Promotion, Relegation and Socialism: Why Pro/Rel Is a Bad Fit for MLS

Recently, United States Mens National Team manager Jurgen Klinsmann stirred the pot when he openly questioned the competitiveness of MLS.

Speaking to reporters in a press conference, Klinsmann highlighted the lack of a promotion-relegation system as contributing to the lesser competition:

"

I’m a deep believer in (the) promotion-relegation system. So it’s not up to me to say there should be MLS and the second division should be NASL, and there should be promotion-relegation. I just wish that we had a system in place where all the young players and all the players in general know that there’s a next higher level and there’s a lower level. If I play a bad season, then the lower level is waiting for me. If I play a very, very good season, then there’s the chance to go up and play at one point whatever you describe then as the highest level.

"

Some critics, including Mike DeCourcy of the Sporting News, defended the MLS and accused Klinsmann of "Eurosnobbery."

It's an ironic criticism considering MLS is modeled on the same principles as European socialism. 

American sports leagues—including MLS—employ the opposite of the pro/rel model: Instead of demoting the dregs, they are rewarded with high draft picks. And the results are often perverse. The NBA wouldn't have a tanking problem if the Sixers had to spend the next season in the D-League.

Pro/rel leagues do not have such a safety net and are therefore more intensely competitive, especially at the bottom. Games between struggling sides have real consequences for the loser.

On the other side of the ledger, teams from the second division—a role most likely played by NASL if MLS adopted pro/rel—can dream about promotion into the big leagues.

Now, which system sounds more American?

Not only does it promote social welfare in the form of high draft picks for the poor, MLS—like the NFL, NBA and NHL—caps salaries and redistributes revenue equally among its 19 teams. Outside of the context of sports, these are principles that make conservative capitalists cringe.

But that's the way American leagues are constructed. The kill-or-be-killed pro/rel system is foreign to the socialist landscape of domestic sports.

The MLS is far too risk-averse for pro/rel. The NYCFC ownership group recently paid a $100 million franchise fee to join MLS. With the league still in its relative infancy, prospective owners would be deterred from making that kind of investment if relegation—and therefore exclusion from the revenue-sharing pool—were a real possibility.

Relegation also presents a risk for television partners who would fear losing a major market—say, New York of Los Angeles—to relegation, therefore driving down the price of MLS broadcast rights and stunting the economic growth of the league.

It makes sense for the MLS to limit risk as the league continues to grow during its incubatory phase. Risk inheres instability, and instability threatens the popularity and development of American soccer.

MLS doesn't have the diehard fan support of European countries, where fans will continue to support teams that have been relegated to lower divisions.

As American soccer grows, there will be a reduced need for ensuring stability. Bigger clubs will be able to sustain support through a relegation period, and owners will be less risk-averse as the value of their sports properties increases. Pro/rel may be a foreign concept, but it will be suitable in a thriving MLS.

But now is not the time. Klinsmann may lament the lesser competition under the league's current structure, but right now the league needs growth and stability more than it needs the thrills and intensity of pro/rel.

Simply put, the MLS is not quite ready for the cutthroat capitalism of the European model.