This is in response to @HailtotheKing's recent article in the "You be the Don" section; as other users noted, this actually belongs in "Soccer in the USA". In the first place, no one likes being called a “prole”. So it is somewhat tricky to have a rational response to somebody addressing you with an insult. Yet I can see that beneath that opening is a legitimate request for answers. So I’m going to try. In the first place, part of the problem is that like the many variants of pro/rel, there is no real cohesion between pro/rel adherents, nor should there be. After all, we aren’t owners, and are fully aware of the difference between speculation and action. This is something that seems to be ingrained in your thinking: that we have some sort of “groupthink” or that we, like many MLS Fanboys, say the same things over and over. We don’t. The more quickly you realize this, the better. It is also difficult to answer what appears to be honest questions when the answers are prejudged. None of us wear tinted glasses. People who have been vocal on pro/rel have been dragged through the mud on forums and social media as though they are criminals. We’ve been cursed at, insulted, sometimes threatened-- it gets to people. So assuming we have “rose colored glasses” is, again, insulting. It is as though our interlocutors can do no wrong, even when it’s abusive. Here on BigSoccer, however, it’s par for the course. It is encouraged. By the very groupthink of which you accuse fans of promotion and relegation. I will now attempt to answer the questions put forth by @HailtotheKing. This is where one of those fun “pro/rel fans don’t agree on everything” issues comes into play. While most P/R fans agree that at some point the USSF should regulate promotion and relegation, there are really two wider camps in the P/R movement. Most associate the P/R movement with one of them, which is largely typified by the arguments of my friend, Ted Westervelt, namely: The administrative approach. Folks who take this position feel that it is the federation’s prerogative-- even its duty-- to establish and regulate inter-league promotion and relegation. For folks who take that position, MLS’ involvement-- as it is the only sanctioned Division I league in America-- is currently inevitable. Since this requires MLS’ involvement, most folks who take this position take the tack of protesting MLS and USSF. So that would be their answer: because MLS holds D1, it is therefore of importance to fans of promotion and relegation, since cutting off promotion and relegation at the top flight effectively insulate the top flight from the rest of the pyramid, making a sham of what’s underneath. It’s the most ideologically pure position, so it’s the most popular. That said-- and Ted and I disagree on this fairly openly-- I prefer-- and this is also quite common though less so: The corporate approach. Folks who take this position understand that money goes a long way in changing things. Money can make and break leagues, particularly at the top levels. So many of folks who take the corporate approach simply ignore MLS, refuse to patronize it, et cetera. These folks are the type to demand that US Soccer grant alternate D1 sanction, and build around MLS as opposed to confronting it head-on anyway, for various reasons. Pro/rel in that case makes a great rallying cry to create opposition to MLS, even without plans in place to implement it. The fans who like pro/rel in Europe or Latin America and don’t watch MLS here? We’re addressing them, not the younger MLS base. In both approaches, which aren’t really organized into camps, you often find disaffected MLS fans from its earliest seasons, having heard the same excuses out of MLS’ front offices for almost 20 years. You then ask another question (I sincerely wish you had numbered correctly: I thought this was four questions.) While I am not touching on whether USL will ever try to implement pro/rel again (I don’t think it will, but it’s a non sequitur) I need remind you again that there are two different major mindsets on the issue. I completely favor what you’re saying above. Ted, for example, has stated in the past that it would--without D1 sanction-- be a useless experiment. He’s partially right for one reason: D1 sanction is extremely important to a league’s visibility, eligibility in international competitive play, et cetera. The reason I can totally agree with your statement is because MLS has in fact limited D1-- lowered the bar, if you will-- sufficiently that it could still be successfully challenged by another league. But that would take a lot of money and resources. And on the corporate side-- we’re realists. We’re not there. We’re close, but not there. Again, I absolutely agree that this would occur long term. (Although there is no discussion of mergers, per se-- there would be pro/rel *leagues*.) But-- and this is a big one-- you need the resources to accomplish that goal. Again, pro/rel purists would disagree with me: they know quite well MLS has the financial wherewithal to crush (through media, et cetera) any upstart pro/rel system (which USSF could easily desanction and collapse.) So