Following exits of the Cleveland City Stars (USL) and the AFC Cleveland Royals (NPSL):

 

A new team named Cleveland SC will be playing in in the NPSL this year.

http://www.npsl.com/news_article/show/888463

 

CLEVELAND SC JOINS THE NPSL

02/19/2018, 12:00pm EST

By NPSL Staff

 

The National Premier Soccer League (NPSL) is proud to announce that Cleveland SC (Cleveland, OH) has joined the league as an expansion team.  The club will compete in the Midwest Region’s East Conference.

 

“Cleveland SC has been built on a strong foundation, bringing players, supporters, and the community together to grow the beautiful game,” NPSL Chairman Joe Barone commented. “The addition of NPSL teams in Cleveland and Columbus for 2018 shows our league’s commitment to Ohio and the entire Midwest.”

 

The club will be led by President Samuel T. Seibert, who was born, raised, and educated in Northeast Ohio.

 

“Cleveland SC has realistic goals for 2018 both on and off the pitch,” Seibert added. “First and foremost, the team plans on increasing the awareness to the communities in Greater Cleveland that a talented team in the sport of soccer rests right here in Cleveland, Ohio.  On the field, we fully expect to compete for the conference title through building a roster comprised of the most talented players and coaches available.  Additionally, we fully expect to form and maintain all facets of the team organically through partnerships exclusively from the great city of Cleveland.”

 

Seibert is an MBA Sports Management graduate of Tiffin University with experience in sports media and operations. He is a resident of Lakewood, Ohio.

 

“Cleveland SC is going to bring a fanbase filled with pride,” Seibert continued. “Cleveland has a soccer fan base that is a sleeping giant and we intend to tap into that immediately.  Cleveland has the best sports fans anywhere and our opponents will learn that quickly.”

 

More information about the club can be found at www.clevelandsc.com or by following the club on Facebook (@SoccerCleveland), Twitter (@SoccerCLE), and Instagram (@SoccerCLE).

 

“We feel the NPSL has the best model to promote the sport of soccer in Cleveland,” Seibert concluded. “Cleveland SC decided to join the NPSL because of the rich history Cleveland has with the league.”

They need to play at Wasmer Field at Ignatius in Ohio City to have ANY prayer of developing a fan base.

 

No Byers Field

No Bedford Stadium

^ I heard they were going to play at Lakewood Stadium.

 

Let me emphasize that this is merely a rumor.  However, they will announce home field tomorrow.

^ I heard they were going to play at Lakewood Stadium.

 

That's actually not awful. Wish it was in the city proper but there are several walkable bars there.

^ I heard they were going to play at Lakewood Stadium.

 

That's actually not awful. Wish it was in the city proper but there are several walkable bars there.

 

Indeed it would be wise for the Club to reach out to McGintys or bottlehouse (plenty of room) for some kind of official partnership. 

Would Krenzler Field (CSU) work if some more seating were added?

Would Krenzler Field (CSU) work if some more seating were added?

 

Still a crime issue in the immediate vicinity, but Parnell's or Becky's could work as a pregame bar

Would Krenzler Field (CSU) work if some more seating were added?

 

I’m sure it would. That’s where the City Stars used to play. It’s a very photogenic looking spot on tv, great views of downtown.

I like the OC or Lkwd but Disanto field would be a great atmosphere for it.

Parking garage tailgating^

Move the browns, bring in the soccer team. First Energy Soccer Stadium.

#satire

^Thankfully you added the satire hashtag... You were about to get nun-chucked, you don't even know

It's strange AFC Cleveland struggled financially and this new team is still in the NPSL, which is an ameteur league. Of USA metro areas with over 1 million people, the following cities are the only without a professional soccer team (MLS, USL, or rump NASL):

 

13. Riverside - Inland Empire (4.5 million)

    *2 MLS teams in LA, 1 USL team in Orange County

14. Detroit (4.2 million)

    *Detroit City trying to go pro, but NASL and NISA have had problems

    *A seperate Detroit group is also in the final 3 (along with Cincy and Sacramento) for a MLS expansion

17. San Diego (3.3 million)

    *San Diego's MLS bid recently fell through, which has confused the scene for now

    *Tijuana Xolos are popular in the city

21. Baltimore (2.7 million)

    *USL building new stadium for team to start in 2020: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soccer-insider/wp/2018/01/12/usl-getting-closer-to-expanding-into-d-c-and-baltimore-markets/?utm_term=.89af68cc21c4

