Talk:United States soccer league system

Level 2 vs. Level 3

The pyramid currently lists level two as NASL and level three as USL. Where is a source stating that the USSF has sanctioned the leagues in that manner. While people may believe that the NASL is a better league, it deals completely with sanctioning and until the source is present they are both Division 2 leagues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.42.247 (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not a matter of opinion; as of right now, the NASL has applied for and received provisional Division 2 ranking, and the USL-Pro has only applied for Division 3. There's a blog post describing the USSF press release here; don't know if that's an appropriate source for the article but someone should be able to find the original release. 38.126.149.234 (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

And now that same blog wrote yesterday that the provisional sanctioning will not translate into official sanctioning for 2011, according to USSF sources in this post.

Dohertypenguin (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

2009 Reorganization

Reflecting the comments below and in the spirit of Wikipedia:Be bold, I have entirely reworked the men's pyramid, in the process:

• Replacing the "1, 2, 3" levels with the actual levels recognized by the USSF
• Removing the USASA "divisions" 5-13, since there didn't seem to be any real basis for these distinctions
• Removed the comprehensive list of USASA leagues, which seems to me to fit better on the USASA page
• Removing the PCSL entirely, as it no longer has American teams or is recognized by the USSF, and therefore should be on the Canadian soccer pyramid page instead.

Comments and edits welcome, of course. --Chapka (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved the information on individual USASA teams to an already existing page and linked--Chapka (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Returned the "levels" designation to match both the women's chart and the English pyramid not to mention the references in several other related wiki pages.

Also returned USASA to level 5 to differentiate between it and the PDL/NPSL. USASA's own website says regional/national leagues promote a higher level of competition (http://www.usasa.com/About/Structure/index_E.html) plus Donnelly Cup is only for USASA in-state leagues. It may be worth discussing whether to separate out the two regional leagues into their own level. Dtrowe (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Refernces in other wiki pages an arbitrary numbering system aren't good enough to justify the system. The fact is, there is no American "pyramid" in the English sense (in the men's or women's game) and I don't see the point of pretending there is. There is no reference for calling the USASA "Level 5"; at best it's a matter of opinion where the various leagues sit on any "pyramid," and that doesn't seem appropriate for Wikipedia. If you have to discuss where to put them on the pyramid, you're making a judgment call, not a factual entry. As for the USASA, there's a case for splitting them up into USASA national leagues (the PDL and NPSL), regional, and state leagues, but it seems to me these should be labeled as such and not arbitrarily assigned numbers 4 through 6.--Chapka (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

By your definition, this page shouldn't even exist. I don't believe there is an official English pyramid either, not that I was able to find on the FA website. If you look at the references for that pyramid, it's from another website that states it collects information from the FA and other leagues and assumes there are feeders between the leagues. It seems that the English pyramid is based on research of all the different regional leagues and how they relate to one another, using the generic term "level" to show placement in the scheme of things. Same goes for the American pyramid. We could ask if amateur leagues should logically be placed below the pro leagues on the pyramid, or a separate pyramid all together. I'd say there's general consensus that amateur falls below pro in sports in general. I believe the intent of this page and others like it is to show a single pyramid consistent with other country's pyramids, and to provide a comparable view. In any case, the term "level" is used extensively throughout this wiki in reference to soccer, both American and other. Any decisions to change that term here should ideally be weighed against making the changes in all related pages. Your mileage may vary :) Dtrowe (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

NPSL

What level is the NPSL? It's amateur and draws from largely the same pool of players as the PDL. As such, it seems to be clearly below the USL Second Division and at the fourth level along with the PDL. --Balerion 22:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Does this exist?

This is a fine article and I think that it definitely provides clarity for the American soccer system, but I feel that the article is an imposition of the structure of European soccer associations onto the American soccer leagues.

