There's some fascinating stuff happening here.

ESPN on pro/rel for USL

USL has a partnership with MLS of course. So the obvious question here is will a new structure for the lower leagues eventually lead to a new way of doing business for MLS?

USL was recently granted Division 2 status by the USSF which is relevant because the NASL is on shaky ground right now. That's especially true given that two clubs, Indy Eleven and North Carolina FC, have moved from NASL to the USL for this coming season. I'm going to bet the rest of them will head that way in the coming years. But anyway...

USL currently has 33 clubs and more are on the way in 2019, not the least of which will be Birmingham Legion FC(shameless plug). Anyway, that's frankly too many clubs for one division and I have to wonder if some of these current clubs will eventually transition into a lower tier. While they plan to start 10-12 new ones in 2019 in order to found this 3rd division, I have to think they would prefer a little more equal distribution in the long run.

That and a handful of the current USL clubs are effectively minor league squads for MLS teams. Perhaps that's a necessary evil for now, but I hope that is phased out eventually.

This is just my opinion, but I think that the best way to make soccer a truly big time sport in the United States is to get as many communities involved as possible. That means more clubs and it means pro/rel in the long run.

Agreed about communities. Euro football is ALL about supporting “your boys.” You may follow the Premier League but you really care about your 3rd division cellar dweller in hopes they can make a run to be promoted into the 2nd division even if for a single season.

(01-24-2018 10:35 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  There's some fascinating stuff happening here.

ESPN on pro/rel for USL

USL has a partnership with MLS of course. So the obvious question here is will a new structure for the lower leagues eventually lead to a new way of doing business for MLS?

USL was recently granted Division 2 status by the USSF which is relevant because the NASL is on shaky ground right now. That's especially true given that two clubs, Indy Eleven and North Carolina FC, have moved from NASL to the USL for this coming season. I'm going to bet the rest of them will head that way in the coming years. But anyway...

USL currently has 33 clubs and more are on the way in 2019, not the least of which will be Birmingham Legion FC(shameless plug). Anyway, that's frankly too many clubs for one division and I have to wonder if some of these current clubs will eventually transition into a lower tier. While they plan to start 10-12 new ones in 2019 in order to found this 3rd division, I have to think they would prefer a little more equal distribution in the long run.

That and a handful of the current USL clubs are effectively minor league squads for MLS teams. Perhaps that's a necessary evil for now, but I hope that is phased out eventually.

This is just my opinion, but I think that the best way to make soccer a truly big time sport in the United States is to get as many communities involved as possible. That means more clubs and it means pro/rel in the long run.

Some of the teams in La Liga in Spain have B teams in the lower divisions of Spanish football. The B teams are not eligible to be promoted to La Liga. Doesn't seem to be evil.

There are also some owners who own teams in different countries, for example the owners of English club Manchester City effectively own a newly-promoted team in La Liga (Girona) that has several players on loan from Man City. The Man City ownership group also owns 80% of the MLS club NYCFC.

(01-24-2018 11:14 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-24-2018 10:35 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  There's some fascinating stuff happening here.

ESPN on pro/rel for USL

USL has a partnership with MLS of course. So the obvious question here is will a new structure for the lower leagues eventually lead to a new way of doing business for MLS?

USL was recently granted Division 2 status by the USSF which is relevant because the NASL is on shaky ground right now. That's especially true given that two clubs, Indy Eleven and North Carolina FC, have moved from NASL to the USL for this coming season. I'm going to bet the rest of them will head that way in the coming years. But anyway...

USL currently has 33 clubs and more are on the way in 2019, not the least of which will be Birmingham Legion FC(shameless plug). Anyway, that's frankly too many clubs for one division and I have to wonder if some of these current clubs will eventually transition into a lower tier. While they plan to start 10-12 new ones in 2019 in order to found this 3rd division, I have to think they would prefer a little more equal distribution in the long run.

That and a handful of the current USL clubs are effectively minor league squads for MLS teams. Perhaps that's a necessary evil for now, but I hope that is phased out eventually.

This is just my opinion, but I think that the best way to make soccer a truly big time sport in the United States is to get as many communities involved as possible. That means more clubs and it means pro/rel in the long run.

Some of the teams in La Liga in Spain have B teams in the lower divisions of Spanish football. The B teams are not eligible to be promoted to La Liga. Doesn't seem to be evil.

That may be true, but I would still prefer each club to be community based. I've never had an interest in rooting for my local minor league baseball club because at the end of the day, I know it doesn't matter what they do or don't do. They're not really playing for anything tangible. It's purely a practice squad for the purpose of getting talent ready for the "big show."

Nothing evil about that in the truest sense, but it doesn't engage me as a fan. For the sake of the sport, I think it would better if each club represented a community. Actually, that's why I think college sports are so popular in this country despite the obvious talent disparities. People are represented and each organization(school) is heavily invested in its community.

(01-24-2018 11:14 PM)Wedge Wrote:  There are also some owners who own teams in different countries, for example the owners of English club Manchester City effectively own a newly-promoted team in La Liga (Girona) that has several players on loan from Man City. The Man City ownership group also owns 80% of the MLS club NYCFC.