31. Austin (2.0 million)

    *Columbus Crew (MLS) owner trying to move the team to Austin

32. Cleveland (2.0 million)

37. Virginia Beach - Hampton Roads (1.7 million)

39. Milwaukee (1.5 million)

46. New Orleans (1.2 million)

    *New Orleans Jesters, a NPSL team, are trying to go pro, but are stuck in a NASL/NISA holding pattern like Detroit City

47. Hartford (1.2 million)

52. Grand Rapids (1.0 million)

    *NPSL's GRFC will probably jump to a pro league with Detroit City

 

So Cleveland, Virginia Beach, Milwaukee, and Hartford are the only large cities without some momentum here. By comparison, a team in Statesboro, Georgia (70,000 MSA population) is going pro in 2019. Cleveland is a great sports city, so I'm confused why something hasn't taken off yet.

I dont think it boils down to population in Cleveland. I believe the momentum is based on whether or not people want another disappointment in town...

^I think the City Stars were managed terribly.

 

Most Clevelanders didn't even know they existed.

 

The demand for soccer in Cleveland is there, but you can't sell based on that demand unless consumers know its available.

City Stars games were aired at midnight on Saturdays.  OK for me but not good for building a fanbase.  And with no spectator seating where they played, it looked like you were watching CSU practice. 

The Tampa Bay Rowdies, a USL team with a very slim chance of getting in the MLS (Orlando already has a team), was recently estimated to be worth $25 million https://www.bizjournals.com/tampabay/news/2018/02/12/edwards-looks-to-sell-a-stake-in-the-rowdies-to.html

 

Teams in the Big 4 leagues are now mostly valued over a $1 billion. The next MLS entrance fee is $250 million and the USL entrance fee is somewhere around $1 million. If you're a billionaire who wants to own a pro sports team, soccer is now a cheap, viable alternative. The spectacular debuts of Atlanta United, FC Cincinnati, and Sacramento Republic have unleashed a wave of speculative interest in pro soccer.

 

The pro soccer map is getting filled up rapidly and Cleveland is one of the most glaring absences. I wouldn't be shocked if an investment group from outside the region steps in soon to build a USL or NISA team. 

I think either Lakewood or Ohio City makes a lot of sense.  I think it will be beneficial to have the games in a heavily residential area because you can count on residents checking out the games.  If they played in Lakewood, I could take my kids there easily and enjoy games.  I am sure others would do the same.

I dont think it boils down to population in Cleveland. I believe the momentum is based on whether or not people want another disappointment in town...

 

AFC Cleveland were the 2016 NPSL champions (out of 84 teams).

Just announced that they’ll be playing at John Carroll. Meh, too bad. Lakewood or OC I would’ve been there.

^ meh

Just announced that they’ll be playing at John Carroll. Meh, too bad. Lakewood or OC I would’ve been there.

 

That's not exactly a convenient location...at least not in my biased west side mind.

What does "SC" stand for? Even on the official website (clevelandsc.com), it just says "Cleveland SC".

Hmm...I'm no soccer genius but I'm going take a wild stab and say "SC" stands for Soccer Club.

SC usually means soccer club.

I'm pretty confident Cleveland will never have an MLS team and that's fine with the Crew in the center of the state, and FCC chomping at the bit to get in the league. I personally think a well ran (well funded) USL team could be one of the biggest and most successful teams in that division....if not on the level of Cincinnati, then at least as successful as Sacramento or Louisville. USL won't happen unless there's a plan for a soccer specific stadium though.

I'm pretty confident Cleveland will never have an MLS team

 

Why? MLS is not the Primer League with established teams that date back a century plus. They're all new franchises basically. These teams can and likely will still move around. Also there could be a contraction if the league can't generate more TV revenue. These new owners are paying way too much in franchise fees. The actual revenue generated is still quite low compared to the Primer, NBA, MLB, etc. Teams have a lot of growing pains ahead of them even to reach the level of the NHL. So with this in mind anything is possible.

^If the Crew stay in Columbus and Cincy gets a team, 3 will be too much for Ohio

Just announced that they’ll be playing at John Carroll. Meh, too bad. Lakewood or OC I would’ve been there.