I think the article should be more clear on the fact that many of these leagues are completely and wholly separate and that this pyramid is in no way official. 49giantsharks 05:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

What you refer to in regards to imposing European flair into the article is correct. HOWEVER, the "levels" on the pyramid look like they follow FIFA sanctioned guidelines for competitive levels (USL-1 is classified by FIFA as a Tier-2 league, USL-2 as Tier 3, MLS as Tier-1, etc etc etc). But this clearly needs to be noted. Burdman 17:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think having small separations (if possible) between separate leagues would be good, and it may not affect the overall shape of the pyramid. For example, MLS would be at the top, followed by a small space, the USL-1. The third tier would look weird though. It would have no space between USL-1 and USL-2, but the space between USL-1 and the other 2 leagues. Greecepwns (#1 Red Bulls Supporter) (talk) 13:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I am suspicious as to the 'officialness' of the PCSL & NPSL being level IV (see my posts on the relevant talk pages). If they are not, and we could confirm that, we could drop them down to level 5 with the USASA (or move the USASA to a 6th level) and institute the small breaks between MLS and USL-1 and between USL-PDL and etc., without problem. Gecko G (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Globalise Tag

I fail to understand how a league that fields teams from multiple countries is only an "American league" or pyramid of "American leagues". There are no references to support the claim that the league(s), despite including international clubs, are solely American (USA). —Muckapædia 15^e mai 2007, 1h00 (UTC+0900) 머크백과 TALK/ CONTRIBS

I believe the intention was "North American," not necessarily "American." But that said, American is a very broad term and does not refer to the United States. America refers to all the countries of North, South, and Central America. Now, even with this, Mexico has a different structure. This purely encompasses Canada and the United States. The usage of the word "American" is partially correct, but incorrectly included Mexico. However, there are teams from the Caribbean as well. I would advocate "North American Soccer Pyramid," but, again, Mexico would be unfairly included.

That is, unless the entire page is edited to include the Mexican leagues.

A better name is needed. Burdman 17:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think American soccer pyramid is fine, and that American does in fact refer to the United States. Ask anybody around the world, except possibly Mexico, and they'd know that American means from the USA. There's only one Canadian team in the MLS, and as far as I know the Canadian leagues are separate. If you really want to, we could change it to United States Soccer Pyramid. --AW 20:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Muckapædia- I believe the intent was originally to have the article be American and [some] Canadian. The Puerto Rico and Bermuda references are only for a single team each, much like how there is a welsh team in the english pyramid and I belive some teams ignore which side of the border they are on in England/Scotland and Ireland/Northern Ireland IIRC (and since Puerto Rico is an American Commonwealth, the point could be argued to be moot in it's case, but that's an aside).

Given the confused state of professional soccer in the US and Canada before the 1990's, no clear system nor heirarchy arose in either country. Sure, some organizations and leagues came and went (ie NASL) but no long lasting heirarchy nor system emerged until the consolidation of the USL from the merging of the USISL and the A-League. And the USISL and A-League (and later the USL) both followed the example of most major sports in US & Canada (ie Baseball, Basketball, Hockey) and included teams from both sides of the border. Thus Canadian soccer was in the partially merged situation where its 'officially' top teams played in the USL even though a good argument could be that the best Canadian competition was one or another of the local (solely Canadian), chaotic (in terms of organization/heirarchy) competitons. As this consolidation was taking place, the MLS was created in the US, officially above the USL. Now Canada was in the very odd situation where it's official top division was the American lower division, but still unofficially the local chaotic situation could of been considered unofficially equal (or even higher). Starting this season, a single Canadian team has been created within the MLS (and there are rumors of more in the future) so now they are back to the previous situation. For more examples, see the discussion they are having at Talk:Canadian_soccer_pyramid where they are having trouble determining the Canadian Pyramid since the CSL has some (de-facto or official, I'm not sure) recognition from FIFA as "the national league" (despite it only being in 2 of the provinces) but at the same time the USL-1 was previously (or is currently) rated as the Canadian Div I. (FIFA has not yet addressed the issue of the creation of a Canadian MLS team). Meanwhile, the CONCACAF website even reads that there is "no division one championship" and last I had checked the Canadian Confederation website only made indirect references to the provincial teams as the top level.

