Quote:

---

Tony Scholes, chief football officer of the Premier League, will be leaving to join the USL as president of its new first-division men's league in the United States, according to multiple sources briefed on the decision.

Scholes is set to guide the launch of the new league, shape its structure and run operations. He will also be a critical voice introducing promotion and relegation to American professional soccer. The USL voted to adopt promotion and relegation in March and is set to launch the new league with U.S. Soccer's Division One sanctioning in 2028. Pro-rel could start as early as 2027 between the existing Division Two and Three leagues, though no final decision on that has been made, sources said.

---

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6761281/2025/11/01/tony-scholes-usl-first-division-premier-league/

A unified US soccer system like the FA would be so awesome but would never happen in my lifetime.

It's never happening. Period. Expansion fees in MLS vs. expansion fees in USL will forever prevent pro/rel.

Hell, I even think that expansion fees in USL-P v. USL-C will prevent pro/rel from happening in that league.

Fees are kind of a moot point. Both(all) leagues involved in a pro/rel system would have to stop allowing new teams… except at the lowest division.

And financially, MLS club owners are shielded from a lot of loss because they actually own MLS as a whole single entity, not merely their club (which is also why the fees are so high… they're buying into the single-entity which keeps growing in value). With single-entity, if MLS as a whole got a lot more exciting because it had relegation, then an MLS owner might actually make more money in that system even if their club was one that happened to drop.

But single-entity itself is the real reason it'll never happen. Or at least not between leagues. I could see a situation where MLS expands to the point where it wants to have a MLS 1 and MLS 2.

Single-entity makes promoting a USL club insanely complicated, if not impossible under current structures. How do you bring a non-MLS owned club into MLS? You really can't in the current model, at least not without a ton of appearance of impropriety (refs, scheduling choices, TV choices, revenue sharing, etc all controlled by the same entity that owns all the clubs except the newly promoted). Until the single-entity model goes away, it'll never happen.

But then ironically if single-entity ever went away, then you're correct that no one who invested a ton into an MLS club would want to risk a relegation. So I'm with you… this is never going to happen across all USSF clubs.

Oh no.... factually MLS owners lose (lost) alot of money in the single-entity structure.

The newer owners like San Diego, can't make up a $500million expansion fee over the next 10 years, especially without control of its stadium situation. St. Louis is bleeding money right now and Austin can't be happy with their situation.

I don't think Backham and Mas have turned a profit even with the Messi, Alba, Sergi, Suarez, experiment the last 2+ seasons. The stadium deal had hindered them alot and Beckham sat on the club franchising rights for a LONG time before they even started playing. This new stadium will help when it opens, and that's a primary reason Messi signed for another 3 years.

I'd imagine the old guard is starting to make some money now cuz of single-entity. The Kraft/Hunt/Anschutz trilogy that saved the league back in the early 2000s are getting money from the expansion fees and sponsorship deals like Appletv+, but they've waited 25-27 years (since 1994 at least) to start seeing black numbers in their spreadsheets.

deadbq03 said:

---

Fees are kind of a moot point. Both(all) leagues involved in a pro/rel system would have to stop allowing new teams… except at the lowest division.

And financially, MLS club owners are shielded from a lot of loss because they actually own MLS as a whole single entity, not merely their club (which is also why the fees are so high… they're buying into the single-entity which keeps growing in value). With single-entity, if MLS as a whole got a lot more exciting because it had relegation, then an MLS owner might actually make more money in that system even if their club was one that happened to drop.

But single-entity itself is the real reason it'll never happen. Or at least not between leagues. I could see a situation where MLS expands to the point where it wants to have a MLS 1 and MLS 2.

Single-entity makes promoting a USL club insanely complicated, if not impossible under current structures. How do you bring a non-MLS owned club into MLS? You really can't in the current model, at least not without a ton of appearance of impropriety (refs, scheduling choices, TV choices, revenue sharing, etc all controlled by the same entity that owns all the clubs except the newly promoted). Until the single-entity model goes away, it'll never happen.

But then ironically if single-entity ever went away, then you're correct that no one who invested a ton into an MLS club would want to risk a relegation. So I'm with you… this is never going to happen across all USSF clubs.

---

Another couple of quick items, If MLS wanted single-entity to go away and "adopt" of inclue USL into things, they could've done that already. MLS used USL-C as a reserve league or second division in the mid-2010s. All the reserve teams played in USL before the MLS Next Pro league was created. MLS, in fact, helped the USL win the Division 2 war over NASL by contracting with USL to be the MLS' reserve league. If MLS wanted to merge or absorb USL, they could've done it then. And on the flip side, if USL wanted to be absorbed into the MLS structure, they could have tried harder when they were contracted with MLS then.

USL might have a problem with the USL-Premier coming in above the USL-C. You have longtime members that have been playing in the USL, like Pittsburgh Riverhounds, for example. USL wants the Premier division to function as a Division 1 league, in competition with MLS. Well, division 1 has requirements like population of the city, stadium size, etc. Pittsburgh fits but the stadium is a 5000-seat tiny thing. They have to put 10k more seats to qualify for USL-P. ANd there are contstruction plans in place. (Crazy design, BTW). But if I'm Riverhounds, I'm gonna feel like I've paid my dues and supported this league forever and I'm going to want to be included in the new league off the top over someone brand new, like Atletico Dallas, that doesn't even exist yet. So you have history in a league, build a stadium, expand on that stadium to get into the new league, pay the fee to get into the new league, and then get relegated after the first season??? That's gonna be a problem.

Profitability and ROI are mutually exclusive and I was lazy with my use of "profit" above. I meant ROI.

SD's ownership group doesn't need club profits to make up the $500MM franchise fee. They just need to be able to sell for more than they paid and then they as owners will profit even if the club is still running in the red.

19 of the worlds Top 50 most valuable soccer clubs are in MLS. For better or worse, they're using an equity growth strategy as a league, and it's working. That's why they keep expanding despite having a ridiculous number of teams already. I bet nearly all of their owners are very happy with their prospect of ROI - even if their club's balance sheet seems horrible.

Yes. Profit and ROI are very different. Many MLS teams aren't profitable, but they are very valuable.