I'm hoping to have a real discussion on how we open up the U.S. soccer pyramid once and for all. I'll be happy to discuss with anyone who thinks that an open league, yes, with promotion and relegation, doesn't explode the popularity of every division of USL. If you prefer the current model, I'd also be interested your reasons. But please, no apathy or defeatism here. If enough of us want it, and join together, it will happen. If we ever want to host another world cup, it has to happen.

If you're rolling your eyes now at another promotion relegation post - please try and find a point of view that isn't shaded by a powerless acceptance that MLS investors will forever own the top division in North America, or don't respond here. Sorry folks, I want to see a vibrant USL 1 and 2 compete directly with an MLS that is so stilted and stagnated that their most exciting moments revolve around the arrival of new clubs. Unfortunately, the chance that we can replace MLS with USL 1 at the top of the pyramid is far, far less than the chance we can pry open the closed league system. While the current system worked out for the Canadian and Caribbean clubs in the Champs League, it permanently relegates U.S. clubs from that chance.

So come on, let's HAVE this discussion. Together we can make it happen, and I am convinced that the sport stands to experience unprecedented growth when we do.

Again, let me specify: this is not a discussion on whether you think it can happen - this is about whether you want it to happen, and how we get there from here.

If we can move from George W Bush to Barak Obama, we can move from a closed league franchise model to an open league model in U.S. club soccer!

not sure what you mean...will Obama pay all the player salaries with my tax money ?

Im a long standing believer in the promotion and relagation system in this country!!!!

it can be done but they first have to get some better ownership groups and they would need to have at least 6 to 8 bottom divisions with promotion to 6 to 4 mid divisions and then promotion to 4 to 2 west cent east divisions then to 2 to 1 west east divisions to the 1st division.

Just look at the way its been regionalized in england and other countrys.

Man, we have had this discussion SO many times. Until enough people care about WATCHING soccer in this country it doesn't matter. All promotion gets you is an increase in your expense line and little if any increase in your revenue. Therefore promotion = losing MORE money. The only thing that promotion satisfies is the EGO of your ownership group.

My team in England, after they beat Reading this weekend will be playing in the $50million game. (the promotion playoff from the Championship to the Premiership). When USL has one of those, then it makes sense. Its worth $50million in increases in ticket sales because you are playing Manchester Utd and Arsenal instead of Plymouth Argyle and Barnsley. People actually care about that. Montreal Impact, and the Rochester Rhinos will barely make a blip on your radar - but thats who you are relying on to generate your increased revenue.

As much as YOU (anyone who reads this message board) care, there simply isn't enough people to make it matter.

This is NOT England or any other country, this is the U.S.A.! You're here, accept what WE have!

yeah, because this country was built on people just accepting what they had :rolleyes:

For the record, I have no desire personally to see any type of pyramid system like is being discussed. And like Gareth basically said, I don't see it working here, at least how things stand now; nor do I see that changing any time soon. But if someone does believe in it and is willing to work at getting it accomplished I don't think they should be told that they need to accept anything. Like I said above, we would still be part of England and not even having this discussion if people had just accepted what they had

The problem is the Franchise system. If teams had to pay a Membership fee each season instead of feeling entitled to their franchise territory, there would be real competition between clubs. "Expansion" clubs must be forced to play at the bottom level and work its way up. Currently that would be D2 in the USL system as the PDL can't count due to age restrictions.

I do think pro/rel can work in the USA (North America) you just won't see teams fold as often, they will just drop down a level or 2. The USL kind of does this informally-like! They just need to grow a pair and tell teams, "I don't care how much money you have, you team sucks and it needs to be down a level!" That can't happen until the territory restrictions are dropped.

Promotion and relegation is not a viable option in the US (or Canada or Australia), not just because of the great distances that have to be travelled (I do realize that Russia is an example of a HUGE country where promotion/relagtion can work but there is a history there) because of the great distances that clubs have to travel.

Revenue makes leagues make changes. I respectfully challenge this statement. I am sure that you are aware that Siere A & B owners are currently going through a nasty divorce and it is very likely (unless a revenue sharing agreement can be struck that promotion relegation in Italy may quickly become a thing of the past. It might be doomed in England as well. For basically the same reason that it won't happen here in the US or in Canada: Revenue.
I'm going to ask you to explaim the above premise. At face value, it looks like there is no basis for it but I am sure that you must have read something from FIFA reps that I am not aware of).
Having read that, doesn't sound too conducive to an actual dialogue. Doesn't sound like you really want too much a discussion. What sort of "discussion" could really take placed groundrules that will not allow discussion revenue, investment, expenditures and capital.
Could you elaborate on this belief a bit, please? Why do you think that it will be a big boost for the sport in the US when it is so outside of sports cultural nature.
So let us clarify things, here on this side: First you state if you don't believe it is possible then please explain why. Then you state that it is about how to get there from here.
Again, limiting the dialogue.
I don't like to reference politics online so I won't touch that one. A very curious comparison or point of reference, in deed...

I agree with pretty much everything Yankiboy says.

I don’t think anyone could question that professional soccer in the U.S. is experiencing a fair amount of growth right now. Even in a down economy, there are people willing to invest money into starting new professional franchises. This is a good thing. Asking owners to buy into a system that would increase their risk of losing revenue through relegation, is not.

And besides, looking at historical standings for MLS, USL-1, and USL-2, I can’t really point to any one team that I can say with confidence shouldn’t be playing at its current level.

The only way I think you it could get to a promotion/relegation structure would be to tear down the whole existing professional soccer structure in the U.S. and start from scratch. A pretty drastic step to fix something that, in the minds of a lot of people (self included), isn’t broken.

Now, what is broken is the qualifying of U.S. clubs into the Champions League. It’s currently working under the assumption that MLS is the best league in the land. Which it probably is, but not by as much as USSF and ESPN would like to think. What I’d like to see is the four U.S. spots allocated to:

MLS Cup winner
MLS Cup runner-up
U.S. Open Cup winner
U.S. Open Cup runner-up

This would mean that the MLS clubs are guaranteed at least half of the U.S. allocations, but would also double the chances of a USL/USASA team of getting in (like Charleston would have last year).

England
Total 130,395 km2
50,346 sq mi

Total 9,826,630 km2
3,794,066 sq mi

The US is 75 times bigger than England I hope you noticed that before you started discussing this issue and this is the main reason why travel costs will kill any Pro/Rel dreams you currently have.

Its simple business logic, does income gained by distance traveled and players paid Equal a profit or within budget limits for a club.

Resounding NOPE in most cases, end of topic.

Yup, even if a London club had to travel to Newcastle and back for all 19 of it's away matches, it would only rack up 9,500 miles of travel in a season. So a conservative estimate is about 5,000 miles of travel in an EPL domestic season.

By my quick calculations, the Carolina RailHawks will travel just under 27,000 miles in their 15 away matches. And that's only because they scheduled their two matches in Portland for the same weekend.

Open Your Minds take the blinders off and look,listen, and enjoy.

Dreams can happen!

Odocon, I think that there have been some fairly level-headed and reasonable responses to the initial post of this link as to why the idea is not currently or even remotely feasable in the near to distant future in this country (actually, you could write a book on it!)

