The U.S. Soccer board wasn’t convinced two weeks ago that the NASL had a viable plan to meet the standards established for second-division professional leagues. So this Friday in New York City, where the federation denied the NASL’s request for 2018 sanctioning in a September 1 vote, owners will gather and attempt to come up with one.
They’ll need to find a path they can go down together—and one that entices others to join them—before convincing the USSF to consider reversing its decision. The fate of the seven-year-old league hangs in the balance.
Multiple sources confirmed Friday’s meeting to SI.com and through conversations with executives connected to the NASL, USL and U.S. Soccer, a picture of the complex, sometimes controversial sanctioning process took shape. Most declined to speak on the record. An NASL spokesperson referred to a statement released last week, which read in part, “The NASL is disappointed with the [USSF] decision and does not believe that the federation acted in the best interest of the sport …. the NASL remains committed to growing the game and is exploring multiple options as it continues planning for the future.”
Launched in 2011 following a split in the league that became the USL, the NASL has been about ideology as well as soccer. It’s an eight-team circuit that advocates for self-determination and independent clubs and bristles at the stricter, more centralized structure of MLS and the USL (which are partners). There are those who feel the federation’s current standards, which were established in 2014 and dictate minimums league members must meet in order to achieve a specific sanctioning level, are part of the problem. Perhaps at this point in American soccer’s evolution, they’re arbitrary or even unnecessary, they argue.
Those arguments, however—the ideological ones—will have to wait for another day. In order to have them, the NASL must survive. And without second-tier sanctioning, it’s in serious trouble. Sponsors, TV partners and segments of the media and fan base do care about division designation, and owners believe it impacts their asset's value and appeal. Falling to D3—U.S. Soccer likely would be amenable to such an application—isn’t going to be a well-received option in the NASL board room. So, they have to find another way.
The USSF handled the sanctioning issue last winter by offering provisional D2 status for 2017 to both the NASL, which didn’t have enough teams (12), and the USL, which moved up from D3 but still has members that didn’t meet every piece of criteria (stadium/field size, coaching licenses). By August 15, each league had to submit its D2 plan for 2018—the federation didn’t want to leave teams scrambling again by waiting until the last minute.
The USL has 30 members currently and will comprise at least 33 next season. And there are instances (around 20 or 21 according to a source) where several clubs don’t meet every D2 standard. For example, the Charlotte Independence must expand their new facility in suburban Matthews, N.C., to hit the 5,000-seat minimum. But the issues appear to be manageable, and on September 1, U.S. Soccer gave the USL 30 days to provide a plan to resolve each waiver requested. At worst, a non-compliant club can drop to the third-division league USL plans to launch in 2019.
--------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment