which club will leave ECNL next

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting together a list of clubs that might be forced to be MLSN+GA or all ECNL soon. Which ones have I missed?


Bethesda SC (MD) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

De Anza Force (CA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

FC DELCO (PA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

Tampa Bay United (FL) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL (and ECNL

Midwest United (MI) — Was dual historically; girls move to Girls Academy in Fall 2025, so no longer ECNL Girls. Boys remain MLS NEXT.

you missed a lot. PDA for one. And there's other west coast teams that have the boys and girls in different leagues. There is no way that ECNL would ask bethesda or PDA to leave.

Isn't this less about whether or not ECNL will ask a club to leave and more about if MLSN will put the screws to clubs asking them to go GA or risk losing MLSN?

This is called tying and is illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Why would MLS (deep pockets) risk being sued for the benefits of GA? why would they want to tie their product to GA?

I agree but ECNL does this all the time. If you want girls ECNL you need to put your boys in ECNL. You definitely cant have girls ECNL + MLSN you also cant have MLSN for tier 1 and boys ECNL for tier 2.

The MLSN + GA strategic alliance was a response to ECNL tying boys with girls ECNL.

Everyone was saying this last year, and nothing happened. It screams of jealousy that "certain" clubs were grandfathered in, but the powers that be aren't exactly looking to kick them out either just to prove a point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting together a list of clubs that might be forced to be MLSN+GA or all ECNL soon. Which ones have I missed?


Bethesda SC (MD) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

De Anza Force (CA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

FC DELCO (PA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

Tampa Bay United (FL) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL (and ECNL

Midwest United (MI) — Was dual historically; girls move to Girls Academy in Fall 2025, so no longer ECNL Girls. Boys remain MLS NEXT.

you missed a lot. PDA for one. And there's other west coast teams that have the boys and girls in different leagues. There is no way that ECNL would ask bethesda or PDA to leave.

Isn't this less about whether or not ECNL will ask a club to leave and more about if MLSN will put the screws to clubs asking them to go GA or risk losing MLSN?

This is called tying and is illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Why would MLS (deep pockets) risk being sued for the benefits of GA? why would they want to tie their product to GA?

I agree but ECNL does this all the time. If you want girls ECNL you need to put your boys in ECNL. You definitely cant have girls ECNL + MLSN you also cant have MLSN for tier 1 and boys ECNL for tier 2.

The MLSN + GA strategic alliance was a response to ECNL tying boys with girls ECNL.

Everyone was saying this last year, and nothing happened. It screams of jealousy that "certain" clubs were grandfathered in, but the powers that be aren't exactly looking to kick them out either just to prove a point.

ECNL has definealy taken girls ECNL away from clubs for going MLSN.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting together a list of clubs that might be forced to be MLSN+GA or all ECNL soon. Which ones have I missed?


Bethesda SC (MD) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

De Anza Force (CA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

FC DELCO (PA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

Tampa Bay United (FL) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL (and ECNL

Midwest United (MI) — Was dual historically; girls move to Girls Academy in Fall 2025, so no longer ECNL Girls. Boys remain MLS NEXT.

you missed a lot. PDA for one. And there's other west coast teams that have the boys and girls in different leagues. There is no way that ECNL would ask bethesda or PDA to leave.

Isn't this less about whether or not ECNL will ask a club to leave and more about if MLSN will put the screws to clubs asking them to go GA or risk losing MLSN?

This is called tying and is illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Why would MLS (deep pockets) risk being sued for the benefits of GA? why would they want to tie their product to GA?

I agree but ECNL does this all the time. If you want girls ECNL you need to put your boys in ECNL. You definitely cant have girls ECNL + MLSN you also cant have MLSN for tier 1 and boys ECNL for tier 2.

The MLSN + GA strategic alliance was a response to ECNL tying boys with girls ECNL.

Everyone was saying this last year, and nothing happened. It screams of jealousy that "certain" clubs were grandfathered in, but the powers that be aren't exactly looking to kick them out either just to prove a point.

ECNL has definealy taken girls ECNL away from clubs for going MLSN.

OK, but you said "going" - I'm talking grandfathered in and it's 2 very different scenarios.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting together a list of clubs that might be forced to be MLSN+GA or all ECNL soon. Which ones have I missed?


