no...let's be innovators and not duplicators...just because people like it there, does not mean we will like it here...imagine if the NBA and NFL did the same thing...no sir...
I think the politics allegories were kinda weird from Eric, but I basically do agree with what he’s saying, especially with the national team. The complacency from the league culture was seeping in, and hopefully Pochettino can change some of that mentality before 2026. But those roots do need to be addressed. An MLS 2 wouldn’t be a bad starting point.
My idea is this In USLC, the top 2 teams in each conference get promoted automatically. The #1 team gets the USL championship cup and host the USLC players promotion cup final (the players shield will be the trophy awarded). Basically, you have teams ranked #3-6 from each conference put into the playoffs. They play home and away, round robin until the final. In the final, which is one leg hosted at the USLC champions ground, the winner takes the players shield and gains automatic promotion. The loser goes to the MLS/USLC promotion-relegation final vs the MLS opponents that finished the top of the bottom 3 in their conference, all at the ground of the winners of the US Open cup. One leg, winner goes to/stays in the MLS.
do you seriously think an MLS team would want to lose the millions of dollars they have invested in a team?...would you do that if you owned an MLS team?....after spending a franchise fee of 500 million plus these days (not to mention if they had to build a new stadium of at least 100 to 200 million)...get real buddy...
Idea: We're a huge country. What if we had a pro/rel in the east and west. The top four from each side would be placed into a playoff and the champion of each side would play each other for the championship
My idea is this In USLC, the top 2 teams in each conference get promoted automatically. The #1 team gets the USL championship cup and host the USLC players promotion cup final (the players shield will be the trophy awarded to the promotion final winners, while the actual playoff cup will be given to the winners of the regular season). Basically, you have teams ranked #3-6 from each conference put into the playoffs. They play home and away, round robin until the final. In the final, which is one leg hosted at the USLC champions ground, the winner takes the players shield and gains automatic promotion. The loser goes to the MLS/USLC promotion-relegation final vs the MLS opponents that finished the top of the bottom 3 in their conference, all at the ground of the winners of the US Open cup. One leg, winner goes to/stays in the MLS.
36 min of grabbing and not one mention of how to implement it to where it's an advantage on the business side of the ledger. I hear a lot of warm and fuzzy feelings surrounding the 140yr old English tradition, but nothing about how it would actually function in the US and be sustainable. There's a reason why LigaMX and a lot of other teams ditched it during Covid. It's bad for business.
Zero expansion revenue will be catastrophic for newer expansion clubs in years to come along the flat or declining real estate valuations. MLS isn't the NHL which depends HEAVILY on highway robbery ticket prices---there is not enough quality in MLS to demand $150.00 for terrible seats.
Pro/rel sounds nice, but there barely seems to be enough money to be worth it for these teams. Our soccer eco-system seems under funded as it is. USL technically already has a pathway to Champions Cup, unlike other 2 div leagues around the world, but they don't win the Open Cup, and they actually have less payroll restrictions than MLS. Unfortunately, MLS will only be pushed as much as ULS will push them, and right now it's not really that much. ULS sounds more likely to start pro/rel and they need an owner or two to really spend with the intention to win Open Cup and go to the Champions Cup.
@@FabianMejia-h1s yeah but my idea is this. 32 teams. 16 in each conference. You play 34 games, 30 home and away against your conference opponents, then 4 home and away against 2 random teams from the opposite conferences Relegation would work like this: bottom 2 in each conference gets automatically relegated and replaced by the top 2 in each conference in USLC. In USLC, they would have a promotion cup between ranks 3-6 in each conference, winner in each conference meet in the final. The winner of that final gains automatic promotion. The loser goes to the MLS/USLC pro-rel final, hosted at the ground of the US open cup winners. The winner goes to/stays in the MLS.
It will never happen. MLS franchise owners pay too much money to get a team started. They will not want to risk losing it all. I'm sure MLS will find a way to rig games to make sure their teams don't get relegated
The only way this is possible is if, after another 25 years USL takes off and out-grows MLS. Then MLS decides to merge with USL on the condition pro-rel is instituted and the buy-in for promoted USL teams is only $20M with the promise to upgrade the promoted stadium in the next 36 months or the parachute payment on the way down is forfeit. That way Garber doesn't get humiliated when his single entity push-me-pull-you is overturned in the courts which is only a matter of $$$. Then maybe our best youth players won't run away from professional soccer in this country like they have their hair on fire.
@r2dad282 If they ever approve pro/rel, it wouldn't surprise me if MLS gets rid of salary caps altogether. This would make it almost impossible for MLS teams to lose against USL teams
You purchase a team in Europe, You buy franchise rights in America. No American is going to buy a franchise for as much as they go for now, and risk being regulated to lower tv money distribution.
When Real Salt Lake going for $400 million a couple years ago when Forbes pegs their annual revenue at $45 million, and San Diego buys in at $500 million, these owners aren't buying into an open system. They are buying into a closed league with financial controls. The idea that MLS owners would have any interest in devaluing their asset by hundreds of millions of dollars to allow Oakland Roots and Detroit City a chance is so incredibly unrealistic. The tv money is far from the issue. Each team makes less than $10 million per year from the Apple deal. While no one would want to see what, in some cases, would be twenty percent of their income dry up, the devaluation of team value would be hundred of millions for every team. Fourteen of the thirty have been bought in the past decade at prices in the hundreds of millions, and that money just disappears.
@@bradenhazle4378 There is a massive difference in the revenue to valuation. MLS teams sell for the same price as clubs that bring in four time as much per year. A buyer of a PL team is looking at the revenue and thinking "I can make this run it more efficiently to make it profitable." A buyer of an MLS team is thinking "This is league with structural and financial constraints that limit risk and has long-term potential for growth." Just because it is the same sport, it doesn't mean it is the same business decision.
They could scrap expansion fees and rebate the clubs who have spent 9 figures in escrow. MANY of the more apathetic owners would not have a problem with this as they're already losing money. There are AWFUL clubs going nowhere in MLS--a better commissioner would redress this. The league has a majority stake in these clubs anyway.
@@kevinwilkins7851 No one would go for it, and there is not enough money to rebate. Look at the purchase prices. San Diego went for $500 million. Real Salt Lake sold for $400 million. VIncent Tan's share of LAFC went off a $700 million valuation. St Louis went for $200 million. Chicago was sold at a $400 million valuation. Half the teams in the league has either been created or sold in the past decade. Also, the old owners who bought in for peanuts and lost money annually for a long time didn't do so to now watch their asset rapidly deflate in value. The "league" doesn't have billions of dollars to light on fire. Look at the revenue, and compare them to the valuations. Then, compare the valuations from league where it is not closed and not stringent spending restraints. Austin FC and Brighton are valued at the same amount even though Brighton pulls in three times the revenue. Teams in open system setups with MLS revenues are not viewed as being good investments. I don't get this world where people think if they pretend stuff that doesn't have a chance of happening does, and acknowledge zero consequences in these make-believe scenarios. If you make an industry bad for investment, the people with money leave. That is just reality. Whether one likes the structure of MLS or not, it has resulted in wide spread investment. When you change the risk analysis, you change investment. The same people who fume at NYCFC playing on sod covering the Yankee infield also want to light billions on fire so that their favorite team, now not featuring most of their best players because the owners got out, can play at Isotopes Park in Albuquerque.
A bit of an odd choice with the political throw-in, but it does make an additional question: why are we just now having a discussion in American sports (in general) for promotion and relegation? Hasn't the idea of mediocrity been around this entire time? Aside from baseball having a form of it forever ago, we really haven't had anything less than "a celebration of mediocrity" for the entirety of American sports. As for a pro/rel discussion, I dunno, maybe USSF demand USL and MLS bury the hatchet, announce a merger of sorts, and that sets up the system that so many people want. My idea: bottom two in each conference in MLS get relegated; the next three above them go to relegation playoffs with winners of promotion playoffs in USL Championship, which gets decided by playoffs between the 3rd to 8th place Championship teams (top 2 in each conference gain automatic promotion, but still play for the league title, more money, and of course, because this is America, the first overall draft pick). I know it sounds a bit convoluted, but I seriously just made this up while sick, so maybe it is a little convoluted...
MLS should buy the USL. They already have structured leagues and teams. Merge in the independent MLS Next pro teams. Start pro/rel from there. Two teams from the East and west in every league fight for promotion or avoid relegation.
Keep the political analogies out of this dialogue Eric!! We're the same age and dear God in the 70's 22 year-olds had affordable housing, stronger labor unions and the NASL at its 1977 height would mop the floor with MLS--they were 20 years ahead of their time until they over-expanded.
They could get rebates from MLS coffers OR MLS's rights could be sold to another entity--ALMOST happened a few years ago--that would compensate the losers up front and just relegate garbage teams from 21st and to 30th and create a 1st class 2nd Division.
Should MLS switch to Promotion/Relegation?
no...let's be innovators and not duplicators...just because people like it there, does not mean we will like it here...imagine if the NBA and NFL did the same thing...no sir...
where would the Canadian teams go? if relegated
@@LucasIBF USL
@@SAJDES How do we hold bad teams accountable?
I think it's about time MLS splits into 2 divisions and then you get relegated to USL if you finish last in MLS second division.
I think the politics allegories were kinda weird from Eric, but I basically do agree with what he’s saying, especially with the national team. The complacency from the league culture was seeping in, and hopefully Pochettino can change some of that mentality before 2026. But those roots do need to be addressed. An MLS 2 wouldn’t be a bad starting point.
To me it’s the only rational middle ground before an MLS and USL merger
My idea is this
In USLC, the top 2 teams in each conference get promoted automatically. The #1 team gets the USL championship cup and host the USLC players promotion cup final (the players shield will be the trophy awarded). Basically, you have teams ranked #3-6 from each conference put into the playoffs. They play home and away, round robin until the final. In the final, which is one leg hosted at the USLC champions ground, the winner takes the players shield and gains automatic promotion. The loser goes to the MLS/USLC promotion-relegation final vs the MLS opponents that finished the top of the bottom 3 in their conference, all at the ground of the winners of the US Open cup. One leg, winner goes to/stays in the MLS.
do you seriously think an MLS team would want to lose the millions of dollars they have invested in a team?...would you do that if you owned an MLS team?....after spending a franchise fee of 500 million plus these days (not to mention if they had to build a new stadium of at least 100 to 200 million)...get real buddy...
@ which is why the whole world won’t take US soccer seriously. It’s a “franchise” to you guys, not a club…
AWESOME channel and keep up the good work!! Makes me forget about Max Bretos yesterday!!
Idea: We're a huge country. What if we had a pro/rel in the east and west. The top four from each side would be placed into a playoff and the champion of each side would play each other for the championship
Would beat the hell out of our current status quo snoozefest!
My idea is this
In USLC, the top 2 teams in each conference get promoted automatically. The #1 team gets the USL championship cup and host the USLC players promotion cup final (the players shield will be the trophy awarded to the promotion final winners, while the actual playoff cup will be given to the winners of the regular season). Basically, you have teams ranked #3-6 from each conference put into the playoffs. They play home and away, round robin until the final. In the final, which is one leg hosted at the USLC champions ground, the winner takes the players shield and gains automatic promotion. The loser goes to the MLS/USLC promotion-relegation final vs the MLS opponents that finished the top of the bottom 3 in their conference, all at the ground of the winners of the US Open cup. One leg, winner goes to/stays in the MLS.
