Requiem for the USOC
The Chief
In case you’ve missed the news this offseason, the venerable US Open Cup is on life support. Things have been rocky for the 110 year old tournament since Major League Soccer announced its plan to send reserve / MLS Next Pro teams to compete this year in lieu of the mostly-backup squads its teams usually field. This set off a firestorm of dueling press releases and then radio silence. We’ve been waiting for updates about the tournament’s status since then, and the latest updates don’t look good — with some suggestion that the USOC may be cancelled entirely this year.
This begs the question — why? America loves old and historic things, which is why we keep electing them to lead our country. Why is MLS seemingly out to kill the US Open Cup?
While no one can know what truly lurks in the cold, presumably beating heart of Don Garner and his MLS Board of Governor puppet-masters, allow me to give what I think is the most obvious answer:
Money.
MLS doesn’t make enough of it off the USOC (which is controlled by the US Soccer Federation), and the tournament arguably hurts MLS by offering a valuable platform to other, non-MLS soccer leagues.
Someone else who has the numbers can write about the first part of this — because I want to focus on the second part. Namely, the idea that one of the primary goals of killing the USOC is killing off the USL and other independent soccer leagues.
From its founding, MLS has sought to emulate the other sports leagues of the United States and Canada. Each of these leagues (NFL, NHL, MLB, and NBA) now stand as the apex of their respective sports in the country. This didn’t happen by birthright, however. At various points in each league’s history, they were challenged by upstarts or other leagues that had stated goals of taking the flag as preeminent destination for the various sports. Major League Baseball as we know it today was a result of a “merger” (of sorts, and which took nearly 100 years) between the American League of Professional Baseball Clubs and the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs. The NFL merged with the rival AFL in 1970 and successfully fought off a challenge from the USFL in the 1980s. The NHL effectively killed the AHL by admitting 4 of the teams and folding the other 6 (including the Cincinnati Stingers). Similarly, the NBA and ABA merged in 1976 forming the modern NBA.
In each case, merger brought about hegemony for the sport. And, as a result, each league owns a de-facto monopoly over its game in the United States. This frees the leagues to do as the please in terms of setting competition rules and guidelines to ensure maximum profitability (and, in many cases, watchability).
“But Chief,” you ask — confused as to what about any of this has compelled me to actually WRITE for The Post, “what does this have to do with MLS and the US Open Cup?”
(You’re welcome for the quick history lesson, BTW.)
Major League Soccer has reached the point in its life-cycle where it needs to clear the field of competition if it is to continue growing. This means, whether they declare it publicly or not, that the league is currently at war with the USL Championship, NISA (if it still exists by the time I hit “publish”) and all other non-MLS leagues. And this is all because of Apple TV.
Allow me to explain:
The Apple TV deal for MLS has changed the math when it comes to how the league shows growth and increases revenue. Gone are the days of putting MLS games on TV and hoping people find the sport while flipping around channels (for the Gen-Z’ers — this was the old practice of sitting on your couch with a remote and clicking the “channel up” button on your remote until you passed something interesting to watch or a re-run of “The Hunt for Red October” on TNT). MLS is now in a position where it needs actual fans to pay actual money to watch the product on TV. And, unlike abstract ratings numbers that result from statistical sampling, MLS now knows down to the person exactly how many of you have ponied up to watch the league. Like everything else on Wall Street and in Silicon Valley, we have entered “the line must keep going up” territory for subscriber growth.
In order to keep the line-watchers happy, MLS needs to expand fanbases beyond the hardcore supporters and evangelists for the sport. And, it needs to do what all of the other sports leagues have done and allow regional fanbases to develop. They need people in Louisville to be FC Cincinnati fans (the same way they are, mostly, Reds and Bengals fans in other sports). They need people in San Antonio to make a choice to support FC Dallas or Houston Dynamo (as they may choose to support the Astros or the Rangers). They need these people to be eagerly signing up for MLS League Pass to supplement the 2-3 games per year they may drive to see in person. And, right now, the existence of independent, minor league soccer teams in these cities — your LouCity’s and your San Antonio FC’s — is an impediment to that happening.
Every fan that MLS can move from USL to MLS now has an actual dollar value to MLS, even if they never drive to buy a ticket. Killing off interest in lower-level soccer can make the line go up.
Some of this out of MLS’s control. They cannot FORCE a person in Louisville to take an interest in FC Cincinnati, for example. But, the step MLS absolutely CAN control -- is killing off the USOC or, at the very least, diminishing the USOC in importance. The USOC is the one time of year where lower level clubs and MLS clubs are put onto an equal level. It s a game that allows local, independent soccer clubs to market themselves as a COMPEITTOR to MLS — something you can choose to support instead of MLS and directly opposed to MLS. It’s catnip to casuals, as we saw here in Cincinnati as crowds swelled for USOC matches in 2017. Ending the USOC effectively chokes out the biggest reason for casual fans to check out their local soccer club. They don't get that news cycle hit of having an MLS team in town or as their opponent.
There was an argument a decade ago that USL/NASL was good for MLS as a "proving ground" for new cities and future franchises -- it gave the league Orlando, Minnesota, and Cincinnati. But, now, the league's clear preference is picking markets that show good metrics and astroturfing the shit of things to induce demand. The league is in a better place to just plop expansion franchises down with no pre-existing soccer culture. There was also an argument that the USL / NASL could be a place for young players to develop -- but the league now has MLS Next Pro, which takes over that function. There's no real need to have affiliate agreements with D2 sides when you can run your own development team in-house.
So, with that being eliminated, what is USL's value to MLS? I'd argue zero. And, beyond that, USL remains a potential long-term threat to MLS' business model -- given that it still can show games on linear cable or over-the-air television in markets and that it isn't capped on how much money it can theoretically spend on players. A group of ambitious USL owners could absolutely decide they want to take on MLS directly and begin to make massive investments in their clubs. It would then force MLS to radically change it's salary structure (which MLS doesn't want to do) to stay ahead in the perception of "top flight” status.
The longer term end-game here, in my humble opinion, is very similar to what every other major sport has done: merger and/or acquisition. At some point, MLS is going to need to buy out or acquire the USL Championship and make it a wholly-owned subsidiary — which will cement it permanently as a minor-league and bring about the same kind of hierarchy for soccer in America that exists in every other sport.
In the interim, the casualty of this is going to be the US Open Cup. But, if this is goodbye, I can’t think of a more fitting end than watching Inter Miami fail to win it during MessiFest 2023.
