Good News from US Soccer to Start the New Year
US Soccer continuing to work with NASL and USL to help them find resolution in 7-day interim
My initial response to the decision on Wednesday by USSF to not sanction either league (NASL or USL) was knee jerk. I admit I made a few Twitter comments that were not very complimentary of the leadership of US Soccer. I reacted out of frustration that when 2010 rolls around we still won’t know who will be sanctioned by the USSF for Division II soccer in North America. Gauging from tweets, blog posts and comments on discussion boards and blogs, I know I wasn’t alone. I think we all believe that as interesting as this story has been in 2009, it’s time to put it to bed for 2010.
IMS now believes that US Soccer is not dropping their interest in 2nd division soccer. Instead I believe they are very concerned about the league that is sanctioned, not looking just at 2010, but beyond.
U.S. Soccer’s objective is to help the USL and NASL come to a resolution for the 2010 season and is committed to playing a role in discussions between the organizations.
Neil Buethe – US Soccer
IMS spent a good deal of time contacting individuals from both sides of the issue on Wednesday after the press statement. I also talked to a player agent as well as US Soccer to get a feel of what everyone was thinking. The most important point made by several parties was that team owners have too much money invested in these organizations not to play a season in 2010. Although it’s not guaranteed, it is most likely that something will be worked out one way or another. IMS believes this is exactly why US Soccer decided to force the issue by going public with their decision and putting pressure on both sides to finally get this thing figured out.
In talking to US Soccer again today, they stated their intent to do everything possible to make sure that some sort of resolution is worked out amongst the two sides. The statement released yesterday by US Soccer said, “Despite the ruling, the U.S. Soccer Board of Directors has given both organizations seven days to try to work out an interim solution for the 2010 season.”
“U.S. Soccer’s objective is to help the USL and NASL come to a resolution for the 2010 season and is committed to playing a role in discussions between the organizations,” said Senior Manager of Communications Neil Buethe on Thursday afternoon. “Throughout this entire process we’ve already had numerous discussions with both organizations, and future meetings have been set in the next few days.”
Buethe told IMS that both Dan Flynn and Sunil Gulati met with the USL and NASL officials on Thursday and will continue to meet with the sides to help them find resolution. Buethe also stated that there had been many meetings over the last several months between US Soccer, NASL and USL.
The US Soccer spokesperson also stated that USSF is not just looking at how many teams each league has, but how sustainable they may be. “The most important objective is figuring out a solution so there is a Division II soccer league that can last for the foreseeable future,” stated Buethe. “That is exactly why the board decided not to sanction either league. There are still a number of aspects of each organization’s application that are unanswered, and a decision of this magnitude is too important to make without the full assurance that either league is sustainable.”
With this knowledge, I think we can move into 2010 knowing that US Soccer is doing everything possible to make sure Division II soccer has a future in North America.
Comments are closed.
If USSF believes in any way their statement suggested they were committed to helping “USL and NASL come to a resolution” then they have finally lost the plot! Not only is this not possible, but their statement said the exact opposite! Backing neither league and giving two parties who are worlds apart seven days (of which three are over a holiday weekend – nice touch Sunil!) to sort the situation out the USSF doesn’t have the nuts to attempt is beyond a joke.
Here is the solution to the crisis. 1. Gulati should resign! He is too invested in MLS to be a viable leader for USSF. Anyone else involved directly with MLS should walk out the door with him (yes Garber, we’re looking at you)! 2. USSF needs to grow a pair, show some leadership, and sanction a league. My choice is NASL, but if it’s USL then so be it (that’s how pissed off they’ve made me, I now hate someone more than USL)! 3. USSF needs to restructure it’s rules so that its leadership is free from those who have agenda beyond strengthening soccer for EVERYONE, not just MLS.
Sort yourselves out you morons!
Happy New Year to you also Nick.
Nice to see something positive after two days of negatives…
I’ll admit I have been one-sided on the issue and refused to look at the bigger picture. USSF made a good decision not to choose sides and I realized having both parties come to an agreement would most likely ensure a more stable second division for pro soccer. I guess a lot of us were too caught up with partisan bickering and resenting USSF for doing nothing to even notice. Compromise will not be easy, but I hope it works out.
With that said, I am also relieved that this decision by USSF have also dispelled any concerns of mine that suggested the federation simply does not acknowledge anything that is not spelled with M, L, and S. It is great that they do care about second division soccer. But I know if USSF is going to force both NASL and USL to come up with an agreement, it should also be the time for USSF to meet its LONG OVERDUE end of their deal as a responsible and competent federation. By pouring their utmost attention and resource to the Lamar Hunt US Open Cup–lower division leagues’ only “opportunity” to shine with the big boys of MLS–and Garber should allow a working relationship between SUM and the lower leagues to help them grow and promote their brand(s) within their respective (minor-league) markets.
