Amended Indy 11 Stadium deal passes subcommittee on state senate 13-0.

[Oxford Collapse]

So this is interesting - the previous bill I'd brought up on Indy Eleven's stadium being built (an $80 million stadium just outside of downtown with an unspecified location) passed the house a while back.

However, in the senate, a different bill proposing a $20 million renovation to their current digs at IUPUI passed through the subcommittee in the state senate, 13-0. That will be facing the full state senate at some currently unknown point in the future.

Obviously, the two proposals are majorly at odds, so you can expect a compromise of some kind to come up. While funding for a new stadium is roughly $80 million, that would mostly be collected through ticket taxes, according to the proposal.

This renovation would be funded partially by the state itself as a multi-use facility for concerts as well as games. It recycles a facility already in use, but, in my opinion, wouldn't be enough to attract MLS attention as that league is jumping into yet another round of expansion. Indy's been listed as a target (partially due to the stadium deal), but I don't anticipate that a renovation of where they're at would be enough to grab the eye of MLS.

The Eleven's league, NASL, is doing pretty well right now, but there are definitely some concerns as Minnesota United and Atlanta both make the jump to MLS. That gives a bit of instability to the league, unless they're able to find replacements of similar quality. Sacramento would have been a fantastic option, but it appears they'll also be joining MLS, it's been reported.

So the Eleven have a decision to make - are they comfortable with the current outlook for the NASL, renovating their current home? Or do they seek a bit more stability in MLS' regressive single entity structure, recognizing they'll have to make a difficult push for a brand new stadium?

 

[MillerTime]

MLS should look at the Mass Ave block party during the World Cup

as an example if Indy is ready for pro soccer

 

[IU_Cramer]

Oxford, budding soccer fan here with a query

Any chance that the US adopts the pyramid promotion/relegation model that most (if not all) of the rest of world uses? The tiers are set up to where there could be a system in place, but I'm curious of the prerequisite infrastructure would be in place to make such a system workable within the US. Thoughts?

 

[Oxford Collapse]

Great question. Tough answer. This is a long post.

Hope you see this as it moved on to page 2.

Any chance? Sure.

Is it likely to look exactly like England? Doubtful.

As it stands right now, there's a tiered system without promotion and relegation.

It's important to know the politics of how the leagues work before I can really talk about what a system would look like. That's because MLS is expanding madly right now, and who gets pulled from where is pretty important.

If you want to just hear about what I think the system would look like, though, scroll down to "Here's where it gets more speculative."

Your leagues are:

MLS - the defacto Tier 1 league. Single entity structure, so MLS (for legal reasons) owns the teams and "owners" serve as "operators". That's all BS for legal reasons. LA, New York Red Bulls, Chicago Fire - all MLS teams.NASL - Also lays claim to being a direct competitor to MLS as a tier 1 league, but does not have the TV contract that MLS does. Owners own the teams - not single entity. Indy Eleven and the New York Cosmos are in NASL.USL - Formerly USL Pro. It's applying for Tier 2 status. It houses a bunch of your "2" squads - the reserve squads for LA Galaxy, Toronto FC, Seattle Sounders FC, etc. It also has some "independent" clubs like Louisville City FC. It's important to note, though, that as of a year or two ago, MLS requires all MLS clubs to have a USL affiliate, sort of like a minor league club, that they loan 4 players to a year. For example, Orlando City has Louisville City as an affiliate, and they loan 4 players a year to that club. It's pretty much AAA baseball, but the player rights are a bit different.Developmental leagues - There are all sorts of developmental leagues. Some are USL branded, some aren't. We're going to ignore these for the time being, because there's zero chance of these clubs ever being built into the USA pyramid.

So as it stands right now, MLS and NASL are direct competitors. The thing is that right now, the New York Cosmos are the one marquee team in NASL that aren't currently trying to swing their way into MLS.

The "NASL vs MLS" argument is a totally different long post, but I'll summarize it here. The key point to remember is that NASL and MLS *hate eachother.*

NASL functions more like a traditional soccer league. Owners own the teams and the contracts. The rules are relatively transparent. However, their TV deal sucks, and some of the clubs are in smaller markets.

