WE have more people watching every other kind of soccer than MLS or USL. WE watch WWE over MLS 25 to 1. WE need a change. It's not a problem with soccer, it's in the way that we do it.

Travel costs have been conquered by every other top league we have. I propose breaking the third and fourth divisions into regional leagues to mitigate it on that level.

Revenue is a cart before the horse argument. If you set up a closed, stunted, and tightly controlled league that doesn't capture the imagination of real american supporters, and then blame them for not watching, I call that ineffective. Name all the examples you'd like about the struggles of the club game all over the world. Fact remains, the accessible, open league model allowed soccer to dominate the world of pro sports. By removing that system, you are removing the soul of the game.

FIFA has expressed a preference for world cup hosts who embrace open leagues.

This move can be made with one critical ingredient - an independent, courageous President of US Soccer.

This is politics. There is an example out there for a successful league system that is merit based, club focused and wildly popular. Meanwhile, we've watched scores of our closed leagues fail to capture the imagination of the American supporter.

This is a tried and true system. It's not a theory or a hypothesis.

www.soccerreform.us

Travel costs again! Not a significant part of any major pro sport club budget. Certainly not a reason not to proceed.

A salient argument before the rise of airplanes, when the major leagues only went as far west as St. Louis and Chicago. Not today.

WWE is getting 25 times more cable tv viewers than MLS. If that isn't broken, I don't know what is. MLS average attendance records were set in 1996.

You have to admit that unlimited USL clubs would draw more investment than those currently trapped in second div status, waiting for a Garber reincarnation to MLS, which in most cases, aint' gonna happen.

Let's let the market decide, instead of deciding for the market.

You are letting MLS, and the single entity closed league model, define reality. It isn't capturing the imagination of a significant proportion of potential supporters. Time to move on.

Timbers are a budding superclub. Timbers, through political effort of supporters, got their MLS bid (though I'd argue it was a faustian bargain, like MLS itself was upon formation)

MLS will hold Timbers back. World class levels of support, redistributed to a league that cannot capture the imagination of the average soccer supporter.

Your response is a reflexive defense of the status quo. The current way of doing business has left us a fragmented system of leagues that cannot capture the imagination of the average fan. Deal with that.

The biggest threat to the American pro sports establishment would be the success of an open soccer league.

Man the barricades. Pour boiling oil. It won't matter. Soccer cannot be domesticated like our other sports. Genie is out of the bottle.

There has been enough money and interest to pack American stadiums for European friendlies since Vienna Hakoa beat the New York Soccer Giants in 1926 before a nearly sold out Polo Grounds.

Open leagues are a threat to the closed league system. That's why they aren't tried. That's why this is a political question.

Under our three year transition plan, by the time relegation hits MLS, USL promotion battles will be getting better ratings and bigger crowds than MLS matches. The first class of relegated clubs may be going to a better place.

Clubs should have the power, not leagues. Clubs should decide their future, not leagues. Is this really unamerican? I know meritocracy seems like a dated concept to some - but maybe we can give it a try with little 'ol soccer!