Except it isn’t the PLS making that requirement. That’s all on USL. If they wanted to, USL could drop that requirement and just require they meet D2 standards to get promoted. Again, so? If USL wants to make that requirement, that’s on them. If every team already meets D2 standards, it doesn’t matter whether they get promoted or not and it doesn’t create an issue with the PLS. You’re just making excuses now. How so? If USL wants to add more levels, there is nothing in the PLS stopping them from doing so. They can just do the same thing J-League did. If anything, adding additional levels below USL1 is easier because there are no real standards for D3, so USL can make their own. so… Now MLS is in USSF’s pockets? Make up your mind here.
The stadium and time zone requirements don’t bother me terribly, in a pinch, almost any community that could likely get promotion to a particular level has some stadium that would suffice. It’s really the particulars on the ownership requirements that I think need reform. And the metro sizes, of course. Those are the bits that clearly show that the league standards were not really being written as “rational divisional standards”, but as means to secure the station of the leagues occupying the divisions when written.
It's "all on USL" as it's a way of circumventing the PLS that are written for closed leagues. Again, it's a way of circumventing the PLS that are written for closed leagues. Again, it's a way of circumventing the PLS that are written for closed leagues. And, as I've pointed out before, it's like requiring a team that's promoted to the Northern Premier League to meet the requirementss of the Premier League. How does it make sense for a team at, say, the eighth level to meet the standards of the second in order to compete at the former? It's you that keeps going on about pockets. But are you denying that, through SUM, MLS has benefited financially from the SUM/USSF deal?
And this whole diversion is still pointless, because there's nothing about the division standards that prevents USL from being the top league in this country if they want to. Nobody cares what the USSF labels a league.
No. It isn’t. There is nothing in the PLS stopping USL from bringing in a team at its lowest level and then requiring them to be licensed for the next level before they get promoted, just like J-League does. Requiring a team to meet D2 standards before they even join a D3 league is 100% on USL. I’m sorry, can you point me to the additional 6 levels in USL? This argument is just stupid. The discussion is about, at most, the movement of teams between 2 divisions. There is literally nothing wrong with requiring teams in one level to meet the requirements in the next, if USL so chooses. There is also nothing in the PLS that requires USL to have that restriction. So stop lying. Yes.. MLS performed the marketing for USSF for roughly 2 decades and they got paid by USSF for doing so. Why shouldn’t a business be compensated for performing work?
I'm sorry, but this is an example of how the PLS, written for closed leagues, are a handicap for establishing a pro/rel pyramid. Even with a two level league with internal pro/rel is apparently having to use a workaround. I posited that the situation becomes increasingly absurd the more levels are in a pro/rel pyramid. To use your choice of words, "stop lying". It behooves the regulator of US leagues not to be in bed financially with one particular league. Seems like the USSF has finally realized that. Better late than never, I suppose.
Sure, whatever, it doesn't matter. Its the inside baseball of inside baseball. The PLS has nothing to do with if pro/rel will make a better/more successful league than non-pro/rel. Its just the current excuse as to why the USL considering pro/rel doesn't count for some reason.
Of course SUM is organizing the current Gold Cup, which is why they're playing all the matches in MLS stadiums. Oh wait, they're not!
How about "diminishes it"? Is that a better phrasing? because that's certainly the opinion I took out of this post.
Yes, that's fair, and I stand by my view that two-level internal pro/rel is "arguably better than nothing" but "diminished" for the reasons I stated.
I think the population size was based on trying to compete with the other major sports. It was David Downs who talked about ideal metro sizes for second division clubs. The ownership requirements reflects the cost of running a club in the states and minimizes the risk of clubs folding. The PLS weren't unilaterally imposed by USSF, they were the outcome of negotiations between the leagues. Aug. 10, 2010: BOD Minutes: “President Gulati updated the Board on a meeting with all of the D2 team owners and the proposal to change the D2 Professional League Standards. President Gulati informed the Board that the proposed D2 Professional League Standards had been proposed by the Blue Ribbon Professional League Standards Task Force and that the proposed standards had been reviewed with the D2 owners. It was MOVED to adopt the revised D2 Professional League Standards. The motion PASSED.” https://rantingsoccerdad.com/2017/10/24/timeline-how-did-nasl-dispute-come-to-this/ USL could always request a review of the PLS.
