There is hardly an issue that generates more conversation amongst MLS fans and journalists than promotion and relegation (pro/reg). Some fans demand it, while others don’t see the point. Journalists see it as impossible in the United States. I used to agree, but when news broke of a possible mutiny amongst the top USL-1 teams that would then form an MLS affiliated second division, I had an epiphany. Pro/reg is not only a theoretical possibility, it is realistically possible within the current MLS structure.
The rumored mutiny is at the heart of this whole scenario. By forming a second division and gaining second division classification with FIFA, the first step is in place for promotion and relegation. Having two connected tiers of soccer instead of two leagues competing to be the official first division designation allows for the teams to know where the stand. No longer will there be any arguing as to where a team stands on the pyramid.
The other lynchpin in this whole scenario is something MLS already has: a single entity ownership model. MLS’ current structure protects the investments of owner-operators by sharing the profits of the other teams. A struggling team like FC Dallas is okay because Seattle props them up. This set-up essentially nullifies the heavy financial losses of being relegated because the owner never really takes the hit. Here’s how it happens.
Relegation without Relegation
My system is not relegation in the truest sense. Teams are not being kicked out of the American Premier League as they are in England, they are simply becoming athletically ineligable for a championship. This follows the model of NCAA sanctions against teams that make major rule infractions. Another NCAA comparison would be the non-BCS schools that are good enough to make the Top 25, but have no shot at a BCS at large bid because they are from too small a school. The MLS-2 teams continue to operate and play against high level clubs, but they do not have access to the MLS Cup, CONCACAF Champions League, or Superliga. Because all of the teams in MLS-2 are part of the MLS single entity structure, they never lose a dime. While they may lose some casual fans that are only interested in a championship contender, those fans can hardly be counted upon anyway.
As far as TV revenues are concerned, little changes. FSC already broadcasts an USL-1 game of the week. Change the name to MLS-2 and we’re all set to go. Again, all of the TV money goes into a pool anyway, so the owners never lose their slice of pie. The same goes for MLS Direct Kick and Match Center. If anything, all you are doing is adding more games to the line-up to add value to the consumer.
Adding More Playoff Games
If there is one thing American sports fans crave, it’s playoffs. My relegation system adds more playoffs. To minimize any potential fan loss, only one team is relegated each year. I have an alternate plan that uses two (one per conference), but one seems to be the safer bet for adoption. Adding more playoffs gives the league additional revenue from ticket sales. It also gives poor performing teams a chance to recover from poor ticket sales because of the theoretically higher attendance for both playoffs and relegation battles.
The two teams with the fewest points face off after the season is over in a home and away playoff series. The loser of the series is relegated to MLS-2. In MLS-2, the two teams with the most points at the end of the season also play a home and away series to determine who gets promoted. As the league expands to include more teams in MLS-2, a Mexican style playoff system of the top four (or six, or eight) teams fight it out for the MLS-2 Championship, again with the MLS-2 champion gaining promotion to MLS-1.
This would also work with a single table, but it is not necessary for this plan to be put into action.
Solving the Expansion Issue
One of the other contentious issues in MLS right now is the expansion problem. While this system does not transition to the open league model, it does make expansion much easier. The size of MLS-1 remains constant in my plan. I cap it at 20 teams. Another post will lay out an example to see everything in action. MLS-2 however can be open to expansion. If it gets too big (which I don’t foresee happening any time soon), a third tier, MLS-3 could be created. In that event, I would cap MLS-2 at 30 teams.
What this does for expansion fees is important. The fee price, at least initially, would be lowered to allow smaller markets to join the league. Part of the reason for lowering the fee is because expansion teams will start automatically in MLS-2. Since most expansion teams in any sport rarely make the playoffs, let alone contend for a championship, this shouldn’t be an issue. The soccer specific stadium issue could also be nullified for expansion by allowing a team to enter into MLS-2 without one, but requiring it for promotion to MLS-1. The only alternative option would be a situation like Seattle, where the team profits from the stadium relationship. Situations like DC’s at RFK would be prevented for new teams.
Example Season
This post simply outlines my relegation system. To do it justice, I’m putting together a full season mock-up that will be posted in an hour or so. Until then, feel free to comment.
Continue to the season example…
I posted about this a while back – very similar ideas…. http://henry5boston.blogspot.com/2006/03/relegation-and-expansion-my.html
I like the idea of an promotion fee. I had considered it myself but worried that teams would claim it unfair, especially if they are already part of the single entity system. It makes sense though, because it basically takes the expansion fee and spreads it out over time.
The big issue though is $$. And that has less to do with pro/rel (although the harder it gets for a team to be relegated the better) and more to do with changes to the MLS business structure. Creating MLS-2 would likely create a second class of shareholders (“Class B”) who’s shares are valued less and would not be entitled to the same dividend structure (portion of shared revenue) as “Class A” shareholders. But, under certain circumstances, Class B shareholders could convert their shares into Class A stock. Since the expansion fee would be less for MLS-2 one of the conversion factors would be a time component (say the number of years it would take an MLS-2 expansion fee at 6% interest to be equal to the MLS-1 expansion fee a the time of the MLS-2 team’s entry). Such a conversion criteria is what is important to the owners and doesn’t have to directly relate to pro/rel at all.
Basically the point to my example is that soccer fans in this country get tied up in the financial implications of an English style pro/rel system, when under the single entity, $$ and pro/rel don’t need to be so intertwined. Sure, some revenues of a team not shared by all the owners would go down if a team was relegated, but it would be significantly less than in the English model and be offset by the greater pool of shared revenue provided by the MLS-2 clubs.
Of course current MLS owners would still attempt to minimize the risk of such financial losses due to relegation, so I suspect we would end up with slightly convoluted pro/rel system, like a mix of the Dutch and Mexican systems. So teams facing relegation would be chosen based on several seasons of poor performance but they would still get to stave off relegation by facing the potential promotion team in a deciding home and away series.
I like the idea of a final playoff between the relegation team and the promotion team.
As far as the second class part of your comment, my plan would ensure that doesn’t happen.