Bethesda SC (MD) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

De Anza Force (CA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

FC DELCO (PA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

Tampa Bay United (FL) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL (and ECNL

Midwest United (MI) — Was dual historically; girls move to Girls Academy in Fall 2025, so no longer ECNL Girls. Boys remain MLS NEXT.

you missed a lot. PDA for one. And there's other west coast teams that have the boys and girls in different leagues. There is no way that ECNL would ask bethesda or PDA to leave.

Isn't this less about whether or not ECNL will ask a club to leave and more about if MLSN will put the screws to clubs asking them to go GA or risk losing MLSN?

This is called tying and is illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Why would MLS (deep pockets) risk being sued for the benefits of GA? why would they want to tie their product to GA?

I agree but ECNL does this all the time. If you want girls ECNL you need to put your boys in ECNL. You definitely cant have girls ECNL + MLSN you also cant have MLSN for tier 1 and boys ECNL for tier 2.

The MLSN + GA strategic alliance was a response to ECNL tying boys with girls ECNL.

Everyone was saying this last year, and nothing happened. It screams of jealousy that "certain" clubs were grandfathered in, but the powers that be aren't exactly looking to kick them out either just to prove a point.

ECNL has definealy taken girls ECNL away from clubs for going MLSN.

OK, but you said "going" - I'm talking grandfathered in and it's 2 very different scenarios.

Both scenarios are examples of tying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting together a list of clubs that might be forced to be MLSN+GA or all ECNL soon. Which ones have I missed?


Bethesda SC (MD) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

De Anza Force (CA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

FC DELCO (PA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

Tampa Bay United (FL) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL (and ECNL

Midwest United (MI) — Was dual historically; girls move to Girls Academy in Fall 2025, so no longer ECNL Girls. Boys remain MLS NEXT.

you missed a lot. PDA for one. And there's other west coast teams that have the boys and girls in different leagues. There is no way that ECNL would ask bethesda or PDA to leave.

Isn't this less about whether or not ECNL will ask a club to leave and more about if MLSN will put the screws to clubs asking them to go GA or risk losing MLSN?

This is called tying and is illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Why would MLS (deep pockets) risk being sued for the benefits of GA? why would they want to tie their product to GA?

I agree but ECNL does this all the time. If you want girls ECNL you need to put your boys in ECNL. You definitely cant have girls ECNL + MLSN you also cant have MLSN for tier 1 and boys ECNL for tier 2.

The MLSN + GA strategic alliance was a response to ECNL tying boys with girls ECNL.

The differences are: 1) ECNL is a single entity, so tying between two different entities isnt an issuet, 2) MLS has the deep pockets that invite a lawsuit becasue there is a payoff at the end.

[Anonymous]

they won't kick out clubs that do well. If they kick out the clubs like PDA and others on the west coast, ECNL will lose and they know it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting together a list of clubs that might be forced to be MLSN+GA or all ECNL soon. Which ones have I missed?


Bethesda SC (MD) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

De Anza Force (CA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

FC DELCO (PA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

Tampa Bay United (FL) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL (and ECNL

Midwest United (MI) — Was dual historically; girls move to Girls Academy in Fall 2025, so no longer ECNL Girls. Boys remain MLS NEXT.

you missed a lot. PDA for one. And there's other west coast teams that have the boys and girls in different leagues. There is no way that ECNL would ask bethesda or PDA to leave.

Isn't this less about whether or not ECNL will ask a club to leave and more about if MLSN will put the screws to clubs asking them to go GA or risk losing MLSN?

This is called tying and is illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Why would MLS (deep pockets) risk being sued for the benefits of GA? why would they want to tie their product to GA?

I agree but ECNL does this all the time. If you want girls ECNL you need to put your boys in ECNL. You definitely cant have girls ECNL + MLSN you also cant have MLSN for tier 1 and boys ECNL for tier 2.

The MLSN + GA strategic alliance was a response to ECNL tying boys with girls ECNL.

The differences are: 1) ECNL is a single entity, so tying between two different entities isnt an issuet, 2) MLS has the deep pockets that invite a lawsuit becasue there is a payoff at the end.

What? Ridiculous.

ECNL is tying 2 products (boys and girls) not selling 1 product (boys or girls) without strings attached.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting together a list of clubs that might be forced to be MLSN+GA or all ECNL soon. Which ones have I missed?


