How lucky or fortunate Fulham are

I have been to one fulham game in my life, a 0-0 draw with charleton, van der sar was in goal and coleman was the manager. I think that was 4 years ago now. I noticed today that while fulham may (i hope) finnish with its best ever points total and position this year that charlton is about to be relegated to league 1. Its amazing to me how thin the line is between success and failure. I believe the year I went to the game charlton finnished higher than fulham in the table and since then fulham has had two escapes from relegation while charlton has gone down and now down again. With relegation a possibility every year it certainly adds a dimension that I think is sorely missing from our sports in america. I think it would be awesome if the threat of relegation was held over the head of the lowliest teams in MLB or NFL. Might make some of those games actually exciting to watch

 

You might want to look at the rise and fall of other teams like Wimbledon, Fulham was once in what was then division One (Now the Premiership) and in three straight years were relegated to Division 3 it's hard in any league but the British league in my eyes is hardest of all European leagues to stay up.

Here in the US it's all about the Money baby!


COYW'S

 

hatterDon,

I agree that in the US a legalized monoploy/socialist sports system exists and in Europe it is no holds bard capitalism system exists, What I don't get is why. If anything given the way the rest of our culture operates shouldn't it be the other way around. Maybe as a culture we really prefer socialism more than we are willing to admit. Now can you explain why US fans (myself included) sit though games with a cheer here or there while european fans manage to keep the celebration going all game long. I have been to a few MLS games and its like watching PGA golf except the stuards don't have to hold up a quit sign the fans just do it automatically.

 

The big difference is that the NFL, NBA, MLB and (as yet) NHL don't have to send representatives to compete against the top teams from other nations. The "good of the league" approach works well when you are either the best league in the world by a landslide and/or if you don't have to worry about being measured against some other country's teams.

Soccer is different. In Europe, in many circles, winning the Champions League counts for more than winning the League and the prestige of a league is measured by how well they do in European competition. It is therefore in their best interest to create a highly competetive environment to ensure the best teams, best organizations, and best players are competing in global competitions.

The WPS works with the standard American model for it is the undesputed top professional womens league in the world. Creating parity results in a better product on the field and ensures near equal opportunity for players to show their talents.

MLS is in a different place for it is not close to being the top league in the region and, arguably, not the top league in the country (note USL1's showing in the CCL). Now that a baseline of product quality and fanbase has been established, it would behoove the MLS to begin moving toward a promotion/relegation system and away from the parity-game, in order to produce better competition against regional rivals. Personally, with 18 teams in 2011, I would shoot toward a one team relegation/promotion in 2016/17 with USL1 (or its descendent).

The NHL may soon be facing a similar situation with the impending start of the new Euro Hockey League. There will be competition for top talent and, inevitably, inter-league competition to see which league is best. Some reduction in the parity measures will be needed in order to compete.

 

As far as I understand it - Promotion/Relegation was something that was built in from the foundation of the game - back when players were working men who also played football.

In that situation it makes complete sense to me that you would want to move the better clubs up and the more average clubs down. Any rec or semi-pro'ish league that I have played in has had this concept built in. Both the winning team and the losing team get nothing from winning/losing 15-0.

We just have been blessed to see that concept continue even while the game has turned into one big financial mess and media monster.

Here in the US we do not have the tradition of such an organization and as such - there is no way they adopt it because the owners dont have the history, passion, or the stones for it.

From a player/consumer point of view - I would love to see the entire football landscape organized into one linear system. Rec, county/area, state, region, East/West 3,2,1 with Promotion - Relegation, and all of the teams from the state level up in these leagues should have free to player residency youth programs.

 

The easiest sport to plug that concept into would be baseball b/c of the wealth of teams scattered over many levels around the country. And it would benefit baseball as well as it would provide a drawback for owners who prefer to run their clubs on the cheap and contend for nothing. It would also allow areas to get behind their teams with the hopes of helping to boost them to the majors.

It also allows problem teams to solve themselves as opposed to the slew of relocation (really hate that) that we've seen across the various sports leagues.

 

I think one thing we are overlooking is that promotion and relegation in the English system don't really exist as a "free market, capitalistic" system. Teams in the premier league have an enormously larger budget, so much so that teams that are relegated receive an extra million dollars for the next three (or two?) years after being relegated than the other teams in Division 1. How many teams that are promoted/relegated hold on to their players? In reality, we are mostly keeping the same pool of players in the premier league and shuffling them around different team names and coaching systems. When Seattle moved from USL to MLS, they only held onto 1 player. The promotion and relegation in England just helps teams know which players deserve to move up (promoted teams stars) and which players should move down (relegated teams weak points).