Those are just some of the thoughts on top of my head that could help USSF ensure a more stable structure. You can just envision it, everybody working together for the long-term growth of the sport. Imagine that!
I have been away since last Tuesday and have not been getting my IMS fix.
As an attorney I am not suprised by the USSF decision to deny BUT give the parties seven days to work things out. (Kind of a Mutually Assured Destruction approach to either settle or die). It happens all the time in litigation where parties are basically told they will both lose unless they come to an agreement. Compromise is the grease of progress.
As such . . .
We will have one league arising from USL and NASL!
We will have Div. 2 soccer in Minnesota!
We will have beer in the North End!
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Be positive!
So angry. So angry. It’s sad, really, how angry so many who think there’s a push-button solution to a complicated issue can be.
NICK, it’s clear that you are very frustrated by the whole situation with D2, and beyond that with the USSF structure and culture. I agree with you whole-heartedly about the fact that some major players – and Sunil Gulati himself – are in a positions (Sunil in a number of positions) of conflict of interest.
I noticed Chris A shared that he’s an attorney. “CHRIS A” can you shed some light on that?
I also have concerns about USL, and I do share with you, at this point, in the hope of D2 soccer even if USL wins out. Being Canadian, I would prefer to side with NASL only because our teams (Vancouver & Montreal) are more comfortable in that structure. But I live in Minnesota now, and since I’m philosophically a home-team fan, I just want good soccer in MN.
However, Nick, some of us follow and contribute in the discussions of IMS specifically because the tone of voice is ALWAYS respectful, even if it is subjective. Please leave the anger behind.
Please don’t tell me that y’all believe USSF really cares about the Division II League. The game plan is simple. USSF will have one league called the “US or Federation” League. After 2010, USSF/MLS will control Division II as they do Division I.
The Federation cannot allow NASL to use the name, MLS is totally against that. By controlling the league, the name, they can certainly ensure that MSL will have no competition, which further helps MLS with the player bargaining agreements.
This is all about MLS, not Division II soccer.
Neither option, in their current form was feasible. USL should gain an easy victory in the courts, but the teams/corporations can’t be forced to play. So without the TOA/NASL, they have no league. The NASL seems to be viable, from a numbers perspective, but 1/2 the teams could spend all their money fighting the USL in court. Again, neither were viable. With some comprimise, there is a chance for a viable 2nd division league, but until the MLS is willing to form a 2nd league, or until TOA/NASL/USL/Whatever, can make a run at 1st division, 2nd will proabably always struggle to make any money.
I think from a quality perspective, USL was not very far behind the MLS (see 2008 and 2009 CONCACAF Champions League results.) The best path for USL/TOA/NASL/whatever is to create a competative league to MLS, with the goal of building a relegation league, building regional rivalries, building strong youth acadmeys, selling players over seas, etc. NASCAR, NBA and MLB are all slipping fast, now is the time to make a euro-style league. Bart is correct about the MLS influence. It may take building an equivelent National body to USSF, which FIfA would fight, but the US courts would demand.
Power to the (soccer) people!!!
In 1966 the USSF was approached by two competing groups interested in starting a professional soccer league. As is the case in 2009, 43 years earlier the USSF waffled and hestitated on its decision. The ultimate decision of the USSF at the time was to sanction a league made up of clubs from other countries masquerading as local clubs (the United Soccer Association) while ignoring those who wished to create clubs locally (the National Professional Soccer League). The NPSL played 1967 as an outlaw league but merged with the USA in 1968 to form the NASL, unfortunately the USSF’s lack of leadership at the time caused chaos and confusion and contributed to the wholesale collapse and near extinction of the NASL after the 1968 season.
In 2009, after 43 years of involvement with the professional game, the USSF continues to be delinquent when required to show leadership.
Whether it be USL-1 or the NASL, rather than telling both groups that neither is adequately prepared to assume D2 status for 2010, the USSF should have directed one or the other to assume responsibility for D2 soccer in 2010. Such a decision would have obligated the clubs aligned with the non-selected league to join the status quo or operate as a renegade club.
The USSF has the information and the authority to make such a decision and the CSA has already indicated it will follow whatever move the USSF makes (note, the non-selected league cannot simply set up shop in Canada). Unfortunately no decision has been made.