Bethesda SC (MD) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

De Anza Force (CA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

FC DELCO (PA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

Tampa Bay United (FL) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL (and ECNL

Midwest United (MI) — Was dual historically; girls move to Girls Academy in Fall 2025, so no longer ECNL Girls. Boys remain MLS NEXT.

you missed a lot. PDA for one. And there's other west coast teams that have the boys and girls in different leagues. There is no way that ECNL would ask bethesda or PDA to leave.

Isn't this less about whether or not ECNL will ask a club to leave and more about if MLSN will put the screws to clubs asking them to go GA or risk losing MLSN?

This is called tying and is illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Why would MLS (deep pockets) risk being sued for the benefits of GA? why would they want to tie their product to GA?

I agree but ECNL does this all the time. If you want girls ECNL you need to put your boys in ECNL. You definitely cant have girls ECNL + MLSN you also cant have MLSN for tier 1 and boys ECNL for tier 2.

The MLSN + GA strategic alliance was a response to ECNL tying boys with girls ECNL.

The differences are: 1) ECNL is a single entity, so tying between two different entities isnt an issuet, 2) MLS has the deep pockets that invite a lawsuit becasue there is a payoff at the end.

ECNL girls and ECNL boys are two separate 501c3 organizations, with separate EINs, 990 filings, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting together a list of clubs that might be forced to be MLSN+GA or all ECNL soon. Which ones have I missed?


Bethesda SC (MD) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

De Anza Force (CA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

FC DELCO (PA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

Tampa Bay United (FL) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL (and ECNL

Midwest United (MI) — Was dual historically; girls move to Girls Academy in Fall 2025, so no longer ECNL Girls. Boys remain MLS NEXT.

you missed a lot. PDA for one. And there's other west coast teams that have the boys and girls in different leagues. There is no way that ECNL would ask bethesda or PDA to leave.

Isn't this less about whether or not ECNL will ask a club to leave and more about if MLSN will put the screws to clubs asking them to go GA or risk losing MLSN?

This is called tying and is illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Why would MLS (deep pockets) risk being sued for the benefits of GA? why would they want to tie their product to GA?

I agree but ECNL does this all the time. If you want girls ECNL you need to put your boys in ECNL. You definitely cant have girls ECNL + MLSN you also cant have MLSN for tier 1 and boys ECNL for tier 2.

The MLSN + GA strategic alliance was a response to ECNL tying boys with girls ECNL.

The differences are: 1) ECNL is a single entity, so tying between two different entities isnt an issuet, 2) MLS has the deep pockets that invite a lawsuit becasue there is a payoff at the end.

ECNL girls and ECNL boys are two separate 501c3 organizations, with separate EINs, 990 filings, etc.

bingo. Those grandfathered in w lawyers will probably win out in the long run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting together a list of clubs that might be forced to be MLSN+GA or all ECNL soon. Which ones have I missed?


Bethesda SC (MD) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

De Anza Force (CA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

FC DELCO (PA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

Tampa Bay United (FL) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL (and ECNL

Midwest United (MI) — Was dual historically; girls move to Girls Academy in Fall 2025, so no longer ECNL Girls. Boys remain MLS NEXT.

you missed a lot. PDA for one. And there's other west coast teams that have the boys and girls in different leagues. There is no way that ECNL would ask bethesda or PDA to leave.

Isn't this less about whether or not ECNL will ask a club to leave and more about if MLSN will put the screws to clubs asking them to go GA or risk losing MLSN?

This is called tying and is illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Why would MLS (deep pockets) risk being sued for the benefits of GA? why would they want to tie their product to GA?

I agree but ECNL does this all the time. If you want girls ECNL you need to put your boys in ECNL. You definitely cant have girls ECNL + MLSN you also cant have MLSN for tier 1 and boys ECNL for tier 2.

The MLSN + GA strategic alliance was a response to ECNL tying boys with girls ECNL.

Everyone was saying this last year, and nothing happened. It screams of jealousy that "certain" clubs were grandfathered in, but the powers that be aren't exactly looking to kick them out either just to prove a point.

ECNL has definealy taken girls ECNL away from clubs for going MLSN.

OK, but you said "going" - I'm talking grandfathered in and it's 2 very different scenarios.

Both scenarios are examples of tying.

No, you're moving the goalposts. They aren't kicking out teams that already have MLSN/ECNL. There are just a couple examples of clubs switching over to MSLN for boys and dropping ECNL for girls, but none that have both being forced to switch. It's an important distinction you seem to be missing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting together a list of clubs that might be forced to be MLSN+GA or all ECNL soon. Which ones have I missed?


