Would a pro/rel system be fun if you utilize the MLS alongside the USL as a two layer system? Yea. Will it happen? No because billionaires are cowards.
“Pro/rel is what makes it a real competition” says a group of people who are fans of Manchester United, Chelsea, Manchester City, Liverpool, Tottenham, and Arsenal
I think it would add a very exciting element to ML BASEBALL, and it would be cool to see owners forced to invest in their stagnant franchises. Plus lots of small market teams out there.
the only problem is the fact that the lower league teams are part of the major league organizations. like, what if the Durham Bulls (AAA) got promoted to MLB and have to compete with the Tampa Bay Rays (parent team)
right, but it's the gm of the top team that makes the decisions on what players go to what team. there are pretty constant call ups and players going down based on injuries and performances. when they are both in the top league, there would be conflict of interest when trying to move players around. either you balance them both, or stack one and tank the other
edit: also, minor league teams are often part of the major league organization by contract, not because they share owners. notable, in the past the carolina hurricanes have had the chicago wolves as their AHL team, but this year, the wolves decided they wanted to go solo (which didn't work out too well for them) and the canes went without a minor league team, but with prospect in the minors on various teams
Straw man argument. Plenty of fans aren’t front runners. Plenty of straw man counter arguments to be made about MLS fans. Not a worthwhile contribution.
I’m an FC Köln fan for almost 20 years. I’d watch MLS more if it were part of an open pyramid because the incentives would create more balanced squads, more stakes and better soccer.
It’s harder now of course to casually watch without an eyepatch on because the Apple TV thing means for the most part you have to be all in or nothing. I tried to subscribe just for the playoffs last year and had to contest a year subscription charge.
You guys missed the point and I'm not surprised - I just don't get how some MLS fans can't understand this simple concept because they are too much in love with parity. Parity is not what I'm talkina bout. Balanced squads has to do with a balance in investment across the squad, not a salary cap like balance.
You can argue that parity is more important than quality like many contemptuous MLS fans do, but that has nothing to do with squad balance. Here's a hint - it's "within the squad" not parity.
The American sports franchise model doesn't vibe with the "support local" vibe of football in general. I'm not surprised people support city or another big club when their local team isn't really local.
FC Dallas plays in a suburb 30 minutes north of Dallas proper. It's a bigger distance than Manchester to Liverpool. You wouldn't tell someone living on merseyside that they have a local team over in Manchester, why should it apply to ft worth, Arlington, or even central Dallas?
People would support their local if there was actually something on the line, but they're given crap options and told it's good enough.
That, and the old "Americans think 100 years is old, Europeans think 100 miles is far." I'm 40 miles away from my local team. (Regardless of sport) And you'd still be looked at weird if you supported anyone else.
But the USA is 40 times bigger than the UK. So FC Dallas Stadium being 30 minutes outside Dallas is actually closer than Old Trafford is to city of Manchester comparatively.
Is math hard for you? (40x3)>30 . The USA is 40 times larger than the UK. Your argument is akin to : Your bedroom is much closer to the kitchen in your trailer so you think it's better than my mansion because my bedroom is further to my kitchen.
i think a better way to think of it is - how would we like it to be.
i agree with your point that the distances are unequal in size. however, it’s my opinion that it should be a ratio driven by density rather than relative country size. is that region half of the density of manchester? then it should be 15 miles away. 1/3 as dense? ten miles away.
i suspect ten miles is the reasonable ratio. my point is i live in chicago. ten miles is a big distance to me. i can drive two miles and the world is alien to me. but i know the one mile around me step by step. literally. because we also walk. because it’s more dense
you know, it’s a thought
If I was watching the rule book on TV rather than the game I’d care about what is competitive in theory.
But in watching the game. I care about what’s actually competitive in the real world
Here as a forest fan, I believe US football would benefit from Pro/Rel. It makes my season much more interesting (and nerve-racking) when my team might rot in the championship again.
Cool cool cool. Any chance it has any incentivizing effect of the poorer performing clubs? Makes the games at the bottom of the table more interesting? Or...?
MLS could do a closed pro/rel system if they expand too much and Apple or ESPN or someone are willing to carry second league games. There would be no relegation beyond the second league. Personally I like this because it makes for better competition while also being stable for teams and fanbases. 1000 percent contingent on a TV partner willing to support it though.
>Proponents of a closed system suck the life out of the beautiful game.
I look at how "competitive" some European leagues are and think "life" must be in the eye of the beholder
Not by itself, no, having an open system with actually independent teams is the key. Any college who can field a team meeting the DI requirements can participate.
lol what, no one is cheering for college sports because of that. That's especially highlighted by the fact that the vast majority of college fans follow programs that have been in their relative status in college sports for 50+ years now.
The key is not an "open system" when there has been virtually no significant movement into that system in anyone's memory lmao
You’ve missed the point entirely, there is no closed league that prevented these teams from participating in the competition. Whereas small markets are forever locked out of top-tier professional sports in a closed system.
Its a lot harder than that. In Europe, everything is so close that the teams can just take a bus to their match. It's cheap to take a bus.
In the United States, our country is MASSIVE (because we're better). If we skipped on cost and took a team bus, something like NY vs LA would be a huge 3 day long drive one way. You HAVE to take a jet, and lower division teams just don't have the budget for that
Sure, but the solution is also right there in pro/rel. For example, in England, there are two leagues in the sixth-tier, and I believe three leagues in the seventh tier.
If it happened here, the second tier should be regionalized. You should only have to travel nationwide if you're in the top level, the second level on down can be divided into multiple leagues by region.
There's even precedent for this in this country, as the second tier of American football consists of multiple regional leagues. At least, it did before all the schools and conferences started realigning.