Soccer, like any other venture is a BUSINESS...and unless and until there is proof by the general public that they want and will support such growth of the soccer industry, it will continue to grow slowly to reflect the financial following it currently receives.

As for "better" ownership, I might suggest that you have conversions with the dozens of former USL franchise owners who ended up closing shop because they could not sustain their rate of losses when the initial "buzz" wore off and the supposed soccer fans of their area did not support their fledgeling product.

.....You say they didn't put enough money into facilities, players, advertisers and/or marketing? Then you might gather a few others and give it a go yourself. Best of luck, but I think that you'll find that it's not that easy!

Baseball haphazardly developed into their system of the majors and minor leagues- it wasn't really planned out. The reason it COULD take shape is because nearly every town had a team.

I think you first have to have that coverage.

Then Middle America has to overtake New York and their power brokers in interest towards our dear sport.

(Then, oddly enough, New York and LA have to have a dynasty down the line, so that they're virtually never threatened with relegation.)

Then you MIGHT get there.

I give you 100 years for that scenario to play out.

The simple reason? Money.

That's it. That's the list. It's a non-starter. You can "have the discussion" until you're blue in the face (and we have).

If it's possible one day, fantastic. I don't think there's any supernatural reason it can't happen, no "Americans won't go for it," none of that crap.

It's because there's not enough money or interest to make it worthwhile. There's not enough depth. There are (probably) no USL-2 teams right now who could afford to be "promoted" to USL-1, and there are barely any USL-1 teams who could afford to go to MLS. Until the money is there, it won't happen. Whether you or I or Joe Bleaux wants to see it happen or not.

And more importantly there in not a single MLS owner that would be wiling to join and have his $35 million (in the case of Vancouver and Portland) investment suddenly be back in the USL1.

And nothing is "closed" that can just be "opened" by someone waving his hand and making it so (least of all POTUS). You're talking about two separate businesses that have no inclination or meaningful reason to combine or permit a pro/rel scheme.

And, no "you think it would look cool" is not a meaningful reason.

best article regarding pro/rel:

http://soucieonsoccer.wordpress.com/2009...t-i-the-system/

Just how is this best?

1. What rumored mutiny of USL 1st Division teams - the latest one? This has been flying around for about the past 10 years.

2. If I'm a current MLS team, that has paid 20, 30 or even 40 million dollars for my franchise rights, I am going to ask "will these new teams be putting up that kind of money now to be a part of the MLS?

Otherwise, there is the potential to undercut and devalue the current 1st Division franchise investors. The first promoted team will be proof of that by gaining access to the MLS 1st Division without making the same kind of franchise payment to the MLS that already established teams have had to make.

If a 1st division team is relegated, are they no longer "protected" from losses as suggested in the article? And if they are still covered, then are all the suppossed new "MLS 2nd Division" teams also protected under the same guidelines?! No - that wont flyer with the original or current investors/owners/operators at all!

Even if they pay less because it's the "MLS 2nd Division", there is absolutely NO WAY that these current MLS owners would be able to put up that kind of money - that's why they bought into a USL franchise! (You say look at Vancouver and Portland - what about them? They are going to outside sources for additional ownership monies to make the jump)

No - the only way that I ever see a possible "MLS 2nd Division", with promotion/relegation to the MLS 1st Division, is by having new ownership buy franchise rights under the current MLS structure specifically for a MLS 2nd Division Team under the full knowledge of the investment and related costs involved to meet MLS and FIFA standards...and that is only with the approval and participation of the current MLS 1st Division team ownership groups, having full knowledge that their team could face relegation in the future.

...so we're talking 4 or 5 decades maybe?

What does moving from a democratic republic to a Marxist dictatorship have to do with soccer?

Want in one hand, spit in the other, and see which one gets full the fastest. Two facts to understand:

1. Pro/rel ain't happening in our lifetime, if ever.
2. Deal with it.

Your post is so full of crap, I don't know where to begin.

When the first MLS owner folds his team because he didn't pay $40 million to MLS to have to play in front of 2500 people in some high school stadium in USL-1, just because his team went 6-20-6 the year before, pro/rel, if it ever did happen, will be over.

Can we stop these stupid threads?

See, this was exactly the sort of sludge that I was concerned about when I read that comment in the orginal post to open the thread. It was completely unnecessary.

No need to inject politics in a soccer situation unless it is in the context of the forces inside a league or fron office or issues dealing with stadium funding.

That was harsh. I wasn't very impressed by the thread but we can still try and be civil. At least Dude cares enough to post. I'm not buying what he selling and was put off by the way that it was "packaged" but it was the (seemingly) the guy's first post here...

Yeah, but other than that, it was the best article on the subject!

Imagine this: Charleston wins USL-1. Gets promoted. Their 5,100-seat stadium is inadequate for MLS. What do they do? Expand the place? How long will that take? And how much will that cost? Suppose they build onto it and yo-yo right back down to USL-1? Now they can't even pay the debt service on the addition (not to mention their market probably won't allow them to generate enough revenue to stay up anyway). How is that good for anybody?

People like the OP want American soccer to look like English soccer so they can feel better about their fandom. Even if there are facets of the English system that just are not best for what we're doing. That's of no interest to them. They don't want to have that discussion. They just want you to nod and agree with them that all these benefits would just naturally occur if only the magic switch were thrown and we all of a sudden had promotion and relegation.

More people would invest? Have you seen how many people have invested in American soccer and established clubs in the last 12 years? And how many of them have gone belly-up?

This is not a formula for success. It's only a formula for naive fanatics to feel better about themselves.

Oh yeah? Well, he started it.

Okay, perhaps that was a bit harsh. I didn't realize it was his first post. I just get tired of this being hashed around again and again. Maybe I should have said, "Can we leave this subject alone, and stop rehashing it over and over again?"

I read the article and it sounds firm. But their is always someone or something to muck it up.

But it can work and it will work and it will be done! Just see what the future holds!

That is my prediction, and like i said im always right!

I'm kinda new to soccer in the US, so excuse my ignorance if I'm way off base, but it does seem to me the USL policy of protected geographical areas for teams is not helping the overall situation. Clubs tend to thrive in close proximity to one another, close proximity means less travel expenses, more fans traveling, and so hopefully increased revenue. I think if they removed that clause we might see a gradual increase in teams that could support promotion/relegation, but I think there would have to be at least two stipulations:

1. If a team wants to be eligible for promotion it should have to provide proof that it can sustain life in USL1. No eligible team in the promotion spot(s) means a let off for the team(s) otherwise destined for the drop.

2. MLS is off-limits as far as promotion/relegation is concerned. As someone mentioned earlier several major leagues around the world are trying to get to the place the US is by default - with closed top league(s). MLS franchise owner have put too much money into the pot to tolerate relegation, and rightly so I think.

Ahem, Pompey would travel further than those cockney bastards.

I believe the season they went up they had around 3,000 miles of travel to 23 away games around the country.

We do have pro/rel in US soccer:

NEVER SAY NEVER.....We already have a soccer league with pro/rel

http://www.hometeamsonline.com/teams...n&s=soccer&t=c


http://www.hometeamsonline.com/teams...ry&newsID=5894

You're really, really strange, you know that? I mean, jw7 and pbsf are the strangest, but you're gaining on them.

Were strange... and you're normal?

Yes. Remarkably so. Moreso than you, that's for certain.

