The Vancouver Whitecaps (here, circa 2008) are one of fifteen franchises scheduled to play in the NASL or USL-1 by 2011 who were left in limbo by Wednesday's decision from the USSF. (Photo: Flickr/Proggie)
United States Soccer Federation president Sunil Gulati, while announcing the governing body’s decision to reject the NASL’s application for second division status, asked the NASL and USL to “come together in the next week” to find a compromise solution, simultaneously stripping the USL-1 of its sanctioning.
Let another space talk about the wisdom of that decision. Here, let’s look forward, consider the points of view of both sides, and ask ourselves what about the likelihood of an imminent solution.
For those covering this story over the last year, a resolution seems unlikely. In talking to people on- and off-air through Wednesday evening, nobody could be found who would predict a quick resolution. A few people were optimistic that the federation’s decision would be a wake-up call. Most saw the decision as the arbitrator leaving the room.
We are left with two sides, previously defined by acrimony, trying to find a solution that will save second division football in 2010. It would be no exaggeration to include “and the indefinite future” at the end of that sentence.
Let’s start with the North American Soccer League.
Their main goal is to play football in 2010. At this point, they could care less what happens to USL-1, as breaking the other second division has never been a goal (rather, a consequence). While there is little they would not do to get the NASL off-the-ground in 2010, there is one obvious limit:
While the NASL could re-fold into the United Soccer Leagues, they will not do it without a complete reorganization of how USL-1 is run.
The NASL has emboldened itself with the notion that the USL operates in violation of FIFA regulations. Less powerfully (but more importantly), these owners do not want to run clubs within that model. Their willingness to break away initially informs us as to their willingness (or, unwillingness) to go back.
Jeff Cooper, AC St. Louis founder and NASL spokesperson, and the logo unveiling for the NASL's St. Louis club.
Such a return will not happen unless the United Soccer Leagues functions as the NASL aspires, which would include “grandfathering” in AC St. Louis, Tampa Bay and the new Minnesota franchise while allowing Atlanta and Crystal Palace USL-1 status, without fees from any of them.
If half of the NASL is going to have to pay to re-join USL-1, it will not happen. United Soccer Leagues would not only have to restructure but also forgo those fees they hold so precious. They could do that in the name of securing their franchise-fee-revenue stream for 2011 and beyond.
Ironically, for a organization that seems so concerned about their business model, the franchise fees should be the lesser of those two concerns. It seems almost antithetical that NuRock Holdings would purchase USL and then acquiesce to a restructuring that would curtail their ability to control the league. However, with their status as a second division now revoked, NuRock may be forced to do whatever it takes to salvage their investment.
That motivation on NuRock’s part (to salvage their USL investment) may also be why we see the NASL playing in 2010.
After all this turmoil and a proposed first division that contains only four teams (three which actually exist, with one of the three moving to Major League Soccer), NuRock should want to get out of the USL-1 business, if only temporarily. Relieved of what is becoming a burden, NuRock would still have third and fourth division entities (and the business model that does along with them). They could regroup. Potentially, they could get back into the second division business at some point in the future.
The key to shedding USL-1 will be NuRock getting enough money to justify forgoing the potential of winning their Florida lawsuit (against Rochester, Crystal Palace, and Tampa Bay) and forcefully reforming USL-1. What NuRock should be holding out for is a offer from the NASL to purchase the franchise rights to Austin, Portland, and Puerto Rico (New York would be a bargaining chip that would quickly be discarded in negotiations) as well as compensation for Rochester, Crystal Palace and Tampa Bay.
In addition, the United Soccer Leagues can demand that the NASL honor USL’s rights to third and fourth division football, requiring any competitive teams operating under NASL club umbrellas to do so in unsanctioned leagues or within the USL structure (which would mean franchise fees going to NuRock).
Given the 2010 resurfacing of USL-1 seems highly unlikely at this point, the USL should be inclined to take what is essentially a buy-out. In addition, if they can negotiate a formal partnership with the NASL, whereby USL-2 becomes the feeder league to the NASL, NuRock could be better-off once the ink dries than at any other point in their short ownership of United Soccer Leagues.
USSF president Sunil Gulati, along with the federation's board of governors, control the immediate future of second division football in the United States. (Photo: Newscom)
While the North American Soccer Leagues might find paying off the United Soccer Leagues repugnant, they are business men and – most importantly – soccer people, and this type of solution gives the NASL their league. That’s been their goal all along. Jeff Cooper and Traffic need to look at this solution as $6-$10 million to make this problem go away.
Whether the USL or NASL would actually accept this kind of deal is pure speculation, but within such an idea, there are benefits to both sides.
This is also a deal that would force the USSF’s hand. For 2010, the NASL would have twelve teams (more than USL-1 had last season). For 2011, they would be at the same number when adding Atlanta and Edmonton while losing Vancouver and Portland. Thus, the “uncertainties” Sunil Gulati alluded to would be alleviated.
Why wouldn’t the USSF approve that league?
That’s a subject for another space.
Regardless of the USSF’s motivations, there is a middle ground between the NASL and the USL. The NASL’s main concern is the structure. The USL’s main concern in the business.
The two can co-exist.
I certainly hope you,re right that compromise is a possibility. Hopefully everyone will come together and force USSF’s hand.
Let’s hope so.
I would like to say “all of us want second division football next year,” but I’m not 100% sure that’s the case.
The idea of these players with families all of a sudden being (essentially) unemployed – subject to the machinations of a couple of political power plays – is stomach-churning.
