Home > Uncategorized > USL Series Part II: Explanations

USL Series Part II: Explanations


In conjunction with Brian Quarstad of Inside Minnesota Soccer, MLS Talk and the Kartik Report present the USL at a Crossroads series.

Part two is here.

Some excerpts with commentary.

Nike was not used to being in the business of owning a league and to make matters worse, they soon found out they had overpaid for the UK brand, some reports saying up to twice the amount it was worth. The man who orchestrated the deal for Nike was soon gone and the footwear giant began reassessing their whole company as they moved through the recession of 2008/09.

This is critical to understanding everything that happened with Nike and USL subsequently.


In March of 2009, Aaron Davidson, President of Miami FC and vice president of Traffic Sports US [who owns Miami FC], admitted he was leading a team owners association in a move to “restructure the USL in a way that would elevate the league and raise the franchise values of its teams.”

It is worth noting that Traffic Sports relationship with the FAs in El Salvador, Costa Rica, Barbados and T&T has allowed Miami FC and TOA to get publicity at USMNT games on the road in these venues.  But that Traffic seems to have less pull in the United States than they do in the rest of the CONCACAF region, thus Miami FC plays largely in a vacuum locally and that may only be solved by elevating the overall profile of the league.


Davidson said one of the issues the league owners had with USL is the lack of direction and influence the teams themselves had on the league’s direction. He said there was great frustration amongst the owners for lack of marketing and support of franchises.

This frustration grew as time wore on. The success of Montreal and Puerto Rico in the CONCACAF Champions League was seemingly lost by the league as was a the opportunity to promote the sport and the brand in large markets which saw in upsurge in interest due to the growth of international soccer in these markets.


The TOA wanted a league that was team owner controlled but were willing to negotiate with the league. The teams felt they needed more representation in the league office in decisions that directly affected the franchises.

The TOA was the first really organized effort of USL-1 owners to make changes to the league ownership and structure, but individual owners most notbaly those of the Atlanta Silverbacks and Montreal Impact had voiced similar concerns for years.


The Atlanta Silverbacks were the lone team that dropped out. Numerous reason were stated for dropping from the league. One was the economy and another that MLS was rumored to be possibly moving into the Atlanta market and team owner Boris Jerkunica felt he couldn’t compete.  In addition, it was said that Jerkunica had numerous disagreements with the league’s front office and was frustrated.

The Silverbacks per our reporting never had any intention of simply quitting but decided to suspend waiting for changes from the league. The club had built its own Soccer Specific Stadium, and had fielded a woman’s team and PDL team, in one of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas. They were in many ways a model for how a football club should be run in the United States, but had numerous disagreements with the USL office in Tampa.


The move also meant the team would need to find a new stadium. Cleveland State’s 2,000-seat Krenzler Field was a happy home to many City Star supporters. USL-1 rules state teams must play in 5000 seat stadiums.  So the team moved to Bedford’s Bearcat Stadium, which seats 5,000.

This was a critical issue. Cleveland City had developed a rabid following and an amazing feeling at Krenzel Stadium. Being promoted from a lower league to a higher division is difficult enough, but the stadium move cost the club money in rent and a true home field advantage.

Part III tomorrow.

About these ads
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. Anonymous
    September 1, 2009 at 1:12 pm

    Cleveland made the decision to jump to USL 1 and must ultimately be blamed for causing their own woes. The league cannot be blamed.

  2. Lee
    September 1, 2009 at 2:26 pm

    The owners have to make a decision soon. Persist with USL and all the bureaucracy or break away. From an investment standpoint breaking away makes sense, but it is difficult to recreate a league that has taken 20 years to get to this point. All I know is that we will all be watching with baited breathe.

  3. Fan
    September 1, 2009 at 3:02 pm

    How about an explanation about why you guys sat on all this information for six months and now want to backseat drive? Could it be because one or both of you is involved with the TOA or Traffic?

  4. September 1, 2009 at 5:37 pm

    As far as sitting on info, yes we did that. We (Brian Quarstad and myself) felt it was responsible to not discuss these matters in detail until the USL sale was complete. We made an editorial decision. Our sites are not “rumor” and “gossip” sites like some others on the web, that happen to do a very good job and a service.

    Much of the information we’ve been told off the record or on background could not be published anyhow.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: