Why The USL’s Promotion And Relegation Vote Really Matters

On Tuesday evening, Paul Tenorio of The Athletic reported that United Soccer Leagues owners voted by a supermajority to institute promotion and relegation into their league structure, marking the first time a U.S. soccer league system will institute an open pyramid system that is common in most countries.

The announcement is the second seismic action from the USL in as many months, after in February it announced its intentions to launch a Division One league to rival the MLS and receive the same top-flight sanctioning from the United States Soccer Federation.

According to The Athletic, the USL will aim to launch the league and its promotion and relegation structure at the same time, tentatively in 2027 or 2028.

A vocal segment of the American Soccer fanbase has celebrated the news as a momentous day for soccer’s progress in the United States. That group has long been critical of MLS’ single-entity structure, which it feels lessens the competitive quality of the nation’s only current men’s top-flight league, and gives those clubs’ owners an unfair monopoly over the sport.

But the true ramifications of this push by USL owners are less clear at the moment, and hinge on a series of questions that it will push to the forefront.

Will Selling ‘Authenticity’ Really Drive USL Project?

As the nation’s largest operator of a second- and third-tier pro men’s soccer league, USL has already positioned itself as a more authentic and grassroots alternative to the somewhat plastic veneer of MLS’ corporatist vibe.

Adopting a pyramid system doubles down on that positioning as it attempts to vault its image from minor league to major league status. But it may also make one of the most effective arguments against MLS harder to prove.

For years, those who American fans who chose not to support the league – be they USL supporters or not – have dangled the lack of promotion and relegation as a reason MLS struggles to attract American fans who are active followers of England’s Premier League, the UEFA Champions League, or other popular European soccer properties.

Yet, of the millions of Americans who follow the Premier League, very few are close followers of clubs who regularly find themselves in relegation scraps. If anything, the established powers are more disproportionately supported in the U.S. than in England.

The idea that we will see many of those same fans flock to invest in their local USL club because of the allure climbing the pyramid is a questionable one. And if it doesn’t happen, it may actually strengthen MLS’ position in the battle to control the future of the professional game.

What Impact Will Pro/Rel Have On USSF Sanctioning?

Ultimately it is the United States Soccer Federation that has final say on whether the USL’s Division One league will actually receive Division 1 sanctioning.

And the USSF has several requirements for Division 1 Leagues, including:

• A minimum of 12 teams in Year 1 and 14 teams by Year 3
• Teams in the Eastern, Central and Pacific Time Zones
• 75% of clubs in metro areas of 1 million people or more
• All stadiums enclosed with a minimum 15,000-seat capacity

The changing league makeup based on promotion and relegation could make the USSF concerned that the league might meet these standards in one season but not in another. And in the worst-case scenaro for USL, it might prevent the USSF from sanctioning the USL’s Division One project.

How Will Pro/Rel Impact Expansion?

Previously when the USL launched new clubs, it worked with the club ownership to place the club at a tier that it felt was most suitable for the market.

It’s unclear what impact a shift to a pro/rel structure would have on attracting potential future markets and ownership groups, though it could certainly go both directions.

The idea of a new club being required to climb up what is likely to be a three-tier pyramid from the bottom could be offputting, especially if MLS resumes expansion and provides a more direct – if far more costly – route into a top-tier league.

On the other hand, other ownership groups might find the prospect of being able to grow off the field with a team’s on-field success to be more appealing than having immediately incur the expenses required to operate at a first-division level.