That doesn't mean U.S. Soccer cannot amend them in a way that allows for more innovation and helps promotion/relegation have a fighting chance in this country.
Oustanding piece, as always. Really puts into perspective the potential here, and sadly, all the realistic hurdles still to clear. I'm loving the league's ambition, though.
I think you hit the nail of the head about perception of "minor league". I was more of general sports fan of teams in my market (St. Louis) until we got an MLS team.
The USL predecessor, St. Louis FC struggled with the minor league perception for reasons:
- Playing in a smaller venue that resembled a scaled up high school stadium. I was a place I'd gone to watch my niece play.
- Venue was extremely convenient for me, but awkward location the metro are for a lot people in the area.
- Venue even flooded and an Open Cup match vs the Chicago Fire had to be played in a college football stadium with grid lines and painted end zone. Total "bush league" look. Cool thing though, STLFC beat the MLS side.
- Team at one point had an affiliation agreement with the Chicago Fire. We hadn't had an affiliated team since the St. Louis Braves hockey team was a minor league team of the Chicago Blackhawks in the '60s.
- We've seen soccer teams come and go at the venue including a women's side, Athletica, that had Hope Solo has goalkeeper.
It would be interesting what a parallel universe where St. Louis got passed over by the MLS. This could have happened if we still had an NFL team. St. Louis would be prime candidate for the USL Premier.
The post-2026 World Cup will be a fascinating time for soccer in the US. A new "USL Premier League," the competitive schedule shift, and the potential integration of top men's college teams into USL L1 could fundamentally alter the landscape. I see many people here commenting on US Soccer PLS. With all these changes, I imagine PLS amendments would need to follow. It may be necessary to add a new 4th professional division to accommodate the college teams, promoted USL L2/NPSL teams, and other semi-pro teams looking to make a move.
The TV deal is the most important and interesting part of this. Right now, through CBS and ESPN, more viewers have access to every USL match than MLS matches. The 10-year exclusive Apple+ contract for MLS may be an accidental gift to USL if USL can get a great revenue-sharing option that further increases its visibility and accessibility for casual fans. With that new USL deal set to start around the same time as the new "USL Premier League," USL would have an exciting new storyline to follow. Ted Lasso and Welcome to Wrexham have already introduced Americans to the emotional rollercoaster of promotion and relegation so taking that energy into a domestic league structure right after the World Cup could be a massive sensation. Couple that with MLS being locked into their deal with Apple+ through 2032-2033, USL could have 5-6 years to build a national audience before MLS can push back from behind their exclusive rights paywall.
Last thing, don't count out the Charleston Battery for a spot in the new top league. That is a fantastic organization, one of the oldest running clubs in the country, they have a very wealthy ownership group, Charleston's metro area is growing extremely quickly likely passing 1 million in the early 2030s, and all that is needed is a new stadium. The Battery would be the first-ever Charleston-based professional team to play in a top division, and the new 15,000-capacity stadium would be the largest sports venue in the metro area.
I don't see top college teams being integrated into USL League 1 for at least three reasons:
- achieving or winning college playoffs within conferences or nationally is the higher priority that which dictates college head coach job security. Everything else is a distraction. College season directly conflicts with USL-L1 season and thus the latter will never be the higher priority.
- the college teams would need a MUCH larger travel and staff budget --college soccer teams are not profit-generating, even the top schools, and academia is under huge financial stress right now. And we haven't even begun to talk about franchise fees.
- facilities. Huge investments to upgrade stadiums, locker rooms, and pitch would be needed. Yet for most schools, the field is heavily used by other rectangular field sports, so there is not much flexibility.
TLDR: the money and coach enthusiasm are just not there.
There is a fair amount of reporting that US Soccer and USL have already pitched integrating the top 40-50 programs or the top men's college conferences into the professional pyramid. A lot of top men's programs have dedicated facilities for soccer already and a lot of USL and even MLS teams share their home field with other sports. Division-1 men's college soccer has also been working on a Fall-Spring schedule extension for at least 5 years now and could begin that in 2026-2027 with an August to May season. Based on what is being reported, a lot of your concerns are already being addressed just by the USSF proposal.
The amount of buy in from different stakeholders would be immense, though, including needing ALL the schools of a specific college conference (*)? As well as having all the college presidents and boards of trustees sign off on it, not to mention faculty and other sports of the schools (football and basketball teams --who ARE profit generators-- are not necessarily fans of this).
OTOH, one major advantage of playing nearby college teams to existing USL League One teams would be reduced travel costs couple with heightened rabid fan support. For example, would be fire to see Spokane compete against Univ. of Portland, Univ. of Washington, Univ. of Denver, all top-notch college programs with excellent fan turnout!