That really doesn't bother me. It's an economic reality that some clubs/owners are at the top of the food chain. What's important though is that the players are still fighting for something tangible in their respective league or division. In some cases, a loaned out player might even face the parent club in a competition and have an opportunity to beat them. So what I'm saying is that the nature of competition is preserved.

Minor leagues will never capture the imagination of the fan. So I hope we get to a place where each club represents its own city or burrough or region or something. I think it will be better for the game. JMO

(01-24-2018 11:31 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-24-2018 11:14 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-24-2018 10:35 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  There's some fascinating stuff happening here.

ESPN on pro/rel for USL

USL has a partnership with MLS of course. So the obvious question here is will a new structure for the lower leagues eventually lead to a new way of doing business for MLS?

USL was recently granted Division 2 status by the USSF which is relevant because the NASL is on shaky ground right now. That's especially true given that two clubs, Indy Eleven and North Carolina FC, have moved from NASL to the USL for this coming season. I'm going to bet the rest of them will head that way in the coming years. But anyway...

USL currently has 33 clubs and more are on the way in 2019, not the least of which will be Birmingham Legion FC(shameless plug). Anyway, that's frankly too many clubs for one division and I have to wonder if some of these current clubs will eventually transition into a lower tier. While they plan to start 10-12 new ones in 2019 in order to found this 3rd division, I have to think they would prefer a little more equal distribution in the long run.

That and a handful of the current USL clubs are effectively minor league squads for MLS teams. Perhaps that's a necessary evil for now, but I hope that is phased out eventually.

This is just my opinion, but I think that the best way to make soccer a truly big time sport in the United States is to get as many communities involved as possible. That means more clubs and it means pro/rel in the long run.

Some of the teams in La Liga in Spain have B teams in the lower divisions of Spanish football. The B teams are not eligible to be promoted to La Liga. Doesn't seem to be evil.

That may be true, but I would still prefer each club to be community based. I've never had an interest in rooting for my local minor league baseball club because at the end of the day, I know it doesn't matter what they do or don't do. They're not really playing for anything tangible. It's purely a practice squad for the purpose of getting talent ready for the "big show."

Nothing evil about that in the truest sense, but it doesn't engage me as a fan. For the sake of the sport, I think it would better if each club represented a community. Actually, that's why I think college sports are so popular in this country despite the obvious talent disparities. People are represented and each organization(school) is heavily invested in its community.

(01-24-2018 11:14 PM)Wedge Wrote:  There are also some owners who own teams in different countries, for example the owners of English club Manchester City effectively own a newly-promoted team in La Liga (Girona) that has several players on loan from Man City. The Man City ownership group also owns 80% of the MLS club NYCFC.

That really doesn't bother me. It's an economic reality that some clubs/owners are at the top of the food chain. What's important though is that the players are still fighting for something tangible in their respective league or division. In some cases, a loaned out player might even face the parent club in a competition and have an opportunity to beat them. So what I'm saying is that the nature of competition is preserved.

Minor leagues will never capture the imagination of the fan. So I hope we get to a place where each club represents its own city or burrough or region or something. I think it will be better for the game. JMO

UEFA has a rule that clubs with the same controlling ownership are not allowed to face one another in tournaments or other matches that are not exhibitions. If Girona ever becomes good enough to qualify for Champions League, it would be an interesting test of that rule.

(01-25-2018 12:07 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-24-2018 11:31 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-24-2018 11:14 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-24-2018 10:35 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  There's some fascinating stuff happening here.

ESPN on pro/rel for USL

USL has a partnership with MLS of course. So the obvious question here is will a new structure for the lower leagues eventually lead to a new way of doing business for MLS?

USL was recently granted Division 2 status by the USSF which is relevant because the NASL is on shaky ground right now. That's especially true given that two clubs, Indy Eleven and North Carolina FC, have moved from NASL to the USL for this coming season. I'm going to bet the rest of them will head that way in the coming years. But anyway...

USL currently has 33 clubs and more are on the way in 2019, not the least of which will be Birmingham Legion FC(shameless plug). Anyway, that's frankly too many clubs for one division and I have to wonder if some of these current clubs will eventually transition into a lower tier. While they plan to start 10-12 new ones in 2019 in order to found this 3rd division, I have to think they would prefer a little more equal distribution in the long run.

That and a handful of the current USL clubs are effectively minor league squads for MLS teams. Perhaps that's a necessary evil for now, but I hope that is phased out eventually.

This is just my opinion, but I think that the best way to make soccer a truly big time sport in the United States is to get as many communities involved as possible. That means more clubs and it means pro/rel in the long run.

Some of the teams in La Liga in Spain have B teams in the lower divisions of Spanish football. The B teams are not eligible to be promoted to La Liga. Doesn't seem to be evil.

That may be true, but I would still prefer each club to be community based. I've never had an interest in rooting for my local minor league baseball club because at the end of the day, I know it doesn't matter what they do or don't do. They're not really playing for anything tangible. It's purely a practice squad for the purpose of getting talent ready for the "big show."

