Why would Energy FC need to lead the charge for D2 sanctioning ? When all indications are that they have already won the Energy FC/OKCFC war and I don't see that changing just because Rayo gets involved ( assuming of course that the OKCFC / Rayo ownership gets reawarded an NASL expansion which if I was the NASL leadership would consider it a huge risk considering OKCFC's history )
I know its still fan fiction talk as it has been described but how many teams are really even able to meet d2 standards. 4-5? Certainly not enough to split or have some kind of usl1 usl2 stuff going on again. I thought thats why the TOA left in the first place, those were the guys who were capable... d2 talk from USL might just be talk to rattle NASL. If any of the independant owners in USL want more they should move themselves up (a la Orlando) instead of risking dividing the league for visions of improved loftiness... Maybe a decade from now, perhaps sooner.
Because it's a major part of their salespitch to OKC... a "springboard to MLS." Brad Lund didn't spend nine months selling Rayo to invest in the NASL for nothing. He did it to win a civic pissing match with Bob Funk Jr. And make no mistake... that Rayo baby is his... Yes, I think Brad and the rest of the OKC FC people lost the plot a long time ago, but I seriously doubt Funk Jr and McLaughlin underestimate the value of being considered USSF's second division rather than USSF's third division. So yes... Energy FC wants the USL to be second division... Brad or no Brad.
It's not fan fiction talk. The USL announced they're seeking D2 sanctioning. As for who gets left behind, I'm going to steal a bit of the digging that @Knave did earlier this year because it bears repeating: The league owners were unanimously was in favor of pursuing D2 sanctioning. Every single one. So even teams that don't currently meet the standards feel that they have the ability to move to D2 even with the increased requirements, even though most already meet the standards already have plans in place to make sure they meet the standards. So there are only a couple requirements for D2 sanctioning that are of relevance. USL hits both the number of team and time zones requirements handily. 75% of your teams must be in markets of 750k or more, and USL is currently at 80% if you include both Austin and Reno in 2017 (Charleston, Harrisburg, Orlando City B, Wilmington, Colorado Springs and Reno are all under 750k). So that's hunky dory on composition of markets. As for team specifics, you must play in a stadium that seats 5k and have an owner worth 20m+. Now it's important to note that the USL as a whole signed a deal with HOK to facilitate stadium improvements and move their teams into SSS's. So while a team may not currently be in the best stadium situation at the moment, there is movement at the league level to try and get all teams up to high standards. Even so, let's analyze stadiums at they currently stand: Independent Teams that don't have 5k stadiums: Charlotte Independence - They were due to move into a renovated Memorial Stadium which would have more than 5k seats but that project appears to have stalled. They currently play at a temporary stadium that seats 3,720 with standing room making up the rest for a capacity of 4,220. They appear to be heading toward another season at Ramblewood but are considering other options long term and certainly will not have a problem with ensuring they're in a 5k stadium to meet D2 standards come 2017. Harrisburg City Islanders - Planning on increasing capacity of their current 4k stadium to 5k along with general upgrades and improvements on the stadium. There are talks of them relocating and their stadium improvements haven't been approved (to my knowledge) so this one is kind of up in the air. Pittsburgh Riverhounds - Plan on increasing capacity of Highmark to 8k over the next few years. Currently the capacity is 4k. Shouldn't be a problem come 2017. Colorado Springs Switchbacks - 3,500 seat stadium. They have a 10 year lease on Sand Creek after having renovated it this year and there is certainly room to add more seating. Orange County Blues - 3,000 seat stadium. There have been rumors of a new stadium being built along with new improvements in Irvine but nothing has been announced or even all but announced. MLS Reserve teams that don't play in 5k stadiums: Orlando City B Toronto FC 2 LA Galaxy II Portland Timbers 2 Seattle Sounders 2 Swope Park Rangers Whitecaps FC 2 So we can talk a lot about what MLS teams plan to do with regards to getting up to 5k but it's always an option to move add a few temporary stands for a few years to or move the team back into the MLS stadium to hit that mark. In any case, you shouldn't worry too much about MLS 2 teams dragging back on D2 standards given the money behind them and the availability (in most cases) of the main stadium. The last mark to hit is you have to have your primary owner/investor be worth 20m+. I wouldn't know where to begin to find out the net worth of, say, Eric Pettis, but I'd imagine most USL teams have an investor worth that much and all have an owner worth at least $10m (which is required for D3 sanctioning). That being said, I doubt all teams meet this requirement. Harrisburg immediately comes to mind as a team that may not meet this requirement.
Looks better than I originally thought, stadiums seem to be there, or coming. Still concerned about attendance looking at the capacities vs actuality... Put butts in the seats over 5k on a regular basis and I might eat a shoe.
Various lower levels of play, yes. First division though is single entity and you can't move up there or down from it, you can just sell off to it and stop existing as an independent legal entity. I'd be interested to see that legal battle play out, just for arguments if not outcome. I agree that NASL is very unlikely to see it through.
I guess when AT&T faced antitrust charges in the 1970s, they should've simply argued that they are not a monopoly, because local telephone businesses can 'move up' to AT&T level by merging into it and seizing to exist. I don't know if NASL could achieve anything here, if they followed through with their threats. But your defense would be nonsensical.
Do the reserve teams have independent ownership's or are they all part of MLS's single entity structure? What happens ten years down the line when team Whatever 2 wants to become their own entity? As far as the teams that are considered independent in the USL are they only called that because they are not a reserve team? I seem to have difficulty finding information about groups or the individuals who own USL sides.