Bethesda SC (MD) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

De Anza Force (CA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

FC DELCO (PA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

Tampa Bay United (FL) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL (and ECNL

Midwest United (MI) — Was dual historically; girls move to Girls Academy in Fall 2025, so no longer ECNL Girls. Boys remain MLS NEXT.

you missed a lot. PDA for one. And there's other west coast teams that have the boys and girls in different leagues. There is no way that ECNL would ask bethesda or PDA to leave.

Isn't this less about whether or not ECNL will ask a club to leave and more about if MLSN will put the screws to clubs asking them to go GA or risk losing MLSN?

This is called tying and is illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Why would MLS (deep pockets) risk being sued for the benefits of GA? why would they want to tie their product to GA?

I agree but ECNL does this all the time. If you want girls ECNL you need to put your boys in ECNL. You definitely cant have girls ECNL + MLSN you also cant have MLSN for tier 1 and boys ECNL for tier 2.

The MLSN + GA strategic alliance was a response to ECNL tying boys with girls ECNL.

Everyone was saying this last year, and nothing happened. It screams of jealousy that "certain" clubs were grandfathered in, but the powers that be aren't exactly looking to kick them out either just to prove a point.

ECNL has definealy taken girls ECNL away from clubs for going MLSN.

OK, but you said "going" - I'm talking grandfathered in and it's 2 very different scenarios.

Both scenarios are examples of tying.

No, you're moving the goalposts. They aren't kicking out teams that already have MLSN/ECNL. There are just a couple examples of clubs switching over to MSLN for boys and dropping ECNL for girls, but none that have both being forced to switch. It's an important distinction you seem to be missing.

Please explain how that worked out for Strikers when they changed to MLSN and ECNL pulled girls ECNL.

https://www.strikersfc.com/mlsnext

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting together a list of clubs that might be forced to be MLSN+GA or all ECNL soon. Which ones have I missed?


Bethesda SC (MD) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

De Anza Force (CA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

FC DELCO (PA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

Tampa Bay United (FL) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL (and ECNL

Midwest United (MI) — Was dual historically; girls move to Girls Academy in Fall 2025, so no longer ECNL Girls. Boys remain MLS NEXT.

you missed a lot. PDA for one. And there's other west coast teams that have the boys and girls in different leagues. There is no way that ECNL would ask bethesda or PDA to leave.

Isn't this less about whether or not ECNL will ask a club to leave and more about if MLSN will put the screws to clubs asking them to go GA or risk losing MLSN?

This is called tying and is illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Why would MLS (deep pockets) risk being sued for the benefits of GA? why would they want to tie their product to GA?

I agree but ECNL does this all the time. If you want girls ECNL you need to put your boys in ECNL. You definitely cant have girls ECNL + MLSN you also cant have MLSN for tier 1 and boys ECNL for tier 2.

The MLSN + GA strategic alliance was a response to ECNL tying boys with girls ECNL.

Everyone was saying this last year, and nothing happened. It screams of jealousy that "certain" clubs were grandfathered in, but the powers that be aren't exactly looking to kick them out either just to prove a point.

ECNL has definealy taken girls ECNL away from clubs for going MLSN.

OK, but you said "going" - I'm talking grandfathered in and it's 2 very different scenarios.

Both scenarios are examples of tying.

No, you're moving the goalposts. They aren't kicking out teams that already have MLSN/ECNL. There are just a couple examples of clubs switching over to MSLN for boys and dropping ECNL for girls, but none that have both being forced to switch. It's an important distinction you seem to be missing.

Please explain how that worked out for Strikers when they changed to MLSN and ECNL pulled girls ECNL.

https://www.strikersfc.com/mlsnext

good for them - you're still mixing up two different arguments!!

I'm plainly stating the clubs that are CURRENTLY MSLN/ECNL won't be forced to separate. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up clubs switching over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting together a list of clubs that might be forced to be MLSN+GA or all ECNL soon. Which ones have I missed?


Bethesda SC (MD) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

De Anza Force (CA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

FC DELCO (PA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

Tampa Bay United (FL) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL (and ECNL

Midwest United (MI) — Was dual historically; girls move to Girls Academy in Fall 2025, so no longer ECNL Girls. Boys remain MLS NEXT.

you missed a lot. PDA for one. And there's other west coast teams that have the boys and girls in different leagues. There is no way that ECNL would ask bethesda or PDA to leave.

