What Happened with the Maryland Bobcats? Will NISA exist in 2025? League Commissioner John Prutch Answers
Part 1 of our 4-part interview with the NISA Commissioner touches on the league’s future, what happened to get the Bobcats kicked out of the playoffs, and how the league manages club exits.
Calum: Recently, Kartik and I were granted the opportunity to interview Commissioner John Prutch of NISA and were able to ask him the most important questions looming over the league as a whole. We want to thank NISA for their time and cooperation with these interviews.
The interview you see below is Part 1 of a 4-part series that we have decided to divide the interview into. Part 1 below relates to the league’s future, the Maryland Bobcats situation, and how the league has managed club exits in the past. The other parts include the following:
Part 2: Georgia FC and Savannah Clovers Ownership Situations, Club de Lyon’s Stadium Problems/Club Future
Part 3: Arizona Monsoon Failure, Capo FC Forfiets/Ownership Structure, League Expansion/Returning Clubs
Part 4: LA Force Owner Bob Friedland’s Power over NISA
These parts will be released over the next few days. In the meantime, here is Part 1 of BT90’s exclusive interview with Commissioner Prutch.
BT 90 (Calum): Does NISA have plans to continue operations in 2025? This is mainly because of the financial issues that have been reported with multiple clubs around the league, and reporting by our Mike Steenstra relating to the Bobcats that has also shown slight breaches in the Pro League Standards (PLS) by the league.
These breaches include media issues. They include Section E, team organization, with a lack of certain front office positions for different clubs, and a permanent stadium, related to Club de Lyon rumors of their stadium situations. There’s Section Six, governing the Division Three Men's Outdoor League, which talks about financial viability and says each team ownership group must demonstrate the financial capacity to operate the team for three years.
As we've seen clubs come and go in this league, there is a worry that the league doesn't meet those standards. And so with all these worries and the team/financial problems that we're gonna address later, will the league exist next year?
Commissioner Prutch: The short answer is yes. We have a number of new applicants that have come in. We're in the process of due diligence on them. We've asked two of those clubs so far to wait until 26’, but to answer your question directly, yes, we will play in 25’.
BT 90 (Kartik): So you've had clubs exit the league, right, and have to pay exit fees. So Oakland, Chattanooga, Detroit, Flower City. What is the procedure now going forward?
Because it's pretty clear Maryland, from all the reporting Calum and I have done, and Mike has done, wants to leave the league. And it seemed to be potentially in the process with a new investor that they brought in.
And obviously then maybe we get into the question of them changing owners. Maybe that has something to do with your explanation for what's happened with that club. But what is the process? For them to leave the league at this point, especially since you and you are saying that they're not in compliance with the Federation standards, presumably the PLS.
Commissioner Prutch: Yes, so Kartik, all of our clubs are part of an LLC agreement. All of our clubs are partners with each other in that LLC agreement. The operating agreement which manages that LLC is very specific about exit and the amount of time and notice, the costs, et cetera.
And we, right now I would tell you that the clubs that you mentioned exited the appropriate way, including Cal United that you did not mention. Cal United, and I don't want to get into the specifics, but there are three ways to exit the league and Cal United exercised one of those options.
But I would tell you that our operating agreement has been tested in the court and has prevailed. And so Maryland is still under those obligations.
BT90 (Calum): We'd like to continue with the Bobcats' discussion. I'm going to read a piece from our friends at Protagonist Soccer relating to what may have happened that hopefully we can clear up now between the league and the Bobcats, and I'd love to hear your side. So the piece says:
“According to this person, the club had been promised investors multiple times by the league, but none of those investors ever came to the table with offers that fit the financial needs of the club. Local investors the team approached have been reluctant to invest as long as the club remains in NISA. Entering this season, the Bobcats did not have the financial backing to get through the season after the exit of an original club investor. When the league was notified of this issue, according to the source, the league offered several means of help. The Bobcats would not have to pay league dues and a lump sum of money was offered to shore up the team’s position. According to this source, that money never materialized and the club was forced to make some incredibly hard decisions, including the decision to not pay the required performance bond. However, the team always made good on making payroll. Not paying the players what was promised was never an option.
During the summer, the league reached out to the club, demanding that the team pay both the performance bond and the club’s league fees. According to the club source, that combined amount was almost half a million dollars and the club did not have the means to pay.”
This aligns with our reporting by both me, Kartik, and Mike Steenstra, who runs the Rooster and the Villan podcast with Maryland. So, first I want to ask, is that accurate? And second, it is not, we would like to hear your side about what happened from the league’s side.
Commissioner Prutch: It is extremely frustrating when people go to market with anonymous, well -connected sources or whatever it might be, and it's very frustrating for me.
So that operating agreement that I referred to in the off season last year, we knew that we were having some issues with clubs not living and complying, both with NISA and US Soccer. And so we passed a financial fair play, which included penalties (for clubs).
It was approved unanimously, including by the Bobcats. And those financial fair play rules, you've seen in effect across the league this year, in forfeits, in fines, et cetera. What we do, we now have leverage over the clubs to get them to perform.
So let's look at the Bobcats specifically. The Bobcats have not paid the league dues for two years. Two years. They haven't paid for a ref. They haven't paid for their technology and their broadcasts. They haven't paid for personnel. They haven't paid for the dues that the league has to pay US Soccer. On top of that, they did not put in a performance bond. They applied for one, got approved for one, but did not sign it.
That is a violation of US Soccer rules, as you know. And so, here we are. And then in June, and I would say maybe late June, early July, we started having discussions with them about getting into compliance.
And those conversations didn't get us the result we wanted. And they knew from June on, I would say July on, what the penalties could be because they were laid out in their financial fair play. And so then two weeks ago or so, I decided on my own to give them an offer, an easy way to comply.
They refused. So they left us with no choice but the decision we made.. And so I think we have clubs all the time, ask us, do you know of an investor, blah, blah, blah. We do, and we make introductions.
But it's up to them to make sure that that investor fits them in what they want to do. So that said, we did make an introduction. That's also said, it never materialized. And I don't know if it was because of investor or if it was because of the club or a combination.
BT90 (Kartik): Thank you, sir. Commissioner, last year, I believe Maryland had their financial statements audited by the US Soccer Federation. If they weren't in compliance then, which was implied by the audit, why did it take this long for you to take action?
And then the second part of that would be, why does the Federation never enforce its own standards? Why is it left to you to enforce them?
Commissioner Prutch: Well, on the last question, I'd like to know the answer to that, too.
I can't answer for US Soccer and why they do what they do, right? But I will tell you that it wasn't an audit. It was a review.
And so, they came back with certain compliance issues. on various clubs that had to get fixed. It's obvious what needed to be fixed with Maryland, right? And by the way, let me explain one other thing.
The bond, I don't know where people get this. A performance bond is just that. It costs between about $2,500 and $3,000 for the bond. All it says is that you're guaranteed to pay your players and pay your staff and to pay other expenses for the club.
It is not $250,000 in cash.
BT 90 (Calum): I'm sorry to interrupt. I believe the $250,000 is what it says in the Pro League Standards for Division Three. We do not know if that's been changed, but on the US Soccer website, it is not.
Commissioner Prutch: It says, what, a performance bond? It says that the performance bond comes, reaches an amount of $250,000. That's correct. But a performance bond is not cash. It's a bond. It costs like $2,500 or $3,000 to purchase the bond.
The bond is now guaranteed that they will live up to what they're supposed to live up to. And so, when people go out in the market and say, “Well, geez, they tried to make us put all this money up”, that is not true.
BT90 (Kartik): They need a letter of credit, correct?
Commissioner Prutch: No, it's not even like a letter of credit. It's just a bond from an insurance company. For all of our clubs, it's a fairly straightforward process. Maryland was approved for it, but they decided not to sign it.
COMMENTARY: OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT A LETTER OF CREDIT IS SOMETHING REQUIRED IN USL.
Interesting to hear Commissioner Prutch's side of the story. Thanks for bringing it to us.
This is fascinating, and I look forward to the rest of the interview.