As I have stated before, the USL model is not conducive for the professional game. Its paternalistic management system, while being good for amateur soccer, does not give professional clubs the autonomy they require to operate. The NASL will respond to the needs of its clubs, not ignore them, for one simple reason: the clubs are the league (a novel concept, eh MLS).
If anyone at the USSF is listening, here is the solution:
1. Give the NASL a mandate for D2 professional soccer.
2. Give the USL a mandate for amateur soccer at the regional/national level. – Yes this would mean either disbanding USL-2, making it an amateur league, or making a true lower division of the NASL with promotion/relegation -
3. Direct MLS and the NASL to compensate the USL whenever talent is brought up to those leagues (players and coaches).
4. Ensure reserve sides for MLS and NASL clubs operate in the USL PDL, where they are available and developmental youth clubs in the USL system.
5. Set standards for Div 1 and Div 2 professional soccer: min stadium standards and average attendances (where an MLS club fails to meet the min average attendance over a specified period their place in that league would be up for replacement by a Div 2 club that meets the standards.
MLS should not be running the USSF, playing of MLS games on FIFA International Game Days dimishes the status of MLS as a top level league (even the A-League in Australia respects international game days).
If the sport of soccer is to grow in the US (and by association in Canada, too) then the governing body must govern not observe.
I found this sentence in the USSF’s statement on 12/30/09 to be interesting: “Both organizations were unable to meet U.S. Soccer’s requirement of a minimum of eight viable teams for 2010.”
Does anyone know which USL/NASL teams the USSF thinks are viable? Does anyone know what criteria the USSF uses to decide if a team is viable? Obviously, the USSF doesn’t consider some of the NASL teams to be viable because the NASL has more than 8 teams now (or so they say). Also obvious is that the USSF believes that there are at least 8 viable teams from the USL/NASL…otherwise, it wouldn’t make any sense to have the leagues/teams try to figure it out in the next week.
Is this problem resolved by just getting 8 viable teams together for one D2 league? Would that clear up the uncertainties mentioned in the statement? My guess is that all of the teams involved know whether or not the USSF considers them to be viable so they should all the teams that are in play here.
Where did this 8 viable team requirement come from? Did the USSF just conjure up this requirement for this case?
DaveL. Please see the article I did several weeks ago concerning this very subject. The teams of the USL and NASL. I think you will find this layout very accurate. It was the 4th most read story at IMS this past year. The USSF is looking at 9 viable teams for NASL but three of them are tied up with binding arbitration after USL agreed to dismiss the lawsuits and both USL and NASL agreed to that arbitration. As I have stated many times before on this site, the Rochester case is pretty weak but USL has a strong case against CP Maryland and Tampa Bay. So for now, USSF has to look at 6 teams from the NASL.
As to the criteria, from my understanding there currently IS NOT an actual criteria and I would expect after this issue is resolved USSF will certainly create criteria for a D-2 and D-3 sanctioning.
As stated in this article and the USSF press statement, 8 teams is not the only issue. Viability is. Again, please read the article again. “There are still a number of aspects of each organization’s application that are unanswered, and a decision of this magnitude is too important to make without the full assurance that either league is sustainable.”
What USSF is saying is there are many uncertainties in both leagues plans for now. Either team weakness or not enough things in place to guarantee they have all their ducks in a row to make the league last past 2010.
8 teams is a FIFA requirement but as we have pointed out time after time, many leagues have been allowed a variance on the 8 teams, just like WPS was last year. If FIFA and USSF know there will be more teams the following year they often allow smaller leagues. But 6 or 7 would probably be their limit.
Ken Jamieson, I like your analysis. Well done. I’m not sure how to place the standard of minimum attendance you recommended, because it seems to counter the possibility of a small market team that plays excellent football to be at a systematic disadvantage (not their own fault) compared to a huge metropolitan area market.
Ken Jamieson, I think USSF may be steering the two sides to a place were a few of the things that you called for will happen, but perhaps not immediately. This is only an educated guess on my part but remember, I have been talking to parties on both sides.
If I were a betting man, I would think that perhaps for this year, the leagues may play under the umbrella of USL but with designated USL and NASL teams. NASL may even be allowed control of certain aspects of the league and then after the 2010 season, NASL would take control of D-2 soccer in the US. Remember, as much as this is a FIFA situation as well, we are still dealing with business entities in the US and Canada and there are some things that USSF doesn’t want to shove down the throats of those teams.
As Chris A said above, “Compromise is the grease of progress.”
You do make some excellent points Ken and I very much appreciate your knowledge of soccer history in North America. We certainly can all learn from past failures and success.
