I will go to my grave saying this: every national lower division needs to look at the ECHL's national model and find a way to use it. National in structure, regional in play (with the odd road trip).
USL L 1 one should’ve always had an under 23 focus and obviously was sold to many of the clubs that started the first or second year as a regional league with reduced travel costs.
When you consider the inaccessibility of some of the cities or towns that have clubs, currently travel costs in many ways could spiral out of control greater than they do in the USL C.
It seems that USL L1 has evolved into a "proving ground" for teams that can ultimately ascend to the USL-C, such as Union Omada and Lexington? That success and popularity while in USL L1 draws in sufficient investors and community and political buy-in to build a soccer-specific stadium of 10-15K seats that is required for USL-C?
I think another option would be a rebate plan for the league fees, as opposed to lowering them up front. At the end of their third seesson, the get a $750 rebate, and at the end of the fourth $1M. It's a carrot to hold out there to improve longevity.
As far as players, I think some dramatic shifts are coming. The player development landscape in the US has grown and increased quality massively over the past 5+ years. So MANY more USL2, NPSL, regional, UPSL, etc clubs out there. And the quality of play, fan experience has gotten better and better. There are also more pro teams than ever, but the true catalyst (IMO) has been NextPro. NP created a ton of opportunities for young players to become pro, and NextPro also has a short runway. If someone doesn't make it higher in 2-3 seasons, they're being set adrift. Some of those players are finding homes in USLC and USL1. But that's also driving some older players to be dropped, or having trouble landing.
Hamid is a poster child for this. Over the past 24 months, he's played for Memphis 901, Maryland Bobcats, and finished the Fall with a UPSL team. Players like him, who may be fsding in their careers, are going to "fall" to USL1 more often, at USL1 salaries. They're not going to have the opportunities with NextPro. So, I do believe USL1 clubs need to get salary costs down, but I think there's a glut of players building up that will allow higher quality, and not just be reliant on churning young players.
IMHO, as a fan and spectator, a positive for USL1 is the independence of the teams. Watching a game between minor league farm teams never feels like a real competition. While the players might be competing for professional survival, the parent organizations are trying accomplish goals that have nothing to do with the farm team’s success. A season long campaign looks like nothing more than cumulative scrimmage results. Genuine competition is more compelling even if it’s not always more marketable.
This league really needs pro/rel. as long as all league one stadiums can seat 5000 people the PLS is covered. USL needs to share revenue with League One and/or find sponsors that are specifically for League One. I like League One but find the title game pointless if the team cant be promoted. More like the season champ can't be promoted...
The revenue is already shared evenly among the USL teams. For pro/rel to work, L1’s money share has to be less then that of C, or there’s no incentive to win.
From what I’ve been told, the deals with ESPN/CBS are shared evenly among the pro teams with USL or they at the very least get a cut of it but it’s equal to all teams regardless if they are C or L1
Calum & Alex: we are grateful for your fantastic content throughout the year!
Regarding the Expansion Fee: you neglect that it is a filter to weed out the frauds, the incompetents, or the timid --those bad actors that have plagued lower league soccer for decades (and still plague the NISA/ NPSL?? -haha). Furthermore, it is likely "negotiable" or "can be financed", so that the entire Franchise Fee doesn't have to be paid all at once, and can be a portion of future ticket and merch sales, or a promissory note from reputable capital sources or accredited investors. All the latter is also more likely when the soccer-specific stadium situation is stable and ensured for many years. If an investor group can raise $50-100 million to build that stadium, then $5 million is likewise not a big deal. If instead, you are groveling to rent random college and high school stadiums, yeah, you don't belong.
Regarding the focus on the USL Championship & Super League: that is essential to challenge the hegemony of the MLS and NWSL --and ultimately, the future rise and survival of the entire USL ecosystem. Consequently, the best financed. most popular, and revenue drawing USL-League One teams owning their own soccer-specific stadiums will inevitably be drawn up to the ever growing USL-C so that the latter can further grow and ultimately apply for Division 1 status.
I’m of the belief that lowered cost will not affect the USL’s current method for confirming/vetting an ownership group, but I understand your concern. Lowered cost would also not equal high school/college stadiums.
Agreed, which is why the Championship will stay more promoted, but League One should also be promoted as its own successful initiative to build a base for the third division.
Rosters throughout the USL-L1 and ultimately entire ecosystem will pivot younger and more domestic (U.S.-raised or trained) due to the factors DfromBham mentioned. Last but not least, the USL Super League will be almost entirely domestic players (because the bulk of the best female players are American and there are fewer opportunities for women to play abroad).
Some good solutions offered in the article about sustainability for USL-1.
USL-1 should definitely be regionalized (no brainer!)
However, each isolated entity USL-1, MLSNP, and (to a lesser extent NISA) vying for “pro” franchises doesn’t and will just not cut it in U.S. Professional Soccer (infighting is as old as time - since ASL vs. USSF a century ago).
Therefore, there should not be professional soccer at 3rd Tier (PLS reform urgent!) rather it should be semi-pro due to the continuation of folding teams (including some relocations) year after year for decades.
Some top footballing nations do not even have a pro 3rd Tier like Spain and France. Their 3rd Tier are operated by their federation though in France there are a few licensed pro teams in the “Championnat National.”
I don’t think the league has a structural issue, I think there needs to be some sort of revenue sharing in USL, this will help offset the travel cost. I think the league will have learned from NoCo on proper ownership vetting and prevent that from happening again
I will go to my grave saying this: every national lower division needs to look at the ECHL's national model and find a way to use it. National in structure, regional in play (with the odd road trip).
USL L 1 one should’ve always had an under 23 focus and obviously was sold to many of the clubs that started the first or second year as a regional league with reduced travel costs.
When you consider the inaccessibility of some of the cities or towns that have clubs, currently travel costs in many ways could spiral out of control greater than they do in the USL C.
It seems that USL L1 has evolved into a "proving ground" for teams that can ultimately ascend to the USL-C, such as Union Omada and Lexington? That success and popularity while in USL L1 draws in sufficient investors and community and political buy-in to build a soccer-specific stadium of 10-15K seats that is required for USL-C?
I think another option would be a rebate plan for the league fees, as opposed to lowering them up front. At the end of their third seesson, the get a $750 rebate, and at the end of the fourth $1M. It's a carrot to hold out there to improve longevity.
As far as players, I think some dramatic shifts are coming. The player development landscape in the US has grown and increased quality massively over the past 5+ years. So MANY more USL2, NPSL, regional, UPSL, etc clubs out there. And the quality of play, fan experience has gotten better and better. There are also more pro teams than ever, but the true catalyst (IMO) has been NextPro. NP created a ton of opportunities for young players to become pro, and NextPro also has a short runway. If someone doesn't make it higher in 2-3 seasons, they're being set adrift. Some of those players are finding homes in USLC and USL1. But that's also driving some older players to be dropped, or having trouble landing.
Hamid is a poster child for this. Over the past 24 months, he's played for Memphis 901, Maryland Bobcats, and finished the Fall with a UPSL team. Players like him, who may be fsding in their careers, are going to "fall" to USL1 more often, at USL1 salaries. They're not going to have the opportunities with NextPro. So, I do believe USL1 clubs need to get salary costs down, but I think there's a glut of players building up that will allow higher quality, and not just be reliant on churning young players.
https://beyondthe90.substack.com/p/does-usl-league-one-have-structural/comments
IMHO, as a fan and spectator, a positive for USL1 is the independence of the teams. Watching a game between minor league farm teams never feels like a real competition. While the players might be competing for professional survival, the parent organizations are trying accomplish goals that have nothing to do with the farm team’s success. A season long campaign looks like nothing more than cumulative scrimmage results. Genuine competition is more compelling even if it’s not always more marketable.
This league really needs pro/rel. as long as all league one stadiums can seat 5000 people the PLS is covered. USL needs to share revenue with League One and/or find sponsors that are specifically for League One. I like League One but find the title game pointless if the team cant be promoted. More like the season champ can't be promoted...
The revenue is already shared evenly among the USL teams. For pro/rel to work, L1’s money share has to be less then that of C, or there’s no incentive to win.
I thought League One teams don't get money from the broadcast deal.
From what I’ve been told, the deals with ESPN/CBS are shared evenly among the pro teams with USL or they at the very least get a cut of it but it’s equal to all teams regardless if they are C or L1
To clarify, USL league office keeps the broadcast revenue, so do you mean gate ticket sales/"revenues" are shared among USL teams?
I’ve been told by multiple teams that they get a cut of the broadcast deals, it’s not solely kept by the league office
Each teams individual revenues are kept among themselves
Calum & Alex: we are grateful for your fantastic content throughout the year!
Regarding the Expansion Fee: you neglect that it is a filter to weed out the frauds, the incompetents, or the timid --those bad actors that have plagued lower league soccer for decades (and still plague the NISA/ NPSL?? -haha). Furthermore, it is likely "negotiable" or "can be financed", so that the entire Franchise Fee doesn't have to be paid all at once, and can be a portion of future ticket and merch sales, or a promissory note from reputable capital sources or accredited investors. All the latter is also more likely when the soccer-specific stadium situation is stable and ensured for many years. If an investor group can raise $50-100 million to build that stadium, then $5 million is likewise not a big deal. If instead, you are groveling to rent random college and high school stadiums, yeah, you don't belong.
Regarding the focus on the USL Championship & Super League: that is essential to challenge the hegemony of the MLS and NWSL --and ultimately, the future rise and survival of the entire USL ecosystem. Consequently, the best financed. most popular, and revenue drawing USL-League One teams owning their own soccer-specific stadiums will inevitably be drawn up to the ever growing USL-C so that the latter can further grow and ultimately apply for Division 1 status.
I’m of the belief that lowered cost will not affect the USL’s current method for confirming/vetting an ownership group, but I understand your concern. Lowered cost would also not equal high school/college stadiums.
Agreed, which is why the Championship will stay more promoted, but League One should also be promoted as its own successful initiative to build a base for the third division.
Regionalization is a must, I share this concern about the Super League as well but with Spokane on an island they don't have much of a choice.
Rosters throughout the USL-L1 and ultimately entire ecosystem will pivot younger and more domestic (U.S.-raised or trained) due to the factors DfromBham mentioned. Last but not least, the USL Super League will be almost entirely domestic players (because the bulk of the best female players are American and there are fewer opportunities for women to play abroad).
Some good solutions offered in the article about sustainability for USL-1.
USL-1 should definitely be regionalized (no brainer!)
However, each isolated entity USL-1, MLSNP, and (to a lesser extent NISA) vying for “pro” franchises doesn’t and will just not cut it in U.S. Professional Soccer (infighting is as old as time - since ASL vs. USSF a century ago).
Therefore, there should not be professional soccer at 3rd Tier (PLS reform urgent!) rather it should be semi-pro due to the continuation of folding teams (including some relocations) year after year for decades.
Some top footballing nations do not even have a pro 3rd Tier like Spain and France. Their 3rd Tier are operated by their federation though in France there are a few licensed pro teams in the “Championnat National.”
I don’t think the league has a structural issue, I think there needs to be some sort of revenue sharing in USL, this will help offset the travel cost. I think the league will have learned from NoCo on proper ownership vetting and prevent that from happening again