The major reason that the MLS does not have a promotion/relegation scheme is mostly due to the lack of fan support. The market for soccer in the United States is small and the MLS has made it exhaustingly apparent that they will not be satisfied with small clubs by the requirement that a new MLS team must have a soccer specific stadium etc. As a USL-1 Charleston Battery supporter, I know that a relegation scheme in America would be unsustainable. Last years USL-1 champions, the Puerto Rico Islanders, have a stadium that can only seat 12,000 and Charleston can only seat 5,000 which almost never sells out, while Toronto FC which has one of the smallest stadiums (if not the smallest) in the MLS can seet 20,000.

 

Flamingcokecans. I have to respectfully disagree. I think the success of USL1 points to a ready-made successful promotion/relegation system. While some of the USL1 teams have smaller stadiums, keep in mind that KC's temporary stadium only holds 10,000 and the average MLS attendance, if you remove Seattle from the equation, is only 14,000 in the MLS. The Rochester stadium holds about 14k, Montreal's holds 13k, Minnesota's 12k, and the rest are in the 7-10k range. Charleston's is the smallest at 5k.

I personally think 7-10k is sufficient capacity, albeit a minimum. As success in a promotion/relegation system is partly driven by funds to buy players and pay player salaries, teams will have more incentive to expand their seating capacity.

Also, think of it this way: don't you think soccer fans in Charleston will be more likely to support the Battery if they knew that if they won the league, they would get promoted to the MLS?

 

I think the biggest barrier to introducing promotion/relegation to the MLS is the expansion fees. You're just not going to have owners shell out the new money with the chance that they could be relegated immediately.

One of the Fox Football Phone In guys actually had a good idea on the subject - make it so expansion teams have a window (2-3 years) in which they can't be relegated.

As for our other sports, it will never, ever happen. Baseball could concievably adopt it, but you'd eventually have farm teams playing their parents teams - you'd have to cut all of those asssociations somehow, and/or have minor league/drafted players still tied to a parent team, but sort of "on loan" to the minor league team, and "cup tied" so to speak if the minor league team that the draftee plays on were to play the major league club that owns him, he couldn't suit up.

 

Don, you also forgot to mention that in our socialism (more like commercial kleptocracy), owners can demand the tax payers finance THEIR stadiums or otherwise move the team to another part of the country.

just look at the Supersonics. or whats about to happen to DC United.

Someone really needs to do a study on how much money sports owners actually pay out of pocket (excluding tv deals, tax assisted financing, sponsorship deals etc) on the teams they own.

 

You are so right on this point! Nobody is going to sink 40 million plus into a franchise that might be relegated. It just is not going to happen. If relegation were a possibility I doubt the MLS would be in existence today. Just because some fans want it does not make it feasible.

 

Here are the reasons I think Relegation/Promotion would be a good thing for the MLS:

1) FIFA wants clear league champions; they prefer a single table with no more than 18 teams, and home/away fixtures.

2) There are more than 18 markets North of the Rio Grande that could support a top flight team.

3) Given the constraints of 1) and the needs of 2), a Promotion/Relegation system is the best of both worlds. 36, 54, or even 72 professional clubs could exist in the system, satisfying more markets.

4) North American (by this I mean North of Mexico) also has a distinct advantage over almost every nation in the world. We have regional TV, so local teams can get a local TV contract to gain solid revenue, no matter their league position - this is an additional revenue stream, on top of national and international TV rights, that European teams, especially, do not have access to.

Yes, there is the risk of having the NY, LA, and Chicago teams relegated from the top division but, think of this: in a true promotion/relegation system, there is no financial/league parity - in most cases, the teams with the most money do better. Given their larger earning potential and profile, teams in those markets should be dominating the league, not in risk of relegation.

As for the expansion fee - that is why I am suggesting to start pro/rel 5 seasons after the league gets to 18 teams. I would also suggest a much more modest ($10M?) fee for entry into MLS Div 2 and balloon payments for any relegated MLS team. I would plan to expand to a 2 team pro/rel after 3-5 more years and then 3 teams 3-5 years after that. The cream will rise to the top, the bigger markets will get represented, along with smaller markets with rapid fan bases.