Realistically, the colleges have to test the Fall-Spring season extension first for a few years and figure out if different playoffs/champions need to be crowned for the Fall, and then the Spring. Or have the top eight NCAA National Playoff finishers be able to compete in the Spring season against USL League One opponents?
(*) or would individual schools take a leave of absence from a conference, or individual conference schools would take turns in the USL-L1?
From the slide deck I've seen, the suggested calendar includes 20-22 matches from August to April with geographically determined divisions. The college cup would be held over four weekends in May.
I agree about the immensity of buy-in but the major conferences have flirted with the idea of professionalization for a little while now so it won't be entirely new. Having the SEC (which does not have a men's soccer conference) in the mix makes it even more interesting. Bringing that energy into the lower divisions of the US soccer pyramid would be incredible.
As far as financials go, US Soccer suggested cost savings in some areas, federation assistance on facilities/referees/staff/etc., and the intriguing possibility of solidarity payments.
In the slide deck, the college cup is described as being IN ADDITION to the USL-League One playoffs? Or there would be college divisions in the soccer pyramid with top teams in the division standings meeting the top USL-L1 teams in the unified playoffs?
I agree the having the SEC --with its vast reserves of American Football money-- join in would bring huge resources and energy into US soccer. A prospective high school senior may thus choose an SEC school over, say, the ACC or Ivy League, for a chance to compete against pro players during college!
Further, this may also elicit backing from the basketball side of SEC, who can see this as a way of forcing themselves into the G-League of the NBA, as a way of attracting and retaining college athletes!
I haven't seen the USL's slide deck which is different from the USSF one that I have seen. The USSF is proposing a variety of different options depending on the scale of buy-in. Existing conferences are in play if large numbers of schools join, and USSF also proposes regional groups if the numbers start small.
The ACC, SEC, B1G, Big 12, and other prominent mid-majors like Ivy League, Big South, Sun Belt, Atlantic 10, etc. are all listed as potential inclusions. It depends on which Division-1 schools/conferences want to do this.
For the basketball side, that would be a separate negotiation between the NBA and college, but with NIL bringing more money into college sports, this move by the soccer programs could have ramifications for other sports.
Great article, just came up in my Google news feed and I’m so happy it did! The financial concern is the biggest to me. MLS largely built their name using star power, it’d be hard for USL clubs to compete there. That being said, outside of the money factor, USL being D1 could attract better players.
John, what about Sporting Lexington? Also since this effort is to unfold in 2027, are there expansion clubs that will jump others in the process with better infrastructure along the way and/or deeper pockets?
The Lexington stadium is only a 7,500-seater, and that metro is only 500k people. They'll definitely be in the mix but didn't feel like a certainty for my taste.
Expansion-wise, the OKC revival seems like a lock, and there's good noise out of USL Dallas. Buffalo, Milwaukee, and maybe Jacksonville could be in if things go right.
I have mixed emotions about this. Some obvious issues:
1. If this is to establish pro/rel, then this would already fly in the face of that. Choosing teams based on PLS standards alone doesn't use merit.
2. Unless PLS changes, then it's tough to see how a club like Greenville (for example) could win their way up the ranks from League One to the top (Premier?).
The only way I really see this working is to have a dramatic change to PLS, that's structured to take pro/rel into account, as opposed to being built to prevent it. I want to see meaningful pro/rel in the US, but that means teams move because they're the best and worst. Not because their market or stadium isn't "good enough"
Great article! I’m an Akron City FC fan and I’m so stoked to be out of NPSL and in USL2.
In my non expert opinion, the PLS needs to be amended - especially regarding the requirement for the league to span 3 time zones. The US is a massive country with shit transportation infrastructure.
First, they have to get the owners who will be able to invest in clubs and support D1 standards (stadiums, team facilities, travel, salaries, etc). Hopefully this move helps to do that. I'm sure many of those American owners who are buying up lower division European clubs would be interested in doing the same at home. USL should, if not open to direct fan investment, reserve seats on its board for supporters groups to maintain the club relationship to fans. In the past people like Ronaldo (Brasil) was interested in building a club up to top flight but was denied by Garber and MLS. They need to attract people like him back. Bring Zlatan in etc.
Second, what MLS never understood but what USL needs to get right is to understand that major sports media are not media in the traditional sense. ESPN shows like Getup and FirstTake aren't covering sports. They are selling the narrative, the drama, and building interest in the storylines and characters among players, coaches and others that bring interest to the sport. It's the soap opera of sports. USL has to break in with major sports talk (and of course shows like yours) to sell the drama. And what bigger drama can they have than pro/rel and the ongoing battle with MLS?