This is also a big part of why when Canada was given a spot in the new Champions League they had to create a special tournament to determine Canada's entrant to it whereas all the other countries entrants appear to be determined based on domestic Div I league results (or the Caribbean championship for which entry into it is in turn based on caribbean domestic Div I league results). Previously I think Canada was considered part of the unofficial "Northern Zone" of CONCACAF but in actuality had no representation in international club competitions (I had hoped that this new Superliga would emerge in this kind of role but that now appears unlikely).

It should also be noted that in Canada and the US, the national federations have a more hands off approach to organizing professional competitions than I believe is the case in other countries. Thus seperate organizations (not directly responsible to FIFA's organizational scheme) arose which followed the common northern North American sports economic model which "ignores" the American/Canadian border.

Burdman- In the past, wasn't there a couple of northern Mexican teams in one of the shortlived American leagues? Or was that in Indoor Soccer?

AW- Actually, in many parts of the america's outside of the US, the common confusion between American (meaning of the North or South America Continents) and American (meaning of the United States of America) can be a touchy subject, and they view it that we Americans (meaning of the USA) have usurped and horded the noun. Hence, on here on the 'globalized' Wikipedia, both America and American take you to what are effectively little more than disambiguation pages. But in general, depending on the context, yes it is usually understood which is meant.

all- sorry for rambling on for so long. I hope my words are coherent. Gecko G (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

USASA entry

Rather than having a woefully incomplete and partial listing of a few leagues from the USASA, wouldn't it be better to just list something like "4 Geographic regions" or such? Or perhaps mention that it is organized into 55 state associtiations? Though that latter would exclude the two Region I "Regional Leagues" (CLS & MSSL). Gecko G (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the English Football League System article, there is a list of every league at every level and mention that they run in parallel (although they actually have promotion and relegation). You think we should do the same? Greecepwns (#1 Red Bulls Supporter) (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. It would be great if we could get that level of detail, but as it is now it makes it look like there is only 17 leagues at level 5. If we could get a complete list from all 55 USASA state associations AND keep that list updated, that would be excellent, but I do not think it is possible to do... in some states the structure is constantly in flux. Since we can't do that, I am suggesting that instead we simply list one or another of the subdivisions that the USASA is broken into (either the 4 regions or the 55 state assoc.). Alternately we could keep it as is but then we need to put some note or explanation that the 17 (or however many) listed leagues are only a sampling of the many leagues at this level. Thank you, Gecko G (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Greetings again. Let me try again to explain more clearly. If we could fully develop the level V entry like in the English Football League System article, that would be great, be we don't have enough information to do so. Therefore, I propose that we follow the examples of some of the other league system articles like Romania level IV or Sweden levels IV-X and list something like "level V and lower: Various leagues run by USASA entities". Alternatively, perhaps we could develop something like the French system article. Gecko G (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I've just added complete information of every USASA affiliated league and their lower divisions. Now what do you think? Greecepwns (talk) 22:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Cup Eligibily Secition

What do you think of this as another section?

US Open Cup: All levels
George F. Donnelly Cup: Level 5

Greecepwns (#1 Red Bulls Supporter) (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job on this --Ceezmad (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

USASA Multi-Division Leagues

Some of the USASA leagues have more than one division. Should we have an extra step for these divisions or just leave it as is?Greecepwns (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The term "pyramid"

I'm concerned that the article (and indeed the comments above) seem to indicate that there's no actual pyramid system in place in the US, and that this is an imposition of an English term to refer to the collective football leagues in the Americas. If this is the case (and the disparity of the various league organisations, together with the lack of a serious promotion system, strongly indicates that it is) then these articles (both this one and the Canadian soccer pyramid) should be retitled and reorganised to reflect this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the fact that the article relating to the English "soccer pyramid" is located at English football league system, I would suggest that this article be moved to American soccer league system. – PeeJay 11:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not just that, though: the whole article is based around fitting the various leagues into a hierarchy which arguably doesn't really exist. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay's renaming to American soccer league system / Candian soccer league system. As noted before it's a non-exsistant heirachy as there is no promotion/relegation, so therefore teams cannot progress to the top level of the pyramid. In England, a team from the bottom of the pyramid can technically reach the top. --Jimbo^[online] 12:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There may be no promotion and relegation, but surely there is a general consensus as to the relative levels of the various leagues, no? – PeeJay 12:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you prove MLS is a higher tier than the USL-1? After all they're both national divisions, but the MLS is split into regional leagues, whereas the USL-1 just has the one? Obviously the USD is a feeder a should be below either, but is it really on par with the NPSL and PCSL? --Jimbo^[online] 12:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If that helps, the MLS Cup champions and runners-up, as well as the MLS Supporters' Shield champions and runners-up competes in the Champions League, while no USL-1 teams is granted a spot in that competition. --Carioca (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether there is "consensus" or not, if it isn't an official designation then we shouldn't go presenting it as factual. This article strongly implies that there is a hierarchy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

