Update on the thread premise: -the US Women have declined their way to a Gold Medal at the 2024 Olympics. -the US Men appear to be on the verge of hiring Mauricio Pochettino.
If we only had the magic of pro/ rel we would win every World Cup from here to eternity and cure cancer
I will admit that while I am familiar with this canard, I simply cannot understand how a relatively rational person otherwise can convince themselves that pro-rel is the panacea, or the absence of it is the real underlying issue that they often try to claim that it is, or how it would significantly improve our player development infrastructure in any impactful way. The argument really comes down to nothing more or less than "because other places have an older and more established soccer culture, we need to adopt all of their quirks, just because." It's one-step less nonsensical than the argument that twitter twits make that our (unique, no less) problem is that we call it "soccer."
Who the hell knows? ...........................but mostly the argument comes from people who run or support the other alphabet soups of leagues that have LOST the competition to MLS for supremacy in this country. So they proclaim that we need an "open structure," which of course would benefit them. They rage against the machine, but really wish to be part of the machine. If the A-League or USL or NASL or whomever had beaten out MLS for supremacy, would we better off today? Impossible to answer, but I personally don't think things would be any different. The God's honest truth is that soccer in this country is in an infinitely better place now than it was 30 years ago. Maybe there aren't many people left from when we couldn't actually watch World Cup games live in this country. Only could watch European leagues on grainy cable channels like we were watching Debbie Does Dallas. At my first USMNT game live, we lost to Bermuda. That wasn't 1962. It was 1991. And it wasn't like it was some scrub roster. Meola, Wynalda, Vermes, Balboa and others played in that game. So the whole premise of this thread is nonsensical. Everything to do with soccer in this country has changed dramatically already in a very short period. We just took another huge step by hiring Pochettino. Things will keep changing dramatically. What is it that people want? I'm not quite sure I know. I think they just want something to complain about.
And people don't understand the history of pro-rel. It wasn't introduced because of the Victorian sense of fair play. It was implemented in England for business reasons all the way from the absorption of the failed Alliance League in 1892 to the implementation of the Open Pyramid during very dire times for the Football League in 1987. The format was exported to various countries by British soccer "missionaries". The ethos of a global open pyramid is about as old as MLS.
That really isn't the argument at all. Not surprised you would rail against something you don't understand and support a structure that only benefits the league you follow. I dont see how any American soccer fan of average intelligence could understand pro/rel and our current closed system with all its issues and be so vehemently against it. Id get preferring something else, if a coherent argument could be contracted, but to actively being against it is very strange.
I don't understand how the American pro-rel delusionistas doesn't understand that correlation is not causation. Just because countries that have promotion and relegation have won the World Cup. doesn't mean that promotion and relegation is responsible for them winning the World Cup. Countries without pro/rel have won the World Cup. A country without a professional league won the World Cup. And @Clint Eastwood didn't say anything that would imply that he was vehemently against pro-rel. He said "that soccer in this country is in an infinitely better place now than it was 30 years ago" which no-one but a fool could dispute. There are many reasons why the US hasn't broken into the top ten regularly. Our leagues' structures is way down on that list.
That isn't the argument either. You don't understand the arguments of pro/rel and you don't understand American sports. I dont give a damn what Clint said and have no clue why it is relevant here. You would have to be a fool to think "being better" than some time in the future was some type of success. It isnt my league and MLS is a massive problem for soccer in this country.
You say I don't understand pro/rel, despite my team being relegated 8 times in the 44 years I've been supporting them and me being a founding member of the Supporter's Trust that rescued the club and actively, if remotely, involved in the running of the club, which was only saved thanks to an anonymous donation of £3 million. And that's one of the reasons pro/rel as implented in England. would struggle in the US, because it depends on benefactors bailing clubs out, or clubs using bankruptcy protection to survive. That wouldn't happen in the states. Your romantic ideal of how pro/rel works is not reality. FFS Brazil won two World Cups before they had a national league and 5 World Cups before implementing a stable pro/rel system (they haven't won it since). And usually I don't bother reading your posts because they're pretty worthless but for some reason I clicked on show ignored post. In 1981 the USMNT didn't even qualify for World Cup qualifying. How have things not improved? Well that's a problem because only two types of system work in the US, the MLS style single-entity, where the league is owned by the clubs, or the pure franchise system, where the league is owned by a third-party like USL. The former appears to be the more stable. And if you think that sending US kids to Europe as quasi slaves is the answer, which is how clubs like Lyon treated African kids before UEFA clamped down, then, well that says a lot about delusion.
In fact, when Brazil won their first two World Cups, none of the players in their squads were even subject to pro/rel in their state leagues! All their players were drawn either from the Campeonato Carioca, which did not have pro/rel at the time, or from clubs that were founding members of the Campeonato Paulista, which were exempt from relegation between 1955 and 1963 because of a court ruling.
