The battle between MLS and the U.S. Open Cup raises a provocative question: Who controls soccer in the United States?

Arthur Mattsson's frustration grew as the US Open Cup slipped from his hands and was on the verge of collapse.

It was early February. And for months, under pressure from MLS, the U.S. Soccer Federation had been charting a course for the future of the century-old tournament. Mattson served as chairman of the U.S. Soccer Commission, which oversees the Open Cup. Naturally, he wanted all MLS teams to participate in accordance with the federation's rules.

But MLS was trying to cancel the 2024 tournament. And the U.S. Soccer leadership seemed willing to compromise. When Mattson, a longtime soccer administrator and former USSF board member, tried to negotiate the resolution, he said he was told by higher-ups to “stand back.”

So he resigned as Open Cup chairman in mid-February.

“MLS will never allow itself to choose the rules and policies it follows while expecting other leagues to abide by them,” Mattson told Yahoo Sports.

But U.S. Soccer, led by CEO JT Batson, apparently felt it had to.

Batson and others helped broker the deal announced by U.S. Soccer on Friday: MLS will deploy immediately 8 of 26 teams eligible In preparation for the 2024 Open Cup, the 109th edition of the country's longest-running soccer competition. Eleven “MLS Next Pro'' teams (nine of which are MLS Reserve Teams) will also participate, in addition to the tournament's traditional small number of lower-tier professional and amateur clubs.

For the time being, the Open Cup will continue in a revamped but temporary format. But to keep it that way, U.S. soccer officials have bent the standards of professional leagues to cater to the money-driven desires of one member.

They succumbed because they lacked influence and because the balance of power in the sport has shifted in recent years toward the billionaires and commissioners who own and operate Major League Soccer.

existential question

The mid-December rebellion that rocked the American soccer world was, in a sense, an existential moment for the soccer federation. MLS owners have approved a plan to send a reserve team to the 2024 Open Cup. U.S. Soccer had to respond. And it implicitly had to answer the provocative “ultimate question'' posed by two experienced stakeholders at the time. “Who controls this sport?” Billionaires or elected officials?

Five days later, in public, U.S. Soccer appeared to stand up to MLS. it is, statement Part of the content was as follows: “We have informed MLS that the U.S. Soccer staff recommendations adopted by the Pro League Task Force require the following: [to send reserve teams] You'll be rejected. ”

However, USSF officials privately pledged to work with MLS and others to rebuild the Open Cup.

They understood that MLS clubs would suffer losses in tournaments. They listened to the league's complaints. Despite its historical appeal, the Open Cup doesn't resonate with most fans. The schedule is packed. And as Commissioner Don Garber recently said, MLS has been “supporting and subsidizing that tournament for a long time.”

So, as one source put it, they acknowledged that “the economics of the tournament need to change.” They proposed a new revenue sharing model. They sought to increase travel allowances. They committed to investing in open cups. It's about marketing it, selling it to sponsors and promoting it more aggressively than before.

Of course they wanted MLS involved. We needed Goliath to sell David vs. Goliath. They needed the most popular brand in American soccer.But can they? I need Participate?

The federation's professional league standards suggested that was a possibility. His second of the Division I men's league's many requirements is that “U.S.-based teams must participate in all eligible U.S. National Soccer and CONCACAF competitions.” is. If MLS teams refuse, U.S. Soccer could theoretically rescind sanctions against the league.

However, doing so would likely spark a legal battle with MLS. U.S. Soccer's lawyers weren't sure they could win, according to a person familiar with the organization's thinking. The European Court of Justice's ruling in the Super League case, which weakens the powers of governing bodies to regulate players and clubs in their tracks, was also raised in the debate as an ominous precedent.

They also certainly believed that PLS's selective enforcement could weaken its defense in another antitrust case against NASL, which is ultimately scheduled for trial later this year. . But there were broader considerations. A “second soccer war” would be explosive and detrimental to everyone involved. Two people familiar with the negotiations said there was never serious consideration of starting one game after MLS's license was lifted. MLS executive Nelson Rodriguez said Friday that that possibility “never came up.”

The relationship between U.S. Soccer and MLS was and is too important, so this story never came up. It's fueling (and funding) some of U.S. soccer's grandest ambitions.

US Soccer Dependency on MLS

That relationship has come under scrutiny, with accusations that the USSF, which was once home to Soccer United Marketing, is giving MLS preferential treatment over other leagues. SUM, a for-profit company owned by MLS, has been buying and selling commercial rights to U.S. Soccer for 18 years. This saved MLS around 2002 and guaranteed his $300 million+ income to USSF. For most of his 18 years, it was a mutually beneficial one. But it created a clear conflict of interest. Critics questioned how U.S. Soccer could fairly govern a league that also serves as an important business partner.

The federation will become independent from SUM at the end of 2022, bringing management of commercial rights in-house. However, this question is still being asked as other bonds are formed and perhaps even transformed into dependencies. For example, consider player development.

From 2007 to 2019, U.S. Soccer spent tens of millions of dollars on Development Academies, a regulated network of elite youth clubs, to reform its broken pipeline. DA cooperated in the production The majority of the current U.S. men's national team. But in 2020, U.S. Soccer opted to do away with that, essentially handing over the reins to MLS.

Meanwhile, MLS clubs and owners had already spent more than $100 million total on academies. Since then, they have increased their investment and MLS now runs MLS NEXT, a DA-style league for its clubs and many former DA associates. These were once part of the USMNT pipeline. Now, in many ways, they are teeth The top of the youth pyramid. Or at least they're funding it. The future of MNT, the most valuable asset in U.S. Soccer, is now in the hands of MLS and dependent on MLS Wallet.

The USMNT regularly trains at MLS facilities and plays at MLS stadiums. We have and will continue to benefit in tangible and intangible ways from the money MLS owners pour into soccer. U.S. Soccer needs these owners and their money now more than ever. Therefore, they have more influence than ever before.

The latest example is the U.S. Soccer National Training Center. Atlanta United owner Arthur Blank has donated $50 million to Atlanta United. Sources tell Yahoo Sports that other MLS owners have also been approached by the USSF about contributing to the approximately $250 million project.

Therefore, the owner has all the influence. They have Lionel Messi and the crowd is growing. The only advantage U.S. Soccer had in the Open Cup was public opinion.

“We thank U.S. Soccer for their leadership in the effort to evolve and increase investment in the Open Cup,” MLS said in a statement Friday. But other stakeholders weren't so happy.

United Soccer League president Paul McDonough told Yahoo Sports last week that he was “really disappointed in the federation for not showing stronger leadership.”

USL club Richmond Kickers commented. statement It spoke for many lower-league clubs, saying they were “disappointed that U.S. Soccer was unable to bring other leagues into compliance with basic professional league standards for participation in the U.S. Open Cup.”

There were also questions about who exactly makes the decisions in U.S. Soccer. Officials said there was little consultation with Mattson and the Open Cup committee, which usually deals with more mundane tournament issues. Another member of the committee, former USMNT player Stu Holden, also resigned last week.

Instead, U.S. Soccer established a six-member “task force” or “subcommittee” to navigate the situation. Michael Caron, president of the American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO), and longtime adult soccer administrator Richard Groff were also involved, two sources told Yahoo Sports. But sources said Mr Batson was the main negotiator. Rodriguez, the MLS executive, said he has also worked with USSF Chief Commercial Officer David Wright and other USSF staff. (A US Soccer spokesperson would not say who was on the task force; neither Batson nor USSF President Cindy Perlow Cohn were available for interviews in recent months.)

Therefore, it is unclear who exactly supported MLS. These are the people who chose diplomacy over heavy-handed enforcement. But the reason is pretty clear. In order to maintain the Open Cup, which has an uncertain future beyond 2024, USSF officials will likely try to encourage rather than mandate MLS participation. The changing dynamics of American soccer have left no other option in many ways.