from a corporatist’s standpoint, attacking MLS for not pushing for pro/rel while not working to establish pro/rel is a cost-effective financial move: it advertises the shortcomings of an upcoming opponent with the hopes of attracting new fans and investors. After all, if they already watch soccer, and they don’t watch MLS, why not aim for that market while exposing the incumbent’s weaknesses? This is a subjectively phrased question, but an administrative position’s response is simple: MLS gains its rights from USSF, and USSF can force MLS to do promotion and relegation. This is problematic, and even pro/rel’s biggest defender’s acknowledge it, because: MLS basically controls USSF right now. It’s that simple. As to the argument that they don’t have the right, that’s absolutely ludicrous. I’ve worked in M & A, as well as telemarketed buyouts. Shareholders get shafted all the time. There’s no rights in business except what you own. And the owners in MLS own shares. If USSF (which as I said, this won’t happen) decreed MLS must promote and relegate, they must or risk desanctioning. That’s life, no matter if Clark Hunt’s feelings get hurt. In the first place, you’re talking about two different models. Kraft invested in a single-entity league. Carolina and Ottawa are investing directly into their local clubs. That’s a huge difference. Their return is immediate, as they have control over the whole of their investments. By contrast, Kraft gets hit in the pocketbook when Chicago loses money. (I’m not saying he actually does. Trying to establish the difference.) In the second, if you’re asking me how I should feel about the millions invested in MLS, I don’t-- the men who invested it will not starve to death if the league collapses tomorrow, and I don’t care if they want to plunk down more money into a pit. Billions have been spent on all sorts of stupid causes I don’t care about. Why should I care now? Sure, they care-- I would if I put down the money-- but since nothing’s actually happening on our end except growth, what are they going to do if an alternate pyramid gets D1? Sue them? That’s why all these leagues have lawyers. Before I answer your first question (three are restatements of the first), I’d like to address the third one very simply: with the exception of Columbus, not a single “new market” has been brought in by MLS that didn’t have a professional club previously at some point before MLS existed. These are not “new markets” (a second exception will be Orlando) at all. They are reserviced markets. Pro/Rel does a few things that the franchise system in other sports does well for use of alternate methods (because of the NCAA) but not soccer: 1. Development. An increase in professional development at the lower level of the pyramid improves the overall quality of domestic play at all levels. Of course one can counter with the proposed MLS academies. And I’d counter that this will not filter outside the TV markets. 2. Increased investment at the lower levels of the pyramid, organically increasing the gap between the divisions. 3. Increased quality at all levels of the game. What we see as the “Pele effect”, later the “Beckham effect”, would affect clubs in microcosm at all levels as higher quality players move down divisions. In answer to your first question, the reason for the financial gulf that exists between the top tiers in other countries and North America (your second question is misleading for this reason, and I will explain why shortly) is due to market saturation, not de facto monopoly. Because of this, money moves down the pyramids at the beginning and up the pyramids after a stronger level of stability has been achieved. While there are exceptions, it follows that the strongest clubs in national D1 leagues rarely go bankrupt. Clubs that do relegate down occasionally lose money. Occasionally that causes a death spiral for a club, but rarely. By contrast, our American soccer system has led to leagues and affiliated clubs throughout their history going belly up regardless of their division. And if we put aside MLS, the history of every soccer league below it, until the NASL, has been one long history of collapse. So the idea that the American soccer model is one that protects against financial instability is just false-- it only protects MLS against financial instability, and implementing single entity at the lower levels is nonsensical. Even the most hardened opponents of NASL, which has been loudly calling for pro/rel, admit that a league outside the first division demonstrating stability is unprecedented in American soccer. So to claim that the current system is inherently stable-- I’m not even discussing MLS right now, I’m just accepting your assertion of its stability at face value-- is incorrect. It is not. Promotion and relegation provide the highest level of insurance for owners interested in maximizing their returns outside of outright single entity, which-- for the reasons above-- actually reduces outside investment. If penalizes overspending naturally, and does not transform a league into a vacuum. I hope that this clarifies at least some of the issues.