MLS is a weird hybrid between a traditional soccer league and the NBA with rules that no one really understands and the league doesn't care to explain. The league was set up in the early 90's and includes your biggest markets. By US Soccer standards, they have a fat TV deal because the MLS TV rights were included with the US National team rights. They get ESPN2, Univision, and Fox Sports 1 coverage for games literally every week. Owners give up a lot of control, but they're okay with it because of:
Increased exposure and fat cash due to TV dealsLimited liability with a LOW salary cap - the single entity structure screws players to benefit the ownersNCAA's feeder system into MLS through the Superdraft
You've seen a few major NASL clubs (Minnesota United, Atlanta) prepare for the jump to MLS. This has put NASL on somewhat shaky footing. The Cosmos are a big deal and hold down Long Island, but they're losing a few major markets.

You do also see MLS pulling new clubs from USL if the attendance is high and it's a big enough market. Sacramento Republic is a USL club that is about to be announced for MLS. Orlando City was just pulled from USL (which prompted OCSC to build USL's Louisville City FC, by the way.)

So if your support is big enough and you're prepared to pay a ridiculous buy-in fee (NYCFC's was $100 million, and that doesn't even count the stadium they haven't built yet), it really doesn't matter which league you were in.

So now that we've gotten that out of the way...

This is shaking out as follows, in my view. Many will disagree.

MLS is expanding madly right now. They're currently at 20 teams with a second LA team, an Atlanta team (new, but possibly connected to NASL's Atlanta Silverbacks), a Miami team, NASL's Minnesota United, and USL's Sacramento Republic. They're more than likely to expand even more beyond that - 2020 is the target date for major change (but that's likely lip service.)

MLS' theft of NASL clubs has really been a thorn in NASL's side. With Minnesota United heading to MLS, they'll be down to 10 teams, and none west of San Antonio. They have really limited reach right now. As a result, you'll see them try to expand, but I'm not sure where they're pulling teams from. If Indy or San Antonio, as rumored, make a push for MLS, that will *really* hurt NASL. The Cosmos are the lynchpin holding the league together, but if they're the only club of note, that's an issue.

Here's where it gets even more speculative.

This is a hot take that will piss some people off (including one I know of on this board -- sorry), but if Indy and San Antonio are accepted into MLS, my guess is that the Cosmos try to force their way in to MLS with some exceptions on branding and ownership, and the rest of NASL is folded into USL. I could be wrong on that, but there just aren't many markets expanding into NASL right now.

If that happens, you've got a two tiered (professional) system where the two groups play nice.

Once that happens, they have to sell current owners on the fact that promotion and relegation makes their own clubs more valuable. If they can do that, which is an amazingly tall order in the US (the Hunts will hate that idea)...

If they can pull that off, I'm betting that the following things happen.
All MLS clubs are required to manage a second team affiliate in USL. (NYCFC II, New York Red Bulls II, etc.) This will be the entirety of USL.All currently independent USL clubs (plus the ones folded in from NASL) will join MLS. The MLS will then be up to about 40 teams, then creating a two tier structure -- MLS I and MLS II. You then see promotion and relegation among these two leagues, creating a synthetic pro/rel pyramid. Not at all like you see in England, but enough of a taste of it to integrate all US soccer leagues into one navigable system.
So, provided NASL doesn't hit a few home runs here -- they could -- this is my idea of how to make it work without folding clubs.

Do I think it'll actually happen? Probably not. I do think that, at the rate MLS is expanding, a 2 tier system makes sense. I just know that US owners actually want to turn a profit (unlike many in Europe), and getting demoted to the second league could mean a major hit to the bottom line.

If they can sell owners, though, that the system would generate more money with pro/rel, then it could happen.

 

[IU_Cramer]

Thank you for such a long and in-depth response

It really added good insight into what I've already read on the internet. I wonder if Klinsmann's comments and preference for a promotion/relegation system in the US helps or works against the implementation. I know he rubs some in the establishment the wrong way, but I think ultimately he is really trying to establish the USMNT as a consistent world power not just the occasional usurper into the knockout rounds of the World Cup.