US Leagues: Anti Democratic?

*belch*

 

commie.

 

Okay, I'll bite. What happens if the Metros get relegated? Sure, many of us would have a good laugh, but I can't say that would be good for the largest city in the country to have no teams in the top flight. Are you banking on another NY "independent to spring up and get promoted? How are you going to build up support for said team when the Metros have a hard enough job doing that without competition?

Its bad if any team gets relegated since that would likely open a gaping hole of fan support. To make sure a hole like that would be filled, you would first need to hope that fan support for these teams getting promoted is just as high as MLS teams and that their level of play is high enough that they would have half a shot at staying alive in MLS.

Finally what about procurement of players? I don't know how you would do a draft. You couldn't. Would you just dump the salary cap? Something like this has too much potential to go NASL on us all. Sorry, but if I have to choose between "Undemocratic soccer" and no soccer, I think you know the answer.

 

Democracy is a political system. Pro/rel is not a political system.

 

*belch*

 

I would like to add a *fart*.

Thanks.

 

Your logic is flawed on two counts. First you are using examples and analogies that don't apply to the US and MLS. Second, your logic is too rooted in "grand theory". The flaw of all grand theories is that they are often torn apart when examining individual cases. Its like Europeans royally screwing African agricultural lands with farming and ranching techniques that worked well back home, but not in a totally different climate.

You say even the greatest clubs have been in the second flight. Those are in countries with not only a well established tradition of pro/rel, but also of a passionate soccer culture in general. We have neither of those. You are going to tell fans of a team that is only 8 years old (and most aren't excessively passionate anyway) that we're putting you in a second rate league. I'm sorry, but I'm very skeptical that with a soccer culture in its infancy that you will win over many people. Admittedly, this would please many soccer fans that aren't MLS fans, but would this balance out the confusion and/or displeasure from more casual fans?

And again, so what if West Ham and/or Charlton are relegated? London will still be well represented in the Premiership. You use the example of LA not having a football team isn't a problem to the NFL. Well the NFL is so well run and such a part of sports culture here that it is truly a national game. People will watch most NFL games regardless of who is playing. No other American sport can truly say that. That's especially true of MLS.

You slam MLS clubs in favor of Indy clubs because they were made for the love of the game. Some good these long established indy clubs have done for American soccer. And you don't think MLS teams were made for the love of the game? Lamar Hunt and Phil Anschutz HAVE to love the game to invest so much into their clubs. They aren't doing it from a purely business perspective, I can tell you.

First, money is not a guarantee of success. We all know that. But its almost a requirement if you want a chance. No Real did not win La Liga, but they did win the Champions League. Do you really think Cottbus or Charlton will win their respective top flight leagues? And this assumes that clubs would simply survive. NASL didn't and many clubs around the world are having problems. Rumblings of a salary cap have been heard in many places before the G14 have discussed it.

But you know what, that doesn't matter. First, how would you not have a salary cap MLS? You first have to have individual team ownership. MLS simply doesn't have that. Before you talk about scrapping salary caps, drafts, and adding pro/rel, you need these clubs to have owners. Its that simple. All of those points are moot without that prerequisite.

Even if that does happen, you would have to significantly change American attitudes about what constitutes success. In other countries, not having funds to compete is accepted (imagine what Ajax would look like now if it could keep those talented youngsters that have come through). Therefore, success for different clubs varies. That is not the case in the US. Success is truly measured by winning championships. Its not like the little diner that does not directly compete with the 5 star restaurant.

Don't take this as me trying to "Americanize" soccer. I hated the shootout and other rules MLS initially had, and MLS is much better for eliminating them. College and high school soccer need to fall in line with the way the FIFA rules of the game. I think what you are talking about would be wonderful to have. Once MLS has broadly expanded and ALL of those teams have owners, I think pro/rel could work under the right cicumstances. I wouldn't mind a system similar to the rest of the world, but I have a hard time envisioning it coming to fruition.

And therein lies the biggest problem. You believe that America can simply cast off a long standing sports culture with little to no transition. That's almost impossible to do anywhere in anything. I wouldn't expect the rest of the world to embrace the replacement of single table to divisions. Establishment of a truly democratic system takes a long time to evolve. You can't force it. Economic and political "shock therapy" hasn't really worked in Russia is an example

 

Since when does political ideologies have to do with business practices.

It is like comparing democracy to communism, it is two different things.

Try putting a little thought into your thread topic. Maybe then people might take it seriously.

My god.... This is definitely ranks up with one of the stupedest threads of the year.

 

All that works in other countries because they LOVE soccer. Soccer is the #1 sport, by far in all those countries. If NY, LA, etc were relegated for any amount of time, the league wouldnt be able to survive without their large markets. And the large markets WOULD diminish because, again, soccer isnt big enough yet in this country to hold onto the casual fan if his team is suddenly in a minor league. Your idea, regardless of its principles, is economically unfeasible. oh, btw: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21652

 

Going Public?

As long as the economics and politics of MLS is becoming the point of this thread, I have a bunch of questions that maybe someone can answer. I realize that all the secrecy of MLS finances will probably make these impossible to answer, but here goes:

Have any MLS teams considered going public? For that matter, are there any NFL, NBA, NHL, or MLB teams that have issued stock and are publicly traded?

Have any stadiums (soccer or otherwise) been built with private funds raised from plenty of small contributors rather than one or two large contributors?

Could an MLS side go public, or would that be impossible given the whole single entity business?

So those are my questions.

