NEW: The #USL has enjoyed a decade of dominating the lower league landscape. Since 2015, 20 of its independent clubs have folded - the latest just two weeks before the 2026 season. Is the USL’s structure built to handle even more jeopardy with pro/rel?https://t.co/JYE2ESdIiA— Jeff Rueter (@jeffrueter) March 10, 2026 Folding teams, a labor fight, and … expansion? The USL’s structure allows for it all to happen https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/mar/10/usl-structure-promotion-relegation-expansion Some insight into USL's structure.
USL HQ keeps all the money to themselves for TV rights, any USL sponsorship deals and franchise fees. There is no revenue sharing like in MLS. USL clubs keep whatever they make at the gate. They'll be lucky to break even if they don't own a stadium. All expenses are through the club; hotels, flights etc. USL HQ can't offer health care or any other requirements players are making as the players are not employed by the the league. They are employed by the clubs (smart move to get off responsibility by USL if you ask me tbh). Clubs can't offer everything players want because they are barely surviving as it is. This is the league all the MLS haters are cheering on to take out big bad MLS and replace it with a "league that feels more authentic and not so corporate as MLS" as Tactical Manager would say.
Under The Club Dividend Plan USL splits 50% of national and international TV and sponsorship revenue with the clubs. Someone estimated that may be worth around $9 million, split between 42 clubs, which is about $215k each. That really doesn't cover much.
I did. I was replying to "USL HQ keeps all the money to themselves for TV rights, any USL sponsorship deals". It's incorrect. The article doesn't contradict this. "The USL, meanwhile, still does not have meaningful revenue sharing with its clubs". The big money is currently in expansion fees.
I just read a thread the other day on the USL subreddit how they will eventually “beat” MLS because USL is more organic. Thankfully there was some pushback and suggestions that the poster should just concentrate on the actual soccer.
And the annual licensing fees, right? Also, are licensing and expansion fees shared with the teams? Morning Kickaround talked about this and Jason Davis pointed out that for NuRock, there really isn't an incentive to make sure a new club is viable and that existing clubs are healthy. From a purely business perspective, as long NuRock gets enough expansion fee from new clubs to offset the lost licensing fees for contracting teams, it's a win for them.
Sac Republic have not yet committed to USL Premier: BREAKING: Sacramento Republic have unveiled plans for a 20,000 seater stadium, will open in 2028. Expansion from the initial project that targeted a capacity of 12,000. USL Championship club have not committed to USL Premier League. pic.twitter.com/w6L1HuH3d6— Tom Hindle (@Tom_Hindle_) March 24, 2026 "(The goal) has always been to play at the highest level of professional soccer in the United States and when we have a 20,000 seat venue that opens in 2028 then everything is possible. "- @SacRepublicFC GM/President Tim Holt@CBSSacramento https://t.co/MA2PZGPQYK pic.twitter.com/O7wRNwPSyh— Jake Gadon (@JakeGadon_TV) March 25, 2026
So most would say that Wrexham is a success, and has been a success for Rob and Ryan. Wrexham posted a loss of £14.85 million in 2024-25 despite annual turnover of £33.35 million, a record for a League One club not in receipt of parachute payments.The deficit for the year to June 30, 2025, takes total losses across the four full seasons with Ryan Reynolds and… pic.twitter.com/OoUDh4d4pO— The Athletic | Football (@TheAthleticFC) March 27, 2026 Wrexham still lost £14.85M during the 24/25 season....... and have lost £25M in the 4 seasons the duo has owned the club.
IIRC that Athletic article correctly, a lot of those losses were related to the capital investment of rebuilding their Kop, and much of the rest was some kind of financial maneuvering. Not that they haven’t legit lost money, but it’s not as dire as that tweet makes it seem.
The "record" it refers to is the revenue number, not the loss. Charlton lost £16.7m that same season.
The Private Equity firms have ousted USL's Deputy CEO and head of Real Estate Justin Papadakis. Seems rather quick to be making board changes.
Here's a cautionary tale of wider national ambition and the local realities that can support it: https://www.footballheritage.co.uk/the-hidden-cost-of-euro-2004 It's long, but there are some parallels that can be made when considering the ambitions of USL (the league) and the realities at the local levels.
I think but emphasizing oversized stadiums as the root of the issue, the article is missing the main factor. The main factor is that the big 4 clubs are competing with the top teams in Europe, generating revenue up to and in excess of €150 million, while the small town clubs play in front of a few thousand locals. There are only 4 urban areas in Portugal with a population over 110,000. The small teams try and play catch up and fail. They may have the odd season in Europe but that ends up making things worse in the long run as they become dependent on UEFA money. This situation gets worse as UCL prize money grows. In addition you have the globalization of soccer, where little Francisco grows up watching Arsenal or Milan on satellite TV and ignores the local team playing in a 30,000 seat stadium in front of 5,000 locals. The US definitely has the second problem. Even as MLS fans we are constantly reminded by our compatriots that our product is "inferior". USL teams have an even bigger mountain to climb. And if USL does start a D1 they're going to constantly be compared to Messi's Inter Miami. But US "lower division" teams have problems that don't exist in Europe, like geographic isolation, competition from other pro sports and even competition from high school sports. I used to walk into CVS opposite Dietz Stadium and see hats and sweatshirts for the Kingston Tigers high school team but nothing for Stockade.
Did you glaze over the points about the region not having other infrastructure (airports, rail) nor the population to support the growth ambitions?
No but why do you need any airport or train station when most of the population lives with a two hour drive of the two major cities?
Why would they need a highway? You didn't read the article. The country's and Football League's ambitions were bigger than what the region could support. Those large stadiums have difficulty hosting events because there isn't any infrastructure to get more people to those places efficiently (airport, better highways, and rail; systems). To draw a parallel to USL's ambition as a league: How are teams and fans expected to travel to all of the non-major markets for games efficiently, and cost effectively? How are people, entertainers, etc supposed to get to these places in order to host other events to justify the larger stadiums?
Kartik playing revisionist history............. MLS still has three Canadian teams because they were grandfathered in due to Canada NOT having a league when they entered MLS. USL was forced to lose the Ottawa Fury by @Concacaf … but MLS still has theee Canadian teams.THE DOUBLE STANDARD pic.twitter.com/8bapX0Q3ZB— Kartik Krishnaiyer (@kkfla737) April 9, 2026
I did read the article. The cost of maintaining those stadiums is a factor but he seems to have missed the biggest factor in my opinion, which is that Champions League money is increasing the distortion between the haves and have nots. One of the three cities he focused on is 30 minutes from Porto, by train. All three are accessible by highway in less than 2 hours.
Gotcha.... so it's lack of champions league football that the local municipalities have difficulty attracting events for the stadiums?