Recently MLS fans and some media members have taken to criticizing USL as a league propped up by MLS via its investment in reserve squads that played in the USL league structure.
As someone who worked in the NASL, I’m well aware of this, because it was effectively an effort by MLS to put NASL out of business which they were successful at doing. Using USL as the repository both for MLS reserve sides as well as for independent lower division clubs who were dissatisfied with NASL worked out well for MLS and USL at the time. And perhaps NASL should have taken the same deal when offered to them, but that’s a conversation for another time.
However today, in 2024, it’s plainly obvious that MLS sees USL in much the same way as they saw NASL ten years ago. As a potential competitor in the market that has to be weakened or dismembered entirely.
This isn’t a fair fight - MLS proponents have said to me, nothing is stopping USL from having a Division One league, having their owners invest more, and having the ability to attract bigger sponsors and deeper-pocketed investors. USL can “build a better mousetrap” we’re told.
That argument is a red herring. And it applies both on the men’s and women’s side. USL was just granted Division 1 status for its Women’s Super League. But that designation in no way puts on a level playing surface with NWSL.
MLS and NWSL are like companies once nationalized that when privatized have all sorts of market advantages over competitors
In socialist (note I said socialist, not communist) countries you have companies where the government is the largest shareholder. Eventually governments sell off their shares and privatize these companies. But often those companies retain a huge market advantage over upstart competitors.
Let’s use the example of British Airways. Once owned by the UK government, and privatized in the Thatcher years. Yet they had a huge market advantage over the private competitors specifically in the case of BA, It was Sir Freddie Laker’s airline Laker SkyTrain and later Richard Branson’s Virgin Atlantic. Within Europe their major competitor was British Midland, an airline they eventually gobbled up. As a result of having been once nationalized, and subsidized they had huge market advantages.
On top of that they still got all the favors from the government particularly Tory governments. British Airways was able to use its influence with the British government to block US airlines from competing effectively with it on US-UK routes for a full 20 years after they were made private.
There are plenty of other examples of this in countries like the UK, France, Netherlands, India, Germany, etc.
MLS itself was subsidized for years first directly by the federation (1994 World Cup money plus injections of cash between 1996 and 1999), and then more recently through the SUM/USSF deal (2005-2022), which didn’t benefit any other men’s league in this country. MLS was able to leverage the popularity of the men’s and women’s US national teams to get media deals and sponsorships while USL, NASL and every adult amateur league had to fend for themselves.
So MLS is no different than a company in a country that had once been nationalized. This is the situation still with MLS is getting favors from the US Soccer Federation, the governing body in this instance, who once was effectively a business partner with MLS. They have never been a business partner with USL. Sure MLS and USL were business partners in a sense, but for a far shorter time and with less cash involved.
Now consider NWSL’s longstanding ties directly to the USSF that not only subsidized the league, but directly paid the salaries of some of its biggest stars and paid for the league’s operations for many years. They also had direct ties to the scandals that engulfed that league for many years.
USL Super League being granted division one status by the USSF does not automatically level the playing field on the women’s side. NWSL has huge market advantages based on not only being first, but being propped up for years by USSF.
NWSL began being subsidized by USSF during the Federations centennial year celebrations
Bottom Line
No one is arguing that investing in MLS or NWSL was bad for soccer. On the contrary, thank goodness the initial investments were made in both leagues. However, one could argue as I often have that the USSF-SUM marketing deal was in fact not only a subsidy but prejudiced the USSF as an independent regulatory body toward MLS and against any MLS opponent (previously NASL, now USL).
So this is not really a fair fight.
Was not SUM beneficial to both the USSF and the MLS. So, how was that a subsidy?
The USSF was always weak. Look how many rules the original NASL broke or made up.
The USSF needs to show they are in fact a governing body, not a rubber stamp.
British Airways analogy perfect
That makes USL a struggling Virgin Atlantic .