I'll go back somewhat to my older argument that this is a bit like the financial and infrastructure requirements that most leagues have in place at certain levels. Is MLS really saying that certain places aren't welcome, or simply that they don't meet criteria? A fly in the ointment on this subject is that of the expansion fee. It's very much characterized (especially when seeking to put MLS in a negative light) as "buying a place". My argument is that because MLS is single entity and gives access to various support and financial mechanisms, it makes sense to both request an investment and prove means to contribute to the system.
In this comment, you are replying to a "Roger Allaway said:" comment in which you quote me as saying this: "That's England, where there is overlap in quality between promoted and relegated teams. Where there is a gap in infrastructure, quality and resources between leagues, success in one does not necessarily equate to suitability play in other." When in the hell did I say that? I can't find it anywhere, in this thread or elsewhere, and it's on a subject that I don't know very much about. I may agree with it, but I'm not sure. I have tended to ignore the discussion in this thread about the merits of pro/rel in England.
Yes, can we move away from this? There are literally hundreds of leagues in the world. England is by far one the largest and most successful implementations. My biggest issue with pro/rel in the USA is that there are a number of potential pitfalls which without sufficient potential benefits, negates pro/rel as a consideration at this time.
There were loads of Americans who were Fulham fans due to American players there. How many are still Fulham fans, especially now that they no longer have an American contingent, I couldn't say. I'd suggest that even if a club met the infrastructure criteria for entry, if they came from somewhere deemed a minor market, they have trouble getting in. It's actually doubly stupid, as one of the common (and rational) arguments against pro/rel in the USA is that the sporting landscape between the USA and England is very different for many reasons, so saying that something is terrible in England is no more valid than saying something is great.
I agree with you on the market situation. Though if strong sport was shown there, a case could be made. A lot is made of MLS "demands" for entry but they've actually shown on numerous occasions that there can be "wiggle room".
I think US fans take a myopic and naive view of the sports landscape. You see articles claiming that MLS passed the NBA based off of attendance. It's embarrassing at times the NBA salary cap, because of their new TV deal is going to enter the STRATOSPHERE. Revenues have never been higher without attendance being good. The Knicks are worth more than most NFL teams 3.2 Billion about even with the Yankees. MLS needs to focus on TV revenue not attendance that's inflated because of free ticket give aways. Expansion lessens TV money but they continue to do it. Liga MX ratings dwarf MLS in the US. This is a problem. I don't care how you slice it's a problem. You beat the NBA in attendance but you can't beat the WNBA in ratings. One thing that bugs me about MLS is it's complacency. The idea that attendance is be all end all is a loosing attitude.
Even worse since you're talking about MLS having less than 1/2 the number of games that NBA has. What's your definition of attendance not being good? You are talking about a league that last year had 25 out of 30 teams with an average capacity over 90% and a total attendance of almost 22 million... MLS is working on both. the idea being that if they can increase the attendance of games, they can increase the TV ratings as a result. They are currently struggling at translating attendance into ratings, but there is no reason why they can't focus on both. You're about a decade late on this, btw. There are teams that have give aways and what not, but most teams are well past the point of needing them and attendance numbers are primarily sales. Depends on what you mean. Are you talking per team? In that case.. Kinda? Growth in the league is largely being driven by the expansion clubs (with a few legacy exceptions), so it is understandable why MLS is willing to sacrifice the per team cut of TV if it means the expansion brings in additional revenue through other sources. For MLS? Sure, but the good news is that ratings in the Spanish language channels is increasing, so MLS seems to be making some in roads there. Trust me.. MLS is not being complacent about their TV ratings. It is just that attendance is one thing that they can point to that shows growth in the league.
I've never been a fan of pro/rel. This article changed me to be open to the conversation. Give it a try.
The article didn't say how pro/rel would achieve "something more". The thing that really boggles my mind is that the central premise is "Americans don't like mediocrity". Okay, so how is a tiered, pro/rel system going to work? If they won't watch mediocrity, then surely division two is a complete non-starter? If you want instant global success, then hang parity and let the big clubs spend freely. But mark my words, you've just entered the same model seen around the globe. That La Liga and EPL product you're losing out to? You just applied the same characteristics to a worse league. Furthermore, unless you can deliver a competition as big, glamorous and prestigious as the Champions League, don't expect to be beating Barcelona to elite signings. Parity and growing steadily could deliver a quality league where every game is of Tottenham vs Liverpool standard. However the American mentality has to change. If it does, pro/rel might be something that is needed organically, should people support local lower league clubs in significant numbers. And Don Garber needs to STFU about being a top league by 2022. Let the league progress. Foster patience and steady growth. Because right now, all you're fostering are unrealistic comparisons with leagues around the world that the league can't hope to live up to.
Garber is a salesman so he's selling the league. However, I'd be happy if MLS was at the same level of talent and popularity as Liga MX, but since there's a huge disconnect between Anglo American soccer fans and Latin American soccer fans, it's easy to point to the BPL or some league in Europe and say "we want to be a top league like them". Leicester is an interesting story but using their fluke year as a reason to support a system that would totally decimate the American soccer landscape as an example is just lazy. Weeding through this thread it seems like those who want to see it in the US are at least looking at it from a realistic standpoint. "If this, this, this and this could happen then I could pro/rel working here". However the variables are so great that it delves into alternate history territory.
Of course it's a fantastic story ... but I also won't allow it to be blown up to proportions that are merely an attempt to further a narrative. That said, the fact that it is such a 'holy shit' story only strengthens much of what myself and many others have been saying in this 'debate.' Continuing to say that won't make it true no matter how hard they try. There are quite a few teams in this country that'd have a word or three with you about their performance (or lack there of) determining their status. No, it doesn't ... because that's not how our sports work here. Of course, we have the collegiate system that takes the place of some of the "pyramid" elsewhere for our sports. There's college football teams that draw every bit as much of any NFL team .... ditto college basketball. The absolute top end of college hockey draws at the absolute bottom end of the NHL. We've got a much wider spread and completely different structure with more alternatives to the top end. Inclusive: covering or including everything open to everyone; not limited to certain people That's Merriam Webster's opinion on what inclusive means. Given MW's opinion, I stand by my original statement. Yeah, no. There is absolutely no way that you can honestly say those sports have only seen popularity at the top level .... just no way. I never thought I'd say this to you ... but on this point the only explanation to your stance here is that you're being obtuse on purpose.
Raising the salary cap accomplishes everything the author desires, except maybe winning the all-important Google Search Term war.
As do I. There are loads of clubs who would be refused entry to major leagues on the grounds that their market is too small. There are no clubs that would be refused entry to the premier league. well, sidestepping the point the you can't be obtuse by accident, lets go for multiple choice. Do you think closing leagues up... a) helps the popularity of minor league clubs b) has no impact at all c) hinders the popularity of minor league clubs I choose "c"
So your contribution to a fresh new start of the topic with an exchange by those for it with their arguments and those against it with theirs is dragging the shit from the other thread in here by attacking what hasnot been brought in by the pro fans at all, but by you. Great...Moderator close the thread, because there are people jumping to the occasion to be the party spoilers.
That is a basic flaw in the way of thinking. Financial conduct is a federation concern, it has nothing to do with Pro/Rel. Pro/Rel is purely the organization of the competition with more clubs than can be dealt with in one league. Everything else is politics.
Their stadiums are not big. The capacity in the Netherlands is about 90/95% occupied and PSV for instance would love to expand the stadium but cannot because of its surroundings.
It is because we over here see it as a sport with true competition, while he sees it as an entertainment industry that doenot need competition. Akin to the Harlem Globe Trotters travelling the world. Entertaining, but not sport.
Soccer is popular because it is competitive. Are you a small club? You always have the chance to beat the big one or being a league lower, to rise up and compete. Without Pro/Rel that competitive drive goes away. Pro/Rel wasnot installed to do that, but without it there wouldnot be competition from top to bottom. But the discussion is already drifting away from what the moderator intended, a discussion of cons and pros of it in the USA. It would be a good thing if this thread gets a firm hand of moderating.
