Pro/Rel Will Require More Than a New USSF President

It is a cliche, but it is true. US soccer stands at a crossroads.

Since 2006, Sunil Gulati has guided the United States Soccer Federation (the “USSF” or the “Federation”). But last week, Gulati announced that he will not run for reelection as president in February 2018. This leaves a sprawling field of nine candidates angling to replace him.

This election has an acute sense of timing. Only two months ago, the US Men’s National Team finished fifth out of six teams in its World Cup qualifying group and, thus, failed to reach the tournament for the first time since 1986. With that, calls for reforming US soccer grew from a whisper in the distance to a megaphone in the ear.

No reform draws more attention than promotion and relegation (“pro/rel”). Now, with Gulati’s exit, an expanding faction within US soccer views this moment as an opportunity to replace our closed professional system with pro/rel. Their hope would seem well-placed. Gulati opposed requiring US professional leagues to accept pro/rel, whereas some candidates to replace him support its introduction.

But while the presidential election could move US soccer closer to an open professional system, accomplishing that goal would require much more support. Beyond the president, pro/rel advocates would need backing from multiple power sources within the Federation and, potentially, its member organizations.

At the moment, it is unclear whether any of these institutions favor pro/rel. And in fact, some are on record as opposing it. Further, many of the leaders who have not taken public stances on the issue have long histories within the USSF or its member organizations. So they may be reluctant to discredit the Federation’s established position.

Accordingly, to open the US system, pro/rel advocates may have to unseat several USSF officers and directors and replace them with leaders committed to their cause. Moreover, flipping some of these positions may require control of member organizations. These seats (both in the USSF and the member organizations) are up for election at staggered times over the next 2–3 years. This means that establishing a Federation hospitable to pro/rel could take at least that long — and only if the election campaigns are successful.

In other words, regardless of how February’s election falls, any realistic path to an open professional system would be long and difficult.

Defining the Issue

Before venturing into the analysis, two points need clarification:

First, this post will only address a scenario where the USSF mandates pro/rel. Theoretically, there are other ways to open the system, such as an agreement between the leagues, or building a new federation. However viable these methods are, they stray too far from the legal field for me to confront them. I leave their resolution to others.

Second, this post only concerns the process of making pro/rel law, or soccer law. That is, the first step to pro/rel would be that the USSF requires its leagues to be open. But, in and of itself, this would not mean that teams would begin playing in such a system. Stakeholders in the current system would almost certainly sue to block play in an open system from beginning. Analyzing the legal grounds for these suits would be interesting, but it would be an extensive undertaking. So this meager post will only tackle the first step — making pro/rel (soccer) law.

Making Promotion and Relegation (Soccer) Law

The USSF can open the professional system by updating its Professional League Standards (the “PLS”) to make pro/rel a requirement for league sanctioning. Thus, no league would be eligible for the Federation’s Division 1, 2 or 3 certification unless it based its membership on sporting merit, where, each season, it dismissed its worst teams and replaced them with the best teams from the league below. At that point, each league would have to choose between opening or suffering as an unsanctioned league.

Professional League Standards

The PLS are a set of benchmarks leagues must meet to be sanctioned as Division 1, 2 or 3. For the most part, the current PLS target off-the-field issues such as the number of teams, the size of their stadiums, the net worth of each team’s owner and the size of each team’s market. The requirements are stratified. So for example, to achieve Division 1 sanctioning, a league’s teams must all play in stadiums that seat at least 15,000, whereas Division 2 sanctioning only requires that teams play in 5,000-seat stadiums.

Each year, the country’s professional leagues apply for one of the three USSF sanctions. The Federation can reject any application that does not meet the relevant standards. It can also waive a requirement when a league demonstrates a good reason for doing so and provides a plan for meeting the requirement in the future. For any league, failure to receive a USSF sanction is detrimental. It could mean loss of sponsorships, less favorable television deals and lower attendance.

Revising the PLS

Revising the PLS is a multi-stage process that requires the USSF Board of Directors’ (the “Board”) approval.

To initiate the process, the USSF president appoints a Professional League Standards Task Force (the “Task Force”). The Task Force reviews the current standards and recommends changes. Once those recommendations are complete, it forwards the draft to the professional leagues for comments.