Simplifying it: Promotion and Relegation exists in the world for various sports, most visibly in soccer. The United States, Canada, Australia, etc do not have promotion and relegation instituted in their federations that are connected directly to FIFA. MLS has been given division 1 status by USSF. However, division 1 status in the US is superficial as it is defined by the characteristics of global soccer. By this measure it is inaccurately present in play or performance in the US, particularly by MLS. If there is no Pro/Rel then there is no division 1. One does not exist without the other. The United States Soccer Federation affirms that MLS has unchallengeable division 1, commensurate to the merit gained by clubs in leagues around the world, which is highlighted with CONCACAF Champions League berths being awarded to its teams. MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, are all leagues that govern themselves. They also affirm that they are the premier league within their respective sport across the globe. Yet, neither has division 1 status characterized by guidelines for promotion and relegation, where the best are challenged to stay among the best from various leagues within a country. These leagues above have maintained the status quo as the perceived cream of the crop generally because sports in the United States did not follow or incorporate pro/rel as a necessity or means to identify the best. It was neither part of the culture or the design of either league's system. The best was and still is accomplished within a respective league, non bearing inter-league play. This eventually led to multiple leagues from different sports within the country to compete with one another for supremacy. Yet, not withstanding the political influence these leagues have in the US, neither can stop another league from saying that they can showcase quality of the highest standard for a given sport. Neither league, while it is widely perceived and accepted as the best, has a federation above them, certified by a continental organization and a global organization, giving them exclusive hold on a legality that states they are best. And neither league is awarded continental or global berths for their clubs to compete for the best of the best. The difference between MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL vs MLS is perceived de facto division 1, built from over half a century of performance, vs self-propelling, legally inscribed under USSF, division 1 that permeates through the minds of people, even here at bigsoccer. Like the aforementioned quartet which are all closed systems, MLS does not need USSF or division 1 status to be perceived as the premier league in the United States, if they have earned it. They have been around for nearly 20 years. In fact, they are not obligated to follow promotion and relegation, because like these leagues, they never used it and it wasn't part of their design. Nonetheless, where the line gets drawn is that MLS forces the agenda that they are division 1, comparable to the rest of the world, which creates a barrier that prohibits clubs outside of it from ever obtaining such status by way of merit of play as done so world-wide. A club can only enter MLS by paying a franchise fee of $70-$100 million dollars. Ultimately, this is not an MLS issue, and it never was. It is and always has been a United States Soccer Federation issue. USSF is bound by CONCACAF and FIFA. It needs to have a division 1 league. MLS temporarily filled that void. Times have changed and soccer has exploded in the United States far greater than the federation ever believed it would. There is no turning back. The beautiful game is here in full force with clubs and rabid screaming fans across the nation making their mark. The USSF can no longer indirectly, by labeling MLS as division 1, claim that other clubs or leagues are inferior. Dismiss the cosmetic perception (stadiums; TV deals; perfume, underwear, and chewing gum commercials), and simply measure quality of play. There are many clubs outside MLS that are not at the level of professionalism (visible aesthetic and performance on the pitch) of that league. However, there are a bulk that are reaching milestones and already competing and beating MLS teams during inter-league play (e.g. US Open Cup games). It took MLS eighteen years to beat a team from the Barclays Premier League. It took the NASL, since returning, three years. The federation in the United States that is meant to represent all leagues and clubs in this country can no longer inhibit them from achieving national, continental, and global recognition. There is a limitation on what the majority of US clubs, all outside of MLS, can achieve because of this legally binding perception. This label is not in any way shape or form parallel to division 1 like the rest of the world through promotion and relegation, which authentically leads to Champions League berths for respective confederations, and in turn towards the FIFA Club World Cup. The time was not right years ago or yesterday for pro/rel in the US. No person can live on ifs reflecting on the past. Time has revolutionized the way soccer has become a major sport stateside. Over 50 million registered/known soccer fans live in the United States. Tens of millions of fans from the US watched the US Men's National Team at the 2014 World Cup. Thousands of US citizens went to Brazil in support of our national team. Records of viewership and passion for soccer both at the national and club level in the USA is at an all time high. We must move forward. No one wants to hurt clubs or players in MLS. On the contrary, people