I would think the Cubs’ performance on the field is what has routinely devalued their brand. Not to pick on them, but there’s not much of a summit to come down from.
The Cubs right now have one of the most valuable brands in sports. Why would the league want to lose that value?
“League” meaning “owners” as well. Nobody who owns a major league franchise is going to accept a system that imperils their cash flow.
I gotta say, Red Wiggler, for someone who hates the non-relegation system and refuses to pay attention to sports that follow it, you certainly seem to spend a lot of time thinking about it… 
Just so we’re clear, this is not simply a “US” model…it is a “US and Canada” model. (The term “American” may or may not be inclusive in this case.)
It isn’t going to happen. Ever. The team owners wouldn’t stand for it. The fans wouldn’t like it. The players wouldn’t accept it. Miguel Cabrera, Dustin Pedroia, and Carlos Gonzalez are now minor leaguers, given that their teams just finished last? Oh, the MLB players union is going to LOVE that.
I suppose you could try starting a league like that. It would be interesting to see how the folks in places like Tulsa, Albuquerque, Louisville, and Virginia Beach respond to the idea of a league in which they too can be in the majors. My guess is that they wouldn’t be too interested; they’re already following the Cowboys, the Suns, the Reds, the Somebody Elses. I could be wrong. It’s certainly telling that when new leagues did try to set up shop back in the sixties and beyond (the ABA, the WHA, the WFL, the USFL) they didn’t use the relegation system.
Bottom line: the current system works in North America. You may not like it for all kinds of reasons, but it ain’t going anywhere.
The MLS model is based on salary controls. There’s only so much they are allowed to spend. Escalating salary battles will kill soccer in the US because there’s still not an NFL-type following. That’s why relegation won’t work, the relegated team won’t be able to afford the escalated salary burden in the lesser league and the promoted team won’t have a stadium that can support the higher salary requirements. It’s the same problem the Premier league faces, only with a sport that is barely relevant in the US which would cause the sport’s collapse. As an example of a league that shouldn’t have failed but did because the owners got out of hand almost right away with salaries, look at the USFL.
It will be a long time, if ever, before US soccer can support that kind of system.
I think the main problem is, there just isn’t the support in the USA for enough cities to have teams in order to make this viable. What would be the equivalent to, say, Scunthorpe United or Yeovil Town?
The second problem is, this works well in countries where soccer is the main team sport, but in the USA, the NFL and NBA have reached the point where league soccer played at any time other than the summer is always going to be relegated to the “in other sports news” section of SportsCenter.
According to the stats I’ve seen, average attendance for USL games is 3,100.
That’s equivalent to the average crowd at a Mahoning Valley Scrappers (short-season single A) baseball game.
Given the history of soccer in the U.S. maybe that qualifies as a “boom”. It’s just not a very loud one.
The best players in a relegated team are usually sold to a club still in the top division. A relegated club may try to hold on to their best players for the best chance of being promoted, but this risks a talented player becoming moody and losing form(not really giving his 100%). Each club has to play it by ear. By-and-large good honest professionals are kept by the relegated club, moody prima donna’s are sold.
American sports systems kinda resemble our health care system in that we evolved a mediocre structure right out of the gate and now it’s next to impossible to install something obviously better.
Except for the point that it’s not obviously better. The relegation system is different, but you haven’t made a strong argument that it better serves the desires and needs of the American public, players, or owners.
This is Lloyd Christmas logic. One in a million? “So you’re saying there’s a chance!”
The teams at the bottom of a European promotion/relegation system don’t have a chance of winning the ultimate championship. Okay, maybe one in a million; your hope, as a fan of some fringe level 1/2 team, is that a reclusive billionaire will buy the team out of sheer curiosity and spend a few hundred million euros luring great players away from other teams for a shot at the big prize. They are otherwise forever doomed to be fighting to win promotion and struggle to stay in the top league for a few years. European football leagues have levels of competitive balance that make North American pro league look like absolute models of fairness. If you don’t believe me, look up a list of champions in any top flight European league; they are absolutely dominated by a handful of teams.
This year the Kansas City Royals won the World Series. Under a European system, that simply doesn’t happen. When they went down the tubes in the 90s they would have been relegated, and the prestige and accompanying revenue and benefits would have gone to whatever team replaced them. They could never have completely come back enough to become the best baseball team in North America.
Under the European system, the Yankees, Red Sox or Dodgers would win the World Series almost every year. Every once in awhile another large market team like the Phillies or Angels would win it, but it’d be the same 2-4 clubs, year after year, decade after decade, and most teams would have no chance at all. ALL top flight European leagues are like this. The Bundesliga has been dominated by Bayern Munich since forever. The Premier League has had four champions in the last twenty years. La Liga isn’t so much a league as The Real Madrid and Barcelona Show, as those two teams win almost every year (and whichever one doesn’t win is the runnerup almost every year.) Serie A is currently on a run of four straight Juventus championships. North American leagues go through runs of dynasties, but not since the Celtics dynasty in the 60s and 70s has one run on a generational timeframe.