 

And this team will too fail.

^ plus I think that having 3 professional franchises in Cleveland is about all the market can support. Most markets the size of Cleveland have either 2 or 3 major sports franchises.

^If the Crew stay in Columbus and Cincy gets a team, 3 will be too much for Ohio

 

Right, will this league keep it's teams in existing cities forever? I'm thinking no.

 

^ plus I think that having 3 professional franchises in Cleveland is about all the market can support. Most markets the size of Cleveland have either 2 or 3 major sports franchises.

 

Despite their marketing MLS is not the NBA or NFL. Cleveland supports the Monsters pretty well. There's no reason why the area couldn't have an MLS team even with the Tribe, Cavs and Browns. It's not going to happen next week but never say never.

Also want to add for the people that don't know, the soccer base in Northeast Ohio is huge. I played premier all through my youth. NEO was/is one of the top regions in the Midwest.  Western New York (Buff, Roch) and ChicagoLand were just as big or bigger from what I remember. I don't remember too many elite teams coming out of Columbus or Cincinnati, maybe that has changed recently, or maybe I shouldn't equate elite team production with fan bases. There were a lot of premier teams out of Toledo also, now that i think about it.   

Also want to add for the people that don't know, the soccer base in Northeast Ohio is huge. I played premier all through my youth. NEO was/is one of the top regions in the Midwest.  Western New York (Buff, Roch) and ChicagoLand were just as big or bigger from what I remember. I don't remember too many elite teams coming out of Columbus or Cincinnati, maybe that has changed recently, or maybe I shouldn't equate elite team production with fan bases. There were a lot of premier teams out of Toledo also, now that i think about it.   

 

No doubt. St. Ignatius and CVCA are consistently 2 of the top soccer programs in the nation.

A naive question no doubt, but is anything besides business skepticism stopping a group of entrepreneurs from developing a pro league that plays in under-used football stadiums?  Like, 8 rich people field 8 moderately paid teams, keep gate receipts, and let the venue owners keep concessions revenue as rent?  Just seems insane to me that there are all these well-located, high-amenity venues sitting around, a possible demand for high quality soccer, and here we are talking about putting these games in low visibility, low prestige suburban facilities.  Are the marginal operating costs for something like First Energy just too overwhelming?

A naive question no doubt,

 

Not a naive question at all and I'll attempt to answer it from a perspective of studying American soccer history/being a support of my local pro team. However, this is just my take on it.

 

 

but is anything besides business skepticism stopping a group of entrepreneurs from developing a pro league

 

The biggest thing keeping a group from starting a league is sanctioning from the United States Soccer Federation. For better or worse, the way the system works now is that the USSF provides division sanctioning to pro leagues in the United States. MLS is Division 1. USL just recently went from Division 3 to "provisional Division 2" to now being Division 2. The NASL (what's left of it at least) is currently tied up in court arguing against division sanctioning. The USL will launch another league in 2019 at the Division 3 level and the National Independent Soccer Association (NISA) is also attempting to get a D3 league off of the ground. The USSF is partnered/aligned with FIFA in terms of governing the game here domestically. This can complicate things, because if you operate at the pro level outside of the USSF you're likely to not get FIFA recognition, meaning your players and coaches could be black listed from playing for other teams both domestically and internationally. Interestingly enough, there's rumblings of a "Division 0" happening, the self described name for a new pro league that would in fact operate outtside of the USSF. Unfortunately, Division 0 is the product of Robert Palmer (Jacksonville Armada) owner and a few other NASL sides who don't want to wait for NISA, have no interest in USL, and still want to be pro teams. There's a lot of risk involved with not working with the national federation.

 

So to your scenario, there's nothing really stopping a group of entrepreneurs from getting together, except that they'd be better off playing along with the USSF.

 

 

that plays in under-used football stadiums?

 

This kind of happened in the early days of Major League Soccer. Many teams started out playing in college football and NFL stadia. The Columbus Crew sort of bucked that trend in 99 when they opened what's considered the first soccer-specific stadium. For MLS teams, I believe seeking out their own venues was for a number of reasons.

 

- League perception. Having your own home symbols permanence and looks better on tv when 20,000 seats are filled compared to 20,000 sprinked across 40,000 empty NFL seats.