Isn't this less about whether or not ECNL will ask a club to leave and more about if MLSN will put the screws to clubs asking them to go GA or risk losing MLSN?

This is called tying and is illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Why would MLS (deep pockets) risk being sued for the benefits of GA? why would they want to tie their product to GA?

I agree but ECNL does this all the time. If you want girls ECNL you need to put your boys in ECNL. You definitely cant have girls ECNL + MLSN you also cant have MLSN for tier 1 and boys ECNL for tier 2.

The MLSN + GA strategic alliance was a response to ECNL tying boys with girls ECNL.

Everyone was saying this last year, and nothing happened. It screams of jealousy that "certain" clubs were grandfathered in, but the powers that be aren't exactly looking to kick them out either just to prove a point.

ECNL has definealy taken girls ECNL away from clubs for going MLSN.

OK, but you said "going" - I'm talking grandfathered in and it's 2 very different scenarios.

Both scenarios are examples of tying.

No, you're moving the goalposts. They aren't kicking out teams that already have MLSN/ECNL. There are just a couple examples of clubs switching over to MSLN for boys and dropping ECNL for girls, but none that have both being forced to switch. It's an important distinction you seem to be missing.

Please explain how that worked out for Strikers when they changed to MLSN and ECNL pulled girls ECNL.

https://www.strikersfc.com/mlsnext

good for them - you're still mixing up two different arguments!!

I'm plainly stating the clubs that are CURRENTLY MSLN/ECNL won't be forced to separate. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up clubs switching over.

You're obviously a homer and will say whatever you can for ECNL.

But for everyone else...

Yes ECNL ties boys and girls when new clubs are brought on. Also yes ECNL threatens to take girls ECNL away from clubs when they go MLSN. But it all depends on the situation and what ECNL thinks it can get away with. So just because you're not seeing it in XYZ club in the Midwest doesn't mean it's not happening. In fact the better the club the more likely you are see tying occur.

The MLSN + GA strategic alliance that was announced earlier this year was specifically done to counter ECNLs tying of boys and girls.

If you dont think that MLSN is going to force clubs to get rid of girls ECNL you're not paying attention. But again this will occur on a case by case basis + over time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting together a list of clubs that might be forced to be MLSN+GA or all ECNL soon. Which ones have I missed?


Bethesda SC (MD) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

De Anza Force (CA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

FC DELCO (PA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

Tampa Bay United (FL) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL (and ECNL

Midwest United (MI) — Was dual historically; girls move to Girls Academy in Fall 2025, so no longer ECNL Girls. Boys remain MLS NEXT.

you missed a lot. PDA for one. And there's other west coast teams that have the boys and girls in different leagues. There is no way that ECNL would ask bethesda or PDA to leave.

Isn't this less about whether or not ECNL will ask a club to leave and more about if MLSN will put the screws to clubs asking them to go GA or risk losing MLSN?

This is called tying and is illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Why would MLS (deep pockets) risk being sued for the benefits of GA? why would they want to tie their product to GA?

I agree but ECNL does this all the time. If you want girls ECNL you need to put your boys in ECNL. You definitely cant have girls ECNL + MLSN you also cant have MLSN for tier 1 and boys ECNL for tier 2.

The MLSN + GA strategic alliance was a response to ECNL tying boys with girls ECNL.

Everyone was saying this last year, and nothing happened. It screams of jealousy that "certain" clubs were grandfathered in, but the powers that be aren't exactly looking to kick them out either just to prove a point.

ECNL has definealy taken girls ECNL away from clubs for going MLSN.

OK, but you said "going" - I'm talking grandfathered in and it's 2 very different scenarios.

Both scenarios are examples of tying.

No, you're moving the goalposts. They aren't kicking out teams that already have MLSN/ECNL. There are just a couple examples of clubs switching over to MSLN for boys and dropping ECNL for girls, but none that have both being forced to switch. It's an important distinction you seem to be missing.

Please explain how that worked out for Strikers when they changed to MLSN and ECNL pulled girls ECNL.

https://www.strikersfc.com/mlsnext

good for them - you're still mixing up two different arguments!!

I'm plainly stating the clubs that are CURRENTLY MSLN/ECNL won't be forced to separate. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up clubs switching over.