36 min of grabbing and not one mention of how to implement it to where it's an advantage on the business side of the ledger. I hear a lot of warm and fuzzy feelings surrounding the 140yr old English tradition, but nothing about how it would actually function in the US and be sustainable. There's a reason why LigaMX and a lot of other teams ditched it during Covid. It's bad for business.
Zero expansion revenue will be catastrophic for newer expansion clubs in years to come along the flat or declining real estate valuations. MLS isn't the NHL which depends HEAVILY on highway robbery ticket prices---there is not enough quality in MLS to demand $150.00 for terrible seats.
Pro/rel sounds nice, but there barely seems to be enough money to be worth it for these teams. Our soccer eco-system seems under funded as it is. USL technically already has a pathway to Champions Cup, unlike other 2 div leagues around the world, but they don't win the Open Cup, and they actually have less payroll restrictions than MLS. Unfortunately, MLS will only be pushed as much as ULS will push them, and right now it's not really that much. ULS sounds more likely to start pro/rel and they need an owner or two to really spend with the intention to win Open Cup and go to the Champions Cup.
I think MLS 1 and MLS 2 is most likely
You can have a two division closed system. Maybe that’s the compromise?
We would need to expand to 36 teams
Gotta be three, having only one division lower brings no real stakes.
@@FabianMejia-h1s32 is fine. Why 36?
@@tommywhitehart5627 that would create two 18 team first and second divisions
@@FabianMejia-h1s yeah but my idea is this. 32 teams. 16 in each conference. You play 34 games, 30 home and away against your conference opponents, then 4 home and away against 2 random teams from the opposite conferences
Relegation would work like this: bottom 2 in each conference gets automatically relegated and replaced by the top 2 in each conference in USLC. In USLC, they would have a promotion cup between ranks 3-6 in each conference, winner in each conference meet in the final. The winner of that final gains automatic promotion. The loser goes to the MLS/USLC pro-rel final, hosted at the ground of the US open cup winners. The winner goes to/stays in the MLS.
I say sure, but the model should be MLS 1, MLS 2 then USL.
That is my thoughts. I think it will happen one day.
@MLSMoves eventually, like a likely Fall Spring calendar move, it will happen.
It will never happen. MLS franchise owners pay too much money to get a team started. They will not want to risk losing it all. I'm sure MLS will find a way to rig games to make sure their teams don't get relegated
The only way this is possible is if, after another 25 years USL takes off and out-grows MLS. Then MLS decides to merge with USL on the condition pro-rel is instituted and the buy-in for promoted USL teams is only $20M with the promise to upgrade the promoted stadium in the next 36 months or the parachute payment on the way down is forfeit. That way Garber doesn't get humiliated when his single entity push-me-pull-you is overturned in the courts which is only a matter of $$$. Then maybe our best youth players won't run away from professional soccer in this country like they have their hair on fire.
@r2dad282 If they ever approve pro/rel, it wouldn't surprise me if MLS gets rid of salary caps altogether. This would make it almost impossible for MLS teams to lose against USL teams
You purchase a team in Europe, You buy franchise rights in America. No American is going to buy a franchise for as much as they go for now, and risk being regulated to lower tv money distribution.
When Real Salt Lake going for $400 million a couple years ago when Forbes pegs their annual revenue at $45 million, and San Diego buys in at $500 million, these owners aren't buying into an open system. They are buying into a closed league with financial controls. The idea that MLS owners would have any interest in devaluing their asset by hundreds of millions of dollars to allow Oakland Roots and Detroit City a chance is so incredibly unrealistic. The tv money is far from the issue. Each team makes less than $10 million per year from the Apple deal. While no one would want to see what, in some cases, would be twenty percent of their income dry up, the devaluation of team value would be hundred of millions for every team. Fourteen of the thirty have been bought in the past decade at prices in the hundreds of millions, and that money just disappears.