that advocate for pro/rel greatly favor the continuous growth of all clubs for the better of the game. The more clubs, the more players, the more fans uniting, the stronger we become as a soccer nation. The future of pro/rel in the US comes down to the following: Spending the next 5 years designing a clear pathway to restructure our system, and allow clubs and leagues smooth and timely transition periods. Upon then, a) The USSF implements top-to-bottom/bottom-to-top promotion and relegation, giving MLS (the league - not the clubs in it) authentic division 1 comparable to the rest of the world. Clubs that reach MLS represent that status. Single-entity by default is broken up along with everything associating it. Clubs currently in MLS would play for the next few years against other clubs from leagues already designated as division 2, 3, etc. Clubs would move up and down by merit but also must be able to have a facility available to sustain at least 12,000 people minimum for D1. (Facilities can either be an existing one that meets criteria, a current one being upgraded, or a new facility; - with the long term plan of building a larger facility within their area). CONCACAF Champions League US berths remain the same. b) MLS does not participate. USSF, with support from FIFA, gives MLS a special division 1 status for a closed system, giving it the opportunity to be seen as one of the premier leagues in the US. Meanwhile, USSF creates a definitive division 1 status for an open system. All leagues and clubs in the US that want to participate can, and will be organized by current parameters. Teams in MLS that also want to leave MLS and join the open system must be allowed to leave with their identities (e.g. Seattle Sounders, DC United, etc) or face heavy sanctions by the federation and FIFA. Clubs in the United States will play for the next few years to set up the levels properly. Stadium and finances to participate in each level will be similar to the above. MLS will receive only 1 CONCACAF Champions League berth for its MLS Cup winner. This gives the league a platform to participate in international competition while remaining a closed league. As a closed league, MLS can grow to however big it wants (e.g. 24, 28, 32, 64), but it will only have 1 direct CCL berth. Two berths will be awarded to the top two clubs in the open system at the highest level which will eventually include 200-300-400-500 clubs. The 4th berth will indefinitely remain for the US Open Cup, which MLS will also be able to participate in. c) MLS does not participate. USSF takes away FIFA mandated division 1 status. All leagues and clubs that want to participate can, and will be organized by current parameters. Teams in MLS that want to leave MLS and join the open system must be allowed to leave with their identities (e.g. Seattle Sounders, DC United, etc) or face heavy sanctions by the federation and FIFA. Clubs in the United States will play for the next few years to set up the levels properly. Stadium and finances to participate in each level will be similar to the above. MLS will receive only 1 CONCACAF Champions League berth for its MLS Cup winner. This gives the league a platform to participate in international competition while remaining a closed league. As a closed league, MLS can grow to however big it wants (e.g. 24, 28, 32, 64), but it will only have 1 direct CCL berth. Two berths will be awarded to the top two clubs in the open system at the highest level which will eventually include 200-300-400-500 clubs. The 4th berth will indefinitely remain for the US Open Cup, which MLS will also be able to participate in. d) MLS does not participate. Following (b) or (c), with difference being: MLS will temporarily receive 1 CONCACAF Champions League berth for its MLS Cup winner, for only ten years. This gives the league a platform to participate in international competition while remaining a closed league. As a closed league, MLS can grow to however big it wants (e.g. 24, 28, 32, 64), but it will only have 1 direct CCL berth. Two berths will be awarded to the top two clubs in the open system at the highest level which will eventually include 200-300-400-500 clubs. The 4 berth will indefinitely remain for the US Open Cup, which MLS will also be able to participate in. After ten years, as the open system grows, the third berth will no longer be for MLS and it will go to the third highest team in the open system. e) MLS does not participate. Following (b) or (c), with difference being: MLS will not receive any CONCACAF Champions League berths. All three berths will be awarded to the top three clubs in the open system at the highest level which will eventually include 200-300-400-500 clubs. The 4 berth will indefinitely remain for the US Open Cup, which MLS will be able to participate in. Out of the 5, if MLS prefers to remain independent, option (b) will likely be the scenario to evolve for the greater good of the game. Ultimately, the open system will attract clubs from all areas. No club that earns promotion is obligated to move ahead if they are not ready. And any club that feels they need to move to a lower level can. All clubs will be given opportunities to build their organizations as they see fit giving everyone more than a fighting chance for growth. While it may be up to the USSF to be influentially decisive and lead the way for soccer in the states, it is up to the fans of every club in the US to make this happen. Everyone wants their local club to succeed and be given an equal opportunity to reach the highest plateau. And everyone here earnestly wants the best for soccer in this country. Cheers.