Upon receiving the comments, The Task Force reviews them and crafts a final version of the PLS. The final version does not have to incorporate any of the comments. But history indicates that the Task Force does take them seriously. In 2015, for example, the Task Force scrapped the amendment process altogether based on comments from the North American Soccer League.

Once the final version is ready, the Task Force sends it to the Board for review and a vote. Board members affiliated with a professional league can participate in the review, but not the vote. On the current Board, 4 of the 15 members fit this description, including Gulati.

Enacting an Open League Requirement

Despite the ability to do so, the USSF has not enacted a PLS with an open league requirement. The most evident reason could be that significant players in the Federation’s leadership oppose the concept. This includes Gulati, who, as president, can handpick a Task Force that mirrors his views. Nonetheless, even with Gulati removed, and a new president favorable to pro/rel in his place, advocates will need more support to enact an open league requirement.

Past and Present Opposition

The voices against an open league requirement are powerful. Gulati has made his opposition clear. Other (current and former) Board members share his view. Most notably, MLS Commissioner Don Garber and US Club Soccer CEO Kevin Payne have dismissed the idea of pro/rel in the United States. So when the open league requirement has needed friends within the USSF, it has been more likely to encounter foes.

Even discounting those who oppose pro/rel, the USSF and its member organizations form an insular group. Many directors have spent years in the USSF apparatus, either with the Federation directly, or a member organization. Other times, new directors have connections with the current leaders. So it is fair to question whether most directors are willing to challenge the USSF’s top leaders.

In short, both the USSF’s leadership and its rank-and-file have shown no appetite for an open system. As such, there has been no genuine push to install such a requirement in the PLS.

Future Needs

Enacting an open league requirement would take a methodical campaign. At each step, the USSF would have to become more favorable to an open system than it is now.

The president is the threshold issue. He or she appoints the Task Force. And that is where any changes would have to begin. With Gulati departing, there is a chance to elect a president who favors pro/rel. The likelihood of this is debatable. Only two candidates have taken firm stances supporting an open system: Former US National Team striker Eric Wynalda and United Premier Soccer League executive Paul LaPointe. Thus, a change in leadership may not foretell a change in the professional league structure.

Further, even if a new Task Force urged an open league requirement, the obstacles to approving it would remain substantial. Initially, the push-back from MLS (and, potentially, other leagues) would be fierce. Undoubtedly, the league would issue comments arguing that the open league requirement should be dropped. And while the Task Force could reject those comments, most likely, the Board would know about MLS’ objections.

Beyond that, it is difficult to know whether an open league requirement would survive a Board vote. The Board has never addressed pro/rel directly. So few current directors have taken public stances. But the caveats above would still apply. That is, most Board members have either endorsed the status quo or shown no willingness to unsettle it.

Changing the USSF’s Leadership

If the current Board is not favorable to an open system, advocates would have two options: (1) changing the current Board members’ opinions, or (2) changing the Board members. The first option would probably entail lobbying and a “cultural shift” within the USSF. These issues are beyond the scope of this post. The second option would require a multi-pronged campaign to win elections within the USSF and across its diffuse collection of member organizations. At the very least, this effort would be time-consuming.

The 15 Board members are a patchwork, with each representing different organizations throughout US soccer. Their positions consist of the following:

President

Vice President

3 Athlete representatives

2 Pro Council representatives — the Council chairperson and 1 delegate

2 Youth Council representatives — the Council chairperson and 1 delegate

2 Adult Council representatives — the Council chairperson and 1 delegate

1 At-Large representative

3 Independent Directors

Each seat has its own particular election process. Some of those processes are completely internal, meaning that only people with established roots in the organization can vote.

President and Vice President

The USSF’s National Council elects the president and vice president. The National Council is an electoral body drawn from the various member organizations. The organizations’ votes are weighted through a complex formula that changes with each new election. The elections occur on staggered four-year cycles, so that either the president or vice president (but not both) is up for election every two years.

As noted above, the presidency is up for election this February. Vice President Carlos Cordeiro is up for reelection two years later, in 2020. Cordeiro is a former Goldman Sachs executive, who originally joined the Board as an independent director. He has also declared himself a candidate in the upcoming presidential election.

