Top Stories

New USSF policy to keep MLS-owned USL teams out of U.S. Open Cup

Bill Streicher-USA Today Sports
Bill Streicher-USA Today Sports

U.S. Soccer has made a significant change to the participation list ahead of the 2016 U.S. Open Cup.

A policy change has been made by U.S. Soccer that will prevent all MLS-owned USL teams from participating in next year’s tournament. The ban is set to keep eight teams, including expansion clubs, Orlando City B, Bethlehem Steel and Swope Park Rangers, out of the country’s biggest cup tournament.

“Any Outdoor Professional League Team that is majority owned by a higher-level Outdoor Professional League Team shall be ineligible to participate in the Open Cup,” the recent amendment reads. “The Open Cup Committee shall review and determine team eligibility annually pursuant to this provision and report its decisions to the National Board of Directors.”

The amendment comes on the heels of some controversy regarding roster usage of teams with direct USL Pro affiliates. Several teams, most prominently New York Red Bulls II, opted to field weakened rosters so as to not cup tie fringe players ahead of a potential U.S. Open Cup run by the team’s parent club.

The U.S. Open Cup is nearing the start of its third qualifying round, which will kick off on Nov. 14.

What do you think of the new rule? Think its fair? How would you handle MLS-owned USL clubs?

Share your thoughts below.

Comments

  1. I feel bad for the fans of these teams. They finally get a USL team in their town only to find out that they can’t compete in the biggest US tournament. I would be seriously bummed.

    Reply
  2. Bad decision. If other teams are complaining about the roster, then have ROSTER RULES!!. If an MLS team has several players on loan from a MLS team (or even a NASL team), then those players are not allowed to play in the Open Cup. Why are you punishing a whole USL team when the complaint is against the {MLS} players on roster. If a USL side enters the USOC, only players signed to the USL contract (NOT an MLS contract) are allowed to play. The other rules such as being cap-tied to a team will still be in effect, but if I understand the complaint, it’s to “level the field” with the USL and other teams who do not have MLS players under contract.

    This is ANOTHER STOOOOPID decision by the USSF. It’s not bad enough that we are stuck with a mediocre USMNT coach, and a USSF president that is apparently hiding something (ie., prior knowledge) of a rotten FIFA,) from US govt. But now we have a not well thought out decision by the USSF and Open Cup committee.

    I think there are more than several coaches in the MLS that do not have enthusiasm to compete in the USOC. In a more and more crowded schedule, the USOC could be the odd man out and become the “Johnson Paint Trophy” of the US

    The only goals of playing in the USOC is wining a spot in the CCL. However if enough of the MLS teams quit the USOC, Concacaf could strip the entry spot for the USOC.

    Reply
  3. too bad for teams like Swope Park or Bethlehem, and all of the players who deserve a shot in this tournament, but the logistics of keeping A and B sides apart in the brackets was a task that was just bound to fail. sooner or later there would be a messy situation.

    Reply
  4. I’ve got no problem with this. People have asked what non MLS clubs can offer players and how they will compete for talent- this gives those clubs a point of difference. You sigh. With Rodchester and you get open cup opportunities against Mls sides and an opportunity tone seen by multiple Mls clubs(possibly), but Red bull 2 will only get you looked at by red bull.

    I do wonder if Houston has a loophole. Since they will not own their team but will be managing all soccer operations?? Hmmm

    Reply
    • yeah, i really think USSF should have worded this more like, “USL teams which act solely as MLS reserve teams cannot participate int he USOC.” that makes it straight forward and still achieves the main objective of the new rule…which is to prevent MLS II squads from being in the USOC.

      Reply
      • But even then, MLS2 sides are not acting solely as reserve teams. Sure, it is a place for roster spots 19-28 (10 players) to get some live action and keep them ready if they are needed in the 18, but the majority of the players on USL teams owned/operated by MLS teams are not signed by MLS and probably will never get a sniff with the top 18.

        I do see some logic in this given that scheduling is increasingly regional to minimize travel, so the risk of drawing MLS vs their own USL side is very real. Additionally, it would be something of a mess if the senior team recalled 10 players from the USL team for the game leaving them with a hodge-podge of nothing to play with. I agree that roster rules would avoid this, but this is cleaner.

  5. My thought is that more games are better than less players to help with their development. So I would have opted to keep the MLS owned teams in the competition fully understanding what that means.

    I have admittedly not thought this through completely, but it’s a comment section on an Internet site where rational thinking is often left at the door…

    Reply
  6. Not so sure about this. MLS support for teams in the lower divisions is a great development for US soccer. The more professional or semi-professional teams around the country the better and even better if they have owners with real money.
    If USSF is somehow concerned about roster rules and team selections, I would have thought there are plenty of other places to concentrate.
    And, finally, (since everything in US soccer has to have a European analog) don’t lower division teams that are owned by top clubs compete in the German league and cups?

    Reply
  7. Makes sense, especially as more teams add USL reserve sides. Competing in USL is great but they aren’t the same as independent USL teams. We were spared the farce of an MLS team playing its reserve side in this year’s open cup but eventually it would have happened without this move.

    Reply
    • Playing against its reserve side I meant to say. Would have been nice if the upgrade to this website had included the addition of an “edit” button.

      Reply
    • I think it would be smarter to have roster rules rather than a complete ban. What should happen is, if you are on team x, and it plays its first cup game while you are on their roster, you are committed there for the cup run, and you can’t go back and play for the MLS team in the cup when your loan ends. Not because you were cap-tied by playing or not playing, but instead because you were part of Team 2 when Team 2 started the tournament.

      I am sure the hangup on this is MLS teams wanting to use summer signings in the cup. So they won’t make a blanket rule against adding new players to a cup roster as the tournament progresses. But being able to play some stud you just signed who wasn’t even on your team when the tourney started is probably actually less fair than sandbagging reserve players.

      I say this because I think reserve team players playing in the cup, perhaps against MLS opposition, would be valuable experience in addition to their league seasons. If they are treated as part of the leagues in which they reside I don’t understand why they can’t play for the Cup.

      Reply

Leave a Reply to Truthie Cancel reply