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.