As for the other topics here, I think when expansion happens, Milwaukee and Rochester should get some consideration. Relegation is not needed in MLS, but promotion would be really cool. No MLS team has a history any longer than seven years. We could instantly age our league by adding teams that have a pre-MLS history. I think that was part of the plan behind changing San Jose's name "back" to the Earthquakes.

Another common idea for expansion that shows up on these boards is to regenerate NASL names, which is a swell idea as long as we're not talking about the Rowdies, or the Sting or the Washington Diplomats, or possibly the least creative name in history: the San Diego Sockers.

I'd like to see the Ft. Lauderdale Strikers, New York Cosmos, and the Seattle Sounders revived.

 

Quick, before everyone tells me what we all already know, the Sounders do exist in the A-League. See above comments about promotion w/o relegation.

 

I think that one of the heaviest problems with bringing Rochester, Milwaukee, Charleston, etc. into MLS is the unlikely case that those investors would be willing to buy into absorbing losses for however long it takes to get MLS in the black. Sadly...

Of course this league is "undemocratic" -- which is a bit of an absurd concept to apply to what is effectively a private firm -- it's a controlled investment or experiment that you wouldn't dare unleash to the elements given the hundreds of millions invested to date. When it turns profitable and MLS can forecast profits in perpetuity, you can bet money that Anschutz, Kraft & Hunt will divest all but a pet team and focus on the media revenues or whatever rights they settle with.

Once the league proves to be a viable, profitable business, I'd bet the league will open up a lot to encourage new or cross-over investors. There will probably be a few hitches with salary caps and other restraints to keep the league from turning into NASL, but the rest of the world is probably headed in that direction sooner than later anyway. This would probably be a decent time to "promote" teams, but by then it might actually be too big to have anything but an American division/conference format.

In fact, it would not suprise me if there are a number of leagues enviously looking at the controls that MLS has on its player salaries. Not that proud Europeans would admit it in a million years, but I'll bet Garber has had a few off-record conversations about how it works in our system.

 

In Britain there has been a hockey league in existence in some form since about the 1950s. Currently there is an 8 team top division. Crowds range from around 2000 to around 10000 and clubs can just about survive on those figures. There are about 20 other clubs in Britain but support for them ranges about 200 up to 2000. They would financially have no chance of competing in the top division. The upshot of this is that there is no promotion/relegation. This has nothing to do with protecting the interests of the top clubs, it's just recognition that it's not economically viable. The clubs outside the top division are quite welcome to apply for membership but none do as it would be financial (and playing) suicide to try. On the other hand brand new clubs, such as the one in Belfast, are allowed to join straight away. If there were a lot of clubs then pro/rel would be considered but until then there is no point. To me this is pretty much the situation the MLS is in. Of all the clubs outside the MLS only 1 has a fan base anywhere near big enough, but currently their stadium is too small for them to be anything other than a below average supported MLS team. Until you have a top division of 20 or so clubs and 20 or so more outside in the A-League who could realistically survive, then it's just a non-starter.

 

Am I the only one to have noticed the absurdity of someone whose primary allegiance is to a Brazilian team lecturing ANYBODY about the ethical dimensions of our league's structure? I mean, come on. The degree of corruption in Brazilian soccer is legendary. It makes Single Entity look positively Gandhian in comparison.

 

t??]Originally posted by Dr. Wankler [/i]
Am I the only one to have noticed the absurdity of someone whose primary allegiance is to a Brazilian team lecturing ANYBODY about the ethical dimensions of our league's structure? I mean, come on. The degree of corruption in Brazilian soccer is legendary. It makes Single Entity look positively Gandhian in comparison. [/QUOTE]

Not to pile on, but I remember reading an article in the last year or so detailing how the Sao Paulo league (or the CBF - I can't really remember which, but I'm thinking it was the SP state league administration) actually (and not corruptly - though I'm sure that goes on - but transparently) allocated funds to certain SP clubs to allow them to buy players and stay competitive.

McGinty and RichardL hit the nail right on the head. But since this sort of thread is the Old Faithful of Bigsoccer, I'll suggest to them now they save their responses for easy cut n' pasting, for the next time someone brings the topic up. Which should be in 40 minutes or so.

 

At this point, MLS is all about selling tickets and putting more butts in the seats.

Its a swell idea and all, but MLS is much more interested in creating a team in Houston than having the Chalreston Battery in the league. Houston would give MLS quadruple the attendance and just smash them in a TV market system.

That's it.

 

I just read this thread and I have no idea what the connection between your post and the thread title is.

 

Ummm. This actually makes my head sore, but I'll press on.

How is it beneficial for this league, financially, to have teams like DC or the Metrostars playing in the A-League? And how is it beneficial to have teams who play in inadequate stadia (small fields, tiny capacities, etc) play in MLS? How does that improve the league's ability to stay afloat for another 5-10 years.

It over-expanded and spent to much money on mediocre and decidedly non-charismatic foreign players.

And if you can't see that things are different in the US than they are in England or Brazil, then...

 

Seriously, Andy? I thought it was a pretty decent explanation for people like SoccerScout, one that explained why relegation works brilliantly in some cases, but not in others, and that such things as financial factors and sporting traditions have a lot to do with it.

 

But where does "Anti Democratic" come in?

 

Well, for that we'll have to await soccerscout's return, as that was his contention, not Richard's, who I think wisely decided it was a pointless thing to debate (I mean, there are countries with ruling juntas that have promotion and relegation, so I wasn't sure how to approach that one myself...)