re: NASL, NPSL teams file with CAS to introduce pro/rel in U.S. soccer

quote:

---

Which is my point. Clubs get replaced, but not necessarily by anything better.

---

but it gives clubs the incentive to try and improve or face the repercussions.

Yea thats just due to shitty ownership like Blackpool

In the MLS if you are a shite owner you still are in the top division.

quote:

---

but it gives clubs the incentive to try and improve or face the repercussions.

---

Pro/rel isn't the only way to do this. You could increase payouts for top positions in the league and avoid the the clubs that are constantly mismanaged and will be perennial yo-yo teams.

There are a couple of reasons why I think pro/rel wouldn't work. Most European clubs began organically, and have some identity to neighborhoods, parts of a city, or a small city itself. American cities are not really designed the same way, and instead of organic competition that you get in robust Pyramid systems, there is a possibility you would dilute the competition. We don't really have the participation rates of a country like England, where they have 140 individual leagues with nearly 500 divisions. If its a pyramid you want then you need to build from the grassroots level, rather than the other way around, as without a solid foundation the pyramid will be a house of cards. That should be the USSF's job, and without its support, I don't think pro/rel is viable, unless another organization can fill in.

Secondly, I do not necessarily buy that pro/rel would improve the national player pool. We have ample evidence from Germany, France, and Belgium that what improves a player pool is top-down investment. Each of those countries FA have used a variety of means to spread investment to clubs to incentivize training. The German FA has invested nearly 1 billion euros. The Belgian FA followed a similar model, using their windfall from the 2000 Euros to focus on investment. The French FA completely negated the clubs, as given the difficulty in training young players, it is always easier for a club to buy a ready made player rather than deal with the pitfalls of training a player. The French FA set up a series of youth academies, the most famous of which is Clairefontaine, which serve as finishing schools for French players. The effect of that centralization has been tremendous, as since that centralization in 1988, the French have won 1 WC, 1 Euros, and finished runner-up at a WC and a Euros. They've also trained the players for a large portion of North Africa as well. I personally think this is the system we should follow, as the Bradenton academy was fairly successful in producing players for the US. The point here is that pro/rel might have the inverse of effect of making sure young American players do not get chances, as the incentives of staying up will now outweigh the incentives for developing your own players. The perennial also-rans in England rarely produce international players, and it should be noted that England doesn't have the same top-down investment that continental countries have, which means that the effect of pro/rel is negated to a large degree by countries that have both pro/rel and top down investment.

I would prefer if we had top down investment before we had pro/rel, because I think people are being generous about the improvements pro/rel would have to our player pool. I think it would have the opposite effect without top-down direction, and I don't trust USSF to navigate those difficulties.

I should have dropped a "FFP is a travesty to capitalism" in the beginning to hook him.

quote:

---

But how are you going to tell the owners that purchased a franchise for millions of dollars that you are going to let others win their way into the league you helped pay for without having to invest.

---

you don't force open MLS

but you do strip MLS of it's D1 status and set up an open pyramid which MLS is free to participate in or not participate in.

quote:

---

Pro/rel makes sense logistically when you have a pyramid that was started a looooooong time ago with clubs that were originally like rec league teams. There was nothing to establish.

Once you try to introduce that in a modern system where teams makes millions and millions of dollars because it's sports, that's hard.

---

I mean i just don't agree with that.

the only ones who will make it difficult are the monopolists

quote:

---

But make no mistake, setting up our pyramid in a way that incentivices clubs to produce on the pitch is a big part of getting where we all want to go.

---

Right. Which is where top-down investment comes in. Clubs, and independent entities, will almost always seek the bottom line, which means that in many pro/rel systems, the easier option is buying players. This was why the German system was reorganized in 2000, as without that top down investment and direction, teams had little incentive to develop youth and every incentive to buy already talented players. In the age of mega money, we cannot talk about reorganization without top down investment. There is a high chance that it will have the opposite effect that we all want, which is a cut throat league where every game matters. In that situation, what is the easier investment for clubs? Time and again it has been shown that the easier investment has been to buy players rather than train them. There will be clubs whose models rely on selling players. There will be clubs whose model relies on buying players. But the clubs buying players will always outnumber the clubs training their own, as there will be a dearth of proper coaching too, as we don't have the coaching infrastructure there sustain a complete pro/rel model.

I can't support a situation which would be detrimental to our player development for the sake of "competition." The arguments for pro/rel idealize its benefits and ignore its realities. And the pro/rel arguments are never paired with the top-down investment models which have proven to be enormously successful in first world countries.

One of my big dreams for American soccer is that one day every major population area has at least one fully professional and stable team with an accompanying professionally-run and subsidized academy system. That would maximize our enormous talent potential in this country, and ensure that as few talented kids as possible are slipping through the cracks.

We've made tremendous progress in the last 10 years, both inside and outside of MLS, but there are still areas of huge potential, especially in the Southwest. Having fully professional, well-supported teams in San Diego, Arizona, New Mexico, and South Texas would be a huge deal, and it looks like we're headed in that direction. Hopefully Louisiana can support one soon, as well. There is still tremendous room for expansion and progress in the lower leagues, and hopefully it's made sooner rather than later. Getting rid of some of the dumbass Title IX restrictions that hamper men's college soccer from growing would help, too. Just make football scholarships not apply to the rule.

The USL is in great shape, but the long-term viability of the NASL and NPSL is sketchy right now. Having the Cosmos go bankrupt was not a good look. We'll see how things change.

quote:

---

Yeah, but nobody really tanks in MLS because SuperDraft picks aren't that valuable.

---

But there are several teams who show zero desire to actually get better.