What do you really get from a promotion and regulation system?

In the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL we know what teams are in the league, everybody knows. They have the ability to regroup and get stronger in the next season after a bad year. The stability creates consistent finances and planning.

In the Euro soccer leagues every year you have new teams that come up, many of them then go right back down again. They have to take huge risk and completely change the team to try to stay up, or like Burnely this year maybe they don't change everything and they just build a team that might stay together as they go back down to the level they will likely be at in years ahead. It creates less stability to have teams change everything in just one season. Many teams don't grow stronger in the long run by being encouraged to change the amount of risk they are used to in the short term.

Every Euro soccer league has three types of teams within their one top league. The top teams that are not going anywhere soon. They consists of only four or five teams. They are the only teams that can really win the league because they will only loose a few games, if any, against each other and will win almost all the other games in the league.

Then there are the middle teams who can't compete with the spending of the top clubs and so they struggle with the possibility of not improving enough to stay where they currently are, but rarely get a real chance to pop up into the top group. So, even if they spend some money on players those players know they won't win titles and trophies against the top group very often. Creating a situation where the team's top players don't really want to stay on these teams for their whole career. The best players are snatched up by the top group teams. They have more to lose then to gain in the long run.

The bottom teams don't really belong in the top league and it's great when they do have success for a few years, but is the risks/change they have to take just to stay up for a couple of years really worth the risk to the club in the long run?

This system really is a huge benefit only to the top four or five clubs because they are much more immune to the chaos of P&R, while every else has to scramble just to keep what they have every year. It's less competitive in the long run for the top teams. It produces an overall less competitive league in the long run, which is exactly what you have in Europe's soccer leagues, a few big teams at the top with way more power than just about everyone else in their league.

This creates some big games, but also many not so exciting games when a mismatch is the next one up.

The best leagues are ones in which every team has a good chance to win, every week if they don't make too many mistakes in their play. Our US sports leagues are more like this with most teams that start the season in a more even position of a chance to win it all. It's more about the players/teams execution on the field, less about the size of the stadium and the owners finances off the field.

A team like the NFL Green Bay Packers would have been gone a long time ago under NFL P&R. They would have been replaced by another new team from LA. Only the biggest cities with the largest stadiums would have a consistent financial planning advantage.

Why would this be better?

Moreso, certainly... 3 sentences out of nine words??

Less is more.

Can someone answer these questions?

1) How long will it take to get to 60 professional, profitable soccer franchises, in 3 leagues across the USA and Canada, with proper stadiums and reasonably sized fanbases, to make Pro/Rel for MLS to be anything more than an academic pipe dream?

2) Considering that MLS is one of the very few soccer leagues representing more than one country, how can Pro/Rel be handled in a way that accounts for international tournaments, while at the same time protecting the investments of the initial MLS investors who, after 14 seasons, are just beginning to see their investments reimbursed, let alone making any profit off their investment?


3) Considering MLS, and its single entity system, are incompatible with the Pro/Rel system so commonly practiced all over the world, why are executives and team owners all over UEFA so interested in the economic model as a way to finally establish stability and profitability for their investments?

[quote=whitestar warriors]Can someone answer these questions?

1) How long will it take to get to 60 professional, profitable soccer franchises, in 3 leagues across the USA and Canada, with proper stadiums and reasonably sized fanbases, to make Pro/Rel for MLS to be anything more than an academic pipe dream?

[quote]
Love your posts, WW but to answe your question above: Just getting to 16 poressional and profitable franchises with soccer specific stadia between the US & Canadea with reasonably sized fanbases would be a huge accomplishment...

There's no way you wrote these questions, right?



60? Six-oh? SIXTY?

Don't hold your breath. If you want 60, absolutely, 100% forget about it in your lifetime.

If it's going to happen, it's going to start at lower levels and in a limited form. It's not going to be a situation where we get to a certain number of teams and everybody says "Okay, NOW we have pro/rel. GO!"



The first doesn't have a lot to do with pro/rel, except in the case of tournaments that lag a year. Then again, if you're finishing high enough in a league to qualify for a tournament, you're probably not getting relegated anyway. And if you get promoted during a year in which you qualify for the Champions League or something...well, the only way to do that currently is by winning the US Open Cup or the Caribbean or Canadian championships, which may have a different look within a few years.

So I don't think that's an issue.

The second part is almost COMPLETELY what the issue is about. One or two of the people who have invested millions in this thing are going to get relegated, and they're not going to go for that just because YOU think Pro/Rel would be cool.



Because most of them would probably vote to get rid of Pro/Rel if they could. If they weren't stuck with it as a matter of history going back 100+ years, it seems very unlikely to me that they'd vote in such a system.

And, again, there's a disconnect in your question, because one doesn't have anything to do with the other. You want to know why those UEFA people are interested in it? To control costs. Period. Full stop. How is that not obvious to you?

I don't care if we see a pro/rel system any time soon. I just want to see a league ownership model that gives proper power to the clubs and one which also has a sound marketing agenda. USL has been profoundly mishandled in that the league has accepted its 2nd tier status, while the clubs' ownership groups have consistently tried to push the level of play in the league. The league has all but rolled over whenever MLS has set its eyes on a powerhouse USL franchise.

Who cares about pro/rel; let's just worry about defending our teams and promoting the sport.

To do otherwise would require an unrealistic level of investment. 2nd tier doesn't have to mean 2nd class citizen. There are USL-1 clubs that do things in a more professional manner than some MLS franchises do.

It's fanboys who have been droning on about some USL superiority overall and how USL should charge up the hill with guns a'blazing to take its rightful place alongside MLS at the top of the heap. I think that's unrealistic. There's a reason why some things are where they are.




I forget sometimes that you're new to the party.

Let's be honest about something: for much of the last 15 years, most of "the clubs' ownership groups" have had enough trouble getting 2,000 people to games or looking less like a monkey f***ing a football and more like professional soccer clubs. Only in recent years have people realized that more can be done, and have pushed it.



Which it has done three times.

Oh, wait, what has ACTUALLY happened is that the ownership groups of those powerhouse USL franchise have CHOSEN to take their organizations to the next level.

And, at this point in history, USSF does not regulate this - this is all new ground being broken here. There's no precedent for what's been happening since Seattle "went up." Another example of American exceptionalism.

Having not seen a USL franchise agreement personally and having no knowledge of what USISL, Inc. has and has explored and discarded in terms of potential legal remedies, I'm left to speculate that there wasn't a whole lot they could have done.

Could they sue MLS? On what grounds? Hanauer, Kerfoot, Paulsen et al made applications for franchises in MLS. They were granted.

At this point in our history, I'm not aware of any territorial rights (unlike in baseball, which has a National Agreement defining the relationship between the major league teams and minor league teams) which require cash payments for violations. MLS is free to expand to Seattle or Toronto or Vancouver or Portland.

And I'm not sure what USL could have done. I'm sure you think there's something YOU would have done, but you're a fanboy, and it may have just been a lot of sound and fury, throwing off way more light than heat.

You've actually got good arguments; it's too bad you ruin them by being an ass.

Guilty.

Next?

what you get is legitimacy in american professional soccer instead of farce. what you have now is two minor leagues with one pretending to be major and propagandizing us with this nonsense. if you open it up, it will make the experience of soccer in america about merit and not just money and people will dig that.

