If there's significant litigation, MLS has the deeper pockets. USSF wouldn't stand much chance. So, what can the Federation do? If they try to strip MLS of D1 sanctioning, then deep pockets come into play again.
I think their best bet is to really push USL forward. Schedule more National team games in USL venues, for example. Or neutral sites. Reward those markets. Tolerate MLS, without blatantly working against them. Just avoid working FOR them. Shine as much light as possible on the rest of the quality soccer that exists in this country.
Rules are only valuable --or meaningful-- if enforced. Who shall do the enforcing of the Rules here? Absent a clearly defined enforcer (*), the only recourse would be to take it to the courts (legal system, litigation)..... who has the sufficiently deep pockets and will to pursue that?
If there's significant litigation, MLS has the deeper pockets. USSF wouldn't stand much chance. So, what can the Federation do? If they try to strip MLS of D1 sanctioning, then deep pockets come into play again.
I think their best bet is to really push USL forward. Schedule more National team games in USL venues, for example. Or neutral sites. Reward those markets. Tolerate MLS, without blatantly working against them. Just avoid working FOR them. Shine as much light as possible on the rest of the quality soccer that exists in this country.
Rules are only valuable --or meaningful-- if enforced. Who shall do the enforcing of the Rules here? Absent a clearly defined enforcer (*), the only recourse would be to take it to the courts (legal system, litigation)..... who has the sufficiently deep pockets and will to pursue that?
(*) Who is the judge, jury, and executioner?