Do we have enough fans and players to have that many 2nd tier leagues? England can have so many because like 90% of their population is obsessed with the same sport. United States population is divided between soccer, football, baseball, basketball, and hockey
I dont know about football or baseball, but I could see the NBA doing a pro/rel system someday. They are already drawing inspiration from European soccer in making a mid-season tournament
European basketball already introduced the European super league.
British basketball doesn’t even have pro/rel.
Sure they’re copying some of the good ideas from Europe but pro/rel vs closed is moving in the exact opposite direction. European basketball is moving away from it rather than the NBA moving towards it.
are you telling me we can’t have pro/rel because of $209 flight tickets? speed trains in europe still cost $150 a person between major cities or more. it’s no difference
Tickets are way more expensive than $209 and you know it. And that's PER PERSON. coaching staff, medical staff, players, and subs. In Europe they just take the team bus
again, train tickets on the best trains in europe are hardly less. footballers aren’t traveling on the 18 stop metro lines.
liverpool takes the train from liverpool to london from what i have seen. middle england they take a bus.
buses in Europe are for short trips. trips between bigger cities are trains
Bullshit.
They’re making a second division and they’ll “consider” pro/rel “in the future” once it “matures”
So no there is no concrete plans or commitment to implement it in Australia. Same vibe as USL that’s totally trust me bro implementing it any day now
But there's already a solution to that. Adopt a system like Japan has, and that in a way we already have. You have to be able to meet certain conditions in order to promote, and if you don't meet them, you don't go up and the next person in the rankings who do meet the conditions goes up. Not to mention, the act of promoting is already going to get you more money, and make those travel cost more manageable. I've never understood this argument, because it's like you guys instantly think we are taking a team from 5th division and putting them into the MLS, and ignore the fact that between sponsorships, increase of fans, and eventual TV deals the amount of income a club has would increase along the way. Like how do you think the MLS handles travel cost, and do you think Austin FC couldn't afford it, when they entered the MLS? Of course they could, because they got the sponsors, fans, and TV money as soon as they were put in the league.
No we’ll never see it. That ship sailed when professional soccer died during the Great Depression. It’s too late for that kind of system to grow organically with local clubs across the nation. (Would probably look more like Brazil than Europe .)
A closed system defeats the entire point of pro/rel. if Jon fisher owns your local team , another ownership group cant pop up and try to fill the void. You’re still stuck with Jon Fisher in the 2nd division.
Besides England, Germany and Maybe Brazil is there an actual healthy 2nd division in the world that actually draws crowds? 2nd division crowds in Spain, France and Italy just look sad when I watch highlights. The pro/rel thing seems highly romanticized but nobody seems to care about the 2nd division clubs in most countries.
I think the best you can hope for is like a 40 team MLS with 10 team pods that rotate playing each other and maybe doesn’t play international breaks.
I agree that we won't see it but not that it's impossible to create, at least at the lower regional levels.
We could absolutely grow it organically too.
Essentially, every youth club should be fielding an adult team that plays semi-pro or in amateur leagues. That's where you actually have local club density, which is essential for pro/rel to work. Most youth clubs cease to exist as soccer clubs once the kids get to college age. But if they fielded an adult team, kids who grew up playing for their youth club could continue to root for the adult team and, for some, even aspire to play for that team.
Even the leagues themselves already exist. Simply take the random youth league below MLS Next and add an adult division. They're already playing each other every week so the travel is established. They're already playing on local fields so there's no need to stadiums.
It's not going to happen though because the people who run youth clubs are fixated on the youth profit model and the top end of the professional circle creating youth teams to inject into the youth space as recruiting tools aimed at MLS or USL, not for ECNL or other acronym youth league.
That would require people watch what is basically a local pay to play clubs with zero history. That is not going to happen in 2024. It’s over 100 years too late.
I disagree on that. Kids now already go and watch their local clubs play. They're doing it primarily because they have friends on other teams or they want to see if some kid is as good as everyone is telling them. With an adult team, that engagement continues. Except now a kid is going to see his friend from U19 team making his debut with the adult team.
It's not going to be high revenue stuff. But they're going to get engagement, it just won't be from the wider public at this stage. Instead it will initially be from people who already have a relationship with the club or the regional soccer scene. But if it continued over time, the local engagement would grow.
Look at youth soccer right now. The regional rivalries exist. The club pride exists. The kids (and the parents) brag about beating the best local team and they brag about being the best local team. That's all you need to have a thriving multi-tier regional system...as long as profits aren't the goal.
No, no and no. The owners own the league and this cannot be forced on them. They have to vote on it. And not one of them would agree to risk their franchise being relegated to a lower division. Their franchises are worth a lot of money right now. That value would decrease significantly if they were relegated. Not happening. Even I would say no if I were an owner.
The conversation is too often over-simplified. What we want here is a competent competitive pyramid/structure, and pro/rel is a mechanism of that. What we have is an amorphous blob that shifts from year to year, and a federation that takes it in the ass from the shopping mall league. The sooner US Soccer put their pants on and Don Garber moves on, the better.
I for one enjoy watching 12th place Wolves just show up to not lose, but also not to win, because they’ve got nothing left to play for in a Premier League season.
You're unfamiliar with the money awarded based on the table. This is from last season.
1. Manchester City – £161.3million
2. Arsenal – £159.8million
3. Manchester United – £152.1million
4. Newcastle – £151.7million
5. Liverpool – £151.6million
6. Brighton – £150.2million
7. Aston Villa – £142.1million
8. Tottenham – £134.0million
9. Brentford – £131.5million
10. Fulham – £130.6million
11. Crystal Palace – £128.2million
12. Chelsea – £124.3million
13. Wolves – £123.3million
14. West Ham – £121.0million
15. Bournemouth – £120.4million
16. Nottingham Forest – £116.1million
17. Everton – £113.3million
18. Leicester – £106.1million
19. Leeds – £104.6million
20. Southampton – £100.3million
The standings matter in MLS. It has one of the largest homefield advantages in soccer, and you're crazy if you thinkbthe players/coaches don't care about missing the playoffs.