- Revenue opportunities. You stand to make more money in a building you own and operate (or got someone to build for you) than you do sharing revenue with a landlord.

- Fan interest. Providing fans with a unique experience in an intimate, purpose built venue is more appealing than a re purposed NFL stadium.

 

In a lot of cases, MLS clubs needed their own venue to secure revenue streams and exist in the long term. Teams like Seattle, Atlanta, and New England (also Detroit if it is admitted under its current expansion proposal) share common ownership with the existing NFL team so their rent/revenue is moot.

 

 

Like, 8 rich people field 8 moderately paid teams, keep gate receipts, and let the venue owners keep concessions revenue as rent?

 

While this sounds ideal, I imagine these agreements are more complicated. For example, if you're in an agreement with an NFL teams stadium, do "gate receipts" only count as tickets at the turnstiles or luxury suite revenue as well? Would concessions alone be enough to satisfy who you're renting the venue from? More than likely, venue agreements are not this simply clear cut. I think the thing keeping agreements like this from happening are that businesses inherently want to make as much money as possible. Not taking a share of the gate receipts is a pretty generous move. Massive NFL stadiums are also costly to operate.

 

 

Just seems insane to me that there are all these well-located, high-amenity venues sitting around, a possible demand for high quality soccer, and here we are talking about putting these games in low visibility, low prestige suburban facilities.  Are the marginal operating costs for something like First Energy just too overwhelming?

 

I agree it often seems crazy, but like you said, I think there are a lot of costs involved with bigger venues. It also comes down to supply/demand and who regulates that. MLS controls Division 1 and if you want in, they've indicated they're only taking so many teams (at least for now). Want to make your expansion club appealing? Having your own venue where you control revenue and scheduling certainly puts you ahead of the guy willing to share an NFL stadium that may still look bad on tv if the crowd is respectable, but not full. Look at the current expansion round. Nashville, Sacramento, and Cincinnati were all prioritized over Detroit for having their own stadium plans.

 

Interestingly enough, in the lower divisions you do see a lot of venue sharing. Indy XI will be playing some games at Lucas Oil Field this season and A LOT of USL teams play on baseball fields shared with minor league teams. OKC actually plays in a nice high school football field. Even still, some have built their own venues. Louisville City FC is currently doing that for Division 2 simply because it's not financially sustainable to be tenants with the Bats baseball team and they see a stadium as a chance to get a long term existence.

 

With the launch of USL Division 3 and USL Division 2 indicating that it's ok to continue expanding (and looking at a 3 conference set up), I think you're going to see even more pro teams spring up in markets without them, using existing venues. For example, I still can't believe that markets like Cleveland and Baltimore haven't had new teams yet. If a pro, USL team were to pop up in Cleveland, First Energy could be a venue they'd use and I doubt the league would be against it, but I'm not sure how the team would feel about the optics and costs.

There's no reason why the area couldn't have an MLS team even with the Tribe, Cavs and Browns. It's not going to happen next week but never say never.

 

Interestingly enough, Cleveland almost had an MLS team with a stadium in Macedonia. The public rejected a sales tax to pay for the stadium and the man leading the effort passed away. The club was slated to potentially start playing in 2005.

^If the Crew stay in Columbus and Cincy gets a team, 3 will be too much for Ohio

 

Who cares what Columbus or Cincy do? If MLS is the best league to be in, then that's what Cleveland should shoot for. Why should we limit ourselves for other cities? Do we back down from Detroit or Pittsburgh because they already have something? Those cities are more like us and are our peers more so than Cincinnati or Columbus. That we are all legally in the state of Ohio doesn't mean anything in this context.

I agree with Pugu here, we should never put anything in a box because of other cities.  If Cleveland does go this route with soccer, i agree that making the experience very "special" for the audience should be in consideration.  So an Ohio City, or Detroit Shoreway, or even stadium near the lake somewhere if there is space would be awesome.  Think the wrigley field experience.  Part of its greatness is that it is nestled in a residential neighborhood.  Macedonia and even downtown, i dont think that does anything to the experience.

^^^ Gordon Bombay[/member] thanks for the thoughtful response. All makes sense to me to some extent, but a big part of my question, I suppose, is why as a fan, I should care whether my team owner goes through the US soccer federation cartel? It just seems like anti-competitive stupidness. I'm seriously skeptical a semi official blacklisting of players who play outside of the system would even be legally enforceable.  For entrenched leagues like the NFL, NBA, and MLB, there is such a prestige dropoff outside of the league, but soccer still seems so semi-formed in the US, so more like the late 19th century of baseball, or early/mid 20th century of football.