For many years previous to the 1980s, If I'm not mistaken, there was a de facto understanding that though teams from the Football Conference could theoretically be elected and promoted to the Football League, unless one of the League sides folded or underwent some similar crisis, the 92 teams in the Football League had a monopoly on professional football in England. Despite this situation, the entire English league setup has always been considered part of the same system. In this same light, though there is no system by which an MLS side can be relegated to USL-1 as of now, there is a standing agreement that if a USL team has a proper stadium agreement and enough cash (lower than the standard franchise fee) MLS will accept them into the league and give them extra benefits from a normal expansion side. AFAIK parts of this deal will go into effect when Seattle Sounders FC join the league and any Seattle Sounders player from the USL-1 team's roster can be contracted by the MLS team without having to go through the allocation system as with all other acquisitions. I would also point out that U.S. Soccer recognizes MLS as the country's top league with USL (USL-1, USL-2, and the PDL) being just below them in the league system. Some of this is simply an informal agreement, and other parts are just de facto situations, but to deny that this system has a lot in common with the league systems present in virtually every other footballing nation in the world is preposterous, and for no other purpose than to use the most common terminology available, the articles should remain at their current locations, and should be referred to in this and other article as such. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with PeeJay's renaming, but to United States soccer league system and Canadian soccer league system. Are there any external references to an "American Soccer Pyramid"? FJM (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There are three official levels to the American soccer pyramid for men and women: these are Division I, Division II, and Division III, which are set by the United States Soccer Federation and correspond to levels 1, 2, and 3 as they exist now; see Policy 202 in this PDF. The remaining levels are all amateur, and are divided into categories based on participation by US Soccer. Divisions I-III are definitely U.S. designations and not North American designations. They may contain teams from other countries and be certified by other nations as well, but the U.S. soccer pyramid consists of those leagues recognized by U.S. Soccer and I think that's a meaningful distinction There is a separate Canadian soccer pyramid article that includes many of the same leagues, which seems like the right solution to me.--Chapka (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Pyramid vs League system

I'd like to restart discussion concerning the name of the article. Should this page be renamed United States soccer league system or be kept as is? The term "league system" seems to be a generic name for a hierarchy of leagues run by a federation. I'd assume this consensus exists all over Wikipedia as the United States and Canadian articles are the only ones using the pyramid term. Is there a reason for this? --Blackbox77 (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

MSL Reserve League

Where in the pyramid should we include the MLS Reserve Division? Maybe 2nd along with NASL?--Coquidragon (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere. It's not part of the pyramid. JonBroxton (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

In what sense? As far as I can tell the "pyramid" is something pulled out of thin air to make up this article! While the top 3 leagues can arguably be ranked, everything below that (including which teams are or are not included) seem arbitrary. Kevinatilusa

2012 revision

I've moved the content here from the American soccer pyramid article. This naming is consistent with all of the soccer league system articles from around the world, many of which more resemble a "pyramid" (with promotion and relegation) than the United States does.

I've rewritten the introduction to reflect the new name, renamed most of the sections, and made updates and stylistic changes to the content where appropriate. I've also removed references to the old 15-tier or so division that was on this page before the last overhaul.Chapka (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I completed the above move by deleting the page/moving the pyramid page here and then undeleting the edits in order to fully merge the histories in compliance with WP:CUTPASTE and WP:COPYWITHIN --Trödel 18:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this. I looks like the only other country that used the pyramid name in its article was Canada. We may need to change Canadian soccer pyramid too. --Blackbox77 (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Complete --Trödel 13:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)