Americans need to realize that the "world game" is soccer, not NFL, NBA, nor others....

the sport is loved by billions of people worldwide, but Americans are living in their own reality.

Open competition is the only way to determine the best of the best. The current state of the soccer in America is laughable, it's no wonder why America's team has not been notice in the World Cup.

Take a look at teams such as Manchester United, Chelsea, Bacelona, AC Milan, etc...they got fans worldwide....does the most popular NFL teams have fans worldwide?

Would be much better to see say "United States Football League", rather than Major League Soccer, USL1, USL2, NPSL, etc....which most Americans don't even know themselves. As in most other nations, one league with many divisions,which every team/club has a chance to be where they want to be....the best will raise to the top

Riiiiiight. Pro/rel=instant legitimacy.

Only in the eyes of Europoseurs like yourself.

And, quite frankly, we don't care what you think or do. Now piss off.

I agree that when we get to the point (and we are close) where promotion/relegation is implemented we will have greater interest in soccer at all professional levels. And believe me I am no Europoser. I think it can work - seeing how expansion has been controlled - let teams buy in at a lower level, then pay as the stakes increase and they improve their organization, stadium and club organization.

I would love to believe that it could work but it cannot and will not ever happen in the States. If teams buy in at a lower level, moving up can only happen if other clubs move down. No owner is going to agree to that.

Take a global view if you like. Relegation may be the death knell for some clubs in England this year. Now that Napoli and Genoa are long gone out of Serie B, the average attendance if pitiful. It is not as straight forward as it seems, even in countries where it is accepted.

Absolutely, 100% not true.

You will have greater interest. Fabulous.

But (a) promotion and relegation with WHOM, exactly? Which of the (apparently) two second-division leagues are you planning to do this with and ( b) good luck when Charleston wins that league and gets promoted and is a train wreck - not because they're not a good organization (they are), but because there's only so much revenue they can generate and only so many seats they can sell at only a certain level and don't say "they'll just expand the ground" because that's idiocy.

Here is a possible scenario. By 2011 MLS will be at 18 teams - which is the FIFA established ideal for a pro soccer league that allows for 34 regular season games in a year. The last teams have paid $40,000,000 to get in - money which goes to the league and the owners of the teams. That current revenue source is now maxed out and several areas are willing to pony up that cash or something close to it to get in the league. USL-1 is struggling to keep teams in the league and afloat. So if MLS would clearly state that the way into the league is to become an MLS candidate and pony up a mere $10,000,000 while you are getting yourself an MLS level soccer specific stadium and play in USL-1. When and if you win that league and have a MLS level stadium you can pony up the remaining $30,000,000 and replace the worst performing MLS team over the past 2-3 year period. Any team moving down is already a full-fledged MLS member and does not have to pay when they win the USL 1 and can move up again.

So say to start with St. Louis, FC New York, Montreal want to be MLS candidates. That is $10,000,000 from each ($30,000,000) this year and you could throw them a bone and let them participate in the draft etc... When they finally get an MLS level stadium and win the league they move up. Next year maybe Phoenix, Las Vegas, Tulsa and San Diego want to get in on the action - that's another $40,000,000 and the USL-1 now has a better league. Down the road a low performing MLS team will have to be relagated to a winning USL-1 level MLS candidate team who has an MLS level stadium. They now compete in a much better league, maintain players and know the clear path to moving up. I think it works much better than a FIFA frowned on 24 team league that can't schedule fairly - and it ensures all owners and the MLS continued cash and strengthens USL-1. A team with a $10,000,000 investment isn't just going to fold and quit playing. USL-1 would be forced to work with MLS and vice versa within the USsoccer framework (as well as other Concacaf country soccer organizations and FIFA overall) and would enjoy the blessing of better organization and more stables clubs and markets. When USL-1 maxes out and more want to join keep it going at USL-2.

For those who scoff at the possibility, tell me where MLS gets its next $40,000,000 cut for just having a desirable league for cities who want to legitimize themselves by being "Major League" something. At some point you run out of the possibilities to simultaneously keep FIFA happy and cooperating and growing your League. The only sensible long term solution I can see is the growth of lower tier professional soccer (USL-1 type, USL-2 type) with some hope of moving up on a very American outperforming the competition type model. Otherwise you miss out on the chance to grow your league, your brand and the game.

I believe we will see it happen as we get more owners who understand the business possibilities of the proposition and the cash flow it will bring them.

Its a shame you wrote such a long post because in there it talks about a scenario for performance-based promotion/relegation.

Who knows, performance-based pro/rel may happen in the United States in an alternate world millions of light years away, but it won't happen here for a LONG time, if ever.

Its more likely that it goes away in the big leagues in Europe long before it happens here.

And if they don't win USL-1? MLS team owners can Google "Norwich City FC" and "Charlton Athletic" just like the rest of us. No US sports owner will ever agree to be relegated. Ever.



This is not the best argument you could have made. FC New York clearly has no money. Montreal is on the record indicating MLS is asking for too much. And you cannot allow teams that are not in MLS to participate in the MLS draft because they might one day be in MLS.



A team with a $10,000,000 investment will indeed fold and quit playing if they no longer have the operating income to continue . Again, there are are ready examples at hand. Portsmouth is currently paying players with borrowed money. Hull City will have a fire sale in January because they have no other options. These are EPL teams with access to huge revenue streams.



I am not scoffing. I am merely willing to admit that it is not going to happen.

I do not know that it will happen in the big leagues, but league in countries like Belgium, Holland, and Scotland could look very different five years from now. And many seem increasingly convinced that the lower tiers in England will become semi-professional.

I believe it's more "Blatter's wish," not "the FIFA established ideal," but even if it was, FIFA's not going to mandate that, given how many top flights around the world are larger than 18.

But, I agree that 18 is a good size. I don't believe MLS will stop there, though. I do believe that 34 is on the outside edge of how many league fixtures we can reasonably expect to play and draw crowds to UNLESS some of the other extraneous stuff goes away. DC United played 44 competitive matches this year, and they didn't even make the MLS Cup playoffs. It's not inconceivable that an MLS team in a 34-game league scenario could play more than 50 competitive matches if they were successful enough in all competitions. And MLS doesn't have the depth for that. You saw how DC got wrecked by all the games they had to play.



Was supposed to be 40M, I believe they compromised at 35M because of the economy and the lack of suitable bidders. And I don't know for certain that any of us knows exactly how that money is divvied up - how much of it goes to MLS, LLC, and how much of it eventually makes its way to Dave Checketts or Robert Kraft or goes to fund SUM projects or what. So you're simplifying there.




Which is a non-starter. Won't happen. "A mere $10M" is laughable, first off, because if you put yourself in a USL-sized market with a stadium that makes sense for that level (hint: not "an MLS level soccer specific stadium," which isn't cheap), you're not going to be able to generate the remaining $30M anytime soon. If you're a Greg Kerfoot, fine. But Greg Kerfoot hasn't been playing in an MLS-level stadium the last several years and didn't make a $10M investment in Vancouver, as far as I know.

And, as has been pointed out, you're not going to get an MLS team owner to vote for potential relegation - whether it's over a one-year period, a two or three year period, or what have you. Not going to happen.

