Could changes be coming to the PLS in time for the 2028 launch of USL D1?
Discussions of potential revisions are underway
The Pro League Standards (PLS) was the primary subject of the North American Soccer League (NASL) antitrust lawsuit against US Soccer (USSF) and Major League Soccer (MLS).
Despite prevailing in court, our understanding is that the USSF is very open to changes to PLS that will facilitate growth in the professional game domestically.
Following USL’s D1 announcement earlier this year (USL announced its intentions to form a D1 days after the NASL v USSF/MLS antitrust suit was decided in court) the league and the USSF began discussing the future of the PLS. Obviously the current framework, which was alleged by NASL to favor MLS needs some tweaking in spite of the failed antitrust suit.
My understanding is conversations are ongoing about the following changes:
The PLS requirement of a minimum stadium size of 15,000 for Division One is under review. I’d expect some changes here. Perhaps 12,500 or even 10,000 would work for a new D1 requirement.
The requirement that all stadiums be “enclosed” might be done away with completely (truthfully I had no idea this requirement existed until I was gathering information for this piece).
Requirements for the size of metropolitan areas might be made more flexible. So for example there might be the allowance of a greater “catchment” areas or broader media markets to count. I am not sure how this would work but I am told it is a point of discussion that could lead to potential reform.
Coaching requirements will became stronger and no waivers will be issued. Basically if your Head Coach does not have an “A” license or higher and Assistants a “B” license or higher, you will no longer get a waiver unless the coach in question is actively enrolled in classes to get the appropriate license. This is being done to strengthen the technical direction in the US pro leagues but unfortunately IMO might lead to an increase in foreign coaches that have the licenses already rather than Americans. I am told this could go into effect as early as next year.
Potentially raising the D3 men’s PLS standards to match current USL L1 standards is in the cards. The light requirements for the PLS at the D3 level is how NISA skated by with provisional sanctioning for five years.
The following areas are NOT under discussion for change:
The time zone requirement. This makes no sense to me as this is the most obvious silly regulation there is. And the continued presence of it prevents truly regional professional leagues from springing up and being sanctioned.
No movement toward something related to allowing supporter or member-owned clubs to be in the professional ranks. So this means USL is likely to continue forward with its current ownership model which is partly based on real estate transactions.
All of these conversations are at an early stage and we will keep everyone posted as developments warrant.
The time zone requirement is truly idiotic. The sport would be better served to just drop that one thing, and let a couple of competitive regional D3 leagues pop up
"Potentially raising the D3 men’s PLS standards to match current USL L1 standards is in the cards. The light requirements for the PLS at the D3 level is how NISA skated by with provisional sanctioning for five years."
This portion is likely focused at mandating that any proper D3 pro clubs must have control or ownership of their own soccer specific stadium (SSS), the lack of which has undone too many lower league clubs to remember as well as fueling destructive SoccerWarz! However, the D3 PLS standards for the SSS will likely be 5000 seats. In other words, the current norm for USL League One!
Another interesting point is that the MLS doesn't seem to be involved in these discussions between US Soccer and the USL? I wonder what will happen to MLSNP with the revised PLS? AFAIK, many of the current MLSNP don't have their own SSS or piggyback on MLS first team facilities? Will a PLS waiver be granted to those MLSNP clubs or this will kill off most of the few remaining MLSNP independents?