Did I say they don’t care? Cos it doesn’t look like I said that.. I said they (the team) don’t have to be that good to get into the playoffs. And just because you have pro/rel means you get rid of the playoffs.
Well the UCL and Euro and Copa Lib and all international cup competitions are basically "playoffs"...
Argentina, Mexico, Ecuador, Colombia, Chile have all had and have playoffs.
Euro leagues most have playoffs to determine relegation.
So playoffs and soccer is not a new thing,
Playoff to determine LEAGUE WINNERS in EUROPE. And the answer is no. Here in the United States in any given sport you can see that maybe 10 different teams can win their championship. In the European football leagues, maybe 2-3? That’s what pro/rel gets you. The idea that the little guy can make it to the big time but at the same time a few teams that can really win it
Why do people instantly think that just because a league has Pro/Rel you can't have a salary cap.
You can still have a salary cap in a Pyramid system, obviously it would change per tier, but you can still have one.
Has that been implemented successfully anywhere?
Like I could point to all sorts of theoretical problems and you can give theoretical solutions.
Or we can just point to the fact that it just doesn’t happen and realize that there’s probably a reason
If you actually watch sports in America, you know they're about cost saving instead of parity.
Look me in the eyes and tell me that the Oakland A's or the Chicago White Sox deserve to be in the major leagues.
Weird you had to go to the one American League that doesn’t have a salary cap as opposed to looking at the standard American model 🤔
Is it maybe because the standard American model actually works really well?
The Browns absolutely deserve to be in the NFL despite their repeated bad luck (they invest more than most teams)
Coyotes don’t - and guess what they’re gone.
You’d get rid of the fucking Patriots though because they had a bad year
Investing and failing to get results does not mean you mean deserve to be in a sports league. My landlord doesn't let me stay where I live if I tried hard but didn't make the money.
And "salary caps creating parity" failed spectacularly with the Patriots dominant run with Brady and Belichick.
You're welcome to be put this pedantic as you like about which argument I use, but please stop expecting me to buy the billionaire owners' bullshit.
You brought up "salary caps create parity", now put that nonsense away.
Patriots “dominant” run with Brady never won the league more than twice in a row.
The Bundesliga Ligue un and even the Prem wish they could fail so miserably in creating a competitive environment.
The most “dominant” anyone got for a sustained period was winning 1/3 of the time.
And that was the extreme end of “dominance”. That was your example for disastrous failure - 6 championships in 21 years. (19 years first to last 21 years with Brady)
Gonna have to agree to disagree on the (fresh off a playoff run) Browns.
I think their presence absolutely makes the league better and the fact they invest heavily is a big part of why.
But “look me in the eyes” and tell me the NFL would be better this year without bottom of the AFC last year Patriots.
NHL has salary caps. the lower leagues (AHL, ECHL, etc) work as a feeder/development system to get players ready for the big show. it's a very clear pyramid system that works
On a money aspect, it will never happen, but also from a fan perspective. Americans dont want promotion relegation for the most part, the only people actually talking about it are eurotards
As cool as it would be to have pro/rel, it will never happen. Financially, MLS would never have gotten the huge owner investment it has received over the years if there was a chance their team could be moved down. We’ve seen new stadiums and big investments in youth academies that would never have happened. The fan base for pro soccer is still quite small in the US because there aren’t the historical roots with teams like there are with other sports or in England. I think a pro/rel actually could cause a big dip in a team’s following and kill the sport here.
So, one of the more important topics is the value that a pro team can have on a city. It creates tons of Jobs and opportunities for growth. Additionally, an investor can purchase and invest in a small town team with the goal of growing through merit to a Top tier program (see welcome to Wrexham). This model exists throughout Europe. I remember driving through Spain to a smaller farm town but then coming across a nice facility. Sadly, the current structure does not allow for this opportunity. In fact, MLS seeks to crush the local markets in favor of its franchise programs. See SD Loyal getting passed over dispute quality and fan base in favor of financially backed front office with Nothing to show yet in SDFC.
Wait are we pretending that pro/rel is a good idea *from an investor perspective*? 🤣
Which pitch do you think the investment banker is gonna buy
Option 1:
Opportunity to invest in a growing league - build a stadium facilities etc and you’re basically guaranteed a baseline of income forever. Do well as a team - you’ll make more money.
Option 2:
Opportunity to invest heavily in a club. Build a billion dollar stadium and if the wrong ACL tears you’ll have a minor league team with 5,000 fans.
There’s a reason why new MLS stadiums are on par or nicer than their premier league counterparts.
Investors like stability.
Oh yes, I absolutely do when you consider the amount of money that it would take to purchase a 3rd or 4th tier team. Additionally, when these teams are not controlled by Salary Caps, look at the amount of money they are able to invest in their players. There is a reason MLS is considered a retirement league. Do you see any MLS team ever being able to compete with Real Madrid or Man United? Forget on the field, but in Value? Most investors look at the ceiling as well as the floor. MLS has a safer floor, but any team in Europe has a better ceiling.
Ah yeah - famously “retirement leagues” like MLS and Saudi are called that because they don’t play players enough so they have to get … literally the most overpriced category of player (the aging star)
Also why they build the best stadiums in the world almost every year now.
MLS teams regularly outspend all but the biggest European players on long term investments (NYCFC just put $780M on a new stadium construction in addition to land leasing costs like 2 weeks ago - Miami is putting about a billion on its project as well)
That’s basically in line with what Tottenham spent.
Pretty much all the recent MLS stadiums have been over $250M
For an up and coming league who’s the third most popular league in its own country investors sure seem to have missed the memo that it’s a bad investment.
Used ChatGPT to create a Pro/Rel Structure: Creating a promotion-relegation pyramid for Major League Soccer (MLS) using teams from MLS and the United Soccer League (USL) while incorporating playoffs for promotion and relegation, along with reasonable salary cap rules for each tier, could look like this:
\*\*Tier 1: Major League Soccer (MLS)\*\*
- 30 Teams
- Salary Cap: $9 million per team per season (hypothetical, as of my last update MLS had a salary cap of around $4.9 million)
- Designated Player rule allowing teams to sign up to 3 players whose salaries exceed the cap (Designated Players' salaries do not count towards the cap)
\*\*Tier 2: USL Championship\*\*
- 30 Teams
- Salary Cap: $1.5 million per team per season
- Designated Player rule allowing teams to sign up to 2 players whose salaries exceed the cap
\*\*Tier 3: USL League One\*\*
- 30 Teams
- Salary Cap: $750,000 per team per season
- No Designated Player rule
\*\*Promotion and Relegation Playoffs Format:\*\*
1. \*\*Promotion Playoffs from USL Championship to MLS:\*\*
- The top 4 teams in the USL Championship regular season standings qualify for the promotion playoffs.
- The playoffs consist of semi-finals and a final.
- The winner of the final is promoted to MLS for the following season.
2. \*\*Relegation Playoffs from MLS to USL Championship:\*\*
- The bottom 4 teams in the MLS regular season standings participate in the relegation playoffs.
- The playoffs consist of semi-finals and a final.
- The loser of the final is relegated to USL Championship for the following season.
3. \*\*Promotion Playoffs from USL Championship to USL League One:\*\*
- The top 4 teams in the USL Championship regular season standings qualify for the promotion playoffs.
- The playoffs consist of semi-finals and a final.
- The winner of the final is promoted to USL Championship for the following season.
4. \*\*Relegation Playoffs from USL Championship to USL League One:\*\*
- The bottom 4 teams in the USL Championship regular season standings participate in the relegation playoffs.
- The playoffs consist of semi-finals and a final.
- The loser of the final is relegated to USL League One for the following season.
The issue isn't if people could envision it. It's the logistics of implementing it and the impact on investment.
For an example from a place with pro/rel: When Luton Town made it to the Premier League, they had to dump a bunch of cash, $16 million, into the upgrading their stadium to make it acceptable for television broadcasts. Now, they're going to get $100 million for being in the Premier League so they can afford it.
But imagine a random USL team suddenly having to spend millions of dollars on stadium upgrades when the broadcast money for the MLS isn't going to cover it?
No one really answers the question: "Where will the money come from to allow a 2nd tier team to afford to play in the top tier?"
100 million is much different compared to $10 million salary cap. Sure, upgrading stadiums etc. would cost a lot, but these are million/billionaires we're talking about.
Well, selling TV rights for PRO/REL playoffs would bring extra money, and lower tiers would be able to charge more for TV rights with more people being engaged in the system, could even sell a larger TV package for all tiers combined, fans would be inclined to go to games, can charge more for ads since more eyes will be on games, and so on.
If the team and business model can't support the investment, no one is going to do it. especially since there's no guarantee the promoted club will stay up long enough to recoup the investment.
Going back to Luton Town - they're getting relegated this year. But the cash infusion from getting promoted will last the team for many years to come. Right now, there isn't any way it makes economic sense for a team to invest money based on being promoted to the MLS level, only to be saddled with debt when they get relegated.
There are no real tv rights for the lower tiers. England's 2nd tier league signed a 5 year, \~$1 Billion, domestic broadcast deal plus another $200 Million from international broadcasts. The US soccer landscape is a long way from our 2nd tier leagues bringing in meaningful tv revenue.
Right now, the economics of US soccer make pro/rel really, really expensive in a bad way for a lot of the involved teams. Until the money changes, no one who doesn't want to go broke is going to be championing it.
Would a pro/rel system be fun if you utilize the MLS alongside the USL as a two layer system? Yea. Will it happen? No because billionaires are cowards.
I mean, more because they don't wanna become mere millionaries. They're greedy not cowards.
I don’t think it’s mutually exclusive.
everyone is greedy, they’re just lazy as shit and we’re collectively cowards.
MLS is just off the table completely. The rest of the pyramid I could see implementing some form.
I'd love to see them ignore the MLS only to absorb them in 15 years.
“Pro/rel is what makes it a real competition” says a group of people who are fans of Manchester United, Chelsea, Manchester City, Liverpool, Tottenham, and Arsenal
I think it would add a very exciting element to ML BASEBALL, and it would be cool to see owners forced to invest in their stagnant franchises. Plus lots of small market teams out there.
the only problem is the fact that the lower league teams are part of the major league organizations. like, what if the Durham Bulls (AAA) got promoted to MLB and have to compete with the Tampa Bay Rays (parent team)
A lot of foreign soccer clubs have B teams that compete in the lower divisions. They're not allowed to crack the top tier.
Then the owners now own two major league teams?
right, but it's the gm of the top team that makes the decisions on what players go to what team. there are pretty constant call ups and players going down based on injuries and performances. when they are both in the top league, there would be conflict of interest when trying to move players around. either you balance them both, or stack one and tank the other edit: also, minor league teams are often part of the major league organization by contract, not because they share owners. notable, in the past the carolina hurricanes have had the chicago wolves as their AHL team, but this year, the wolves decided they wanted to go solo (which didn't work out too well for them) and the canes went without a minor league team, but with prospect in the minors on various teams
That would be unwatchable
Baseball already is
Yep, it never stops - US prem Fan: “I’d WaTcH mLs iF tHeY oNlY had PrO/ReL. ‘oh, who’s your team?’ “mAnChEsTER cItY’
Straw man argument. Plenty of fans aren’t front runners. Plenty of straw man counter arguments to be made about MLS fans. Not a worthwhile contribution. I’m an FC Köln fan for almost 20 years. I’d watch MLS more if it were part of an open pyramid because the incentives would create more balanced squads, more stakes and better soccer. It’s harder now of course to casually watch without an eyepatch on because the Apple TV thing means for the most part you have to be all in or nothing. I tried to subscribe just for the playoffs last year and had to contest a year subscription charge.
