USL Expansion General discussion

at MLSSoccer.com & tennessean.com

Nashville SC CEO Ian Ayre: 'It's not feasible' for Nashville to have a USL and MLS team

"Nashville SC will have a USL affiliate once they begin MLS play in 2020, but it almost certainly won't be in the city of Nashville. CEO Ian Ayre said that "it's not feasible to have two teams in Nashville," Ayre clarified that they will definitely be joining 19 other MLS teams in affiliating with a team in either the USL Championship or USL League One."

Hmmm. Affliliate with Memphis? Birmingham (20 miles closer than Memphis)?
Chatt. Red Wolves? Put a USL1 in Knoxville?

 

If it's a reserve team, will it really matter much where they put it?
Their best bet would be to maybe try to emulate Seattle and put them in Murfreesboro.

 

I could see Nashville SC going the affiliation route for a while. Tennessee produces so few professionals, that a straight reserve team might be unnecessary for a few years until they can recruit / coach up their academy to a higher level.

 

It's a shame Huntsville let Joe Davis Stadium go, because this would have been a good opportunity for them with the Stars gone to nearby Madison

 

Part of what drew my attention to this quote is the train-wreck-I-can't-take-my-eyes-off-of Swope Park Rangers. Both have very similarly size metro areas. Nashville SC says "it won't work having MLS and USL in the same town." SKC presses on...all evidence to the contrary.

 

I feel like you're reading a lot into the fact that SKC didn't put SPR into into L1 in year one, but I'm also not sure that SKC particularly cares that their reserve team doesn't draw a crowd. I would advise Nashville not to care much, either, because they won't draw significantly.

 

The SPR stadium situation has been weird for several years. They started at Swope Soccer Village in 2016 and averaged 1750 per game. The NWSL team (Kansas City FC) brought more bleachers to Swope when they moved from UMKC stadium. That got the capacity to 3500. But that still wasn't good enough for USL- it was less than the 5000 seat requirement. So in 2018, SPR announced they were going to relocate to a local high school football stadium...and that lasted just 2 games when the USL told SKC that the field wasn't acceptable; it was a great mystery at the time- no explanation was given for cancelled games. That's when a homeless SPR moved to Children's Mercy stadium, and we now have 400 people in a 18,500 seat stadium. Oh I forgot that in the playoffs of 2016 the league forced SPR to move their matches from Swope because of the bad condition of the pitch after rain. I mean, the stadium issue has been messy from the start for SPR.

The Swope Park Rangers need to go back to Swope Park. I think a return to Swope will help build a core of supporters, give the team an identity, and maybe even motivate the players. Their current situation is terrible. The team is the worst. The attendance is the worst. And as I read USL Pres. Jake Edwards comments, if SKC doesn't make the decision to go to USL1 with the other MLS2s that don't care about attendance (OCB, TFC2), the USL will make the decision for them.

 

------------------------
You read my mind
USL-C relationship with Memphis (same state)
USL-1 relationship with Chattanooga (same state)
Kind of a miniature MLB set up - rookie league, minor league , major league
-So essentially you tie up the whole state and then you got to fill out the academy.
-Other post says not too many players come out of Tennessee, but , who is to say when this whole set up is up and running and you start scouting the whole state, talent is not found? You have 4 large urban areas= Memphis,Nashville, Knoxville and Chattanooga, plus major colleges in those 4 cities as well. Who knows, maybe the next Landon Donovan or Christian Pulisic is somewhere in Tennessee ?

 

The Athletic is reporting that the USL (probably League One) will be getting a team in Queens, owned by NYCFC of MLS, known as Queensboro FC and beginning play in 2021.

 

For the US to become a "Soccer Nation", that's exactly right- it is critical to expand the pyramid throughout the region. There is a lot of athletic talent in Tennessee, but until there are more opportunities to play after school eligibility ends, that talent will migrate towards sports that provide that opportunity. I'm impressed how minor league teams keep the passion for the sport alive in baseball and hockey (you could say college football does the same for the NFL).

A suburb of Omaha is getting ready to build a beautiful $8.5 million indoor soccer facility. I think that reflects growing interest in the game but will also create growing interest. Omaha just announced a USL1 team to start next year. These 2 things are not directly related, but I think they are indirectly related. All these are mutually influencing. College soccer opportunities increase youth soccer interest. Professional opportunities will increase college interest, etc. So yes, it is in the interest of MSL, USSF, and others to be very committed to expanding the lower divisions. What you propose would be excellent for Nashville SC and for soccer in Tennessee.

 

Hard pass on the lower divisions being a farm system for MLS, thanks.

 

That's basically taking a hard pass on reality.

 

USL is a pretty solid counterexample to this.

 

USL is putting nobody into MLS. Minnesota and Cincinnati are proof of how bad USL talent is comparatively, and why there's no reason to not set up an MLB style minor leagues alongside independent teams.

 

? Who is going to play for these teams? The reserves sides don't dominate their respective divisions, so it's not like stocking the league with MLS prospects and projects is going to raise the level in USL. The reserves teams have, by far, the worst attendance in the league - unsustainable numbers, really. Turning the independents into MLS farm clubs is basically giving up on any hope of pro soccer gaining any sort of following outside of MLS cities.

 

It wasn't that long ago that Sporting Kansas City was playing for the USL Cup against my team (Louisville City). New York Red Bulls II is still doing pretty well.

My hunch is that if every USL team were a farm team, you'd see a normal looking distribution of Won-Loss records - a few will dominate, many will be competitive, and a few will stink it up at the bottom of the table.

 

There are exceptions, performance wise, yes. North Texas also leads L1. There aren't any in fan interest, though.