Third, is the relationship with USSF and the youth system. USSF has zero control over professional soccer right now. D1 sanction means very little to MLS. The only sanction they care about is money. USL can offer USSF a better governing relationship and the critical aspect of that is through the incorporation of the youth system into a national pyramid organized around state and regional councils similar to the way Brasil's system is organized. Youth teams would appreciate feeling a part of a system they can also grow in rather than subjects to a system (MLSnext) reserved for a few that they must pay to participate in.
D1 Sanction can matter to attracting the investors/owners who could invest in a club and build its capacity without wasting almost $1bil alone on an expansion fee that does nothing to support the growth of a club.
As a longtime season-ticket holder for Phoenix Rising I wish I could share your optimism. Our stadium does hold 10,000 but it’s a temporary stadium on land that is rented and is a rather rundown location near the airport. It would not be a long-term solution for division one soccer without widespread and substantial upgrades to infrastructure and everything else. (It is centrally located and right on our light rail and a fantastic spot for me personally).
Perhaps more concerning is our fan support needs to be much stronger. Since the new ownership and franchise identity has been put in place, we’ve had a consistently competitive team and yet attendance remains soft. There are a number of reasons for this, including ownership needs to invest more in the current location and on ensuring the squad on the field remain strong. And of course, sitting in an open stadium throughout the summer in 110° heat is suboptimal. But ultimately, I would love to see it happen.
It’s a shame that this is even necessary. MLS’s proprietary approach to our soccer structure and its insistence on foisting MLS 2 on us is the primary barrier to promotion/relegation.
About strengthening fan support, you should read the conversation elsewhere in the Comments between Grey Gowder and I about all this. Including a potential monumental shift and inclusion of college soccer in all the US Soccer pyramid. And MLS's view on all this is mentioned in an article cited in the conversation....
Brilliant piece, John.
Greatly appreciated!
I think U.S. Soccer needs to take a look in the mirror and think through what purpose PLS serves at this juncture.
The PLS has just been upheld by the victory the NASL vs US Soccer/MLS lawsuit, so it's not going away any time soon....
That doesn't mean U.S. Soccer cannot amend them in a way that allows for more innovation and helps promotion/relegation have a fighting chance in this country.
Oustanding piece, as always. Really puts into perspective the potential here, and sadly, all the realistic hurdles still to clear. I'm loving the league's ambition, though.
I think you hit the nail of the head about perception of "minor league". I was more of general sports fan of teams in my market (St. Louis) until we got an MLS team.
The USL predecessor, St. Louis FC struggled with the minor league perception for reasons:
- Playing in a smaller venue that resembled a scaled up high school stadium. I was a place I'd gone to watch my niece play.
- Venue was extremely convenient for me, but awkward location the metro are for a lot people in the area.
- Venue even flooded and an Open Cup match vs the Chicago Fire had to be played in a college football stadium with grid lines and painted end zone. Total "bush league" look. Cool thing though, STLFC beat the MLS side.
- Team at one point had an affiliation agreement with the Chicago Fire. We hadn't had an affiliated team since the St. Louis Braves hockey team was a minor league team of the Chicago Blackhawks in the '60s.
- We've seen soccer teams come and go at the venue including a women's side, Athletica, that had Hope Solo has goalkeeper.
It would be interesting what a parallel universe where St. Louis got passed over by the MLS. This could have happened if we still had an NFL team. St. Louis would be prime candidate for the USL Premier.
The post-2026 World Cup will be a fascinating time for soccer in the US. A new "USL Premier League," the competitive schedule shift, and the potential integration of top men's college teams into USL L1 could fundamentally alter the landscape. I see many people here commenting on US Soccer PLS. With all these changes, I imagine PLS amendments would need to follow. It may be necessary to add a new 4th professional division to accommodate the college teams, promoted USL L2/NPSL teams, and other semi-pro teams looking to make a move.
The TV deal is the most important and interesting part of this. Right now, through CBS and ESPN, more viewers have access to every USL match than MLS matches. The 10-year exclusive Apple+ contract for MLS may be an accidental gift to USL if USL can get a great revenue-sharing option that further increases its visibility and accessibility for casual fans. With that new USL deal set to start around the same time as the new "USL Premier League," USL would have an exciting new storyline to follow. Ted Lasso and Welcome to Wrexham have already introduced Americans to the emotional rollercoaster of promotion and relegation so taking that energy into a domestic league structure right after the World Cup could be a massive sensation. Couple that with MLS being locked into their deal with Apple+ through 2032-2033, USL could have 5-6 years to build a national audience before MLS can push back from behind their exclusive rights paywall.
