Time for MLS-2?

[Footman89]

After reading about the potential loss of a few teams in USL-1 (folding, suspending operations, MLS bids etc.) and no MLS reerves, is it possible for MLS to create an MLS2 division?

Structure

-Most stable teams from USL1 (with soccer specific stadiums) to form a MLS2 division.

- No national tv deal for these teams (hence no revenue sharing)

- Linked to the MLS by branding only. They would have their own season with own schedule.

- Sign players to contracts to each indivdual MLS2 club, but could send players on loan to MLS clubs for periods of time.

- Have a "League Cup" like in the English FA Carling Cup, where Div 1 teams could draw Div 2 teams. (maybe work out a separate TV deal for the "LEague Cup"

- No promotion/relegation, but this could be the measuring stick for future MLS 1 expansion.

- If MLS teams are having financial issues they could be potentially "relegated" to MLS2, without folding, in order to restructure and get things in order.

I feel this would be best for a second-tier league to get a smaller TV contract, sort of modeling after NASCAR in the U.S.

Anyone think this might work?

Danny08

[Tuscan]

You almost make it sound like USL will have some sort of choice when joining MLS. All I see is either the USL folding, or else MLS announcing the creation of a Div. 2 (MLS-2 perhaps) that will absorb all teams from the USL. I still firmly believe the USL's days are numbered.

I sort of hope to see an MLS second division created, which would allow for easier entry for new franchises looking to start off without having to throw tons of money into a fee, but rather save it in order to build the club.

[Richard]

Multiple tiers with promotion and relegation poses a major problem for leagues that sell franchises (and I include the MLS type entry fee in this description for discussion purposes) unless all clubs pay the same upfront franchise fee no matter which division they enter their team in. Otherwise the promotion of a team from say Div 2 to Div 1 must involve not only onfield performance but also further capital investment in the franchise fee increment. You could end up with a club performing well on the field and winning promotion from Div 2 to Div 1 but not having the cash to afford the franchise fee increment required for a Div 1 team, so you give the promotion option to the next most successful team onfield that can afford it. Immediately the entire performance based promotion and relegation scheme is undermined and meaningless as everything goes back to money.

Can only have European style promotion and relegation with a European style club based pyramid of play. Doesn't work with the American style franchise scheme. I can't see MLS owners who are paying $40 million and more for the right to enter a team agreeing to allow a lower level team that came in at a discounted rate because of the lower division to be promoted without paying the difference.

[Bill Ault]

An intriguing promotion / relegation alternative I read about the other day (forgive me I've forgotten the source) was the idea of a points punishment instead of relegation which for many reason will not work under the current structure in North America. For example if you finished last you started the next season with -6 points.... certainly might make some of those late season non-playoff picture games a little more meaningful...

[Tuscan]

Since MLS is divided between the East and West, could it be possible to bring both sides to a specific number, say 20, and sort of have 2 tables? That of course limits MLS to having only 40 cities in North America involved (assuming 1 team per city), which could be a limiting factor to building the game in NA. (also assuming they stick with a Premiership-styled division size)

Honestly, what options do they have? Perhaps USL needs to exist in order to allow for more expansion in NA.

[BearcatSA]

quote:Originally posted by Bill Ault

An intriguing promotion / relegation alternative I read about the other day (forgive me I've forgotten the source) was the idea of a points punishment instead of relegation which for many reason will not work under the current structure in North America. For example if you finished last you started the next season with -6 points.... certainly might make some of those late season non-playoff picture games a little more meaningful...

I don't understand the logic of this alternative, especially if it's in a sport that still trying to establish itself or an expansion team trying to gain credibility. How does having -6 points to begin the following year help sell season tickets?

[snake]

no pro/rel

its impossible in north america

all the leagues around the world do not have teams that pay 40 million dollar entry fee's

[SouthAfricaOrBust]

The problem, as everyone has already pointed out, is the North American sporting structure.

Sports here aren't based on "Athletic Clubs" or what have you, such as Europe. To have such a system it had to be put in place a hundred years ago, it's to late now. The NCAA is the closest I see to a typical European league 'feel'.

[nolando]

quote:Originally posted by snake

no pro/rel

its impossible in north america

all the leagues around the world do not have teams that pay 40 million dollar entry fee's

rubbish

It's not impossible - it's simply impossible for small minded people to conceive, that's all.

I mean, this is the MLS, easily the least "traditional" pro sports business model running in North America (and probably in the entire Western world). They regularly and significantly change the rules as they see fit, massaging their business model and changing major rules often mid-season. If any sport would be willing to try it, the MLS would, and they should, too imho.

And this is the perfect timing. Think about it - there are probably ten cities that could host (and want to host)a viable MLS soccer team or host a second MLS side (as with metro NY). None of them seem the least bit happy about paying the 40 million expansion fee. MLS should admit them all for 10 million, but start them off in MLS 2. They can prove who deserves to play with the big boys. Crap teams in MLS1 like TFC (sorry, guys) that don't want to spend all the money allotted to them, and that seem content to field a number of semi-pro calibre players will have to face the heat or be demoted, decent fan-base or no decent fan-base.

We've been through this before. North Americans would LOVE this, especially Americans. They LOVE competition more than any other culture - they love knock-out, high risk tournaments. And, finally, there would be something to cheer for if your team was a perennial non-contender. The risks are small, because your team doesn't disappear, they merely drop a level down (hint: there is no MLS 3 - at least not for a while), to a league that might actually have better regional rivals (Think of TFC dropping down to MLS 2 with Mtl and Vcr), and that still would have a number of decent players and teams to watch. We know from this year's competitions that the better USL sides can more than hold their weight with MLS teams, so there is no reason to think that this would be a massive drop in terms of quality. In terms of risks to profit margins and fan bases, very generally speaking, this is a league that isnt making any money and which doesnt have that many fans - so the risks that might apply to another sports model just don't apply here, people. Face it, the MLS is about as free market as Cuba is, and that it entirely why this is the only significant North American league that could pull this off.

And will the MLS really have lineups of suitors at the door for much longer? Somehow I doubt it.

With the USL on the ropes, will there ever be a better time to get them (or at least their better ownership groups)to finally submit to such a plan? Heck, bring the best of the USL execs and ownership groups on board to help build the new model, and help fill the MLS2 offices. With all of North America's best soccer minds (and biggest soccer pocketbooks) working together, I don't see how that couldn't work, to be perfectly honest.

The key would be to keep the gap in quality (probably focus on salary cap and revenue) between the two tiers as small as possible. You have to force MLS2 teams to spend a certain amount of cash and draw a certain number of fans to ensure their survival. That way you wouldn't be making such a drop when when you have a team relegated from MLS1, and you would be less at risk of losing franchises. Since so many of the MLS teams are supported by league money (what was it, only 2-3 really making any real money), this is probably the only pro sports league in North America where you could pull this off. You'd have to negotiate with your TFC's and Seattles and come up with agreements to have the teams sign on. And then you'd have a bloody good chance of having a cracking sports league that would do wonders for North American soccer.

It worked in Japan, another country with a previous history of mutiple, competing crap semi-pro soccer leagues and no history whatsoever of pro-rel. People love it. There is something to cheer for. And there are even more reasons for ownership group to invest a little more money into their teams to ensure their survival. And as the league gets better and grows in tradtiona and quality and fanbase, then everyone wins. That sure beats the North American model (think of half the current NHL) where a hefty expansion fee gives owners the sense of entitlement to their team's survival and place in a league, which actually often encourages them to spend as little as possible and worry not a bit about how terrible their team actually is. Face it, it's a lousy model, and a model that MLS may not be able to survive with either in the long run.

[tmcmurph]

"Nolando: (Think of TFC dropping down to MLS 2 with Mtl and Vcr)"

Man once the Caps get in to MLS we ain't ever going down! We're going to win lots, make the playoffs and best of all BEAT SEATTLE [8D]

[nolando]

amen to that, brother...it's just that under this proposal they would have to start in MLS2

[michaeltfc91]

Thats almost too funny, TFC dropping below the whitecaps.

[BearcatSA]

quote:Originally posted by nolando

The key would be to keep the gap in quality (probably focus on salary cap and revenue) between the two tiers as small as possible. You have to force MLS2 teams to spend a certain amount of cash and draw a certain number of fans to ensure their survival. That way you wouldn't be making such a drop when when you have a team relegated from MLS1, and you would be less at risk of losing franchises. Since so many of the MLS teams are supported by league money (what was it, only 2-3 really making any real money), this is probably the only pro sports league in North America where you could pull this off. You'd have to negotiate with your TFC's and Seattles and come up with agreements to have the teams sign on. And then you'd have a bloody good chance of having a cracking sports league that would do wonders for North American soccer.

How do you force teams to draw a certain number of fans?

[Tuscan]

I don't think he means it that way. Could you post the logistics and the growth history of the Japanese league?

[Scottie]

quote:Originally posted by michaeltfc91

Thats almost too funny, TFC dropping below the whitecaps.

Yes, in their only two meetings the caps have one win and one draw. What's too funny?

[Richard]

Well the Caps are leading the series to date

[Guest HamiltonSteelers]

Unfortunately, pro/rel is impossible for the short term.

In 30 years from now, it is...

Say you're looking to get into MLS and they charge you, hypothetically speaking, $40 million for a franchise. Even if you do well for about 5 years and pack your 20000 seater game in game out, you are not likely to be fully in the black by then.

Then, after year 3, MLS decides "let's give this relegation thing a try, shall we?", and now, that $40 million dollar franchise fee has had the conditions on which you paid for it drastically alter to the point of putting yourself in a hole and quite possibly never climing out if you do get demoted.

You can say "well, field a better team", but that $40 million was supposed to guarantee that you always play at the same level as everyone else. If standards go up or down, it's the whole league and not half of them.

Somehow, you feel pro/rel is a good idea and you vote for it, after 3 years into your $40 million franchise fee. Year 5 rolls around and, though the team is profitable year to year, you are still in debt to the tune of $16 million. It'll take another 3 years to be fully profitable, providing crowds don't dwindle.

And you finish second last, which gives you the drop to the "MLS Championship" (a.k.a. Division 2). 20000 people aren't coming out. You see, you've discovered that people don't necessarily pay for live footy because they love it, but rather, want to see top teams in a competitive environment. Season ticket renewal rates go from 16000 to about 5300. But it's OK, you're going to bounce right back up and the fans still love you, right? Right?!

In 30 years time, it's possible. Why? Because the $40 million that was paid for the franchise (it's not a club, even if you put it in the name) will have been long gone. Pro/rel may make it exciting for the bottom clubs when in week 27 there's "nothing to play for".

I would LOVE to see pro/rel in top level North American soccer. I just won't see it in my lifetime.

[nolando]

quote:Originally posted by BearcatSA

How do you force teams to draw a certain number of fans?

poorly worded, i'll admit...but let's say that MLS/MLS2 teams are expected to draw 5,000 (or 3,000) paying customers per game on average for the year or face review from the league - basically it's just a safety for the league to make it clear that they wont accept owners who leave their teams to rot, which is, in turn, a safety clause for the league which protects "decent" MLS clubs from having to be in the same league as a failure club - I was thinking of some of the more miserable USL disasters when i wrote this

[nolando]

quote:Originally posted by Tuscan

I don't think he means it that way. Could you post the logistics and the growth history of the Japanese league?

----------------

Some info on the japanese system is here: http://web-japan.org/nipponia/nipponia18/en/topic/index.html

and here: http://www.wldcup.com/Asia/jleague/index.html

-----------------

and in at least one person's mind:

"But the J-League was blessed with visionaries who saw that circumscribing soccer in the confines of the big metros was surely its death knell, and they took to developing the secondary and tertiary centers of soccer in smaller cities and towns who built these clubs successfully from the grass-root level, leading to the formation of the J2 League. The J. League designated the core activity areas of each club as that club's home town. What this means is that the J. League expects each club to develop as an integral part of its community and engage in the promotion of football and other sporting activity within it (J. League Regulations, Article 21).Clubs from towns like Oita, Kofu, Sendai, Omiya, and Niigata formed the initial nucleus of J2 clubs, which has now grown to 13 clubs. The development of the J2 league is the prime reason why soccer has flourished in Japan."

http://www.soccerblog.com/soccer_advertising/

--------------

Although I didn't write any of this, I sincerely believe that the last quote above could be just as true if a similar system was applied in North America, particularly at this point it time, as the conditions have all come together to make it seem to make more sense now than ever before.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but MLS is not a very profitable league and probably will never be under the current model (and especially not in the current economic climate). Most of the people involved in bankrolling the league are in it for a love for the game and a desire to see it flourish in North America long term - not out of a pure profit mentality that we often see in other pro sports. It seems to me that a lot of the argument people have about the poor MLS owners who would be furious to see their team relegated to MLS2 is based the viewpoint that an NFL or MLB owner might have. Sure, MLS owners awould love to make barrels of cash but this is a different sort of league with different priorities (and a much more longterm ourlook in terms of reaching goals) than the NFL or MLB. And again, it's entirely possible that if MLS2 was stocked with the current list of the ten best prospective bids ( Teams like Mtl and Vcr), they would have better teams with perhaps even more money to spend than MLS1 - so you wouldn't be talking about MLB vs Triple A or NHL vs AHL, which is an image that many critics can't seem to get out of their heads. Survival of the league and promotion of the sport are near the top of the list for a lot of MLS owners (and backers of potential/future expansion teams), motives that could also be satisfied quite happily with a pro/rel system.