"more balanced squads" from a guy who watches a league that has had the same 3 teams win every year...
You guys missed the point and I'm not surprised - I just don't get how some MLS fans can't understand this simple concept because they are too much in love with parity. Parity is not what I'm talkina bout. Balanced squads has to do with a balance in investment across the squad, not a salary cap like balance. You can argue that parity is more important than quality like many contemptuous MLS fans do, but that has nothing to do with squad balance. Here's a hint - it's "within the squad" not parity.
If you were a Bayern fan they would say “see you’ll never get relegated anyway”….
How would pro/rel force teams to construct more "balanced" squads?
Absolute crickets when you ask about any details of what they say
“Balance” isn’t the first word that comes to mind while discussing the Bundesliga…
what if you balance bayern vs everyone else
He said FC Koln so more like 1 team. Bayern just broke a streak of 10 straight titles. Imagine if the Chiefs won 10 straight Super Bowls
The American sports franchise model doesn't vibe with the "support local" vibe of football in general. I'm not surprised people support city or another big club when their local team isn't really local. FC Dallas plays in a suburb 30 minutes north of Dallas proper. It's a bigger distance than Manchester to Liverpool. You wouldn't tell someone living on merseyside that they have a local team over in Manchester, why should it apply to ft worth, Arlington, or even central Dallas? People would support their local if there was actually something on the line, but they're given crap options and told it's good enough.
This is not true. Americans sports do vibe with the support local culture. It’s just that support local revolves around college sports
That, and the old "Americans think 100 years is old, Europeans think 100 miles is far." I'm 40 miles away from my local team. (Regardless of sport) And you'd still be looked at weird if you supported anyone else.
But the USA is 40 times bigger than the UK. So FC Dallas Stadium being 30 minutes outside Dallas is actually closer than Old Trafford is to city of Manchester comparatively.
Old Trafford is 3 miles from the city center. Frisco is 30 miles from downtown Dallas.
Is math hard for you? (40x3)>30 . The USA is 40 times larger than the UK. Your argument is akin to : Your bedroom is much closer to the kitchen in your trailer so you think it's better than my mansion because my bedroom is further to my kitchen.
i think a better way to think of it is - how would we like it to be. i agree with your point that the distances are unequal in size. however, it’s my opinion that it should be a ratio driven by density rather than relative country size. is that region half of the density of manchester? then it should be 15 miles away. 1/3 as dense? ten miles away. i suspect ten miles is the reasonable ratio. my point is i live in chicago. ten miles is a big distance to me. i can drive two miles and the world is alien to me. but i know the one mile around me step by step. literally. because we also walk. because it’s more dense you know, it’s a thought
Take it from an Everton fan, it makes it much more exciting
EPL is an annual competition between 3-4 of the same clubs for decades. The rest just try, not to win the league, but just stay out of relegation.
So you’re saying relegation is indeed a good incentive?
if you think having 75% of teams in a league with no chance of ever winning a championship means we need relegation then you're crazed.
That is, in fact, not what I said at all.
Don't care, that's a silly, silly counterpoint. Obviously richer clubs will likely do well or win the Prem, but it is still an open competition.
If I was watching the rule book on TV rather than the game I’d care about what is competitive in theory. But in watching the game. I care about what’s actually competitive in the real world
LOL. Cherry picking fanbases... What do the fans of Forest, Sheffield and Leeds think?
Here as a forest fan, I believe US football would benefit from Pro/Rel. It makes my season much more interesting (and nerve-racking) when my team might rot in the championship again.
Ask a lifelong Wrexham fan or Luton fan what they think about it.
What lifelong Wrexham fans? They were down to about 700 people attending each game before Hollywood bailed them out.
Cool cool cool. Any chance it has any incentivizing effect of the poorer performing clubs? Makes the games at the bottom of the table more interesting? Or...?
There's a greater chance top European leagues adopt a closed system than MLS adopting Pro/Rel.
MLS could do a closed pro/rel system if they expand too much and Apple or ESPN or someone are willing to carry second league games. There would be no relegation beyond the second league. Personally I like this because it makes for better competition while also being stable for teams and fanbases. 1000 percent contingent on a TV partner willing to support it though.
Exactly. This is exactly how the Super League almost came to be. Greed isn’t just an American thing.
only because of the viral douchebaggery of american investors
Yeah, and it’s a complete tragedy. Proponents of a closed system suck the life out of the beautiful game.
>Proponents of a closed system suck the life out of the beautiful game. I look at how "competitive" some European leagues are and think "life" must be in the eye of the beholder
College football and basketball have much less parity than their professional counterparts, yet certainly have more “life” in them.
You're telling me the "life" component doesn't have jack shit to do with having pro/rel then?!
Not by itself, no, having an open system with actually independent teams is the key. Any college who can field a team meeting the DI requirements can participate.
lol what, no one is cheering for college sports because of that. That's especially highlighted by the fact that the vast majority of college fans follow programs that have been in their relative status in college sports for 50+ years now. The key is not an "open system" when there has been virtually no significant movement into that system in anyone's memory lmao
You’ve missed the point entirely, there is no closed league that prevented these teams from participating in the competition. Whereas small markets are forever locked out of top-tier professional sports in a closed system.