What you seem to think as the coolest thing since sliced bread, and the thing that would bring instant legitimacy to the competition and raise interest in all levels of professional soccer in this country (two words on that: bull and sh**, quite frankly) was created more than 100 years ago under very different financial circumstances, and, I would posit, would never be implemented today if it hadn't already existed for ages.

The short story (which I'm sure you know, but it's possible not everyone does) is that once the Football League was established with a certain number of teams who agreed to join, others wanted to get into the act (due to a merger with the rival Football Alliance). There wasn't really any difference at that stage of the game, organizationally, between Preston North End and Crewe Alexandra, it was just that PNE happened to get there first, and a league with 24 teams was seen as too big, so they had to come up with a fair way to permit those (now) second division teams to one day play in the top flight. Football being still in its primordial soup days at the time, there wasn't a big money gap between the divisions like there is today between the Premiership and the Football League or (especially) between MLS and USL.

In short, financially, it makes no sense. No matter how cool you think it is, no matter how much you like it, no matter how fabulous and nailbiting a great escape or winning promotion is, it's not happening here.



Fantastic. So instead of having David Beckham come to their stadium once a year, they can have Nelson Akwari. Oh, boy.

You do know that their revenues will go down quite a bit, right? And so they'll have to shed players? And have the Rochester Rhinos come to town? And not get TV money? You've thought of all this, right? No, no you haven't.

You get a balloon payment to soften the blow when you get relegated from the EPL to the Championship. Where's that money going to come from on a regular basis? And when you get promoted, your expenses go way up (player costs, potential stadium renovations) and how the hell is Charleston or Minnesota going to afford that?

Answer: they're not.



FCNY couldn't come up with $10M if you gave them until Doomsday.



Why would you do that? Why would the players' association agree to that? It's the MLS Draft, not the MLS Might Be In the League One Day Draft.



Just like that! See how easy that was? Other People's Money! Did Strat-O-Matic just put out a soccer game or what?



I love how you've done that - you've come up with seven areas that are interested in being in USL first and then MLS despite the fact that there's no indication the last four have any type of owner with that kind of money or aspirations or stadium plans or a hope of success. But, hey, it looks cool on paper.





"You're right. Sincerely, Ken Horowitz."

Happens all the time. Can't believe you can't see that.




Could be St. Louis. Could be Montreal. Could be Atlanta. And it was $35M last time around, I believe. The league is seen as a much better investment than it was 10 years ago.

And, I might point out, you're still asking San Diego and Tulsa and Phoenix and Montreal to pony up $40M, just $10M up front and the rest later. So you obviously think the $40M is going to come from somewhere, you just gave us seven cities where it could happen.



(a) F**k FIFA and (2) you said 18 was an ideal size. Why do you have to keep growing? If you keep growing, you can get a one-time latte shot of expansion money, but the rest of your shared revenues are cut into more pieces, leaving a smaller piece for you. Why would you do that?

You wouldn't.



Says you. I don't think many people without accents would agree with you.



And I believe it will not happen. Care to wager?

Great points, and I value your thorough analysis of the flaws and shortcomings in the model. I think we agree that this would only happen if and when current ownership in MLS agrees to it - and they would only do it if they felt it was good for their product and most importantly the bottom line - that is capitalism (I realize you don't think that could ever happen). We also agree that 18 is a good size for the top division. Though I don't think it is wise I also agree with you that I don't think MLS will stop there. Why? - the country is too big - and to be truly relevant as a nationwide sports league there must be a bigger footprint - most notably in the southeast - but it also needs to successfully tap into growing and emerging markets. This won't happen the same way as it does in other smaller countries. People and media in Oklahoma, Florida, Arizona or other places aren't going to care about California, Missouri, Texas or Washington DC teams in the same way they would about teams in their own cities - even if those teams are playing in the next level down. There is great opportunity for emerging markets.

Certainly there would be details to figure out how the leagues could work, but even USL-1 does have some television revenue (though scanty at current - but adding NYC is a huge plus) and this would grow as some of these teams emerge in more relevant television markets with some of them having the possibility to be in the "big league" if successful. Granted that not all USL-1 markets would really be a good fit for the MLS - and in this model they wouldn't have to - but where it made sense they could if they chose - and it would be clear to all that this is the way in.

Though it is a common feel to disregard FIFA - the fact is they are the world governing body of the sport - and while they need the USA as a more important market and will allow us some leeway, they also hold considerable power within the sport so over time we will need to hold relatively close to their suggested standards - for reasons more important than just that FIFA said so (scheduling for example). As we move toward having another World Cup in the US in the future, the strong recommendations will be to push US Soccer to move toward a promotion / relegation system with stronger leadership and cooperation between the MLS and the next several levels of professional soccer - for the growth of the game. Whether that spells the end of USL at the professional level to be replaced by a stronger entity - perhaps run by MLS or US Soccer directly or a recognition of USL and strengthening of its system - this has to happen for the good of the game in the United States and really most of the rest of CONCACAF (Mexico and perhaps some Central American countries excluded). The rest of the countries aren't big enough for their own strong MLS level leagues (except maybe Canada over time). So my prediction is that by 2023 or within a year or two of the US hosting the next World Cup - you will see some form of promotion or relegation.

And it will happen not necessarily to appease Eurosnobs or FIFA directly - but because it makes business sense for the game in the United States. The reality is that if growth does not continue - in one form or another, the game will stagnate and regress. I don't think stagnation is the direction we are headed.

And to prove the point I would glady wager some other owners $40,000,000 to say I am right. Bottom line - the people with scratch in the game will make the decision (as well they should) - I think it can make sense - and the opportunity to start exists now. If I was a USL-1 owner, I would welcome the addition of some forward thinking financially secure future-MLS desiring teams in decent markets to stabilize the league. Tickets to that game would be easier to sell.

Because I don't believe they feel it would be good for them as individuals or for the league as a whole. Regardless of how Europoseurs claim it would make things all peachy keen. I think it's a non-starter.

In a situation where you had 30 or more high-level teams/organizations, maybe, so you'd be promoting and relegating between two groups of clubs that all paid the same amount (or thereabouts) to get in and shared in all the revenues, maybe. That might be more realistic. But still a long shot.




From where? The FSC deal has always been a time-buy. If that has changed, I'd be interested to see the link. I don't see how they're generating any meaningful television revenue at all. At all.



Not if no one watches the games. Not if they're playing at Hofstra. Not if they're a train wreck of a franchise.



Which isn't going to happen and that's not what juices TV ratings. The history of soccer on television in this country tells us that we can get a good audience for a big event like the World Cup, decent audiences when the national team is playing, and less so for club soccer at the D1 level (geeked a bit by freakshow things like Freddy Adu's first game or David Beckham). Way less so for club soccer at the D2 level and below, or for women's soccer. The "relevance" of the TV market doesn't matter when it's the product you're putting out there that does.



Please show me the precedent, that's all I'm saying. Are you going to go back to 1983 when FIFA told the NASL "No 35-yard line?" Okay, what else? What recently? Where has FIFA mandated that a league do X, Y or Z and the league has done it? You need to get over the idea that FIFA or USSF is going to force the hand of any of these "traditional" innovations that you seem to be stuck on.