Yet they're willing to take the risk by buying Premier League teams.
@@bradenhazle4378 There is a massive difference in the revenue to valuation. MLS teams sell for the same price as clubs that bring in four time as much per year. A buyer of a PL team is looking at the revenue and thinking "I can make this run it more efficiently to make it profitable." A buyer of an MLS team is thinking "This is league with structural and financial constraints that limit risk and has long-term potential for growth." Just because it is the same sport, it doesn't mean it is the same business decision.
They could scrap expansion fees and rebate the clubs who have spent 9 figures in escrow. MANY of the more apathetic owners would not have a problem with this as they're already losing money. There are AWFUL clubs going nowhere in MLS--a better commissioner would redress this. The league has a majority stake in these clubs anyway.
@@kevinwilkins7851 No one would go for it, and there is not enough money to rebate. Look at the purchase prices. San Diego went for $500 million. Real Salt Lake sold for $400 million. VIncent Tan's share of LAFC went off a $700 million valuation. St Louis went for $200 million. Chicago was sold at a $400 million valuation. Half the teams in the league has either been created or sold in the past decade. Also, the old owners who bought in for peanuts and lost money annually for a long time didn't do so to now watch their asset rapidly deflate in value. The "league" doesn't have billions of dollars to light on fire. Look at the revenue, and compare them to the valuations. Then, compare the valuations from league where it is not closed and not stringent spending restraints. Austin FC and Brighton are valued at the same amount even though Brighton pulls in three times the revenue. Teams in open system setups with MLS revenues are not viewed as being good investments.
I don't get this world where people think if they pretend stuff that doesn't have a chance of happening does, and acknowledge zero consequences in these make-believe scenarios. If you make an industry bad for investment, the people with money leave. That is just reality. Whether one likes the structure of MLS or not, it has resulted in wide spread investment. When you change the risk analysis, you change investment. The same people who fume at NYCFC playing on sod covering the Yankee infield also want to light billions on fire so that their favorite team, now not featuring most of their best players because the owners got out, can play at Isotopes Park in Albuquerque.
Absolutely
A bit of an odd choice with the political throw-in, but it does make an additional question: why are we just now having a discussion in American sports (in general) for promotion and relegation? Hasn't the idea of mediocrity been around this entire time? Aside from baseball having a form of it forever ago, we really haven't had anything less than "a celebration of mediocrity" for the entirety of American sports.
As for a pro/rel discussion, I dunno, maybe USSF demand USL and MLS bury the hatchet, announce a merger of sorts, and that sets up the system that so many people want. My idea: bottom two in each conference in MLS get relegated; the next three above them go to relegation playoffs with winners of promotion playoffs in USL Championship, which gets decided by playoffs between the 3rd to 8th place Championship teams (top 2 in each conference gain automatic promotion, but still play for the league title, more money, and of course, because this is America, the first overall draft pick). I know it sounds a bit convoluted, but I seriously just made this up while sick, so maybe it is a little convoluted...
Change the system!
Soon enough!
MLS should buy the USL. They already have structured leagues and teams. Merge in the independent MLS Next pro teams. Start pro/rel from there. Two teams from the East and west in every league fight for promotion or avoid relegation.
Keep the political analogies out of this dialogue Eric!! We're the same age and dear God in the 70's 22 year-olds had affordable housing, stronger labor unions and the NASL at its 1977 height would mop the floor with MLS--they were 20 years ahead of their time until they over-expanded.
Won't happen in a league with massive entrance fees.
It could when they decide to stop expanding
They could get rebates from MLS coffers OR MLS's rights could be sold to another entity--ALMOST happened a few years ago--that would compensate the losers up front and just relegate garbage teams from 21st and to 30th and create a 1st class 2nd Division.
Promotion and relegation is nonsense
MLS 1 and MLS 2 would be nice
@ yes, maybe that would be more than enough!
@@MLSMovesAnything right now would be better than the status quo!