 

I believe you are wrong, for the most part.
Sure, this may not work in OKC. But minor league soccer in my home town? It will work just as well as AAA baseball, the AHL, and the NBAGL have. For every OKC that teeters between being a major league market and a minor league market, there are at least a dozen Des Moines, Omahas, Tulsas, and Little Rocks. There are several relatively large markets that are nowhere near major league size.
With logical affiliations, minor league sports work well. With random affiliations, they do not. OKC's AHL affiliation with Edmonton struggled because there is no connection between those markets except maybe oil, but that's a stretch. We couldn't get the AHL right with our first two affiliates (Stars and Ducks), but when the Wild relocated the Aeros from Houston, the team has been doing well. Our NBAGL did okay as a Bulls affiliate (Bulls are still one of the top NBA teams in Central Iowa), but is thriving with the Wolves. The I-Cubs affiliation has been around for a very long time and has lead to the majority of Central Iowans being Chicago Cubs fans. In all three cases, we routinely make the 4 hour (Minnesota) and 6 hour (Chicago) drive to see the major league affiliate play. I can say that an affiliation with an MLS team in either city (or StL or KC) would be the same.
Most Central Iowa soccer fans already support and travel to Minnesota, KC, or Chicago. A USL affiliate with one of those teams would only increase that loyalty among more people.
Adding Omaha into the KC system would be a strong move for the same reason. Their AAA team has been with the Royals forever and the MLB team has the biggest baseball fanbase in Omaha. The Chiefs are the most popular NFL team in Omaha. And I know that this phenomenon is not exclusive to these two cities; these are just the two that I am the most familiar with.
Tapping into this via a USL/MLS affiliation would easily create similar relationships. As the growth of MLS slows, the leagues will begin to settle and the affiliations will increase down the ladder. You have to remember that the AHL (founded 1936) was in a similar position until around 2000. Some teams were affiliated with NHL teams and some were independent. There was a rival second division league (the IHL) in the same boat. The IHL died, a few teams rolled into the AHL and every AHL team had at least one NHL affiliate. Some NHL teams only affiliated with the third division ECHL for a while (sound familiar?). Now every NHL team has an AHL affiliate, with a new market being developed to come in as Seattle's AHL franchise. With both leagues soon to be set at 32, the ECHL is shifting from the some affiliate/some independent model to fully affiliated. I suspect that that league will expand to 32 in the near future as the affiliations become mandatory. It took roughly seventy years, but AAA/second division feeder hockey is a reality in North America. Twenty years ago, hockey fans didn't think it would work. Despite being a different sport, soccer is no different when you apply the context of culture and location and view it as a spectator sport in the American market.

 

But why should I, as a fan, want this?

 

Why should you, as a fan, be so self-righteous about it?

It's sportainment. That's all it is. This idea of the "purity of independence" is bullshit.

Who cares? There's a game. Go to the game or don't go to the game. Some people actually go to games because they like a sport. There is no grander meaning. If the band of mercenaries who nominally represent your town's interest beat the band of mercenaries who nominally represent another town's interest...so what? And who cares who pays them or what their motivation is?

It's a performance that exists for your entertainment and for someone to get paid and players to not have to sell insurance or mutual funds. That's all sports is. That's all it's been for decades.

Why ascribe any higher meaning to it? If "your" team wins its league, that can be exciting, sure, but YOU don't actually win anything. Your roads and hospitals and schools don't suddenly get better.

It's sports. Why would you give a shit what the motivations are?

 

Let's say that every team in MLS was in an ownership situation similar to the NY teams and they decide that MLS is just a development league for their European squads. After all, who cares how well they do, there's no relegation! The US & Canadian teams exist solely to prepare players to play in Leipzig or Manchester or Paris or Madrid or Guadalajara or wherever.

Would we really be satisfied with that?

 

Also, this is the critical bit here. Development squads are far less concerned with my entertainment dollars.
Personally, I don't know how the G-League sells tickets. They do have the luxury of playing in winter, so less competition, but I also think basketball is somewhat different, given that a single player can raise the game significantly for a given team. I don't really know why G-League would succeed where CBA, ABA, and others have failed. Certainly having the NBA's marketing teams and budgets has got to be part of it. The importance of financial security can't be overstated.

MiLB is different because baseball is far closer to an individual sport than the other major North American sports. A slugger or a pitcher's performance can make it worth going. More importantly, though, is that they can provide it for so cheaply: the most expensive Lookouts seats are cheaper than the GA advanced ticket price for my NPSL team. Walking up and buying tickets on game day, my family of four could get into a Lookouts game for $24, whereas for CFC it would be $40 (advance) to $48 or for the Red Wolves $52 to $68 (but think of the money I'll save by not being able to buy beer!).

I don't really know how soccer can ever see a day where farm teams are able to charge under $10 for their best seats: baseball has a lot of historical baggage that allows this. It certainly helps that the owners don't have to pay their labor, but they also are almost certainly playing in a taxpayer funded stadium, as well.

But you're singling me out here as being self-righteous: explain then why the combined average attendance of the reserves teams (9 teams) equals about the 3rd best in the league. Clearly there is some value in the independence of teams. In League One they'd be 3rd: but they make up 40% of the league.

 

Literally cannot be less important to what team plays at what level. As long as the facilities are up to par, attendance is irrelevant for the MLS reserves. It has absolutely nothing to do with the viability of a minor league system and has nothing to do with the current existence of independent clubs.

 

So it's not entertainment, then? If attendance is irrelevant, there is zero incentive to provide entertainment. Again, why do I, as a fan, want this?