They allowed MLS to have overtime and shootouts and the clock counting down and conferences and they're not going to force MLS (or any other league) to be a certain size or play at a certain time of year or a certain number of games and they're certainly not going to force a league to be owned and controlled by its clubs, no matter what the TOA enthusiasts would have you believe.



They made creation of a D1 league part of the 94 World Cup bid. I think part of that was that they were so skeptical that America could pull off a World Cup, they wanted to make the test onerous that in case we failed, they could say "See, we gave them a chance, they couldn't do it. Stupid Americans." But, no they can strongly recommend all they want, and, though I agree there needs to be strong leadership and cooperation between levels, if you're looking for cooperation between competing bands of people in soccer in this country, I would say you've not been paying attention for...oh, the history of ever.

Again, neither FIFA nor USSF or anybody else is going to force promotion and relegation when it makes zero sense in this country. Not going to happen. No. Not. Get it?




I'll take that bet right here, right now, today. We'll both be old and grey, but it's not going to happen between MLS and a secondary division unless MLS controls that secondary division and there's enough organizational depth to make it happen. Just because it looks cool doesn't mean the Rochester Rhinos could afford to compete in D1.

The reasons the USL's brand of quasi-pro/rel hasn't gone all that well over the last decade or so are pretty much the same reasons it won't work between MLS and something else - because it doesn't make financial sense. Artistically, fine, but you and people like you need to get over this pipe dream. It's not happening.



But it doesn't make business sense. In fact, its lack of business sense is why it won't happen. You're asking people with huge investments to voluntarily reduce the value of those investments, while simultaneously potentially weakening or destroying clubs that can compete on the lower level (like a Charleston, which is a terrific DII club and organization) but couldn't on the upper level.



What do you think about the Mayan calendar thing, then?

You sound apocalyptic, and I'd say that the evidence would tend to show that we are trending very well. All the indicators that I can see show me that the game is healthier than ever, that, as a business, the sport in this country is more lucrative than ever. The acceptance of the sport has probably never been higher (the NASL boom of 1978-80 was kind of artificial, in my mind).

Yet you're worried about, what, 20 years from now? When we've maxed out growth? If our top division gets to 20 teams in 2014 or something and stays at 20 teams for 30 years, I'm okay with that. The game still has room to grow within itself and within American sports culture. It does not need now, nor can it support now or in the future, a relic of a bygone age whose primary appeal is that it "looks" like the way they do things in the rest of the world.

I don't really care about the rest of the world. I care about what's best for us. And that's not setting ourselves up in a stupid economic construct just to appeal people who think there's only one way to skin a cat.

Your starting to come around to this crazy way of thinking - you are stating some of the key points in the solution I am proposing. Key in my thoughts on this subject are the need to strengthen the professionalism of D2 and lower systems. There are a few organizations that understand how to run this successfully as you mentioned. You also mention that MLS will necessarily has to have its hand in the next level - which is a major point of my proposal. Also key is the owners willingness to support financially successful enterprises. A strong D-2 with promotion and relegation from the top level allows for a struggling organization at one level to be a winning club with a realistic shot at a clear goal (promotion) from one year to the next. Dwindling attendance for a perennial loser can be changed. Most successful owners are brash enough to think that given the opportunity they can make success happen (or at least not finish last). Relegation gives a way to wash out a loser owner and organization who can't get their act together and replace it with one that can. With optional promotion for a qualified club maybe you add profitability or attendance components to only promote a club that is better in several aspects than the one being relegated. This keeps the Rochesters out, but could provide for the next Seattle from a D-2 level to make it to D-1. And that can happen - especially if the community and the team know it is a possibility.

Just in case I'll start hitting up some filthy rich potential owners for $40,000,000 so I can pay out in 2023

This is not a video game. The loser owner you refer to would be hemorrhaging actual money with real people losing existing jobs.

All the more reason to move them down, and allow a better team in. Why should other owners in the league go play an inferior team with a lower gate receipt (attendance) when a better team and owner could replace them? Absolutely jobs are at stake and in the real world may the best team / owner / players / communities win. So as the game grows why settle for mediocrity that is a non promotion/relegation system - if there is a better option knocking on the door.

There are two huge if's here - one that a better prepared organization is ready to step up and two that the MLS and its owner can realize that a designed system be agreed upon to promote and improve the game and enhance profitability for the better performing organizations. It beats kicking a team out and shutting the doors forever - at least with relegation the relegated team can regroup and earn their way back in. I say make the promotion part based upon more than just winning - must be paying for the opportunity a priori, building the MLS level stadium and then outperforming your own league by winning and the "to be relegated" team in attendance or other measurable management or profitability standpoints. Make the relegation be based on several years performance so one bad year based on injuries etc... doesn't relegate a team. So only occasionally would a promotion/relegation happen. But it would happen because it makes financial sense.

The key here is to act while there is still momentum on growing the league (MLS) - yes we might be able to still add a few more teams to MLS at the current level - but some markets are viewed as iffy - like St. Louis. So let them get on the field on a lower level, get the stadium built, start ponying up the money, win, out attend and out manage a struggling MLS franchise and break into the big leagues through promotion. Second division teams would get better attendance, more television and attention if their success meant a promotion. The next tier wouldn't be just a pipe dream for the second division, and the game would grow in these markets.

Even a struggling team at the MLS level would still have something to play for after losing a chance for the playoffs - attendance and on field performance could make the difference between relegation or not.

Yes there a lot of if's - but it can make sense for those invested at the highest level. Even the relegated could be better off in the long run. Imagine the energy of 10 Toronto's or Seattle's (Say St. Louis, Atlanta, New York 2, Montreal, San Diego, Phoenix, San Antonio, Las Vegas, Tampa Bay, Ottawa ....) trying crack the next level on the field - not just in a political, spreadsheet only fashion that is the current expansion bid process. They start by putting a fraction of what many were willing to pay to show the intent and then actually assemble teams, begin the process of building stadiums - many probably that could be build cheaper and then expanded. Get cities like that involved and in those markets you could generate some television money. Maybe even the Division 2 league winner gets to compete in the real MLS playoffs as the lowest seed - could add even more legitimacy (could help the Supporter Shield winner from getting owned in the first round each year also - sorry Crew fans that probably stings a bit tonight - but it is REAL).

I'm just saying there are possibilities if done correctly.

No, I'm actually not.



Which can be done - and, in large part, has been done (for those of you who can remember back 10 years or so) without pro/rel. Stupid is as stupid does and professional is as professional does. Whether or not in six years, Crystal Palace Baltimore could conceivably get a shot at promotion to MLS, has absolutely zero to do with how professional they can be today. It takes management willing to be professional at whatever level they are at. Too many, quite frankly, don't have a clue when they get into this how to have a successful organization.



But "the next level" (down) would have to be comprised of MLS clubs, all from the same caste. You're talking about them absorbing USL or TOA or whatever. That's not going to happen. IF there's going to be promotion and relegation at any level in this country, it's going to show up one of two ways:

1 - Within the lower divisions, and only between the lower divisions (we've actually had this provision for a while, but the reason it's rarely happened is because it makes no financial sense. And almost all of the moves up or down within the USL system have been for financial reasons, not performance reasons.).
2 - Within an MLS closed ecosystem in the unlikely event there are ever 30 or more viable MLS-level organizations who buy into MLS, LLC. And don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.