Last thing, don't count out the Charleston Battery for a spot in the new top league. That is a fantastic organization, one of the oldest running clubs in the country, they have a very wealthy ownership group, Charleston's metro area is growing extremely quickly likely passing 1 million in the early 2030s, and all that is needed is a new stadium. The Battery would be the first-ever Charleston-based professional team to play in a top division, and the new 15,000-capacity stadium would be the largest sports venue in the metro area.
I don't see top college teams being integrated into USL League 1 for at least three reasons:
- achieving or winning college playoffs within conferences or nationally is the higher priority that which dictates college head coach job security. Everything else is a distraction. College season directly conflicts with USL-L1 season and thus the latter will never be the higher priority.
- the college teams would need a MUCH larger travel and staff budget --college soccer teams are not profit-generating, even the top schools, and academia is under huge financial stress right now. And we haven't even begun to talk about franchise fees.
- facilities. Huge investments to upgrade stadiums, locker rooms, and pitch would be needed. Yet for most schools, the field is heavily used by other rectangular field sports, so there is not much flexibility.
TLDR: the money and coach enthusiasm are just not there.
There is a fair amount of reporting that US Soccer and USL have already pitched integrating the top 40-50 programs or the top men's college conferences into the professional pyramid. A lot of top men's programs have dedicated facilities for soccer already and a lot of USL and even MLS teams share their home field with other sports. Division-1 men's college soccer has also been working on a Fall-Spring schedule extension for at least 5 years now and could begin that in 2026-2027 with an August to May season. Based on what is being reported, a lot of your concerns are already being addressed just by the USSF proposal.
The amount of buy in from different stakeholders would be immense, though, including needing ALL the schools of a specific college conference (*)? As well as having all the college presidents and boards of trustees sign off on it, not to mention faculty and other sports of the schools (football and basketball teams --who ARE profit generators-- are not necessarily fans of this).
OTOH, one major advantage of playing nearby college teams to existing USL League One teams would be reduced travel costs couple with heightened rabid fan support. For example, would be fire to see Spokane compete against Univ. of Portland, Univ. of Washington, Univ. of Denver, all top-notch college programs with excellent fan turnout!
Realistically, the colleges have to test the Fall-Spring season extension first for a few years and figure out if different playoffs/champions need to be crowned for the Fall, and then the Spring. Or have the top eight NCAA National Playoff finishers be able to compete in the Spring season against USL League One opponents?
(*) or would individual schools take a leave of absence from a conference, or individual conference schools would take turns in the USL-L1?
From the slide deck I've seen, the suggested calendar includes 20-22 matches from August to April with geographically determined divisions. The college cup would be held over four weekends in May.
I agree about the immensity of buy-in but the major conferences have flirted with the idea of professionalization for a little while now so it won't be entirely new. Having the SEC (which does not have a men's soccer conference) in the mix makes it even more interesting. Bringing that energy into the lower divisions of the US soccer pyramid would be incredible.
As far as financials go, US Soccer suggested cost savings in some areas, federation assistance on facilities/referees/staff/etc., and the intriguing possibility of solidarity payments.
In the slide deck, the college cup is described as being IN ADDITION to the USL-League One playoffs? Or there would be college divisions in the soccer pyramid with top teams in the division standings meeting the top USL-L1 teams in the unified playoffs?
I agree the having the SEC --with its vast reserves of American Football money-- join in would bring huge resources and energy into US soccer. A prospective high school senior may thus choose an SEC school over, say, the ACC or Ivy League, for a chance to compete against pro players during college!
Further, this may also elicit backing from the basketball side of SEC, who can see this as a way of forcing themselves into the G-League of the NBA, as a way of attracting and retaining college athletes!
I haven't seen the USL's slide deck which is different from the USSF one that I have seen. The USSF is proposing a variety of different options depending on the scale of buy-in. Existing conferences are in play if large numbers of schools join, and USSF also proposes regional groups if the numbers start small.
The ACC, SEC, B1G, Big 12, and other prominent mid-majors like Ivy League, Big South, Sun Belt, Atlantic 10, etc. are all listed as potential inclusions. It depends on which Division-1 schools/conferences want to do this.
For the basketball side, that would be a separate negotiation between the NBA and college, but with NIL bringing more money into college sports, this move by the soccer programs could have ramifications for other sports.
Yes. Thank you Mr. Morrissey!