You had perfect info at hand when I posted the Swiss Ramble link. So donot hide behind someones back..I find you anyway!!!
Right! Wrong. Your reasoning has nothing to do with the creation of Pro/Rel. In the Netherlands, and I assume the same thing happened in the United Kingdom, the first matches were just two teams that played each other occasionally for fun. More or less like the pick up play as I understand it in the USA. Gradually there emerged the hunger for matches against other teams, but still in an unorganized way. But at a certain point the need emerged to find out which team was the best in a certain region and so local competitions started. Local Champions wanted to compete with other local champions and it got out of hand, so a national league emerged etc. What is lacking in the USA is that organic growth of soccer clubs. I donot know how it went with other sports in the USA and at what time investors in those sports grabbed power to lock out risks to their investments. But with soccer in the USA that natural florishing of clubs is absent, probably also caused by the "It's not an American Sport movement". Soccer wasnot a popular sport to play in the first place. It only has been in the position it is now as a recreational favourite for how many years? So there isnot a steady growth, well more an explosion of clubs like happened in Europe. And for heavens sake, those werenot professional clubs from the start but clubs set up by those who loved to play it. Only when the sport settled in a structured way it became professional not the otherway around. In the USA the soccerfan hungry for international success wants it done with a turbo charger. Then you get investors that have the power to close a league, because it isnot sportclubs turning professional as the next phase, but clubs set up to play it professional from scratch. So the closed system is just a result of how soccer professionalized in the USA, just as Pro/Rel is the result of how it developed in Europe.
My understanding is that soccer had a very limited professional presence after the NASL collapsed. MLS was created because FIFA stipulated that the US would only get the '94 World Cup if they agreed to start a major soccer league. The existing A-League was apparently in pretty iffy shape, so a league (and most of its founding clubs) was built from scratch. Actually, a firm argument against those now demanding that the pyramid be "open" is that the organic growth that creates such a system, never happened to any significant level. So it's short sighted to assume that busting MLS open and letting teams promote, would automatically have this effect now. The odds are probably greater now but for me, that's not enough to warrant the risk. Especially as MLS almost failed in 2002. People accuse MLS of being complacent for not having pro/rel but I think the opposite is true: people have forgotten how fragile the domestic game can be. Now that it's been 20 years and more Americans are watching Liga MX and the EPL, certain people just assume that the nation has turned the corner and the sport is here to stay. THAT is the real complacency IMO.
I liked the APSL/A League, but it had its limitations. I remember Rowdies-Strikers being played at the Big Sombrero in front of 3,500 people in 1993.
Actually, it's because amateur sport clubs never developed in the US, in any sport except baseball in the very early days. The big difference between the US and everywhere else is that amateur team sports in the US grew around schools, not clubs.
Not entirely true, as the NFL originated out of the cluster of amateur-to-semipro clubs around the Great Lakes in the early 20th century, and American soccer has always had its amateur clubs that kept the game alive in enclaves for 100 years. The difference is that the amateur soccer clubs never had any momentum to grow into something bigger.
The NFL's predecessors were all pro or at least semipro leagues; while a few clubs started out as amateur clubs, most of the clubs that formed the NFL began as either company teams that had were amateur in name only, or as purely professional clubs. The company teams that formed most of the early semipro circuits aggressively recruited former college football stars, and relied almost exclusively on college football to supply them with players, so those teams were not community clubs in the same sense as the rest of the world. Generally, amateur sports clubs in the US never had any momentum to grow in other sports, any more than in soccer. In basketball, for example, there is essentially no history of competitive amateur leagues before the first professional leagues were founded -- and again, those professional leagues recruited their players from the college teams. If we had a similar sports history to Europe, then every town would probably have adult football and basketball teams at some level, and people would be watching those teams instead of college and high school teams.