And just to note, again: I am not advocating the Japanese system itself be implemented in North America - I am simply using the Japanese example to illustrate the point that the argument that pro-rel won't work based on a lack of history/exposure to it, is pure rubbish.

[brettinhalifax]

It won't happen, but maybe this is the last chance at pro-rel in NA and MLS. Instead of 7 bids to pay $40 million for one of 2 spots, maybe they should try to get 10 bids at $12.5 million to enter MLS2.

2 x $40 million = $80 million

10 x $12.5 million = $125 million

Use the $45 million difference to refund $8 million to SJ, $18 million to Seattle and Phila so all recent expansion candidates have paid 10 to 12.5 million. It is revenue neutral for the existing clubs, sets up a MLS2, kills the USL and expands the footprint by 8 more clubs.

[Richard]

One crucial question remains unanswered about the J-League if it is to be used in any way as a model.... do they use the European based club approach or the North American franchise purchase approach?

[SthMelbRed]

Most J-League clubs have been in existence far longer than the J-League itself. Most of the biggest clubs were formally tied to large corporations prior to the formation of the J-League. Urawa Reds were tied to Mitsubishi, Gamba Osaka was tied to Matsu****a (Panasonic), and Grampus Eight was tied to Toyota. Those clubs, in their current incarnations, are still loosely tied to their corporate parents through lucrative sponsorship arrangements, but the formal ownership has been severed to allow the clubs to exist as independent clubs. There is no franchising in J-League football. To further illustrate, my local club when I lived in Japan was Cerezo Osaka. As the company side for Yanmar (manufacturer of diesel engines), Cerezo was national champion as late as 1991 (before the J-League). In the J-League era, it is the stereotypical yo-yo club, usually residing near the bottom of J1 or near the top of J2.

[BearcatSA]

quote:Originally posted by nolando

poorly worded, i'll admit...but let's say that MLS/MLS2 teams are expected to draw 5,000 (or 3,000) paying customers per game on average for the year or face review from the league - basically it's just a safety for the league to make it clear that they wont accept owners who leave their teams to rot, which is, in turn, a safety clause for the league which protects "decent" MLS clubs from having to be in the same league as a failure club - I was thinking of some of the more miserable USL disasters when i wrote this

Thanks for clarifying.

To be honest, considering how this economic situation plays out over the next couple of years, I'd be interested in seeing how the MLS does. And maybe Saputo is right by not shelling out the $40 million and going in a different direction.

[piltdownman]

Why MLS2? USL-1 seems to be better off then the original posters idea of MLS2. USL-1 has a national tv deal in the USA and Canada on Fox Soccer Channel. Plus USL promotes development where as MLS looks to be moving away from development. If you ask me, what really needs to happen is for a partnership that would cause the MLS to drop their rule preventing dual ownership of USL-1 and MSL teams. This would allow MLS clubs to run USL-1 clubs in nearby markets.

[Obinna]

Nolando, I think this would really work if MLS pursued it, but I don't think they will, despite this being the perfect opportunity. I'd like for them to stop MLS-1 expansion after this round and create MLS-2 for remaining candidates

but what would the possible markets be?

-Rochester

-St. Louis (don't think they will get MLS this round)

-Montreal

-Vancouver/Portland (which ever one doesn't get MLS this round)

-NY-2

-Las Vegas

-Atlanta

-Charleston

-Ottawa

-Carolina

-Minnesota

-San Diego?

-Phoenix?

-Baltimore?

-Milwaukee?

-Detroit?

-Cleveland?

-Richmond?

-Pittsburg?

-Charlotte?

The first group are current USL-1 franchises and MLS expansion candidates. The second group with question marks are former USL-1 franchices, current big market USL-2 franchises, or cities with big enough metro areas to justify as a possibility. That's 20 teams right there.

Also, starting pro-reg off with one team up one team down might not be a bad idea, what do you think?

[Edit]

Even though we have a few small markets here, you don't get a minor league feel when looking at that list. Detroit, San Diego, Atlanta, Second New York, Montreal, etc..