 

And as for the desirability of soccer-only facilities to a league or team owners, and even to fans, I totally get it, but that's obviously a huge start-up cost or requires huge public subsidies, and in any case, adds a serious lead time.

 

I guess I'm just sort of intrigued by the idea of a group of Trump-like showmen pulling a league together completely outside of the existing structure and seeing what happens. Traditionally there would be difficulty securing broadcast time with limited TV capacity and anti competitive efforts by incumbent leagues, but the internet has sort of wiped that away. Like, a new start up league could just create its own on line broadcast system.

A naive question no doubt, but is anything besides business skepticism stopping a group of entrepreneurs from developing a pro league that plays in under-used football stadiums?  Like, 8 rich people field 8 moderately paid teams, keep gate receipts, and let the venue owners keep concessions revenue as rent?  Just seems insane to me that there are all these well-located, high-amenity venues sitting around, a possible demand for high quality soccer, and here we are talking about putting these games in low visibility, low prestige suburban facilities.  Are the marginal operating costs for something like First Energy just too overwhelming?

 

The NASL was/is more or less what you're describing. It was started in 2009 over a disagreement within the USL. The teams that went on to create the NASL wanted to be more aggressive in challenging the MLS, while the remaining teams wanted to chart a slower course. NASL teams put up some big money to field competitive teams, but success off the field was more mixed. Last year Indy Eleven averaged 8000 per game while the eventual champions San Francisco Deltas averaged 2500. The NASL is in danger of folding, while the USL looks poised to challenged the MLS for dominance in about 5 years.

 

The most attractive stadiums for soccer, at least at this point in time, aren't NFL stadiums but mid-sized college stadiums like Nippert Stadium. The MLS's averages 22,000 per game, with the USL and NASL averaging about a third of that. If you try to fit a crowd into a 70,000 capacity stadium, it really lowers the fan experience. A lot of the sound is muffled and it doesn't feel like as much of an event. Look at Pitt football's trajectory since moving to Heinz stadium to see the same phenomenon in a different context.

 

There are two important outliers to this trend that must be mentioned: Seattle and Atlanta. Their fan support is clearly superior to the rest of the league. For context,  attendance last year:

• Atlanta: 48,000 (debut season)
  
• Seattle: 43,000
  
• Toronto: 27,500
  
• League Average: 22,000
  

Both share owners and stadiums with their NFL counterparts. Both are downtown. Their stadiums were designed to host a soccer team, and didn't just give lip service to it. Atlanta's stadium has large banners that lower from the roof to hide the upper bowl and contain sound. Seattle's stadium was designed to be loud with just a lower bowl attendance. By comparison, the acoustics and optics at Paul Brown Stadium (and First Energy, I'd assume) are awful with smaller crowds. I've been to high school football games at PBS with at least 15,000 people that sounded like a graveyard. You can't have a big time atmosphere in those conditions. The Revolution have played at Gillette Stadium in New England since it opened in 2001 and they still struggle with attendance.

 

Atlanta's spectacular and unprecedented success last year opened a lot of eyes around the world. As a result, this year more teams are experimenting with NFL stadiums. Indy Eleven will play a few games at Lucus Oil (they host Cincinnati on March 31st), Nashville's new USL team is debuting in the Titans stadium, and Detroit's MLS bid would have the team play at a renovated Ford Field. We'll see how they pan out. Pro soccer in America is rapidly changing and perhaps the established logic of the past ten years (right sized soccer specific stadiums) might end up giving way to a new strategy that reflects the growing popularity of soccer.

Just announced that they’ll be playing at John Carroll. Meh, too bad. Lakewood or OC I would’ve been there.

 

That's not exactly a convenient location...at least not in my biased west side mind.

 

It is at least within walking distance to the Rapid, which can't be said for most of Lakewood.

carnevalem[/member] Loved your analysis...

 

One critique, if I may...

 

I think Atlanta is an outlier. We saw 68,000 come out to the Citrus Bowl to support Kaka's Orlando SC. Attendance at their new stadium, while strong, doesn't necessarily indicate any sustainability in a stadium of 30,000+. I'd argue the same for Bobby Dodd stadium and Atlanta.