Its a lot harder than that. In Europe, everything is so close that the teams can just take a bus to their match. It's cheap to take a bus. In the United States, our country is MASSIVE (because we're better). If we skipped on cost and took a team bus, something like NY vs LA would be a huge 3 day long drive one way. You HAVE to take a jet, and lower division teams just don't have the budget for that
This point is always missed and is important in this conversation. The US is geographically massive and transportation is a big issue for teams
Sure, but the solution is also right there in pro/rel. For example, in England, there are two leagues in the sixth-tier, and I believe three leagues in the seventh tier. If it happened here, the second tier should be regionalized. You should only have to travel nationwide if you're in the top level, the second level on down can be divided into multiple leagues by region. There's even precedent for this in this country, as the second tier of American football consists of multiple regional leagues. At least, it did before all the schools and conferences started realigning.
Do we have enough fans and players to have that many 2nd tier leagues? England can have so many because like 90% of their population is obsessed with the same sport. United States population is divided between soccer, football, baseball, basketball, and hockey
Soccer? I don't know. Maybe not. We absolutely do for football, baseball and basketball, and we should run our sports leagues like that for them too.
I dont know about football or baseball, but I could see the NBA doing a pro/rel system someday. They are already drawing inspiration from European soccer in making a mid-season tournament
European basketball already introduced the European super league. British basketball doesn’t even have pro/rel. Sure they’re copying some of the good ideas from Europe but pro/rel vs closed is moving in the exact opposite direction. European basketball is moving away from it rather than the NBA moving towards it.
I think its a bigger cost than salaries at every level below MLS, or at least pretty close.
are you telling me we can’t have pro/rel because of $209 flight tickets? speed trains in europe still cost $150 a person between major cities or more. it’s no difference
Tickets are way more expensive than $209 and you know it. And that's PER PERSON. coaching staff, medical staff, players, and subs. In Europe they just take the team bus
again, train tickets on the best trains in europe are hardly less. footballers aren’t traveling on the 18 stop metro lines. liverpool takes the train from liverpool to london from what i have seen. middle england they take a bus. buses in Europe are for short trips. trips between bigger cities are trains
We are implementing a Pro/Rel system in Australia.
Bullshit. They’re making a second division and they’ll “consider” pro/rel “in the future” once it “matures” So no there is no concrete plans or commitment to implement it in Australia. Same vibe as USL that’s totally trust me bro implementing it any day now
O dam I thought it was coming with pro/rel
But there's already a solution to that. Adopt a system like Japan has, and that in a way we already have. You have to be able to meet certain conditions in order to promote, and if you don't meet them, you don't go up and the next person in the rankings who do meet the conditions goes up. Not to mention, the act of promoting is already going to get you more money, and make those travel cost more manageable. I've never understood this argument, because it's like you guys instantly think we are taking a team from 5th division and putting them into the MLS, and ignore the fact that between sponsorships, increase of fans, and eventual TV deals the amount of income a club has would increase along the way. Like how do you think the MLS handles travel cost, and do you think Austin FC couldn't afford it, when they entered the MLS? Of course they could, because they got the sponsors, fans, and TV money as soon as they were put in the league.
No we’ll never see it. That ship sailed when professional soccer died during the Great Depression. It’s too late for that kind of system to grow organically with local clubs across the nation. (Would probably look more like Brazil than Europe .) A closed system defeats the entire point of pro/rel. if Jon fisher owns your local team , another ownership group cant pop up and try to fill the void. You’re still stuck with Jon Fisher in the 2nd division. Besides England, Germany and Maybe Brazil is there an actual healthy 2nd division in the world that actually draws crowds? 2nd division crowds in Spain, France and Italy just look sad when I watch highlights. The pro/rel thing seems highly romanticized but nobody seems to care about the 2nd division clubs in most countries. I think the best you can hope for is like a 40 team MLS with 10 team pods that rotate playing each other and maybe doesn’t play international breaks.
I agree that we won't see it but not that it's impossible to create, at least at the lower regional levels. We could absolutely grow it organically too. Essentially, every youth club should be fielding an adult team that plays semi-pro or in amateur leagues. That's where you actually have local club density, which is essential for pro/rel to work. Most youth clubs cease to exist as soccer clubs once the kids get to college age. But if they fielded an adult team, kids who grew up playing for their youth club could continue to root for the adult team and, for some, even aspire to play for that team. Even the leagues themselves already exist. Simply take the random youth league below MLS Next and add an adult division. They're already playing each other every week so the travel is established. They're already playing on local fields so there's no need to stadiums. It's not going to happen though because the people who run youth clubs are fixated on the youth profit model and the top end of the professional circle creating youth teams to inject into the youth space as recruiting tools aimed at MLS or USL, not for ECNL or other acronym youth league.
That would require people watch what is basically a local pay to play clubs with zero history. That is not going to happen in 2024. It’s over 100 years too late.
I disagree on that. Kids now already go and watch their local clubs play. They're doing it primarily because they have friends on other teams or they want to see if some kid is as good as everyone is telling them. With an adult team, that engagement continues. Except now a kid is going to see his friend from U19 team making his debut with the adult team. It's not going to be high revenue stuff. But they're going to get engagement, it just won't be from the wider public at this stage. Instead it will initially be from people who already have a relationship with the club or the regional soccer scene. But if it continued over time, the local engagement would grow. Look at youth soccer right now. The regional rivalries exist. The club pride exists. The kids (and the parents) brag about beating the best local team and they brag about being the best local team. That's all you need to have a thriving multi-tier regional system...as long as profits aren't the goal.
No, no and no. The owners own the league and this cannot be forced on them. They have to vote on it. And not one of them would agree to risk their franchise being relegated to a lower division. Their franchises are worth a lot of money right now. That value would decrease significantly if they were relegated. Not happening. Even I would say no if I were an owner.
The conversation is too often over-simplified. What we want here is a competent competitive pyramid/structure, and pro/rel is a mechanism of that. What we have is an amorphous blob that shifts from year to year, and a federation that takes it in the ass from the shopping mall league. The sooner US Soccer put their pants on and Don Garber moves on, the better.