I realize that the PLS was determined between the leagues, that’s honestly the reason they’re as narrowly focused as they are. They were literally written to maintain the status quo. The ownership requirements are, frankly, terrible, and only really result in gatekeeping. Instead of some random number for an individual investor, it would make far more sense that a team be able to prove that they can afford to play at the level. Would this be some permanently set number? No. It would need to be an average. That would work better on so many levels than expecting $10/20 millionaires to eat massive losses to keep the club afloat.
The only team that has been gate kept from MLS for financial reasons is Sacramento, as they can't seem to hang on to a primary investor. But maybe that says something about the rest of the ownership group. If USL wanted a D1 designation, or pro/rel with MLS, the requirements would have to be liberalized. But both of those are a long way off. The D1, as opposed to MLS, standards are: Each team ownership group must demonstrate the financial capacity to operate the team for five years. - that's good In addition, each team must have and its governing legal documents must designate one principal owner with a controlling interest who owns at least 35% of the team and has authority to bind the team. Such principal owner must have an individual net worth of at least forty million US dollars (US $40,000,000) exclusive of the value of his/her ownership in the league or team and his/her primary personal residence. The principal owner, together with all other owners, must have a combined individual net worth of at least seventy million US dollars (US $70,000,000) exclusive of the value of ownership interests in the league or team and primary personal residences. - there are a total of 89,510 people in the United States with net assets of at least $50 million - and 1,456,336 households with a net worth of at least $10 million. source: spendmenot.com Given that is $40 million in assets really that much? Most EFL Championship owners are worth far more than that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_owners_of_English_football_clubs?wprov=sfla1
This completely misses the point, honestly. And Sacramento had nothing to do with PLS. But you can’t possibly know who has been gatekept from the pro ranks because the rules prevent them from trying. An established club that proves that it can meet the budgetary requirements of the league is a much better gamble than an expansion team from a 10 millionaire, but the latter is the only one allowed.
I mean, if you’re going to argue that these requirements are unfairly keeping teams out of the first division of soccer, the onus is on you to show what teams were actually impacted by these rules. I think the specter of what happened early on in the days of baseball still hangs over American professional sports. If pro/rel was going to happen anywhere in the US, it would have happened with baseball in the early 20th century, given how many clubs there were at the time. But, the more stable clubs got tired of getting off the train for a game and finding that their opponents had folded the night before. Other than the notable exception of the Packers, American teams have been organized around a single very rich owner or a small group of rich owners to promote stability and longevity. I don’t see that as a bad thing, even if it does end up excluding some markets.
That's not what I'm arguing. I am saying that the requirements are keeping teams out of the pyramid entirely. To argue about who was kept out of what league is an entirely different conversation, since they aren't open and their requirements for admission have basically nothing to do with the standards of their division.
So WHO has been/is being kept out of the American Professional Soccer landscape? There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from starting up a team.
How are you supposed to quantify this? There are all kinds of amateur teams that are stuck between the top of the amateur leagues but don't have an ownership that qualifies for D3 PLS requirements. Is that the only barrier? Of course not, but when you have to bring in a completely different owner to even consider making the leap, regardless of the financial stability of your club, it's definitely a major barrier to entry. So setting aside how ludicrous this statement is, since it's basically saying, "there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from being worth $10 million", the only reason why this is somewhat true for $10 millionaires is because of NISA and the fact that it's open to anyone that meets PLS for D3. If we're talking about USL or MLS, there are absolutely things stopping anyone from starting up a team.
Upon further review, I see that it was an odd case of NYOil playing at NYEnergyDrinks field, and that in following games NYOil got reasonable numbers on their baseball field...mea culpa...
The PLS is not what is stopping the Top Amateur Clubs from going professional. There is a big difference between a professional club, and an amateur club. When you have to start paying players, you also likely will be offering benefits. Benefits cost money. The cost of insurance goes up. The cost of your coaching staff goes up (those Pro licenses aren't free). The travel costs go up, and sometimes significantly. If you want to start a soccer club, you can do that. You can build that business up and increase your wealth to a point to take your club professional. You can bring on more investors too if you like. What is stopping you or anyone from doing this?
NYC are playing 7 home matches at RBA this season. Announced attendances so far have been: 3,154 4,929 3,564 4,533 2,873 Average 3,811. They have scheduled home games at RBA on August 21 and October 3.
I want to note that the metro size requirements are not currently preventing any league from moving up a division. 1 million is not a big metro area by US standards. Every existing lower-division pro league already meets the market size requirements for the division above it -- and both USL pro divisions would even if all the MLS reserve teams withdrew.