Nothing evil about that in the truest sense, but it doesn't engage me as a fan. For the sake of the sport, I think it would better if each club represented a community. Actually, that's why I think college sports are so popular in this country despite the obvious talent disparities. People are represented and each organization(school) is heavily invested in its community.

(01-24-2018 11:14 PM)Wedge Wrote:  There are also some owners who own teams in different countries, for example the owners of English club Manchester City effectively own a newly-promoted team in La Liga (Girona) that has several players on loan from Man City. The Man City ownership group also owns 80% of the MLS club NYCFC.

That really doesn't bother me. It's an economic reality that some clubs/owners are at the top of the food chain. What's important though is that the players are still fighting for something tangible in their respective league or division. In some cases, a loaned out player might even face the parent club in a competition and have an opportunity to beat them. So what I'm saying is that the nature of competition is preserved.

Minor leagues will never capture the imagination of the fan. So I hope we get to a place where each club represents its own city or burrough or region or something. I think it will be better for the game. JMO

UEFA has a rule that clubs with the same controlling ownership are not allowed to face one another in tournaments or other matches that are not exhibitions. If Girona ever becomes good enough to qualify for Champions League, it would be an interesting test of that rule.

Yeah, that's interesting.

I knew the Man City owners had their hands in NYCFC and Melbourne, I think. None of those clubs would ever face each other in a real competition though. Owning 2 clubs on the same continent presents an issue. I don't really know what they'd do if push came to shove.

I wonder if UEFA would tell the owners unequivocally that you can't have two in the same tournament, but perhaps offer them a choice between which club gets to play?

(01-25-2018 12:37 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-25-2018 12:07 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-24-2018 11:31 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-24-2018 11:14 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-24-2018 10:35 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  There's some fascinating stuff happening here.

ESPN on pro/rel for USL

USL has a partnership with MLS of course. So the obvious question here is will a new structure for the lower leagues eventually lead to a new way of doing business for MLS?

USL was recently granted Division 2 status by the USSF which is relevant because the NASL is on shaky ground right now. That's especially true given that two clubs, Indy Eleven and North Carolina FC, have moved from NASL to the USL for this coming season. I'm going to bet the rest of them will head that way in the coming years. But anyway...

USL currently has 33 clubs and more are on the way in 2019, not the least of which will be Birmingham Legion FC(shameless plug). Anyway, that's frankly too many clubs for one division and I have to wonder if some of these current clubs will eventually transition into a lower tier. While they plan to start 10-12 new ones in 2019 in order to found this 3rd division, I have to think they would prefer a little more equal distribution in the long run.

That and a handful of the current USL clubs are effectively minor league squads for MLS teams. Perhaps that's a necessary evil for now, but I hope that is phased out eventually.

This is just my opinion, but I think that the best way to make soccer a truly big time sport in the United States is to get as many communities involved as possible. That means more clubs and it means pro/rel in the long run.

Some of the teams in La Liga in Spain have B teams in the lower divisions of Spanish football. The B teams are not eligible to be promoted to La Liga. Doesn't seem to be evil.

That may be true, but I would still prefer each club to be community based. I've never had an interest in rooting for my local minor league baseball club because at the end of the day, I know it doesn't matter what they do or don't do. They're not really playing for anything tangible. It's purely a practice squad for the purpose of getting talent ready for the "big show."

Nothing evil about that in the truest sense, but it doesn't engage me as a fan. For the sake of the sport, I think it would better if each club represented a community. Actually, that's why I think college sports are so popular in this country despite the obvious talent disparities. People are represented and each organization(school) is heavily invested in its community.

(01-24-2018 11:14 PM)Wedge Wrote:  There are also some owners who own teams in different countries, for example the owners of English club Manchester City effectively own a newly-promoted team in La Liga (Girona) that has several players on loan from Man City. The Man City ownership group also owns 80% of the MLS club NYCFC.

That really doesn't bother me. It's an economic reality that some clubs/owners are at the top of the food chain. What's important though is that the players are still fighting for something tangible in their respective league or division. In some cases, a loaned out player might even face the parent club in a competition and have an opportunity to beat them. So what I'm saying is that the nature of competition is preserved.

Minor leagues will never capture the imagination of the fan. So I hope we get to a place where each club represents its own city or burrough or region or something. I think it will be better for the game. JMO

UEFA has a rule that clubs with the same controlling ownership are not allowed to face one another in tournaments or other matches that are not exhibitions. If Girona ever becomes good enough to qualify for Champions League, it would be an interesting test of that rule.

Yeah, that's interesting.

I knew the Man City owners had their hands in NYCFC and Melbourne, I think. None of those clubs would ever face each other in a real competition though. Owning 2 clubs on the same continent presents an issue. I don't really know what they'd do if push came to shove.

I wonder if UEFA would tell the owners unequivocally that you can't have two in the same tournament, but perhaps offer them a choice between which club gets to play?

If that happens, they could arrange to have control of Girona placed in the hands of management that (at least nominally) is not controlled by Man City. Two teams owned by Red Bull (Leipzig, Germany and Salzburg, Austria) are both playing in Europa League right now, because UEFA somehow decided the management of the two clubs was separate.