Their system was such a mess. In 1987 Flamengo and Internacional protested by refusing to play in the Championship stage. In 2000 116 teams competed in the national "top-flight" split into 4 equal segments.
I have so many people on this forum ignored at this point, that to me this page just looks like you arguing with an imaginary friend!!! You're exactly right, but it doesn't matter. There's this delusion about pro/rel that I don't understand. There are reasons to like it and there are reasons not to like it. Those are mostly business and cultural issues. But I don't think it has anything really to do with the quality of player developed domestically for the USMNT. And therefore, no consequence on results for the USMNT. In fact, the structure of MLS allows its clubs more of an opportunity to provide chances to young players. And, by the way, what was the European Super League about? All of those big clubs willing to leave the beloved pro/rel system to have a semi-closed system in which 15 of the team were going to be permanent members. Then more teams got FOMO and demanded inclusion. Then everyone freaked because they realized that Plymouth Argyle would never be able to win the European Super League. As if they would anyway. It was closed. 15 different MLS franchises have won MLS Cup. 19 different organization have made an MLS Cup final. How many different teams have won a Premier League title since 1992 (Four more years than MLS has existed)? 7 (Man United, Man City, Arsenal, Livepool, Chelsea,...............and Leicester and Blackburn). But there's this bizarre notion that some American fans have that there's an open-ness in England that doesn't exist. It's a romanticized version of reality. Yes, in theory Charlton can win something. They haven't won a damn thing since 1946. There's a different type of democracy in MLS. There are 29 teams in this country that really can win its biggest prize. We're about to add a 30th in San Diego for 2025. [Well, I guess three are Canadian.] We don't have pro/rel. We have the biggest first division competition in the world instead. The 29th best team in Austria last season played in the regional semi-pro 3rd division. That team can play for another 400 years and never win the title. The 29th best team in MLS last season was TFC, who has won multiple MLS titles.
Nothing you just wrote suggests you understand pro/rel. Also, not sure why you are making this about England. It is almost like your personal experiences have really clouded your views on this topic. Please explain to me what my "romantic ideal" is. It certainly won't be my view but I will at least know what you are arguing against.
I would say the top to bottom competitiveness of MLS has all to do with the relative financial parity we have among the clubs. It has little to do with lack of "pro/rel". And I greatly support financial parity within leagues for the most part. You are comparing apples and oranges with you compare MLS champions to Premier league champions. We have the added randomness of knock-out playoffs, where currently the 18th best team in the regular season can still win the championship. We should be comparing our Supporter's shield winner their Champion. That would be better, but still not perfect because the SS is not the purpose of the season, and the schedule is not always balanced. Having said all of that, we would certainly still have more winners than the Premiership, which I agree is a great thing.
1. About the first paragraph…I would argue you’re separating things that are related. With pro/rel, do MLS teams (and taxpayers) invest in the stadia that have made MLS profitable and sustainable and secure? 2. I agree that Shield winners are a better measure, but off the top of my head I can think of two clubs with Shields but no Cup…NYRB and Cincinnati. I think the Union too. I wonder if changing out Shield winner NYRB for Cup winner NYCFC and Shield winner FCC for Cup winner Colorado, etc., balances things out.
I think the bigger question is with pro/rel would investors be paying expansion fees? Why on earth risk $10 million, never mind $500 million of you're at risk of losing everything because you had a bunch of key player injuries or you appointed a moron as coach? Look how Tyler Adams injury affected Leeds.
A traditional footballing structure, in parts of the world that have traditionally excelled at the game, is that little kids, from the age of 5 or 6, play football spontaneously and monomaniacally at every chance they get. They play at recess in school, in the street and in parks or in vacant lots, with any sort of ball is available, and using shirts or rocks for goal posts. They imagine that they’re the stars they see on tv or at their local team and try to copy their moves. By the age that they are ready to start organized play, these kids will already have close ball control, and maybe the beginning of some passing and shooting skills. A few will be really gifted. I don’t know how we can go about getting American kids to kick a soccer ball instead of throwing a pointy football or a baseball, but that’s the what we need to do to start mass-producing talent.
Ok that makes sense. I thought you might be a pro-rel conspiracy theorist. I think most American kids kick a soccer ball before they ever throw a pointy ball, pick up a bat or throw a ball through a hoop but as soon as they're old enough they'll start to emulate their heroes. I think that's what is really missing. American soccer heroes. Once we start to produce world-class players kids will want to emulate them. If you look at the impact of the black basketball players of the 70s and 80s, or Joan Benoit on female marathoners you can see it happening. We didn't used to have any black quarterbacks until Randall Cunningham and Warren Moon and now half the quarterbacks in the NFL are black. So all we need is an American Messi, Pele and Maradonna turning out together for the 2038 World Cup in North Korea and everything will change.