Before truly beginning, I would just like to introduce myself with a few sentences. My name is J.T. Dulany, I'm 21 years old, and I am a political science major at Loyola University Maryland. I am a massive soccer fan, and I think that all US clubs should have the same independence and chances that any other club in most of the world has: to rise from obscurity to become a top division club. I played soccer only for 2 years, but that has never stopped me from having an opinion on the beautiful game.
I would like to submit to you my arguments for promotion/relegation in US Soccer, not just with(out?) MLS. My first argument is that without pro/rel, there is little to no motivation for teams to finish in the bottom of their divisions. The key example is Sunderland last season: they worked their tails off to become only the second club in the history of the Barclays Premier League to survive the threat of relegation after being last on Boxing Day. I contend that without pro/rel, Sunderland would have just tanked the season for rebuilding purposes.
My second argument is that without pro/rel, the only way you can even face an opponent in a different division as you would be in the cup competitions. The NASL has taken the US Open Cup seriously since their relaunch, and it has produced some MLS "giant killings" in the competition. In other countries with pro/rel, you could face those other teams in the different divisions in the coming years after promotions or relegations.
My third argument is that the United States is not the "land of opportunity" for all in terms of soccer without pro/rel. We as a country are founded on the principles of equal opportunity and a free market for all. Without pro/rel in US soccer, the US Soccer Federation is exercising the exact opposite principles: an oligarchy(or "caste system", as noted soccer personality Ted Westervelt has coined it) and a monopolistic market on top division clubs perpetrated by MLS to stymie lower-division clubs from being able to achieve the heights that they dream are possible. My local team, the Baltimore Bohemians, play in the USL PDL's Mid-Atlantic Conference, and they operate as a college summer league team, recruiting from (mostly) Baltimore-area colleges to field their team. I watched them play in their 2014 US Open Cup game against the USL Pro's Harrisburg City Islanders, and the supporters group told me that that game was a throwaway game due to the lack of possibility of winning it, and the ability to focus on the PDL (in which they failed miserably in the 2014 season). To me, that's a team running scared of other competition and the possibility of playing higher competition. (The winner advanced to play the Philadelphia Union of MLS at PPL Park.) From my observations of watching the game, the Bohs looked outclassed on the field, but they had a tremendous fighting spirit in them. If we had pro/rel, the Bohs would have competed in the 2013 PDL National Championship playoffs where they could have been promoted to the USL Pro. ZI understand the counter-arguments, and my answer is this: If MLS does not want to join in the pro/rel system, they can continue operating as they are, side-by-side with a pro/rel system, and we'll see how that goes. We have 200+ clubs in US soccer that could be ready for pro/rel right now if implemented, so why not now? The only thing standing in certain clubs' way is the financial aspect. My solution: Let each club find its healthy level of interest and fight to stay there. If they get promoted, great! If not, that's fine too. Let clubs be independent of one another and of a restrictive league such as MLS.
(Note: I'll give my thoughts on Don Garber's press conference at a later date.)
No comments:
Post a Comment