Out of curiosity, Brian, when you say ‘both sides’, do you mean USSF and USL/NASL? Historically your connections have been with the NASL people, with no news coming from the USL side of things. It’s been one of my frustrations in this whole fiasco — that the best news sources (you and Kartik) have only had contacts on the NASL side of things.
Well, there several issues with that. Kartik and I both have good relationships with folks throughout the USL. I feel I could call Chris Economidies or Tim Holt and they would take my call IF they were taking calls. But throughout this situation USL has often not spoken. I have had several interviews on this site or at least comments from Tim Holt himslef. I don’t think you’ve found that on many other sites. But USL have been a bit more tight lipped when talking to the media but have also allowed some of their associates from around the country to talk but not on record. So we often get a diluted and indirect path to what USL is thinking/doing without hard facts.
There have been more people on the NASL/TOA side who have been more open in speaking publicly. So it’s easier to get a quote.
USSF needs to be very cautious as they are more or less mediating the process so you can’t expect them to say too much.
To answer your question, yes, I have talked to folks from front offices on both sides USL and NASL. But of course as you can see from this article I’ve also been in contact with USSF. Pasion Naranja’s Kristian Vázquez has also been an invaluable source to Puerto Rico’s stance on the issue. Kristian is a native Puerto Rican living in the DC area and communicates regularly with the front office of the Islanders.
Thanks, Brian. Do you (or anyone) know when the binding arbitration is supposed to start/finish?
Ha,ha…writing about that as you ask. Hopefully I’ll have something up today or tomorrow. Lets just put it this way, the best case scenario is for the two sides to work out an agreement that allows them to drop the arbitration as well. As I’m sure attorneys will tell you, arbitration could take months and I’ve been told that this case could take up to 3 months or more if it was to play itself out.
I do think the timing of the USSF decision not to sanction either of the two leagues is strange. Why wait so long to make such a decision or “in” decision. That shows very little consideration for either of the two potential division II leagues or their players and fans. Why didn’t they come out with this non decision a week or two earlier. Time is running out!
I am not impressed with Major League Soccer. European soccer is far superior. Mexican soccer is better. USL was not far behind MLS in my opinion. No they were certainly inferior, but given their budgets, not by much. Montreal and Puerto Rico proved it two years ago in Concacaf Champions League. Puerto Rico was still there for the semis, when all the MLS teams were already gone and Montreal would have been as well had their game not fallen apart in the second half of the game.. with Cruz Azul was it? Puerto Rico beat Toronto this year in Concacaf and might have surpassed Columbus; the only MLS team remaining if not for the loss of the Puerto Rico Goalkeeper.
Oh well, I used to enjoy the A-League games and then USL Division 1. I was there when Rochester beat Tampa Bay and Carlos Valderamma 4-3 in the US OPEN Cup. They then went on to beat Colorado Rapids 3-0. Only losing to DC United at DC in the final 3-0. A few years later they won the whole thing… beating 4 MLS teams on the way there including a 2-0 decison over the Col. Rapids in the final.
There wasn’t much enthusiasm in Montreal at that time. Then things caught on up there. Not to mention 55,000 people for their 2-0 victory over the Mexican team in concacaf.
I hope there is some kind of Divison II soccer in the US this year. I’m not a sophisticated soccer afficianado, but… man it was fun when I ‘used’ to go to the games. I find it so much more exciting than American Footbal… with it’s endless game interuptions… and fussy little rules for every touch of the ball.
http://usfooty.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/mls-promotionrelegation/
My two cents about the best way to approach this problem… basically, allow the MLS in the short term to absorb the top 6 NASL/USL teams into a form of lower division, thus dissolving the need for the NASL and allowing the USL to continue to operate with the remaining USL-2 Teams as a true “second division.”
I still hate that Sunil can maintain his nice USSF job while multiple issues he refuses to solve circle around him. Too bad USSF take 0 input from the fans.
Anyone know if the TOA teams under fire from USL have also agreed in writing to binding arbitration? I doubt USL will drop the legal route/arbitration as contractual obligations are all they have to keep TOA/NPSL from putting a league together.
Thanks, Brian!
Zlatan, If you’ve not seen by now, check out my latest post.
Tim, I do think USSF is listening, probably more than you think but they also have a job to do within confines. I think Sunil may go down as one of the best presidents US Soccer has ever had. However, I agree that as long as he is involved with Kraft Soccer there will always be questions and I would hope that in the future, the President of USSF would be required to relinquish ties to any other US league they may be involved with for employment or monetary gain. It would just make it a lot cleaner and less likely that folks feel there is a conflict of interest.