 

I think much of soccer's popularity has to do with first - geography, and second - availability of other season ticket options.

 

The most devoted fanbases, I'd argue, are in the PNW. Portland and Seattle fill their seat allocations nearly every home match, and even travel well. Portland only offers the Trailblazers, and Seattle has the Mariners and Seahawks. Beyond that, the Cascadia region has a MASSIVE history of soccer, and that's a bit of an anomaly in America.

 

There's a reason DC United and FC Dallas struggle to get fans through the gate, and it's not that there isn't great soccer played in their respective regions. It's that their areas are "football-first" and there are several other professional sports franchises to attend.

 

MLS is in a unique spot to play in the summer to get more exposure, but that will inevitably deter international stars.

 

If Cleveland wants to do a team the right way, it needs to start from scratch and play in the city. I'd posit that we cannot sustain a stadium that seats beyond 20,000. If I turn out to be wrong, build the stadium in a way that allows for expansion. I just fear that a team will never take off if we keep playing at glorified HS stadiums.

^^^Very interesting! As someone without a rooting interest in MLS, I'm now rooting for the USL to disrupt the MLS cartel. 

 

I hear you guys loud and clear on the stadium thing. I think I'm clearly underappreciating just how much a mostly empty NFL stadium diminishes the fan experience, creating a sort of negative feedback loop of attendance. Even as a non-fan, I'd love to see more cities able to climb on the soccer ladder before getting permanently shut out as leagues get entrenched and ruthlessly anti competitive, but the thought of more publicly funded stadium project is pretty nauseating.

Looks like I was a lot slower on the draw than Gordon Bombay[/member], but I'm glad we mostly agreed.

 

why as a fan, I should care whether my team owner goes through the US soccer federation cartel? It just seems like anti-competitive stupidness. I'm seriously skeptical a semi official blacklisting of players who play outside of the system would even be legally enforceable.

 

My understanding is that it's the players and coaches, not the fans, that care about USSF/FIFA sponsorship. Leagues around the world require coaches to have a certain FIFA coaching lisence that is achieved through coaching experience and training. Coaching a non-USSF/FIFA team doesn't count towards improving accreditation. Part of the USSF/FIFA sponsorship requires that players are members of a national players association, which is in turn part of an international players association (FIFPro). So players are provided additional protection by playing in a cartel league.

 

And as for the desirability of soccer-only facilities to a league or team owners, and even to fans, I totally get it, but that's obviously a huge start-up cost or requires huge public subsidies, and in any case, adds a serious lead time.

 

I guess I'm just sort of intrigued by the idea of a group of Trump-like showmen pulling a league together completely outside of the existing structure and seeing what happens. Traditionally there would be difficulty securing broadcast time with limited TV capacity and anti competitive efforts by incumbent leagues, but the internet has sort of wiped that away. Like, a new start up league could just create its own on line broadcast system.

 

Dennis Crowley is the founder of Foursquare. Two years ago he started a NPSL team in Kingston, New York and has written about the financials of the team and has created a blueprint for soccer entrepreneurs to start their own team. He calls it the "startup soccer" model. If you're interested in the business side of running a team, I highly recommend his blog.

In a way, he is attempting what you are proposing, but in reverse. His vision is to rapidly grow the lower ranks of soccer to encourage a grassroots, community based interest in soccer. Promotion relegation would then be instituted between these leagues. The idea is that his league with a pro/rel funnel down to hundreds of teams would draw more interest than a 30 team MLS. Because of his background in the tech startup world he also has some ideas on how to use the internet to broadcast and market. He was just elected to the NPSL board of directors, so keep an eye out for explosive growth in that league.

 

If you scroll to part 4 of this post, he lays out his vision. The rest of the post is interesting in its own right though:

https://medium.com/stockadefc/stockade-fc-in-2017-the-open-source-soccer-approach-to-creating-a-killer-second-season-5eaf30a4caa9

^^^ Gordon Bombay[/member] thanks for the thoughtful response. All makes sense to me to some extent, but a big part of my question, I suppose, is why as a fan, I should care whether my team owner goes through the US soccer federation cartel? It just seems like anti-competitive stupidness. I'm seriously skeptical a semi official blacklisting of players who play outside of the system would even be legally enforceable.  For entrenched leagues like the NFL, NBA, and MLB, there is such a prestige dropoff outside of the league, but soccer still seems so semi-formed in the US, so more like the late 19th century of baseball, or early/mid 20th century of football.