Great article, just came up in my Google news feed and I’m so happy it did! The financial concern is the biggest to me. MLS largely built their name using star power, it’d be hard for USL clubs to compete there. That being said, outside of the money factor, USL being D1 could attract better players.
Fantastic read and analysis !
John, what about Sporting Lexington? Also since this effort is to unfold in 2027, are there expansion clubs that will jump others in the process with better infrastructure along the way and/or deeper pockets?
The Lexington stadium is only a 7,500-seater, and that metro is only 500k people. They'll definitely be in the mix but didn't feel like a certainty for my taste.
Expansion-wise, the OKC revival seems like a lock, and there's good noise out of USL Dallas. Buffalo, Milwaukee, and maybe Jacksonville could be in if things go right.
This is some exciting news!!
Thanks for this detailed analysis, John! But why is this news being dropped now? Is there a strategy behind the timing of this news bomb release?
Related, the Athletic article is behind a paywall, but the freemium Guardian also released a piece on this today:
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/feb/13/usl-division-i-league-mls-paul-mcdonough
I have mixed emotions about this. Some obvious issues:
1. If this is to establish pro/rel, then this would already fly in the face of that. Choosing teams based on PLS standards alone doesn't use merit.
2. Unless PLS changes, then it's tough to see how a club like Greenville (for example) could win their way up the ranks from League One to the top (Premier?).
The only way I really see this working is to have a dramatic change to PLS, that's structured to take pro/rel into account, as opposed to being built to prevent it. I want to see meaningful pro/rel in the US, but that means teams move because they're the best and worst. Not because their market or stadium isn't "good enough"
Great article! I’m an Akron City FC fan and I’m so stoked to be out of NPSL and in USL2.
In my non expert opinion, the PLS needs to be amended - especially regarding the requirement for the league to span 3 time zones. The US is a massive country with shit transportation infrastructure.
First, they have to get the owners who will be able to invest in clubs and support D1 standards (stadiums, team facilities, travel, salaries, etc). Hopefully this move helps to do that. I'm sure many of those American owners who are buying up lower division European clubs would be interested in doing the same at home. USL should, if not open to direct fan investment, reserve seats on its board for supporters groups to maintain the club relationship to fans. In the past people like Ronaldo (Brasil) was interested in building a club up to top flight but was denied by Garber and MLS. They need to attract people like him back. Bring Zlatan in etc.
Second, what MLS never understood but what USL needs to get right is to understand that major sports media are not media in the traditional sense. ESPN shows like Getup and FirstTake aren't covering sports. They are selling the narrative, the drama, and building interest in the storylines and characters among players, coaches and others that bring interest to the sport. It's the soap opera of sports. USL has to break in with major sports talk (and of course shows like yours) to sell the drama. And what bigger drama can they have than pro/rel and the ongoing battle with MLS?
Third, is the relationship with USSF and the youth system. USSF has zero control over professional soccer right now. D1 sanction means very little to MLS. The only sanction they care about is money. USL can offer USSF a better governing relationship and the critical aspect of that is through the incorporation of the youth system into a national pyramid organized around state and regional councils similar to the way Brasil's system is organized. Youth teams would appreciate feeling a part of a system they can also grow in rather than subjects to a system (MLSnext) reserved for a few that they must pay to participate in.
D1 Sanction can matter to attracting the investors/owners who could invest in a club and build its capacity without wasting almost $1bil alone on an expansion fee that does nothing to support the growth of a club.
Very interesting analysis. Thank you for it.
As a longtime season-ticket holder for Phoenix Rising I wish I could share your optimism. Our stadium does hold 10,000 but it’s a temporary stadium on land that is rented and is a rather rundown location near the airport. It would not be a long-term solution for division one soccer without widespread and substantial upgrades to infrastructure and everything else. (It is centrally located and right on our light rail and a fantastic spot for me personally).
Perhaps more concerning is our fan support needs to be much stronger. Since the new ownership and franchise identity has been put in place, we’ve had a consistently competitive team and yet attendance remains soft. There are a number of reasons for this, including ownership needs to invest more in the current location and on ensuring the squad on the field remain strong. And of course, sitting in an open stadium throughout the summer in 110° heat is suboptimal. But ultimately, I would love to see it happen.
It’s a shame that this is even necessary. MLS’s proprietary approach to our soccer structure and its insistence on foisting MLS 2 on us is the primary barrier to promotion/relegation.
About strengthening fan support, you should read the conversation elsewhere in the Comments between Grey Gowder and I about all this. Including a potential monumental shift and inclusion of college soccer in all the US Soccer pyramid. And MLS's view on all this is mentioned in an article cited in the conversation....