Red Wiggler’s obsession is partially a failure to understand the North Americans system, but it’s also a blindness to how boring the European system would seem to North Americans who are accustomed to the fact that 30 or so teams have a honest to God shot at a championship. Small market teams win North American championships all the time. Just in the last five years the Royals won the World Series, the Ravens and Packers won a Super Bowl, San Antonio and Oklahoma City won NBA titles, and while no small markets won a Stanley Cup we’ve seen the resurgence of two franchises, Chicago and LA, who would have been relegated long before (and likely replaced by new clubs in their markets) and six years ago Pittsburgh, a team that would have been relegated for sure, won.
If what you’re used to is all the best players going to 3-4 clubs that win all the championships, you become used to it. Gosh, who’s going to win the Premier League this year - Manchester United, Manchester City, or Chelsea? The outside shot would be who, Arsenal? I’ll tell you who it’s not going to be; Swansea City. Not this year. Not ever.
Hundreds of North American cities could potentially field MLB teams, with the right structural changes. Distribution of TV revenue would be one: every team in the structure would receive a cut, according to their tier. East Bumblefuck’s gate might be lower, but with their TV money (the majority of of total league revenue) played smartly, they could compete.
The first version of formal tiering was instituted then, but it was almost completely unrelated to the modern farm system. Three new major leagues were birthed after that, two of them direct upgradings of minor leagues, though only one (the American League) survived. The PCL would have been a fourth and second, respectively, in the 1950s or '60s, had existing MLB franchises not moved to the west coast right then. Some of the subsequent expansion franchises were effectively, if not technically, promotions of PCL territories.
In any case, most minor league teams remained free, if without real hope of ascendance, until World War II, and some continued after. Free minors had a rebirth in the 1990s, though only alongside a thoroughly entrenched affiliation structure.
I’m sorry but this is, taken literally, absurd. What you are describing would no longer constitute a major league; it’d be a vast AAA-level-at-best league.
To have MLB for “Two hundred teams,” even supposing we’re giving teams to cities in the Dominican or Cuba, would require that teams be placed in cities like Savannah, Kalamazoo, Wichita and Quebec City. There is absolutely zero chance markets that small could possibly support a Major League Baseball team of the sort that exists today. They couldn’t afford to build or even come close to filling a ballpark of MLB size and standards. Even if you split up all the TV money, the rights per team would come nowhere close to covering the current cost of an MLB team.
You’d have to severely downgrade what constitutes “Major League” baseball. It’ll be a much less talented, much less spectacular, and far cheaper product, and the TV rights would dry up in a hurry because public interest would dwindle accordingly.
You misunderstand. The top tier of the structure I’m talking about would be smaller than current MLB.
In 1996, Manchester City were in the Premier League. Two years later, they had been relegated to what was then called the Second Division - that’s two below the PL (with the First Division in between). From 1999 to 2002, they bounced between the PL and First Division. After that, they established themselves back in the PL. In 2012, they won the Premier League title, and they did it again in 2014.
Atletico Madrid were relegated from La Liga 1 in 2000 (and more or less bankrupt). They won promotion in 2002 and won the LL1 title in 2014.
VFL Wolsburg were a third division side until the early 1990s, and won the Bundesliga in 2009.
FC Twente were relegated from the Eredivisie in 1983, made it back up, and won the Eredivisie in 2010. AZ, the Dutch champions from the year before, were promoted in 1998.
So tell me again how that doesn’t happen under the European system?
Such bullshit. That’s like saying I could be screwing Kaley Cuoco, with the right structural changes (like a new body, new personality, several million dollars and a boatload of luck.) At that point I wouldn’t be me, and baseball wouldn’t work they way you describe either. I wouldn’t care if my hometown had a team. I’d still be rooting for the Dodgers and not them. In fact, that’s what I do now. The local Single A team reeks and you couldn’t pay me to watch a game in their park.
Out of interest, have you been following the Premier League this year? Because one team that certainly won’t win it is Chelsea, who are hovering above the relegation zone after winning last year. And five points clear at the top is the mighty Leicester City.
I’ve made numerous arguments about how an open system better serves the public by offering more towns/regions teams of their own with a chance of promotion (important point there) and it should be obvious how greater freedom of movement and more employment opportunities would benefit players.
None of us should give one rat’s ass about benefitting the owners, who are the historical primary impediment to us having a better system.
This has nothing to do with the system of promotion and relegation and everything to do with the fact that there is no salary cap outside North American sports.