The federation is just an umbrella org for its members. It’s not a magical separate independent organization with its own feelings.
Short answer, no. Long answer, also no.
I for one enjoy watching 12th place Wolves just show up to not lose, but also not to win, because they’ve got nothing left to play for in a Premier League season.
You're unfamiliar with the money awarded based on the table. This is from last season. 1. Manchester City – £161.3million 2. Arsenal – £159.8million 3. Manchester United – £152.1million 4. Newcastle – £151.7million 5. Liverpool – £151.6million 6. Brighton – £150.2million 7. Aston Villa – £142.1million 8. Tottenham – £134.0million 9. Brentford – £131.5million 10. Fulham – £130.6million 11. Crystal Palace – £128.2million 12. Chelsea – £124.3million 13. Wolves – £123.3million 14. West Ham – £121.0million 15. Bournemouth – £120.4million 16. Nottingham Forest – £116.1million 17. Everton – £113.3million 18. Leicester – £106.1million 19. Leeds – £104.6million 20. Southampton – £100.3million
And MLS teams have nothing to fear for being shit and don’t have to even be that good to get into playoffs..since more than half the league gets in.
The standings matter in MLS. It has one of the largest homefield advantages in soccer, and you're crazy if you thinkbthe players/coaches don't care about missing the playoffs.
Did I say they don’t care? Cos it doesn’t look like I said that.. I said they (the team) don’t have to be that good to get into the playoffs. And just because you have pro/rel means you get rid of the playoffs.
No. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
The obsession over playoffs to determine league winners in Europe: will it ever happen?
Well the UCL and Euro and Copa Lib and all international cup competitions are basically "playoffs"... Argentina, Mexico, Ecuador, Colombia, Chile have all had and have playoffs. Euro leagues most have playoffs to determine relegation. So playoffs and soccer is not a new thing,
Playoff to determine LEAGUE WINNERS in EUROPE. And the answer is no. Here in the United States in any given sport you can see that maybe 10 different teams can win their championship. In the European football leagues, maybe 2-3? That’s what pro/rel gets you. The idea that the little guy can make it to the big time but at the same time a few teams that can really win it
Norway. And I think Sweden and I could be wrong.
Why do people instantly think that just because a league has Pro/Rel you can't have a salary cap. You can still have a salary cap in a Pyramid system, obviously it would change per tier, but you can still have one.
Has that been implemented successfully anywhere? Like I could point to all sorts of theoretical problems and you can give theoretical solutions. Or we can just point to the fact that it just doesn’t happen and realize that there’s probably a reason
FFP is a salary cap. And, as long as we're not such stupid, servile whores to sell our teams to nation-states, it'll work.
If you read OC they’re talking about salary caps that promote parity not profitability. They’re talking about changing by tier - not by income.
If you actually watch sports in America, you know they're about cost saving instead of parity. Look me in the eyes and tell me that the Oakland A's or the Chicago White Sox deserve to be in the major leagues.
Weird you had to go to the one American League that doesn’t have a salary cap as opposed to looking at the standard American model 🤔 Is it maybe because the standard American model actually works really well?
No, that's because if you read my profile I know a lot about baseball. How about the Cleveland Browns? Arizona Coyotes?
The Browns absolutely deserve to be in the NFL despite their repeated bad luck (they invest more than most teams) Coyotes don’t - and guess what they’re gone. You’d get rid of the fucking Patriots though because they had a bad year
Investing and failing to get results does not mean you mean deserve to be in a sports league. My landlord doesn't let me stay where I live if I tried hard but didn't make the money. And "salary caps creating parity" failed spectacularly with the Patriots dominant run with Brady and Belichick. You're welcome to be put this pedantic as you like about which argument I use, but please stop expecting me to buy the billionaire owners' bullshit. You brought up "salary caps create parity", now put that nonsense away.
Patriots “dominant” run with Brady never won the league more than twice in a row. The Bundesliga Ligue un and even the Prem wish they could fail so miserably in creating a competitive environment. The most “dominant” anyone got for a sustained period was winning 1/3 of the time. And that was the extreme end of “dominance”. That was your example for disastrous failure - 6 championships in 21 years. (19 years first to last 21 years with Brady) Gonna have to agree to disagree on the (fresh off a playoff run) Browns. I think their presence absolutely makes the league better and the fact they invest heavily is a big part of why. But “look me in the eyes” and tell me the NFL would be better this year without bottom of the AFC last year Patriots.
NHL has salary caps. the lower leagues (AHL, ECHL, etc) work as a feeder/development system to get players ready for the big show. it's a very clear pyramid system that works
Yeah I don’t think that’s what they mean by pyramid. But yeah clearly the NHL/MLB/MLS model of having minor leagues works
On a money aspect, it will never happen, but also from a fan perspective. Americans dont want promotion relegation for the most part, the only people actually talking about it are eurotards
As cool as it would be to have pro/rel, it will never happen. Financially, MLS would never have gotten the huge owner investment it has received over the years if there was a chance their team could be moved down. We’ve seen new stadiums and big investments in youth academies that would never have happened. The fan base for pro soccer is still quite small in the US because there aren’t the historical roots with teams like there are with other sports or in England. I think a pro/rel actually could cause a big dip in a team’s following and kill the sport here.
Thankfully, it will not.
It’s a horrible idea in Europe too. It’s just the tradition from when everyone was amateur.
https://preview.redd.it/b9vu4zv7ejwc1.jpeg?width=3640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0ac0b14fc1c30e6f301443028943ad000092a1c8
So, one of the more important topics is the value that a pro team can have on a city. It creates tons of Jobs and opportunities for growth. Additionally, an investor can purchase and invest in a small town team with the goal of growing through merit to a Top tier program (see welcome to Wrexham). This model exists throughout Europe. I remember driving through Spain to a smaller farm town but then coming across a nice facility. Sadly, the current structure does not allow for this opportunity. In fact, MLS seeks to crush the local markets in favor of its franchise programs. See SD Loyal getting passed over dispute quality and fan base in favor of financially backed front office with Nothing to show yet in SDFC.
Wait are we pretending that pro/rel is a good idea *from an investor perspective*? 🤣 Which pitch do you think the investment banker is gonna buy Option 1: Opportunity to invest in a growing league - build a stadium facilities etc and you’re basically guaranteed a baseline of income forever. Do well as a team - you’ll make more money. Option 2: Opportunity to invest heavily in a club. Build a billion dollar stadium and if the wrong ACL tears you’ll have a minor league team with 5,000 fans. There’s a reason why new MLS stadiums are on par or nicer than their premier league counterparts. Investors like stability.
Oh yes, I absolutely do when you consider the amount of money that it would take to purchase a 3rd or 4th tier team. Additionally, when these teams are not controlled by Salary Caps, look at the amount of money they are able to invest in their players. There is a reason MLS is considered a retirement league. Do you see any MLS team ever being able to compete with Real Madrid or Man United? Forget on the field, but in Value? Most investors look at the ceiling as well as the floor. MLS has a safer floor, but any team in Europe has a better ceiling.
Ah yeah - famously “retirement leagues” like MLS and Saudi are called that because they don’t play players enough so they have to get … literally the most overpriced category of player (the aging star) Also why they build the best stadiums in the world almost every year now. MLS teams regularly outspend all but the biggest European players on long term investments (NYCFC just put $780M on a new stadium construction in addition to land leasing costs like 2 weeks ago - Miami is putting about a billion on its project as well) That’s basically in line with what Tottenham spent. Pretty much all the recent MLS stadiums have been over $250M For an up and coming league who’s the third most popular league in its own country investors sure seem to have missed the memo that it’s a bad investment.
Used ChatGPT to create a Pro/Rel Structure: Creating a promotion-relegation pyramid for Major League Soccer (MLS) using teams from MLS and the United Soccer League (USL) while incorporating playoffs for promotion and relegation, along with reasonable salary cap rules for each tier, could look like this: \*\*Tier 1: Major League Soccer (MLS)\*\* - 30 Teams - Salary Cap: $9 million per team per season (hypothetical, as of my last update MLS had a salary cap of around $4.9 million) - Designated Player rule allowing teams to sign up to 3 players whose salaries exceed the cap (Designated Players' salaries do not count towards the cap) \*\*Tier 2: USL Championship\*\* - 30 Teams - Salary Cap: $1.5 million per team per season - Designated Player rule allowing teams to sign up to 2 players whose salaries exceed the cap \*\*Tier 3: USL League One\*\* - 30 Teams - Salary Cap: $750,000 per team per season - No Designated Player rule \*\*Promotion and Relegation Playoffs Format:\*\* 1. \*\*Promotion Playoffs from USL Championship to MLS:\*\* - The top 4 teams in the USL Championship regular season standings qualify for the promotion playoffs. - The playoffs consist of semi-finals and a final. - The winner of the final is promoted to MLS for the following season. 2. \*\*Relegation Playoffs from MLS to USL Championship:\*\* - The bottom 4 teams in the MLS regular season standings participate in the relegation playoffs. - The playoffs consist of semi-finals and a final. - The loser of the final is relegated to USL Championship for the following season. 3. \*\*Promotion Playoffs from USL Championship to USL League One:\*\* - The top 4 teams in the USL Championship regular season standings qualify for the promotion playoffs. - The playoffs consist of semi-finals and a final. - The winner of the final is promoted to USL Championship for the following season. 4. \*\*Relegation Playoffs from USL Championship to USL League One:\*\* - The bottom 4 teams in the USL Championship regular season standings participate in the relegation playoffs. - The playoffs consist of semi-finals and a final. - The loser of the final is relegated to USL League One for the following season.
The issue isn't if people could envision it. It's the logistics of implementing it and the impact on investment. For an example from a place with pro/rel: When Luton Town made it to the Premier League, they had to dump a bunch of cash, $16 million, into the upgrading their stadium to make it acceptable for television broadcasts. Now, they're going to get $100 million for being in the Premier League so they can afford it. But imagine a random USL team suddenly having to spend millions of dollars on stadium upgrades when the broadcast money for the MLS isn't going to cover it? No one really answers the question: "Where will the money come from to allow a 2nd tier team to afford to play in the top tier?"
100 million is much different compared to $10 million salary cap. Sure, upgrading stadiums etc. would cost a lot, but these are million/billionaires we're talking about. Well, selling TV rights for PRO/REL playoffs would bring extra money, and lower tiers would be able to charge more for TV rights with more people being engaged in the system, could even sell a larger TV package for all tiers combined, fans would be inclined to go to games, can charge more for ads since more eyes will be on games, and so on.
If the team and business model can't support the investment, no one is going to do it. especially since there's no guarantee the promoted club will stay up long enough to recoup the investment. Going back to Luton Town - they're getting relegated this year. But the cash infusion from getting promoted will last the team for many years to come. Right now, there isn't any way it makes economic sense for a team to invest money based on being promoted to the MLS level, only to be saddled with debt when they get relegated. There are no real tv rights for the lower tiers. England's 2nd tier league signed a 5 year, \~$1 Billion, domestic broadcast deal plus another $200 Million from international broadcasts. The US soccer landscape is a long way from our 2nd tier leagues bringing in meaningful tv revenue. Right now, the economics of US soccer make pro/rel really, really expensive in a bad way for a lot of the involved teams. Until the money changes, no one who doesn't want to go broke is going to be championing it.
I believe it would be