You keep acting as if this is going to be a magic bullet. Kudos to you for not being quite as frothy-mouthed about it as the Westervelt guy is, but, still....it's not going to be a panacea.



And you have absolutely no idea what sells tickets in this country. None.

Name for me, please, the USL owners who could realistically afford to compete in MLS?

I mean the ones who haven't already moved up (Seattle, which had to take on more investors), are poised to (Vancouver and Portland) or who might (Montreal). Those guys are getting into the top flight the realistic, 21st-century, American, entrepreneurial, free-market way. Not with some archaic, oh-you-won-the-USL-1-title way, which could bring us a club COMPLETELY incapable of competing at the higher level.

Again, we're back to Charleston. Charleston has an outstanding USL-1 organization and they're happy at the D2 level (so I've been told). It would be completely and utterly ridiculous to expect them to be able to economically handle the move up. They'd be in worse straits than the worst MLS organization because the money disparity is that big.

It makes zero sense to hold onto this worldview that ignores the huge disparity.



Nobody (in this country, and precious few outside of it) really do more than pay lip service to "promoting and improving the game."

It can't be agreed upon is the problem. And if there's a better prepared organization ready to step up, a la Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, well, guess what? They're in! There you go. Everybody wins. And nobody has to go down to make it happen. I'm sorry you'll lose out on the excitement of a last-weekend relegation escape or failure, but, such is life. It's not your money.



Nobody - and I mean nobody is going to take on the burden of building an MLS-level stadium (a term you keep throwing around as if they make these things out of LEGOS) with just the possibility that one day they might be in MLS. Have you seen what happened in Rochester? Could that stadium perhaps one day be an MLS-level stadium? Sure, if you have a few million more lying about. They still - to my knowledge - haven't finished it or paid for what they have now.

And for all the caterwauling, how many USL teams have actually outdrawn MLS teams? Not a lot. As for profitability, it's mostly degrees of magnitude of losses.




Absolutely, 100 percent not true whatsoever. You keep going back to that - this is Westervelt's entire thesis statement, only he says it in hyperbolic, childrens-birthday-party terms - and there's absolutely no evidence to suggest it would happen.



Again, no. If that's what you're counting on to "grow the game," you're going to be sorely disappointed. You grow the game not with the carrot on the end of the stick, but with a hundred or more other little reasons that ingrain your club in the community over time - lots and lots of time.

And, at the end of the day, it's still soccer in America and it still has a ceiling and it takes a long time for these things to occur. You're not going to stoke that with promotion and relegation, and you're not going to do anybody any favors by relegating New York and promoting Charleston. You do the league no favors, you do New York no favors, you do Charleston no favors. Nobody wins except the people who can't let go of a concept that doesn't work here economically because they have it in their brains that if we LOOK like European soccer, we'll BE like European soccer.

We're NEVER going to be like European soccer. Not now, not later, not ever. Never, never, never, never. There are too many societal forces at work here and the competition from the other sports that are too popular and too ingrained and too rich won't let it happen.



Imagine...that's what you're doing. You're imagining things. There's nobody in Phoenix. There's nobody in San Antonio. There's nobody in Las Vegas. There's nobody in San Diego. Tampa Bay hasn't proven they can run a D2 team yet.

If there were those people, they'd cut out the middleman and go big or go home. They wouldn't start small and hope to move up someday, maybe, if all the factors aligned. Whether it's Dave Checketts or Jorge Vergara or Greg Kerfoot or William Chang - if they want in, they buy in. They buy a new club or they find an existing club for sale or they up their investment and apply to move their club up. That's how it works in American soccer.

I realize the reality of the economic construct doesn't have a lot of romance in it for people who dream of terraces and meat pies and Saturday 3pm kickoffs, but it ain't gonna happen your way. It's just not.

And the world it flat. Good things happen to those who dream and then work to make it happen. You may well be right, and just like no one could start a computer company in their garage and build it into any kind of a respectable business - for the 99.9% who never try it won't happen, and most who do try will likely fail, but once in while a visionary who ignores the naysayers - or uses their reasoning to improve their offering makes the unthinkable happen. I for one appreciate the reasoning on why it can't happen - but the thoughts go back to a preconceived notion of assumptions that can easily be moved past. You have helped convince me more than ever that a modified promotion that might result at least initially in a new team at the top level once or twice a decade can produce a much improved second level and can vastly improve what we currently have.

As I consult with venture capitalists on a regular basis in their funding of startup businesses there are certainly key things to look for - enthusiasm, ability to manage funds and people, an ability to market, and a good idea and business plan. Each needs a visionary, a stickler for detail and an SOB to make things happen. I don't mind being a visionary (or maybe even a hallucinator ) and I appreciate your input as a stickler for the detail. Now with someone else's money, Bill Gates garage and an SOB we could go make something happen.

I like the direction that soccer is headed at the top level in the United States. The real needs for stability and growth are now at the second and third levels of the professional ranks. I like to envision how to strengthen that and bring professional soccer opportunities to more of the great communities in our country. Thanks for indulging me in this forum. One day, perhaps we might see a stronger second or third level league and more ownership and management team finding a way to prosper. Some day we may each play a bigger part. Just a dream, but I believe we share a sincere desire for the strength of the game in the United States.

Now I think I get it. You think that one go getter or a groups of visionaries can make this thing happen. It really doesn't work that way. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs had the talent and drive. Maybe they even ignored some naysayers along the way. Most importantly, they were in the exact right place and the exact right time. US soccer has had its Philip Anschutz period. The time to implement promotion and relegation is at the inception, and that time has come and gone. We cannot put the horses back in the barn and begin again.

I also know some Silicon Valley venture capitalists. Nothing they do really applies to what we are talking about here.

I disagree.

Promotion or relegation happens when the number of teams is larger than the number of adequate slots forcing a separation. Fifteen years ago we got lucky to have a decent top level league at all - We are only now getting to the point where thinking about promotion or relegation makes sense - and I know many of you think it will never make sense.

I choose to believe that it can and will make sense in the future. Not to emulate anyone else, but because it is the right business model. That future may be a ways off, but the day will come. (Do want to drink some purple Kool-Aid?)

Pro/Rel makes sense to you and other fans on message boards that don't have to plop down franchise fees, expand stadiums, and generally go in the opposite direction of a set business plan.

Pro/Rel isn't whats keeping North American soccer back. It's implementation won't mean "we've arrived". It's a nice concept that was established a long time ago. As has been mentioned earlier, it wouldn't even be in place in Europe today had it not been so entrenched long before. Because of this I don't see it ever happening.

On behalf of everyone.

Who the (bad word) cares?
It's not gonna happen.

Plus...people like computers. And, in that case, what works in Europe works here.

Just because pro/rel works in Europe and elsewhere doesn't mean it will work here.

What I take complete and utter exception to is the notion that this is a three-step process:

1. Institute pro/rel
2. Sit back
3. Watch American soccer explode in popularity.

That's incredibly, ridiculously naive, shows a complete lack of understanding of how the game works in this country and flies in the face of common sense.

What's worse is holding onto such a belief like grim death and continuing to defend it when it's obvious that you're wrong.

You got the order reversed.

1 Watch soccer grow in popularity.
2 Work your can off promoting it and making every game relevant and important.
3 Institute promotion/relegation to aid the growth and the importance of every game.

