is reality in the eye of society/media/etc. This is actually a fantastic point Both a bit meh examples. A shit person bought the AAFL on the back of wanting to bank on the gambling app. The COVID19 pandemic tanked the new version of the XFL, and unrealistic expectations/shit partners that didn't do their part tanked the first. Neither had any "failure" due to the single entity structure they had. Sure, and the Cosmos never ceased to exist either ... *cough* San Antonio says hi ...
potato, potahto, hypothesis, strawman..... Single entities in glass houses shouldn't landscape with beach pebbles....
Isn't MLS bankrolled by SUM & the selling of new SUM shares? I mean, the MLS clubs are losing money, according to what's come out in the CBA talks, yet, all these really rich guys who seem to know a thing or two about good investing hold on to their stake and new guys are lining up to get in on it. I agree with your opening premise - there's nothing wrong with single entity. I'd add "depending on your goals". I do think a single entity, couple with the marketing arm that has excessive influence on the federation, is a problem. But that's not single entitie's fault.
I don't think they're as bad of examples as you're letting on: they highlight how short the runway is at the scale necessary to bootstrap an entire league and every team in it is. AAFL's shit investor was brought into the mix because their original big money investor pulled out. XFL was certainly undercut by COVID-19, but that also showcases the risk we're talking about. NISA was also just really getting underway when COVID-19 hit, and it's almost certain that some team won't come back from that, but the losses are distributed. XFL would have failed again, anyway, though. It's also worth noting that both AAFL and XFL absolutely had to have TV deals to even be remotely feasible (and still didn't work). But all of this misses the point, anyway: I don't really have all that much of a problem with MLS being single entity, I just can't really see how it would work in a lower division. Also making my case. Julianna Holt doesn't appear to be a billionaire?
You can twitter search Cincinnati USL from 7/28/2018 to say, 10/15/2018 and see people questioning the use of MLS funds to buy players for USL competition as well as the idea that this would help cement the USL legacy of Der FussballKlub since it would surely put them over that quarterfinals hurdle they kept tripping on. Since neither of us will ever see the email of The Don or Der Fussball Klubs OffizerFrontzen, I'm happy going with "hypothesis".
Which still has nothing to do with the original claim you made. Here, let me quote it for you again to make it easier: You have yet to provide one single example of anyone in any position of influence or authority even suggesting this came into play. Hell, you haven't even provided a single fan with no power or authority making it. Which makes sense, because nobody to my knowledge ever did, and its not like MLS ever concerned itself about how good on the field a team was when they were selected to move to MLS. You'd think if that were a thing Minnesota would have gotten some help.
WHen Minnesota got the nod, they were coming of a regular season 1st and 3rd, with playoff exits, pretty simliar to FCC, were they not? Yes, there was nothing from an MLS official saying "We really want FCC to win the USL cup so we can tell those pro/rel guys "see, they were the best team and we promoted them"". There was discussion on twitter that "damn, we're so overpowered now that cup is ours, cementing our legacy as the best thing to ever come from USL". There was also discussion among other USL fans that "wait, they're using future money to uy MLS players?" Nice chatting with you.
Except that they weren't using MLS funds while playing in USL. USL FCC is a separate entity from MLS FCC. And quoting fans on Twitter....really? Were there any reporters saying these things, or that they heard from sources from within USL and MLS that this was occuring? Also, if FCC were really serious about winning USL and getting off to a good start in MLS they wouldn't have hired Alan Koch as their coach. Fact is, that any average USL coach could/should have steered FCC to a USL title. They outspent pretty much every other team while in USL. One can argue that FCC should file a grievance with MLS for allowing them to be taken advantage of by San Jose and Portland.
Earthquakes say they "traded the MLS rights" of Fatai Alashe to #FCCincy for $135,000 of GAM/TAM and Alashe will spend 2018 "on loan with FC Cincinnati in USL before the club joins Major League Soccer as an expansion side in 2019."So that's how they're getting around it?— Jimmy Mack (@jcmack03) July 30, 2018 https://webcache.googleusercontent....d=16&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b-1-d Looks like FC Cincinnati used TAM/GAM , which is not a mechanism available to most USL teams, to acquire players to use in their USl season. Saying it was the future MLS club signing 2 players then loaning them to the USL club is comical...farcical even. But of course, the best part is that they still went out in the quarters...
Really? Again, they are TWO SEPARATE entities. But hey, keep pounding away at that drum. USL FCC still had to pay the players salaries. Seeing as their is no Salary Cap in USL, other teams keep sign those players. Does Man City have access to funds that other teams in the EPL don't? Is that fair? Also, which has been pointed out, FCC crashing out of the playoffs had more to do with their coaches lack of ability than the talent on their team. There are plenty of articles out there written by reporters who cover USL, MLS, and FCC that point to this.
It must have been a shock to FCC MLS that there wasn't a mechanism where their eventual Concacaf Champions League selves could sign a few Mexican players to then loan their MLS selves to help smooth out their MLS campaign....
25 years ago, no one would have imagined that the about-to-start MLS would have lasted this long, have teams building their own stadiums, and have teams like Atlanta or Seattle averaging the number of butts in seats they do. In 2001, the attacks of September 11th caused MLS to miss a month of a season. In the offseason, two teams were contracted and the league was moments away from folding like so many professional leagues before it. The league likely would have been in trouble that offseason anyways, but there's no doubt that losing a month's worth of gates didn't help matters. We're now over 3 months into league play stoppage for MLS, none of the teams are at risk of folding, and even if the entirety of this MLS season were cancelled, there would be no doubt about there being a season next year. I don't give a shit how the league decides its champions, or supposed sporting merit. I care about there being a league for my team to play in. The current structure of MLS is the only way we know of that has made a soccer league in the US so resilient that even an entire season being cancelled won't sink it. I'll stick with the current format for now. As I've said before in this thread, pro/rel fascinates me, and I'd love to see it in the US at some point. But not as much as I'd love for MLS to be around for another 50 years. I don't have the delusion that MLS is going to be a world powerhouse league in my lifetime. Pro/rel wouldn't change that either. Right now, as things exist, no existing lower division team has the ability to use the 2-3 months of a single offseason to gear themselves up to be anything but relegation fodder. Minnesota and FCC, both who had way more than that amount of time, demonstrate that clearly. An MLS team that was relegated would have to shed most of their roster, and huge amounts of FO staff, in order to scale themselves back to USL levels, not to mention the crippling debt they'd be under from stadium investments. You can say all you want about the stadium deals, but they're in the past, and putting your fingers in your ears and talking about "sporting merit" isn't going to convince a bank to just forget about that debt. MLS definitely isn't a perfect league, but it is one which has made professional soccer viable here in the US, so I'll take it, flaws and all.
I was thinking about watching a relegation battle on Fox Sports this morning but unfortunately they chose not to show any. The 3 matches available featured 6 teams in the top 10.