 

For sure, I definitely don't think it's the best set up, but at the same time a lot of the existing leagues have already gotten their legs and put together a lot of the infrastructure. It can be a lot easier for an investor to join them rather than try to do their own thing at great financial risk. I think as a fan, if anything, rooting for lower division is the way to go. The USL for example is really putting some nice things together and forming a strong league with some great regional rivalries. Even as an FC Cincinnati supporter, I wouldn't be too miffed if MLS passes and our club sticks around to help grow USL.

 

I guess I'm just sort of intrigued by the idea of a group of Trump-like showmen pulling a league together completely outside of the existing structure and seeing what happens. Traditionally there would be difficulty securing broadcast time with limited TV capacity and anti competitive efforts by incumbent leagues, but the internet has sort of wiped that away. Like, a new start up league could just create its own on line broadcast system.

 

carnevalem[/member] touched on the 2009 NASL (the one that's currently fighting in court), but I think another good example is the original NASL which essentially took a few different rag-tag soccer leagues and tried to build it into a full fledged, top tier league, the likes of MLS and NFL. Those teams often shared NFL venues. That league's rise and fall is tied to several things and several storylines, but like the USFL, I guess the lesson is that starting yuor own thing from scratch is not only difficult, but requires a ton of clout. To do that today, yuo'd have to find a handful of owners willing to lose a good deal of money, for a long time, all aligned on the idea of challenging the current set up.

 

Soccer in the United States is going to get interesting over the next few decades as the sport continues to grow here. The aforementioned Dennis Crowley has shown how you can make it work at the grassroots, amateur level and clubs like Detroit City FC have shown you can garner a loyal following even without being "pro."

 

I don't necesarily think the USL is going to directly challenge MLS in the next five years or even ten. The notion is intriguing, but it's worth noting that the league has a very good relationship with MLS with some of its clubs being direct MLS "II" teams, direct hybrids ala a AAA team, or "hybrids" that feature some MLS development players/independent players. If you eliminate those clubs, there's a lot of ground to make up.

 

The USL currently has 33 teams for 2018.

 

Of those 33, only 12 clubs are fully independent with no MLS affiliation of any sort.

 

Of those 12, Charleston, Penn, and Colorado have had "hybrid" agreements in the past and may have them again this year or in the future.

 

Of the remaining nine, Nashville is headed to MLS in 2020.

 

Of the remaining eight, both FC Cincinnati and Sacramento are still considered MLS expansion candidates. We'll find out which one got it (hopefully soon), but whichever remains will likely still be looking to jump to MLS).

 

Of the remaining six, Indy XI, NCFC, Tampa, and Phoenix have all submitted MLS expansion bids. Phoenix probably has the edge on the others, but if MLS does keep growing, Indy, Tampa, and NCFC could be contenders again.

 

That leaves Louisville and Las Vegas as your only truly independent clubs that currently have no direct plans to attempt to join MLS.

 

It's likely not all of them will get in to MLS and could keep making strong runs in USL, but I think that league is going to take its time growing out its divisions with stronger clubs and gain truly solid ground in makrets before it goes about contesting Division 1.

 

I think Atlanta is an outlier. We saw 68,000 come out to the Citrus Bowl to support Kaka's Orlando SC. Attendance at their new stadium, while strong, doesn't necessarily indicate any sustainability in a stadium of 30,000+. I'd argue the same for Bobby Dodd stadium and Atlanta.

 

I think much of soccer's popularity has to do with first - geography, and second - availability of other season ticket options.

 

The most devoted fanbases, I'd argue, are in the PNW. Portland and Seattle fill their seat allocations nearly every home match, and even travel well. Portland only offers the Trailblazers, and Seattle has the Mariners and Seahawks. Beyond that, the Cascadia region has a MASSIVE history of soccer, and that's a bit of an anomaly in America.

 

There's a reason DC United and FC Dallas struggle to get fans through the gate, and it's not that there isn't great soccer played in their respective regions. It's that their areas are "football-first" and there are several other professional sports franchises to attend.