It works when you understand it. Sooner or later when everyone stops trying to create their own league every time they have a disagreement, and strong leadership is exerted to maintain the stability of the game - it will happen. That is the beauty of being an optimist - it can always happen in the future if you wait long enough. Doesn't matter that it isn't happening now or doesn't currently make sense. One day it will. Need a half full glass of some Kool-Aid?

But that's not what you said.

That's not your mission statement.

You believe that promotion and relegation cures everything. That with it comes more interest and more investment and a realization of our potential.

I disagree.

We're getting more interest and more investment and closer to our potential in the current "closed" system that you decry.

It's also a capitalist system. That's America.

I can assure you of this, just as certain as the sun will come up tomorrow: you will quixotically pursue this for the next several years, maybe more, and it will not happen. There will not be promotion and relegation from the Division I league in this country to anything beneath it. You will be disappointed not to see your vision realized. You will whine and moan about it for years, telling us how much better things would be if "everyone could control their own destiny" (which is complete and utter bullshit, to be honest with you) and how many more clubs we'd have and how many more investors and this and that.

NONE of what you say is supported by logic, facts or precedent. It's a completely emotional argument you make. You want to see us LOOK like England (or other countries' leagues) because you believe that if we LOOK like them, the SAME level of success will just naturally come to us.

It won't.

You've completely ignored the exceptionalist American concepts that have kept soccer where it is in the sports space in the US, and which will continue to do so, with incremental gains.

Your passion for this....well, it would be commendable if it wasn't so misguided. At some point, I hope you'll wonder what the hell you did it all for. Because it's all going to be for naught.

And, you know what? We'll actually survive and thrive without the antiquated English model you espouse. Because it ain't happening over here. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

First of all I don't whine or moan - I do strive to improve and construct. Second of all I am hardly espousing an English model -Frankly I'm not all that much of an English system fan - other than enjoying some quality soccer from time to time. What they feel works for them is fine. I do admire the way promotion relegation works in many systems - and recognize its potential. If I had to cite a model that influences me most I would say the Mexican Leagues and the youth state models are more of an influence than the English system. The Mexican League knows they have $10,000,000 US dollars coming in every year and a team with an excited fan base joining the league and they get rid of the team that has been the worst over the past few years.

I do agree with you that this won't happen any time soon, with the disarray at level 2 we are farther off now at even a remote possibility of promotion/relegation. It is farther down the road from being a possible constructive solution to improving the game and being in the owners best long term financial interest. I am a venture capitalist at heart and spend a sizeable amount of time researching potentially successful enterprises and know that having skin in the game is a vital portion of this formula. As I have stated before this will happen when those with the deepest investment quit trying to protect mediocrity of other owners and see the benefit of growing this beyond just the top level. At some point in time it will be in their own best interest to include a controlled form of promotion/relegation that benefits them. A major part of this development will include cooperation between levels 1 and 2 - requiring a strong 2nd Division.

I agree with you -not happening today or tomorrow, but I disagree with you on the not ever.

funny thing is - this is one kind of globalization that doesn't increase our trade deficit with China, increase our debt, or cost us one cent in additional taxes.

People are watching soccer in this country, just not our stunted, fragmented closed league pyramid. Once you are able to separate the two, you can have the discussion.

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!

Nick - MLS clubs paid millions, and should get initial first div status. That's it.

Each league should be given the power to set minimum stadium standards.

Wouldn't it be better to rebuild in a lower division, instead of wasting your spot in the top league to do it ad nauseum? (Lions, Clippers et al)

I expect the American system will take decades to shake out - if ever. We may get a few early superclubs leading the way and pushing out the performance envelope (Sounders, Timbers, Galaxy) but I expect the situation will be fluid.

The biggest benefit is in the lower divisions. Capturing fan interest there will be made easier once the bureaucratic divisions between leagues are removed. That's where we will see the largest growth. That's where we will see the bridge between youth participation and the pro game finally built. That's where we will get the American superstars of the 21st century.

The accessibility of the game has always been it's trademark. This extends to the league level. When you remove that accessibility by installing a closed, single entity, exhibition league as a permanent first division, you remove a big part of it's allure. That's why twenty five times more cable tv viewers watch WWE than MLS.

A transition to 160 clubs can be done in three years.

Canada and US leagues must split. The reason the MLS can't recoup investment and make money is because it's a stilted, inferior product in which match outcomes are managed, not because there isn't a ready audience. Cart before the horse argument again here.

Billionaires like controlled monopolies in which their investments can be shielded from risk. Nothing new here. Lower division fans will not let them purchase their dreams.

If you let them monopolize, they will monopolize. That's the natural order.

It's really not USL's fault. For a while, I think there was a glimmer of hope in a lot of USL eyes that someday they would simply take the first div mantle. MLS investors are too well heeled, and are ready to hold on to even a stilted, small minded, exhibition league until hell freezes over.

This is why the flip flop has receded into the realm of unicorns and trolls, and why this has to be a political effort. We can't allow them to blame their troubles on the game itself any longer. We have to separate it out, and display it as the failed business model that it is, not a reflection on the most popular youth sport in the country.

Don't let the word scare you. When the market can't sort out this blatent nonsense, it's left to the supporters. It's a political effort, pure and simple.

DEAD ON. please endorse the plan at www.soccerreform.us

Stop pronouncing the lower open leagues dead. Their supporters won't let you buy their dreams. What's good for monopolizing billionaires is not good for them.

It's the only recourse. Once you understand how NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA owners would be spooked by a successful open soccer league, you can see why they'd rather preside over a stunted, lame, exhibition imitation that is MLS.

Apathy is the mother of dissention, my friend.

Protecting billionaires with mixed motivations and priorities is not getting us where we need to go. Investments in professional sports franchises should not be as safe as public utilities. Maybe that's why MLS is so boring?

Sorry I neglected this topic for so long! As you can see, I've been busy setting up an effort to take this thing back. USL supporters deserve unlimited futures.

I'm sorry, soccerreform, I don't share your view on the MLS. I love soccer, especially the MLS.

I think this is in response to something I wrote two months ago, and I'll admit that I have not the vaguest clue what you are going on about.

Holy disjointed spamming, Batman!

Um, yeah. Wow. Cool. Power to the people. Quote button is the 2nd one in from the left, just past Reply. Soccer fan was born free but he is everywhere in chains.

So if everyone contributes $500 through that site, promotion and relegation could start as early as next year I think. That's super awesome. There might need to be a step 1a or 1b in there somewhere, but that's a pretty minor detail I'd say.

Here, have a valium, dude. It's no badge of shame to have the "Novice" tag on your name.

Are you talking about promoting and relegating within multiple divisions of the NASL? Or with the MLS?

Selby Wellman, majority Owner Carolina:

"Both. I think both are possible. I think it’s down the road, a matter of four or five years. We get this Division 2 established at the level we want, as an owner-controlled league, we’re already competing with anybody on the field, as you know, right there in Carolina. We play MLS teams and Mexican teams and we do quite well. We know we’re producing high-quality professional soccer now. What we have to do is raise the level of the business end and our image over the next couple of years to match what we do on the field."

WTF is Selby smoking? Wow.

That pretty much sums up the NASL thing.

Ignorance/Arrogance/Implosion