10 Responses

  1. mitch howard
    September 4, 2009 at 1:51 pm | | Reply


    Good article, good points made, excellent examples; Wilmington, Coastal Carolina, Rooks, etc… Any chance Des Moines might go USL I or 2?

  2. soccer goals
    September 4, 2009 at 4:31 pm | | Reply


    I hope that they resolve this situation.

  3. Lee
    Lee
    September 4, 2009 at 5:40 pm | | Reply


    USL is a waste of time and space. Anything USL does, MLS and the USSF can do better. The USSF has academy teams spread throughout the country and promotes the national team as a brand name that is the “home” team everywhere.

    USL’s death would be a good thing for American soccer. It would allow the MLS brand to spread itself into places like Minnesota, North Carolina, Atlanta and also get back into Florida. It is MLS that promotes the sport with clever marketing, a real TV contract, and Sportscenter highlights/good TV audience and brand recognition and USL that no one knows are cares about.

    The teams from USL-1 and USL-2 can either be moved to MLS or replaced with amatuer teams playing in the area. USL’s youth system is obselete now that the USSF has its own development academy club team system and even if this is resolved, the USSF should step in and shut USL down, forcing the youth teams to join the USSF system and the pro teams to either join MLS or drop down to the amatuer ranks.

    That would be the best solution for the American game and growing the brand.

    1. Bobby
      September 4, 2009 at 6:40 pm | | Reply


      Wow, where do I start with this?

      Losing teams is never, ever good for the sport. It has been explained on this site, maybe 10 times in the last month, that the USL is much more than the USL First Division. It’s over 400 teams, each of which fields at least twenty players. If you see good in all those players — male and female — losing a chance to play, well, you don’t really want the sport to be a success here.

      MLS owners aren’t going to accept USL-1 and USL-2 teams simply “moving” to MLS, not ever. Many MLS owners paid roughly $40,000,000 for their expansion fee, they aren’t just going to let someone in.

      Replacing professional teams with amateur teams would ruin the development of the game. Do you think the same players are going to stay and play for nothing? No, no chance.

      No youth team is “obselete”, particularly not the current crop of USL teams who’ve just sent two players to Everton on full transfers.

      “(T)he USSF should step in and shut USL down”. http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/divisionmanual/chapter2.pdf

    2. Kartik Krishnaiyer
      September 5, 2009 at 11:23 am | | Reply


      If you knew something about the USSF Development Academy you’d realize it costs a ton of money to join the setup. Like anything that involves the Federation, the process is highly political and some of the best youth clubs which have the best inner city or barrio development programs are in Super Y or Super 20.

      As far as MLS “spreading its brand,” once they can crack, let’s say a 1.0 cable rating consistently, we can discuss USL or any potential replacement league being folded to promote a national brand.

      Furthermore, the USSF nor MLS currently have a program like PDL and have no plans to develop one. USL going out of business would mean PDL disappears and a vital portion of the US Soccer Development System disappears.

  4. Vnice
    Vnice
    September 4, 2009 at 6:48 pm | | Reply


    Lee…that was one of the most ignorant things I have ever read. You know nothing about soccer. Please get a new hobby.

  5. Samantha
    Samantha
    September 19, 2009 at 2:45 pm | | Reply


    I didn’t even read it.lol.

  6. Pubvalpub
    Pubvalpub
    September 19, 2009 at 10:38 pm | | Reply


    There does not exist right now in the USA a credible, established, propertly-run soccer league. MLS is much closer than any other organization, but is not bullet proof. A well-run rival league is 1) a real threat to the MLS, and 2) good for the game because it will push MLS to make the changes necessary to be a more credible organization.

    The best thing the Team Owners Association could do for itself and for soccer in this country is to form a truly credible professional soccer league. They do this by:
    a) solifying “core” solidarity (the core group of owners is great and must remain unified),
    b) bringing in a small “second wave” of owners with the same vision as the TOA and with a good market for growth and profitability (bring in ownership groups from NYC, Connecticut, Detroit, Ottawa, whereever, to grow the league and become national in scope),
    c) appeal to soccer fans not attracted to MLS – by the markets entered and/or by branding the league as the ‘purer’ form of soccer (call yourself the American Premier League, honor international dates, don’t institute a salary cap and avoid single entity or corporate ownership, allow a “third wave” a teams in a 2nd division and institute promotion/relegation).

    Thus the TOA manages a professional league and the USL is left with what it deserves – the PDL. If the TOA manages its assets well and fans respond, thier league expands and improves in quality and, eventually, challenges the oft-criticized and very mediocre MLS.

    To me, this is the ideal situation – MLS competing with a well-run, “pure” soccer league. Only the threat of being relegated to a second division of American soccer can force MLS to adopt the changes necessary to escape mediocrity – abandon single-entity ownership, accepts promotion and relegation, and significantly loosen the purse strings.

  7. daniel
    daniel
    September 30, 2009 at 8:50 pm | | Reply


    well the mls is abandoning the single ownership thing. i mean they started there are only few teams that are still under one ownership.

    the mls needs the salary cap right now because it does not need to suffer the same mistakes that the nasl made.

  8. Jason
    Jason
    October 1, 2009 at 1:04 pm | | Reply


    “well the mls is abandoning the single ownership thing.”

    What? What the HELL are you talking about?

    Single ENTITY? That’s not going away anytime soon. That’s a business setup that helps them from a player procurement/cost standpoint and a leaguewide marketing/sales standpoint.

    Do you mean “multiple team ownership?” Or do you mean “league-owned teams?”

    When Miami and Tampa Bay were contracted and the Hunts took over Dallas, MLS was out of the league-owned team scenario. And the multiple team ownership scenario has been dwindling over the years, to the point where it’s just the Hunts owning Columbus and Dallas now and AEG owning LA and half of Houston.

    So what, exactly are you talking about in all lowercase letters?

Leave a Reply