I doubt anyone here has seen the corporate papers, but the best guess answer would be that the USL teams are independently owned by the same people who are members of the single entity MLS. ex. If RedBull ever sold out of MLS, they'd certainly be free to keep control of the offices, training facility and USL team, but why would they ? As for the second part, nothing happens....or whatever the owner wants happens. FC2 teams are subsidiaries of whatever ownership/company they're part of. ESPN may decide they don't want to be part of Disney but who cares ? Unless Disney sells or spins it off, it's staying part of Disney. Depends who's using the term around here but, for the most part, anyone mentioned as independents or affiliates is independently owned and has non-MLS ownership. USL team ownership is fairly generally known. The info should be available in each team's forum and is probably summed up in one of the USL to Division 2 ?? threads.
Stadium size and seats in butts are two different things. Also the success of the team doesn't correlate to that either. Look at LAG2. SF last year, final this year, absolutely horrible attendance... - I think a modified German system would be best for us. I would like an MLS 1 16 team Then a MLS 2 16 teams (this is based on the current MLS 20 teams, plus ATL, LA2, MINN and MIA (24) Then take the best 8 out of the USL and NASL- combo of best attendence, stadiums, market location, ownership level etc) -The left overs of NASL, USL, all the PDL and NPSL then become MLS-3 Regional. There is not reason we can't have 16 conferences of 12-16 teams each (NW, Cal N, Cal S, Texas, Midwest, Great Lakes, NE, Florida ETC) 16 conferences with 12 is 192 teams, which would pretty much cover every state/market in this country and Canada and put soccer on the map in the whole country (going on the assumption Canada doesn't split off. This regional team is where all the MLS 1 & MLS 2 reserve teams are, plus all the independent teams are. - At some point over time, 16 more markets may emerge with proper ownership, stadium and crowds and who knows, maybe we get a MLS 3 with 16 and the regional league becomes MLS 4 Regional. - And then yes, pro- rel could occur, but to protect the investments made in MLS to date, only between MLS 1 & 2. Essentially , you still have single entity, but now with 32 teams and you just add the excitement of having a race at the bottom of the table, not just at the top of the table.
USA has a much bigger population than Germany. I think you could probably support 36+ teams at the div1 level. Maybe two different leagues (akin to MLB) competing for one cup or several different conferences within one league. More likely than not, once that is achieved the div2 & div3 will almost certainly be just minor league affiliates.
Utilities and recreation are two different industries. One is, essentially, a need while the other is a frivolity. When At&T was controlling the prices and dictating services, they directly impacted the lives of hundreds of thousands and impeded businesses. MLS being the sole D1 league does nothing of the sort. It's ********ing soccer. It's entertainment. MLS is not a monopoly because there are at least four other major league sports options available and there are currently 2 minor league (NASL and USL) and at least two semi-pro/amateur leagues with professional structures (PDL and NPSL). If the NFL is not a monopoly as the only fully professional outdoor football league in the country (it isn't), then how they hell can anyone claim MLS is? MLB was declared to not be a monopoly and they control the majority of the minor leagues, yet people think that MLS is?!
Not disagreeing with your point just want to know if this occurred before or after 2000? It is important to know because prior to 2000 the AL and NL were two different legal entities. After 2000 they officially merged into a single MLB entity.
Before, but it is a bit more complicated than being two different legal entities. They were in a collaborative partnership and viewed as a collective entity prior to their official incorporation as a single legal entity. Then again, reading the linked article, technically it is viewed as a monopoly but is exempt from anti-trust legislation. So it is possible that MLS would be viewed as a monopoly under the law, but it is also highly probable that they would receive the same anti-trust exemption due to the nature of the business.
The only reason why they wouldn't be treated the same I could see is if the single entity structure. One advantage MLB has in such a legal battle is they don't actually own the teams, making it easier to deflect any monopoly or anti-trust accusations.
Possibly. At the same time, I have a feeling that the owners' legal team did some sort of diligence at the time to ensure that the single entity structure would not land them in such a predicament. If I recall, the players' union even challenged it at one point and a federal ruled that it is not a monopoly. To end this discussion, again: Also here: If it is not a monopoly from the standpoint of the players, then it certainly is not from the perspective of potential domestic competitors or consumers (fans). Again, we are talking about entertainment and there are other options for both professionals and consumers available, I do not see MLS as a true monopoly under the intent of the law.
Merlo Field has no/little room to expand, I don't think we would need to attendance wise. I would love a few roof's on existing stands. I don't think div 2 status is necessary for USL.
That's all irrelevant. Merlo Field seats 4,892 and there certainly is room to squeeze in seating for 108 more fans to get to the 5k minimum. The 5k minimum is required regardless of attendance. The option exists to play at Providence Park instead of Merlo (though perhaps this would be potentially difficult to schedule given the big Timbers, Thorns and PDL team all play there). Clearly the USL wants D2 sanctioning so regardless of what you think about it, they're heading in that direction.
I guess you could put more seats to the sides of the main stand but they would have a bad view. Most PDL games are not played in providence park, maybe one or two a year but ya scheduling games in Providence park is difficult. Adding 110 seats and staying in Merlo makes more sense than moving games to Providence. The two games in Providence weren't a good atmosphere as there was3/4k in a 22k stadium.