On Indy Eleven and some of the misunderstandings regarding "competition" in a closed system governed by the PLS
We look at some of the arguments of MLS proponents
I’ve tried to take a balanced, nuanced view on the current situation in Indianapolis, but on social media I find myself caught in the crossfire - on one hand you have anti-MLSers that have rallied behind USL’s Indy Eleven and on the other hand proponents of MLS who are resorting to all sorts of disingenuous arguments to defend their position.
In the long period of time I have discussed market conditions and the US Soccer Pro League Standards (PLS) no single debate has clarified the issue more than the current situation in Indianapolis, where MLS is now appears to be actively seeking to put a club of its own (which is not Indy Eleven).
This isn’t whataboutism, because one side is clearly resorting to more bizarre (and selective) defenses than the other. Yes some arguments made by PRO/REL proponents deserve pushback in this matter but we are not addressing them today. Because quite frankly they are not as disconnected from reality as the arguments I see on the other side.
Let me answer some of them here without the hysteria of Twitter reply threads.
“Indy Eleven and USL do not want to compete.”
I’m all for the free market and market-based competition. I am not for one league system being anointed over another by arbitrary means. This is what makes the existing Pro League Standards (PLS) so damaging and dangerous. It is impossible for USL’s top men’s league, The Championship to truly “compete” with MLS as a Division 2 while MLS has been arbitrarily assigned Division 1 status within a closed system. This gives MLS the advantage over USL in getting sponsors, TV deals (although that advantage has recently been negated due to MLS’ own decision making), and getting favors from local governments.
If we had an open system of linked-leagues whether by virtue of PRO/REL or some form of solidarity where money automatically went down the pyramid I would be less concerned about arbitrary divisional designations. But we don’t have that. Currently it’s just like the eminent political scientist V.O. Key described my home state of Florida in 1949 - while everyone was a Democrat in state politics (at the time, Florida was basically a 70-30 state for the Dems, that would change dramatically in the 1950’s), it truly was a free for all with “every man for himself.” While ostensibly everyone in this system is interested in soccer, it is every league and league system for themselves.
The idea of collectivism and solidarity (a key organizing principle of the game) doesn’t exist in the United States in the manner it should.
“MLS invests in soccer, USL does not.”
This narrative that I am seeing a fair amount on Twitter is unbelievable.
Yes MLS as a league invests a lot more money than USL for a few reasons:
MLS was initially subsidized by surplus profits from the 1994 FIFA World Cup which was held in the US
From 1996 to 2003, MLS was effectively in a mode where they relied on money coming from the Federation every year.
From 2004 to 2022, MLS was heavily dependent on money from Soccer United Marketing that included profits made off of the sale of media rights and commercial properties related to the US Soccer Federation (USSF), meaning this was effectively a subsidy. In fact the relationship was so one-sided that USSF often sweated waiting for their check from SUM to come in each year to balance the books.
MLS as a single-entity league operates differently than USL which is a franchise-based league. Of course a single-entity league DIRECTLY invests while a franchise-based league leaves it to their clubs to do so. This is just a logical understanding of the differences between the two business structures. That’s not to say USL hasn’t made some key investments in the game as a league. In fact USL poured millions of dollars into building a production arm for media purposes SEVEN YEARS before MLS did the same (2016 vs 2023). And this was done despite the obvious disadvantages USL has had in the market given the PLS.
One caveat…
In fairness from 1998 to 2000 and from 2013 to 2021, MLS did put money into USL in the form of investment in second teams in the league and offsetting salaries of some players on affiliate clubs (for example Forward Madison was an affiliate for Minnesota United and had five salary player offsets per season from 2019 to 2021).
But here is where this breaks down with Indianapolis specifically:
Indy Eleven, which launched in January 2013 as an NASL club (I was the press officer for the league at the time and was at the opening press event in Indianapolis which was attended by many leading citizens of the state including then-Governor Mike Pence) has invested tens of millions of dollars in the community. They have a championship-winning women’s team, they built out an academy and reserve structure before many teams in MLS even did so, and have done it with smart and timely investment from primary owner Ersal Ozdemir.
Indy Eleven moved to USL in 2018.
Ozdemir himself is a developer and his company Keystone is at the heart of the stadium debate in Indianapolis. Whatever you think of his politics and business (and trust me, I don’t particularly love it) there can be no debate that he’s backed his club with an incredible amount of personal financial and emotional investment.
So what’s wrong with all of this?
As noted above, I am all for fair market competition. But many MLS fans are now taking the mantra that somehow everyone should move over for them when they move into a market because their product is inherently “better” and comes with “more investment.”
Because we have a closed-system and do not practice solidarity between league systems, any effort by MLS to attack a USL market without including the current club or ownership in the process is a predatory action.
While capitalism is inherently filled with predatory behavior, it’s not filled with fake competitions based on a government or governing body assigning arbitrary tiers to the competing business. That is what has happened here.
It’s all the more ironic because no league in the world has the control mechanisms of MLS within its structure to either stifle or stimulate internal competition depending on your perspective. MLS’ structure has as recently as today been called “communism". I don’t want to get into the single-entity debate and whether it constitutes modern business Marxism here but do want to stress that the single-entity of MLS has been given a market preference by regulators (the USSF) over smaller locally-based clubs in the men's game. This part is undeniable.
This is exactly why NASL filed its lawsuit against the USSF and MLS in 2017, a lawsuit which will have its day in court this September.
And reason 4076 why me and the most of the US don’t give a crap about USSF and the state of soccer in the US. It’s way too much of an effort to care about what league or level “your” team is in. Give me a simple format for all levels and I will come back. Hell I might even start a club.
Indy native and Indy XI supporter here. I would not “just switch to the MLS team” if this situation ends with the death of the Indy XI. That’s not how supporting a club works. If the MLS model relies on killing a fan-favorite club to enter the Indy market, that’s not a model I have any interest in.
None of the USSF, MLS, or USL are innocent in this, of course, but that’s not the point. In this instance, the MLS is the one creating an issue. In a time where more eyes are on the sport in the US than ever before, as well. And between the Open Cup disaster and all of this underhanded stuff, the sport and the supporters deserve better than the systems we have.