You're obviously a homer and will say whatever you can for ECNL.

But for everyone else...

Yes ECNL ties boys and girls when new clubs are brought on. Also yes ECNL threatens to take girls ECNL away from clubs when they go MLSN. But it all depends on the situation and what ECNL thinks it can get away with. So just because you're not seeing it in XYZ club in the Midwest doesn't mean it's not happening. In fact the better the club the more likely you are see tying occur.

The MLSN + GA strategic alliance that was announced earlier this year was specifically done to counter ECNLs tying of boys and girls.

If you dont think that MLSN is going to force clubs to get rid of girls ECNL you're not paying attention. But again this will occur on a case by case basis + over time.

Who TF are you? I don't care about ECNL/MLSN or whoever. I'm trying to dispel the rumor that current clubs who have ECNL/MLSN aren't being forced to separate. It seems to keep popping up here with 0 proof and a lot of hand waving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting together a list of clubs that might be forced to be MLSN+GA or all ECNL soon. Which ones have I missed?


Bethesda SC (MD) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

De Anza Force (CA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

FC DELCO (PA) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL.

Tampa Bay United (FL) — Boys: MLS NEXT; Girls: ECNL (and ECNL

Midwest United (MI) — Was dual historically; girls move to Girls Academy in Fall 2025, so no longer ECNL Girls. Boys remain MLS NEXT.

you missed a lot. PDA for one. And there's other west coast teams that have the boys and girls in different leagues. There is no way that ECNL would ask bethesda or PDA to leave.

Isn't this less about whether or not ECNL will ask a club to leave and more about if MLSN will put the screws to clubs asking them to go GA or risk losing MLSN?

This is called tying and is illegal under the Sherman Antitrust Act. Why would MLS (deep pockets) risk being sued for the benefits of GA? why would they want to tie their product to GA?

I agree but ECNL does this all the time. If you want girls ECNL you need to put your boys in ECNL. You definitely cant have girls ECNL + MLSN you also cant have MLSN for tier 1 and boys ECNL for tier 2.

The MLSN + GA strategic alliance was a response to ECNL tying boys with girls ECNL.

Everyone was saying this last year, and nothing happened. It screams of jealousy that "certain" clubs were grandfathered in, but the powers that be aren't exactly looking to kick them out either just to prove a point.

ECNL has definealy taken girls ECNL away from clubs for going MLSN.

OK, but you said "going" - I'm talking grandfathered in and it's 2 very different scenarios.

Both scenarios are examples of tying.

No, you're moving the goalposts. They aren't kicking out teams that already have MLSN/ECNL. There are just a couple examples of clubs switching over to MSLN for boys and dropping ECNL for girls, but none that have both being forced to switch. It's an important distinction you seem to be missing.

Please explain how that worked out for Strikers when they changed to MLSN and ECNL pulled girls ECNL.

https://www.strikersfc.com/mlsnext

good for them - you're still mixing up two different arguments!!

I'm plainly stating the clubs that are CURRENTLY MSLN/ECNL won't be forced to separate. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up clubs switching over.

You're obviously a homer and will say whatever you can for ECNL.

But for everyone else...

Yes ECNL ties boys and girls when new clubs are brought on. Also yes ECNL threatens to take girls ECNL away from clubs when they go MLSN. But it all depends on the situation and what ECNL thinks it can get away with. So just because you're not seeing it in XYZ club in the Midwest doesn't mean it's not happening. In fact the better the club the more likely you are see tying occur.

The MLSN + GA strategic alliance that was announced earlier this year was specifically done to counter ECNLs tying of boys and girls.

If you dont think that MLSN is going to force clubs to get rid of girls ECNL you're not paying attention. But again this will occur on a case by case basis + over time.

Who TF are you? I don't care about ECNL/MLSN or whoever. I'm trying to dispel the rumor that current clubs who have ECNL/MLSN aren't being forced to separate. It seems to keep popping up here with 0 proof and a lot of hand waving.

ECNL has been forcing clubs to do boys ECNL for years. (If they want girls ECNL)

ECNL has also taken away girls ECNL if clubs change their boys to MLSN.

ECNL has also also taken both girls and boys ECNL away if clubs try to play MLSN for their 1st teams and ECNL for their 2nd teams.

You're trying to dispel facts and reality. I'm sorry that you're likely new to youth soccer and haven't experienced the joy of working with ECNL yet.