From a completely uneducated position and a pro-MLS perspective (I know very little about the lower divisions, we had the Connecticut Wolves here in CT for a while, but I went to a game or two and that was it. I am located dead between the Red Bulls and Revolution, and those are the games I go to):
Richard, you mentioned Vancouver is the only North American team to have an Academy, obviously USSF has fought very hard (and at great expense) to mandate every MLS team having an Academy program, and now they do (although teams like the Revolution have come kicking and screaming).
I don’t think eliminating second-tier soccer is a terrible idea, but it’s not high on my priority list. My two biggest priorities are getting the CBA done for the MLS players and developing young players.
It’s an absolute disgrace to me that we’re losing players like Michael Parkhurst and Yuri Moyvisian to leagues like Sweden and Norway, and as Kartik pointed out, that national team players are making $50,000 a year. We have to find a way to keep those second-level players (those that can’t play first-division soccer in England, Germany, etc.), or else long-term, we’ve got nothing. At the same time, we obviously can’t do what the old NASL did and start buying big name foreign players left and right because TV ratings and attendance around the nation just won’t be big enough. So there has to be a happy medium somewhere there.
I coach in South Central Premier, which is an Academy club, although I have minimal contact with the Academy guys because I coach younger players. Here is a list of the 76 clubs that the USSF sanctions as “Academy” clubs:
http://ussda.demosphere.com/Standings/2009-2010/17276234.html
What I find interesting is that there are very few (I see the Richmond Kickers, but that’s about it) USL or PDL squads that are in the Academy. I think that’s a little silly, but it tells you where the USSF stands on the matter, I think. A lot of those USL and PDL teams have youth programs (obviously Crystal Palace Baltimore and at the younger levels the Western Mass. Pioneers are one of our bigger rivals), and I don’t think that’s coincidental.
And, it’s not that USSF is afraid of foreign intervention: Arsenal, Chelsea, and Derby County all have teams in the Academy (Chelsea has 2). Fulham has been asking around, too, trying to get into clubs here, as has Everton and the USSF is helping them, as far as I know.
If we had promotion/relegation, it would be the best world for everyone, free market would reign, etc. But MLS is smart enough right now to figure out that that can’t afford to have a team like the Red Bulls or DC United get relegated in the current system. They also can’t afford to pay players the rates that the big-time European leagues do, but there has to be a way to move forward, to develop our players better.
We’re getting closer, but still have a long way to go.
To me, the NASL has to win out here. They are closer to the model the USSF wants (as far as development, etc.), and I think the USSF just wants to give them a last chance to join the party.
By the way, the women’s side is a whole other story as I’m sure Jeff could attest to. The Super-Y is run under USL, as is almost everything but the WPS, which is obviously only a handful of teams. But that’s for another day I guess.
Good job all around, also. I don’t think you’ll get a more diverse set of views (which is necessary with Canada and Puerto Rico directly affected by all of this).
Thanks, Ray. I should have phrased the Vancouver-thing better, but that’s why I’m a writer more than a broadcaster
However, I think people get the point.
You should feel free to write your opinions on this freely, Ray. You have the keys
. I’m particularly interested in your views as somebody who does coach, who does see how development is working.
Disgrace? Parkhurst and Movsysian? Really?
And “covering this story for a year?” I know it seems like it to some, but come ON.
The Internet has truly turned everybody into a columnist. And not in a good way.
And apparently somebody with an opinion who misquotes articles, as the phrase you’re looking for is “covering this story over the last year” – not FOR a year.
You are making comments about the nature of the internet while exhibiting one of its most troubling qualities.
“And not in a good way.”
I’ll leave Movsisyan (sp) alone, even though he’s going to a team (Randers) that will almost surely be relegated from the Danish Superliga, and officially made a whopping $60,000 last season.
Look at Parkhurst, though: from Rhode Island, second team All-American at Wake Forest, signs a Generation adidas contract with MLS, is a very good club player for his hometown team (the Revolution). He was one of my favorite players to watch in MLS.
But he’s not one of the best players in the world, not even good enough to make the national team. Isn’t that the exact player MLS wants to keep, local boy they can build a team around at a reasonable price?
Instead, he goes to a mediocre Danish team, FC Nordsjaelland – currently 9th in the 12-team league at the winter break (admittedly, I did sell the Danish League a little short in the earlier post, they are 16th in the UEFA Coefficiency and rising. In fact, they should pass Scotland soon, which tells you how crappy the Scottish League is, but I digress) and a seating capacity of 10,000.
By my best guesstimates, he makes about $350,000 with his Danish club, and would probably be making 100-150 with MLS. Can we bridge that gap for a guy who’s not necessarily a big-time star, but makes our on-field product a whole lot better (and is home-grown)? We’d better, in my humble opinion.
By the way, the Danish League and Americans is a another story (Benny Feilhaber, etc.), but we’ll have to leave that one for another day. Until then, here’s a couple of Marcus Tracy stories, who is playing in Denmark, too.
http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/wake-star-signs-for-danish-club-aalborg/
And by Kartik:
http://www.majorleaguesoccertalk.com/marcus-tracy-alejandro-bedoya-get-called-up/7638
Finally, Tracy’s comments to ESPN about shunning MLS:
ESPNsoccernet: What sort of advice did you hear about entering the MLS draft versus jumping to play in Europe? What were the main factors that went into deciding where you want to play?
MT: Jumping to Europe [and any professional level in general] is certainly a challenge, and the most important thing is that you don’t overshoot and go for the mega-contract right off the bat. You need to go somewhere where you can evolve in soccer and in life, because playing abroad is much different than college and/or MLS. It is also important that you have a realistic chance of playing regularly at your new club because game experience cannot be substituted. I’ve also been told that the life of a professional is much different than anything I’ve ever experienced thus far. The day-to-day competition and rigors of it are demanding and stressful and it takes a strong mind to grind through it all.