Athlete Representatives

The USSF grants the athletes significant freedom to determine their Board representatives. The By-Laws only dictate that the 20-member Athletes’ Council shall determine how the representatives are chosen and that the representatives serve two-year terms. Otherwise, the Council is free to elect its three directors as it sees fit.

The By-Laws are more specific about choosing the Council members. They mandate that Council members serve staggered, four-year terms (though the Council may determine how the terms are staggered). They also require that Council member elections be held in November. But like the director elections, the Council is free to craft the procedures for its member elections. The only caveat is that all athletes must be eligible to vote. (NOTE: Under the By-Laws, an “athlete” is any soccer player who meets the USSF’s eligibility requirements.)

Historically, the athlete directors have consisted of one men’s professional player (current or former), one women’s professional player and one Paralympian. The current Directors are Paralympian Chris Ahrens (Council chairman), retired US Women’s National Team player Angela Hucles and retired Men’s National Team player Carlos Bocanegra. Hucles and Bocanegra were elected in 2017, so their terms will last until 2019. Ahrens began his third year on the Board in 2017. So his current term may last until 2019 as well.

Adult Council

The Adult Council chooses two directors with distinct positions: the chairperson and a delegate. The Council members elect both. The chairperson must come from the Council’s eight-member Administrative Commission. Council members choose the eight commissioners. The delegate does not have to come from the Administrative Commission. Both the chairperson and the delegate serve two-year terms on the Board.

According to the By-Laws, the Council consists of all state and national adult soccer organizations that are members of the USSF. But, at the moment, there is only one organization that falls into this category, the US Adult Soccer Association (“USASA”). So essentially, the USASA and the Adult Council are one and the same.

The current Council chairman is John Paul Motta. Motta is the only Board member to have expressed public support for an open system. The other Adult Council director is Richard Moeller. Motta was first elected chairman in 2013 and last reelected in 2016. So he is up for reelection in 2018. Moeller was elected in 2017. Thus, he will face reelection in 2019.

Youth Council

The Youth Council operates similarly to the Adult Council. Like the Adult Council, it selects two directors with distinct positions: a chairperson and a delegate. The Youth Council also has an eight-member Administrative Commission. From these eight, the Council members elect a chairperson. The Council members also elect the delegate, who, like the Adult Council delegate, does not have to be on the Administrative Commission. Both the chairperson and delegate serve two-year terms on the Board.

But unlike the Adult Council, which only has one member organization, the Youth Council has four: US Club Soccer, the American Youth Soccer Organization (“AYSO”), US Youth Soccer and the Soccer Association for Youth. This impacts the Administrative Commission, as the By-Laws require that its eight seats are allocated proportionally, based on each member’s share of the total registered players.

The rough numbers indicate that US Youth Soccer has almost 75% of the total players. The Youth Council’s leadership reflects this. The current chairman is Jesse Harrell, who is also the US Youth Soccer chairman, and the Board delegate is Tim Turney, the US Youth Soccer vice-chairman.

Harrell’s position on the USSF Board may be entirely in US Youth Soccer’s hands. The US Youth Soccer By-Laws state that its representatives can only remain on the USSF Board as long as they hold their US Youth Soccer positions. So if Harrell lost his US Youth Soccer chairman position, he would also lose his Board position.

Accordingly, Harrell’s term as US Youth Soccer chairman will mirror his term as Youth Council chairman. Harrell was elected US Youth Soccer chairman at the organization’s August 2016 annual general meeting. At the next USSF Board meeting (September 2016), he began serving as Youth Council chairman. For both positions, Harrell replaced the same person: John Sutter. So it would appear that Harrell took over both positions in late summer 2016. US Youth Soccer By-Laws specify 2-year terms for all of the organization’s elected officials. Thus, Harrell’s term as both US Youth Soccer chairman and Youth Council chairman would be up again at US Youth Soccer’s 2018 annual general meeting.

Turney was elected Youth Council delegate at the USSF’s 2016 annual general meeting (the “USSF AGM”). Therefore, his term on the USSF Board would run until the 2018 USSF AGM. (NOTE: Normally, the USSF AGM takes place in February or March).

In short, Harrell’s Board term will be up in the summer of 2018, and his reelection will depend on US Youth Soccer’s voters. Turney’s Board term will be up in February or March 2018, and his reelection will depend on the entire Youth Council.

Pro Council

The Pro Council consists of representatives from the US professional leagues. Like the Adult and Youth Councils, it elects two directors — the Council chairperson and a delegate — to serve two-year terms on the Board. Little is known about the Pro Council. Indeed, the By-Laws do not specify how the Council must choose its chairperson or delegate.

MLS Commissioner Don Garber is the Council chairman. The delegate is Steve Malik, owner of the (now) USL’s North Carolina FC. NCFC moved from the NASL to the USL last month. USL has ties to MLS. In response, shortly after NCFC’s move, the NASL wrote a letter to the Federation requesting that it remove Malik from the Board due to a conflict of interest.

Malik was elected in 2017. So his two-year term will expire in 2019. It is unclear when Garber was last reelected as Pro Council chairman. Largely, this is irrelevant, as MLS controls the Pro Council. So the chances someone would unseat him are remote.

At-Large Director

The At-Large director comes from a vote of the organizations not otherwise represented on the Board. He or she serves a two-year term. The current At-Large director is John Collins. He has been in that position since 2015.

Collins has a long history with the Federation, having served five years as its general counsel. Presently, he is a member of the AYSO Board of Directors. Collins is also the USL’s legal counsel.

Collins was elected to a new term as At-Large Director earlier this year. He is up for reelection in 2019.

Independent Directors

The three independent directors are meant to be people who are not affiliated with the USSF or its member organizations. In most cases, the National Council elects these directors. The only exception is when a position becomes vacant. In these instances, the Board can appoint a new director to fill the old director’s seat until the next USSF AGM.

The current independent directors are Clinton Foundation President and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, Big East Commissioner and former WNBA President Val Ackerman, and financial executive Lisa Carnoy. Shalala has been an independent director since 2008. Ackerman and Carnoy began their terms earlier this year. Originally, Ackerman occupied Cordeiro’s seat after he was elected vice president in 2016. In 2017, the National Council elected her to a special two-year term that had been written into the By-Laws.

The purpose of the independent director seats is to add perspectives from people who are independent of the USSF. But it would be fair to question whether they have that effect. For example, Carnoy is vice-chairwoman of the Columbia University Board of Trustees. Gulati is a full professor at Columbia. He nominated Carnoy in August 2017, outside of the USSF AGM, when director elections are supposed to occur.

The By-Laws restrict independent directors to nine years of total service. Thus, because Shalala has been an independent director since 2008, her seat should become vacant in 2018. That would fit with the By-Laws’ requirement that independent directors serve staggered terms. Ackerman, who was elected to her special two-year term in 2017, would be up for reelection in 2019. Carnoy, who was elected to a three-year term in 2017, would be up in 2020.

Bottom Line

Converting US soccer to an open system will require support beyond the USSF president. Based on the Federation’s structure, the effort will also need support from different factions within the US soccer community. Many of these organizations are run by leaders bathed in the status quo. Therefore, pro/rel cannot become a reality without a diligent campaign to replace leaders throughout US soccer.

Random Observations Unleashed

1. For more on the National Council and the weighting formula, see this post from Anthony DiCicco.
2. Technically, the Youth Council chairperson may be serving a term that conflicts with the By-Laws. The USSF By-Laws state that the Youth Council chair serves a two-year term expiring at the USSF AGM. This would mean that the term expires in February or March of the given year. But in practice, the Youth Council chair’s term has ended at US Youth Soccer’s annual general meeting. While the most sensible resolution would be that the USSF’s By-Laws control for USSF positions (like a Board chair), the Youth Council’s practice of electing chairs at mid-year is long-standing. Further, the USSF has never objected. So in a sense, the Youth Council has established its own term boundaries.
3. Reports surfaced yesterday that the Board was considering restructuring the USSF president’s role and responsibilities. As of now, there is no indication that the PLS process will change. Nonetheless, if it does, it could change the path to pro/rel.