The first English championship was played with 12 teams and has gradually expanded to where it is now, going through growing pains at each stage and facing similar dilemmas. Similarly the Japanese soccer structure has undergone reforms in outlook as it has laid down stronger roots – so there is plenty of precedent in trying to work out potential ways forward.

For example the principle of open competition gained support as giant-killings continued to occur in the various challenge cups (including the FA Cup) and the popularisation of the sport was aided by establishing a truly meritocratic basis. It took 12 years to increase from 12 to 40 member clubs and just over another 20 years to expand to 88 teams, but it is only in the past few decades that membership of the 4 division heirarchy of fully-professional ranks (the current 92 league clubs) has become awarded on the basis of automatic right determined from end-of-season positions rather than by election as sufficient clubs at the non-league level met the criteria for entry (mainly stadium conditions – minimum capacity of 5,000, fulfilling media and corporate requirements etc).

Reading the complaints coming from each of the owner groups it is clear there are divergent issues each with economic origins that were pulling in opposite directions. On one side there seems to be a desire to fulfill untapped potential for a stronger national league, while on the other there are several clubs which don’t have the resources or infrastructure to support this and are heading towards greater regionalisation.

In particular travel costs has been a big criticism of the smaller clubs. For Miami of PR this makes little difference, but at the level of a Wilmington, Richmond or Carolina it makes more sense to consolidate the league on a geographic area.

My feeling is that USL should has been failing the clubs by providing insufficient matchdays in the schedule as revenue generators (primarily ticket-sales – in Europe 15 guaranteed home dates is seen as the absolute minimum for professional survival – English clubs below the premiership have 24, an immediate increase of over 50% in earning potential) and they will increasingly focus on the regionalisation aspect.

Inevitably the structure will continue to evolve, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the PDL merges with the NPSL – consider the oddity of Reading United and Reading Revolution playing in parallel 4th tier divisions on opposite sides of the town!

But my first piece of advice would be to push for an end to play-in games in the Open Cup in order to broaden the participative base and give greater opportunity to demostrate that what matters most is what happens on the field, not who owns the facilities and contract rights.

Bankruptcy?

The league will probably lose Austin, Portland and PR, the NYC team seems dead in the water and although they can make the current USL-2 teams the “first Division” of the USL, that is not the best outcome either.

So it’s best that the USL just give in, lick their wounds and play the current USL – 2 and PDL teams as some sort of combined league where possible. Concentrate on building a solid marketing plan, which seems to be one of the issues that the NASL has, and then try to expand the brand again but smartly.

One of the biggest issues I’ve had the last 15 odd years of following the USL is how many teams have folded because of bad management which seems obvious to all but the USL FO….like the Edmonton Aviators – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmonton_Aviators – a few years ago and the current NYFC fiasco.

The USL does the developmental leagues best and that may be their future but as a professional league, I think they are finished.

It will never work with these rotating leagues and teams. It frustrating for players and fans.

Yep, it looks terrible for USl-1.