I certainly hope we never have some incumbent top level clubs stay in a closed MLS and other clubs leave MLS for set of leagues with promotion and relegation because it would create rival leagues and it would be complicated to explain to a casual fan that there are two leagues both wanting to be the best in the USA that don't play each other. Ignoring USSF sanctioning, @MakingGoals do you really dispute that MLS has better clubs than the NASL? If the 29 clubs in MLS and NASL played a double round-robin group that would take 56 games per club and more than one year to play, what ten positions from 1 to 29 do you think the 10 NASL clubs would finish in?
I know the question wasn't intended for me but based on USOC play, there's a very good possibility that it would be one mixed up table. That's something at this point that nobody could even predict, and a person who says "1 through 19 for MLS" is kidding themselves. As for explaining two different leagues-- some people are already doing that, not denigrating the NASL as "minor league soccer".
Why do you propose creating a pyramid by starting with the capstone? Shouldn't you start by building a solid foundation, and proceeding from there? If there are hundreds of professional teams out there just waiting for the chance to become D1, start up regional amateur or semi-pro leagues with the stated intent of building the pyramid up to challenge for D1 status. USSF isn't just going to remove MLS's D1 status unless there is a viable alternative.
Without pointing out that there are already more and more leagues and that some have the intention of doing precisely what you're saying, my point is that MLS' public insistence on staying closed inhibits investment in other leagues with a lower price point. Which is why their introducing angling for pro/rel and the death of the salary cap as a counterpoint is a way to reverse that trend. Edit: More importantly, I don't think there are hundreds of pro teams waiting for the chance to become D1 so much as waiting to understood as "professional", since MLS has crafted the perception for almost two decades that outside MLS, there's only amateur and semi-pro soccer.
To follow the "building" analogy. MLS is a skyscraper. There was no solid foundation for them to build on when they started in 1996. They spent lots of time and money to lay a foundation, and build a very nice skyscraper. It isn't the tallest building in the world, but it is one they can call their own. When you compare it to the pyramids built in other nations, it is very small by comparison. But those pyramids have taken nearly a century to build. MLS built their skyscraper in a mere 20 years. USSF is looking at the US soccer landscape. They are seeing the tallest building, seeing MLS, and are calling it D1. If you want to build a pyramid, it is *going* to take a very long time. When trying to build a pyramid, you don't start with a skyscraper and going from there. You start with a big broad foundation. Let's assume there are hundreds of teams just waiting for a promotion/relegation pyramid. Most of them are going to have to be OK with being at lower divisions for the lifetime of people would found them. Why does MLS's existence prevent people from founding these teams? The only investors it really would impact are the ones which would strive for D1. Those investors could easily wait until the pyramid is more established, and then purchase ownership interest in a local team which already exists. The reason that this isn't happening on any grand scale is that there is no motivation for it. We've had 100 years to start building our pyramid. Occasionally some people think it might be neat, but then give up when they realize the difficulties in doing so in our sporting climate.
Pro/Rel details to discuss: Is Des Moines Menace ready for HD National and Local Broadcasts? Those lights aren't cheap. And TV broadcasters can be a demanding bunch. Maybe if an operation such as Des Moine Menace is ready for such capital investments, and there are dozens like them, pro/rel only then begins to look remotely possible.
It was crying out for a tl;dr, but after reading through, there doesn't seem to be much of an actual case put forward. It seems to be more of a wish list of what you'd like to see, coupled with a healthy dollop of not really caring about the financial impact, especially for those putting their money forward.
And the financial impact really is the big thing. People do not realize how much smaller the budgets are outside of MLS. The MLS minimum salary is pretty much the top for the NASL. Kansas City spent $5,000 on every chair in their locker room; NASL sides are happy when they have a mini-fridge. I get the argument if there was some blurring between the top of the NASL and the bottom of MLS, but there really isn't. Money, infrastructure, and talent wise, an NASL team would not be ready to play in MLS 2 months after the season ends.
Why do they have to spend the money if they can't afford it or if they don't want to make the investment? Everyone doesn't have to top flight ready immediately - and some never will be, that's ok too. pro/rel offers this type of flexibility - this year they're not ready, but maybe in a couple of years their finances change and they decide to make the investment. Being flexible is a good thing.
If there is no capstone, then you can do that. But if there is an existing capstone advertising the exclusion of all others, then that acts to discourage investment - at the least, it doesn't encourage it. If the capstone doesn't want to participate you will have to do just that - work around the capstone. - but the point of the particular post (I believe) was to include the capstone, not exclude it. Fundamentally, pro/rel is inclusive, where franchise systems are not.
A team from Belgium does not want to be promoted En fin de saison dernière, RUS Assesse avait participé au tour final des équipes de première provinciale et n'avait pas été jusqu'au bout de l'aventure. Le club pensait jouer une nouvelle saison en P1 namuroise mais voilà qu'il a été propulsé en D4 suite à la faillite du RWDM Brussels: "Le problème est qu'en D4 le budget doit être plus élevé et c'est un grand problème pour nous. On serait en outre versé dans la série B avec très peu de matches contre des clubs de notre région", a expliqué le club peut-on lire sur le site de la RTBF. La RUS Assesse a donc demandé à ne pas jouer en D4 mais le Comité exécutif de l'Union Belge, tant en première instance qu'en appel, a refusé de répondre favorable à cette requête.
Because you can't have pro/rel if there aren't a significant percentage of lower-division teams which have the fiscal ability to handle moving up to a larger division with only a few short months preparation time. SOMEBODY will have to spend the money. That's the point. Just like SOMEBODY will have to absorb the loss of income when they relegated. That's the rest of the point. I don't know why this is so hard for you guys to understand.
Most of the teams in a promotion and relegation pyramid will not make it to D1 level. I decided to go back and farm up some pro/rel info. I picked an arbitrary, but long, start season in the Football League of 1969-70. This gives 46 seasons of data. If we had a 30 year old investor start a club today, that would put them at 75 years old if they played 46 seasons. Only 54 teams have played at the D1 level in the Football League from the 69-70 season until present. At the start of that season, there were 92 teams in the closed Football League system. So only 59% of the teams in the League at that time, had the motivation to actually reach the D1 level in 46 seasons time. This means that 41% of those teams, 48 of them, have been happy to remain in the lower divisions through that whole time. They've built their business model on being a lower division club. The highest a team not in the 54 placed last year? 10th in the Championship. Middle of the road for that league. The next two, the only other teams in the Championship this season that haven't played in D1 since before 1969-70? Brentford (2nd League 1) and Rotherham United (4th League 1). None of those teams would be considered likely to advance to the Premier League after this season. If there are *only* 92 (to keep the numbers equivalent) owners/teams in the US just waiting for their chance at a promotion/relegation system with the chance to get to D1, where are the 48 that want a promotion/relegation system, but are happy at remaining a lower division club for the next 46 seasons? Surely you can start a promotion/relegation system with 48 teams. If, as people have suggested, there are hundreds of these teams, surely there are plenty of teams that want a promotion/relegation system, but have no aspirations beyond being a lower division side. Start building with this, and then, as you build this strong foundation of clubs, start pushing for higher aspirations for the growing pyramid. If we want a successful soccer pyramid with promotion/relegation, we need to build the foundation first.
The article quoted is a more descriptive version of what the OP stated. It doesn't state the reasons why the Belgian association/whatever is refusing to allow the team to stay down.
I have to point out that this isn't true unless you ignore every MLS-EPL result before this year. There have been wins against EPL opposition in literally every year in the league's history.
1) That is already happening to a degree, when people who don't follow MLS query and are made aware that pro/rel does not exist in the states and divisions are not reflected on merit of play. 2) The USA has always been a nation built on free enterprise and healthy competition. If MLS decides to remain a closed system, then it inherently won't be competing with an open system because both are different structures and variant products. There is a large difference between both models. In other words, while both are attempting to showcase high caliber soccer, consider them as two distinct tournaments rather than two opposing ones. 3) If MLS remains closed, and option (b) from above is selected, MLS will still be selling an advantage which is a limited amount of clubs competing for a singular CCL berth. And they will also have their single-entity design as the alternative. Clubs/teams will have the options of deciding what is best for them. Some will choose to leave and some will choose to join MLS. Others will decide for the open system. It is not a matter of disputing hypothetically which teams may be better on the pitch (for a particular juncture). It is a matter that each team is given the opportunity to demonstrate their capability time and again. Teams in all sports from leagues around the world fluctuate. The only way to know who should be on top is by allowing the teams to compete for the highest position in an open system. If the US is to be one of the authentic top competing countries in the world for soccer then we need to have all the components in place that will allow us to get there. Promotion and Relegation is an important ingredient to the recipe. USSF must give clubs the options and flexibility to choose their pathways for growth.