On the USL’s plan to launch the U.S.'s second Division One soccer league | American Soccer, Explained
In the first edition of "American Soccer, Explained," our new editorial series, Short Corner cofounder Greg Lalas shares a few thoughts on the United Soccer League's recent announcement that it plans to launch a Division One league in 2027 or 2028.
Although unexpected, this isn’t shocking. There’s precedent for multiple professional leagues in the same division in America. The National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) and USL Super League are both sanctioned as Division 1 women’s leagues. USL League One and MLS Next Pro are both Division 3 men’s leagues. It was only a matter of time before someone went for the full monty: a second Division 1 men’s league.
There’s a lot of relevant background and context to this whole thing. So here goes.
A good way to think of pro soccer leagues in America — be it Major League Soccer, USL, NWSL, etc. — is that they are private companies that organize soccer events. Simple as that. They all operate under the governing auspices of the U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF), but they are independent businesses that, in one way or another, are competing with each other.
Several of these companies operate multiple leagues. The company can choose which division each of its leagues will be in, but it must get sanctioned by the federation and meet the requirements laid out in the USSF's Professional League Standards (PLS), a regulatory framework established in an effort to stop our country’s long history of league and club failures. The PLS are entirely focused on business elements, including infrastructure (e.g., stadiums), operations (e.g., staffing, player safety), financial viability (e.g., ownership worth), and scale (e.g., number of teams, locations).
Important to note: The PLS do not include anything related to the quality of the play on the field. No requirements about minimum salary budgets, transfer expenditures, player development, anything.
What this means is that, although the American soccer pyramid is tiered and labeled similarly to those in countries around the world, it is not the same.
Most other countries employ a promotion-relegation system that sees teams move up and down between the levels. In a “pro/rel” system, the connected leagues are naturally tiered based on the quality of the play on the field. Everyone (players, fans, investors, broadcasters, sponsors, etc.) can rightly assume that the teams in the top tier are that nation’s best because each team had to earn its spot in that top tier. This is the underlying premise — and, many would say, beauty — of pro/rel.
Here in the States, where there is famously no pro/rel, most American soccer fans are unaware of or uninterested in which division their club plays in. Because, for all intents and purposes, it is irrelevant to their experience as fans.
However, there are some important stakeholders for whom a league’s division does matter. These include hardcore fans, players, coaches, media partners, commercial partners, and soccer-savvy investors.
It’s these stakeholders who will pay attention if the USL gets a Division 1 league up and running. Here’s why:
Money prefers a major league. The USL, which currently operates Division 2 and Division 3 men's competitions, is frequently dogged as “minor league.” Having an officially sanctioned top-tier league (a.k.a. “major league”) should draw more interest from investors, broadcasters, and sponsors. The eye test, of course, is a different story. If something looks minor league, then it is minor league.
Improved perception abroad. A Division 1 league will attract better international players and coaches, bring in more foreign investment, and potentially garner higher fees for outgoing transfers. Have to imagine Josh Wynder’s transfer value would’ve been more than the reported $1 million Benfica paid if, at 18, he had played 2,500 minutes of top-flight soccer instead of 2nd-tier soccer.
A full pro/rel pyramid. One of the nagging questions (among others) around the USL’s long-discussed implementation of pro/rel has been the fact that a team could never reach American soccer's highest level (read: MLS). Having a Division 1 league of its own solves that quandary for the USL.
Automatic Concacaf berths (maybe). Division 1 would, in theory, help USL teams get into the Concacaf Champions Cup, our region’s version of the Champions League. I say “in theory” because the method for determining CCC qualification has always been opaque and subject to the whims of backroom dealings. But if Concacaf mirrors what happens in Canada — the Canadian Premier League is given two CCC spots — then a new USL Division 1 league would seem to deserve a spot or two.
There is one other potential impact some people have predicted: A Division 1 league would protect the USL from being run out of big markets by MLS (see: San Diego). I’m not convinced. Yes, it would help in any market where the local USL club has super-deep pockets and serious local clout. But the exorbitant financial resources of today’s MLS ownership groups and their broad political influence mean that MLS will largley continue to go where it wants to go, regardless of any incumbent local club’s divisional status. Again, these are private companies competing for market share.
Does MLS care about the USL’s news at all? The short answer is “yes,” because, as one friend in the industry told me, MLS always cares about domestic soccer noise that it doesn’t make or control itself.
But I doubt MLS sees this as an existential threat of any kind. There are Division 1 markets for two leagues, and MLS is too established, too well-resourced, and too entrenched in the global soccer industry to care that much about a domestic competitor that may or may not ever kick a ball.
***
Many observers wonder if or how the USL will meet the standards for Division 1, especially the requirement that stadiums have at least 15,000 seats. As of today, only two USL clubs play in stadiums that big (Birmingham Legion and Miami FC). The USL will need some major investment to expand current venues or build new ones.
Or maybe it won’t.
Times have changed. A big venue is not the mark of a quality club. Fans want a stadium that provides a great experience — exciting atmosphere, authentic matchday presentation, a real soccer field (no football lines!), good security, premium amenities. That can happen in an 80,000-seater like Atlanta United’s Mercedes-Benz Stadium or an 8,000-seater like the Colorado Springs Switchbacks’ Weidner Field.
When clubs in Europe’s top leagues — including the Premier League, LaLiga, and Serie A — have stadiums that would be deemed too small in the U.S., we have to wonder why the stadium capacity requirement is so high. (Note: European leagues do have stadium requirements, but the bulk are related to facilities, safety, and broadcasting. In most countries, the required capacities are less than here: Serie A, 12,000; Bundesliga, 8,000; Premier League, 5,000.)
Other PLS requirements will also likely come under scrutiny. For example, the rule that says a Division 1 league needs 75% of its teams in markets with 1,000,000+ people, or one that demands a Division 1 league has teams in at least three time zones. These types of requirements could complicate a pro/rel system since the makeup of the league changes every season.
Bottom line, the current PLS feel outdated and possibly obstructionist. I imagine the USL’s Division 1 gambit will pressure the USSF to review the standards and, eventually, adjust them.
I don’t, however, expect the PLS to disappear completely. Too much historical carnage in our soccer industry to go full libertarian again. Governance around player safety, stadium facilities, club operations, and financial viability, among others, should continue to mitigate more failures.
And, hopefully, in the end, we'll see more quality clubs in more cities giving more fans an amazing soccer experience.
Time will tell.