In January 1996, I wrote a piece for the Boston Sunday Globe that addressed the promotion/relegation issue, as well as paying college athletes for the job that they actually perform.
In my original article for the Boston Globe, I argued that promotion/relegation was step #2 in a process that saw the official professionalization of big time college programs as step #1. In fact, the argument I was making was a generic one for ALL sports, particularly college football and basketball. Individual sports could choose to go pro or remain amateur, and this decision could be made on a year-by-year basis.
The following is a revised and re-edited version of the Boston Globe article:
What to do about the constant financial scandals in "amateur" college football and basketball programs? That's easy. Acknowledge officially their status as professional athletes they have become already.
The reason for the hypocritical treatment of college athletes comes from the bizarre and clearly outdated celebration of college 'student (sic) athletes' as the essence of amateur competion. This may once have been true on the 'playing fields of Eaton' in Britain during the Victorian age or in the Ivy League at the turn of this century, but it's long since ceased to be an accurate picture of reality.
Look, why doesn't the NCAA just admit the obvious right now and remove the fig-leaf of 'amateurism' from the top, big-money programs? The large football factories and basketball programs have long since departed from their original mission of providing physical education for "student athletes". Most of these athletes -- with a few notable exceptions -- are totally isolated from the rest of the student body that they supposedly "represent". They live in separate facilities, tend to take classes that ill- prepare them for life after college, and basically work a full time job -- playing football or basketball -- while supposedly being full time students. The fact that most of these "student athletes" emerge with neither a degree nor a marketable profession is a scandal of shameful proportions.
This might not be as far-fetched an idea as one might think. There is now some serious discussion about paying college players. Once this symbolic hurdle is passed, then the entire edifice (i.e. amateurism) on which this antiquated structure rests crumbles away. At that point, things that seem like pipe dreams now might get some serious consideration.
The most attractive part of this idea -- aside from paying workers for a job performed and the revenues generated to the Athletic Associations -- is that it would be literally impossible to "move" one of these "college/pro" franchises. And precisely because a particular sport at a particular school could "go pro" or remain amateur, and revisit this decision on a sport-by-sport and year-by-year basis, would produce a completely different (i.e. almost European soccer club-like) ownership structure, including promotion/relegation.
How? Since the university athletic associations are legally-independent entities -- and not subject to direct control by the academic institutions they allegedly "serve" -- the Athletic Associations should:
Before the stodgy NCAA starts howling, let's be clear that this "professionalization" of college sports would be voluntary. Only those schools that chose to take this step would do so, and it would not be irrevocable. If the athletic association/club chose to return to amateur status, they would be free to do so. However, those sports choosing to remain as amateur ones, would find their "scholarships" would be academic not athletic ones. Not all sports at the same institution would "go pro", only those sports that could financially sustain it.
The "pro-college" clubs would function much as minor league and/or semi-pro teams do, without the hypocritical restrictions which the NCAA forces on colleges now. As far as soccer is concerned, they would not be limited to the rediculously short September - November seasons that handcuff college soccer athletes now. Of course, like any other business, these "pro-college" clubs might also face the possibility that their players would join unions for better wages and working conditions. They could, of course, trade, buy and sell the contracts of their players with other clubs as well.
As for the economics of these enterprises, I'd propose what the NBA tried to do, namely open the books and say that the players receive 55% of the gross revenues, period. In this way, both the players and the owners would have the mutually-reinforcing incentive to perform, since both would gain.
Of course, owners would never want to do this. In a way, of course, this is ironic. The most "capitalist" of owners are afraid of letting the market (i.e. relegation) determine their fate based on their performance.
The upshot of this article is that promotion/relegation could work in the US, but only if the colleges were involved and that sports other than soccer were also involved. In effect, college teams in all sports would become the semi-pro teams that they are, just officially. Moreover, they would also drastically curtail the movement of franchises since these "pro-college" teams would be far more deeply rooted to their communities than are all but a few pro teams now. How, for example, could someone "move" the Georgia Bulldogs to, say, New England?
One point that is absolutely crucial for the success of promotion and relegation with respect to soccer -- or any sport -- is the status of the "2nd Division". As long as it is perceived as "minor" league, that's all that it can be. However, if promotion is an option, then suddenly the second division can also mean potentially first division. Ironically, calling our first division MAJOR League Soccer -- while understandable for marketing purposes in the initial stages -- might make promotion/relegation harder here since anything below MLS is, by definition, MINOR league soccer.
For soccer, the key to this is that MLS should never expand to more than 16 teams. This keeps the talent level from being diluted (see the NASL, NBA and now the rediculous expansion of the NHL) In addition, the second division A-League should never -- I repeat, never -- be referred to as the "minor leagues". MLS has acually complicated this equation by using the word "major" which, while understandable, is clearly unfortunate. If the top division is kept to just 16 teams and if the US Open Cup is eventually taken seriously by MLS and the media -- perhaps sold as soccer's version of the NCAA's 'March Madness' -- then there is hope for a quality second division which "on any given day" (remember the old NFL adage?) can defeat an MLS team.
One of the things that "expansion" in all North American pro sports has shown is that 30 teams are too many to adequately function as a major league in any sport. More seriously, the disparities between the "large market" and "small market" clubs becomes all the more evident with 30 teams in a league. Why not return to a league structure of between 16 to 18 teams in the "first division" and place the remainder -- along with the newly "promoted" professional top "college" teams in the second division?
This concept of Promotion/Relegation can be sold to US sports fans not as some bizarre "foreign, European concept" but as a way to treat local fans with respect. It also avoids the cynical greed of pro sports "franchises" moving to different cities depending on which foolish group of local officials wants to overload their local citizens with long term stadium debts to support millionaires who should pay for these themselves.
Back to Chris Allen's "Shots at Goal" Page
Back to Chris Allen's Main Soccer Page