This is a common objection to pro/rel in US soccer.
To use this objection reveals ignorance on a few fairly obvious points.
That most of the rest of soccer world that uses pro/rel and has no trouble finding investors for clubs.
That even Americans have invested in clubs in these pro/rel leagues. Some folks who have invested even commentate for American soccer, like Stu Holden, who invested in FC Mallorca then in Spain’s second division and won promotion to its first division. Stu was very, very excited that day.
Might SOME investors be reluctant to invest with a threat of relegation? Sure. But that’s not ALL investors.
Likewise, some investors may be reluctant to invest in a closed league for lots of reasons One reason could be that you like to win, you think winning depends on having the best players possible, and yet central office restrains your roster choices to keep the league competitive (i.e. prevent a talent bidding war among owners), because it thinks that works.
Often, when these points are made, the critic moves the goalposts on the discussion to other points like “but, clubs fail when they are demoted.”
Which reveals more ignorance. Have clubs failed when demoted? Sure. Does it happen every time? Far from it.
Does it matter? It shouldn’t. Failure is common and accepted in all walks of life. Why should sports be immune to it? It matters even less if the incentives are in place to encourage more competition to quickly replace those failures.
In places with pro/rel, there is plenty of competition to fill the voids of the occasional failure, just like in other markets. When one restaurant fails, plenty others are there to fill the void.
I also understand that failure isn’t fun for the folks involved. But, I think a landscape that allows for the occasional failure when a team isn’t working, and that has a vibrant landscape of competitors, is better than a landscape with a few players that is prone to total system failure.
But MLS is far from total system failure!
That’s the topic for the next post.