 

You're probably right about Orlando, but I think Atlanta's support is fundamentally different and more diverse than what we've seen from every other team so far, so I think their success will be sustainable.

 

This is a great video about the amazing job Atlanta's management has done:

 

And some international coverage, shows how distinctly "American" Atlanta's support is, compared to other MLS teams:

 

 

By all accounts RFK was just an absolutely atrocious stadium, so this year we'll finally get to see if it was the stadium or market over-saturation holding DC United back.

 

FC Dallas's location in Frisco alienates large parts of their potential fanbase because how far removed it is from the rest of the metro. When they used to play at the Cotton Bowl they had a sizable Hispanic fanbase, which is quiet rare for the MLS. They moved to the exurbs just as MLS 1.0 (sanitized fan environments for soccer moms and their kids) was winding down. Chicago and New England have the same problem. The USL recognizes the weakness of the MLS 1.0 teams and is getting ready to pounce.

 

In Chicago they preparing to build a stadium between Lincoln Park and Bucktown. The MLS's Chicago Fire are stuck in a long term lease agreement with Bridgeview that basically prevents them from moving to another location in Chicagoland. They've always struggled with attendance, and I think they would struggle to compete with a team in an urban stadium with a L stop. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/ori/ct-biz-lincoln-yards-soccer-stadium-ryan-ori-20171121-story.html

 

In Dallas, the USL would be able to control the Metroplex if they put teams in the Cotton Bowl and somewhere near downtown Ft. Worth. In New England, they can put teams in Boston and Providence to squeeze The Revolution both ways. In Philadelphia, Temple has talked about bringing in a soccer team to help support the on campus stadium they're trying to build. I even saw some rumors last week that a USL group is looking at the feasibility of a downtown Denver location. The USL still relies on the MLS 2 teams to fill out its schedule, but in another two years or so it will have enough teams to go on its own. Once that happens, I think we'll see a lot of markets doubled up.

 

 

If Cleveland wants to do a team the right way, it needs to start from scratch and play in the city. I'd posit that we cannot sustain a stadium that seats beyond 20,000. If I turn out to be wrong, build the stadium in a way that allows for expansion. I just fear that a team will never take off if we keep playing at glorified HS stadiums.

 

CSU's Krenzler Stadium seems like it is in a great location. I've read that CSU has considered creating a football team before, with the last serious push occurring about a decade ago. http://www.cleveland.com/sports/csu/index.ssf/2008/10/plan_to_add_football_at_clevel.html

I wonder if a group trying to bring pro soccer to Cleveland could find some way to share the costs and ownership with CSU. Nashville SC tried to do this with Vanderbilt until the school dropped out at the last minute.

^Or CSU could instead focus on ramping up a soccer team, which I imagine is much cheaper, and could set up some pretty good regional rivalries.

Also want to add for the people that don't know, the soccer base in Northeast Ohio is huge. I played premier all through my youth. NEO was/is one of the top regions in the Midwest.  Western New York (Buff, Roch) and ChicagoLand were just as big or bigger from what I remember. I don't remember too many elite teams coming out of Columbus or Cincinnati, maybe that has changed recently, or maybe I shouldn't equate elite team production with fan bases. There were a lot of premier teams out of Toledo also, now that i think about it.   

 

No doubt. St. Ignatius and CVCA are consistently 2 of the top soccer programs in the nation.

 

Don’t  forget about University of Akron. They are among the elite college programs.

^Or CSU could instead focus on ramping up a soccer team, which I imagine is much cheaper, and could set up some pretty good regional rivalries.

 

That takes much more than you think.

 

Back in 2007, when CSU was exploring the possibility of a football program, they were planning to expand into the MAC.

 

The Horizon League is primarily commuter schools and really doesn't support this sort of thing - CSU would have to join a bigger conference for that to happen. CSU lax is in a premier conference, but that's only because the Horizon League does not offer lacrosse.

Yea, I realize the CSU thing is basically a pipe dream. It was on my mind because I recently had a discussion on here about how CSU could use a rebrand, with my preference being "University of Cleveland". Starting a football team, building a midsized on-campus stadium, and upgrading conferences would go a long way to reinforcing the new brand. But I'm not from Cleveland, nor do I know anyone associated with CSU, so I don't know the aspirations of the organization and community.