which club will leave ECNL next

[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.

Eventually all the clubs with MLSN + girls ECNL will need to choose one pathway or the other. ECNL is going to be pressuring for boys and girls and MLSN + GA will be doing the same.

[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:

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.

Eventually all the clubs with MLSN + girls ECNL will need to choose one pathway or the other. ECNL is going to be pressuring for boys and girls and MLSN + GA will be doing the same.

legal beagles so far say otherwise. Those who were grandfathered this far have not been bullied out of their positions.

[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:

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.

Eventually all the clubs with MLSN + girls ECNL will need to choose one pathway or the other. ECNL is going to be pressuring for boys and girls and MLSN + GA will be doing the same.

legal beagles so far say otherwise. Those who were grandfathered this far have not been bullied out of their positions.

Its because if a club takes a league to court over Tying it's expensive + you may/may not win and ends up with the same end result as just choosing one league or the other.

[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:

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.

NP here - I think you are missing the PPs point about these grandfathered clubs. ECNL only kicks out girls if a current ECNL boys club makes a choice to move their boys to MLS Next during the 'renewal' period (i.e. NVA is a good example). Clubs make the choice to switch come renewal time, and ECNL makes the choice not to extend a renewal come renewal time--the league contracts allow both parties to opt out. It's a business decision for both. To date, I am not aware of ECNL kicking out a girls team simply because a boys team (which was never in ECNL) decides to continue the renewal of their MLS Next league. A lot of this goes back to the collapse of the DA --a league that existed well before ECNL boys ever was stood up. Do you have an example where ECNL booted a girls team because their MLS Next boys team decided to renew MLS Next boys vs. changing over to ECNL boys? If so please share for visibility...For brand new clubs, ECNL sells a joint package. This is also different than forcing a grandfathered club to cancel their MLS renewal and go ECNL boys They only want new clubs that are all in and they only want to renew clubs who choose to renew both. Totally differnet scenario than the handful of grandfathered clubs...

[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:

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.

NP here - I think you are missing the PPs point about these grandfathered clubs. ECNL only kicks out girls if a current ECNL boys club makes a choice to move their boys to MLS Next during the 'renewal' period (i.e. NVA is a good example). Clubs make the choice to switch come renewal time, and ECNL makes the choice not to extend a renewal come renewal time--the league contracts allow both parties to opt out. It's a business decision for both. To date, I am not aware of ECNL kicking out a girls team simply because a boys team (which was never in ECNL) decides to continue the renewal of their MLS Next league. A lot of this goes back to the collapse of the DA --a league that existed well before ECNL boys ever was stood up. Do you have an example where ECNL booted a girls team because their MLS Next boys team decided to renew MLS Next boys vs. changing over to ECNL boys? If so please share for visibility...For brand new clubs, ECNL sells a joint package. This is also different than forcing a grandfathered club to cancel their MLS renewal and go ECNL boys They only want new clubs that are all in and they only want to renew clubs who choose to renew both. Totally different scenario than the handful of grandfathered clubs...

say it louder for the people in the back. I wish this was a sticky/per post.

[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:

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.

NP here - I think you are missing the PPs point about these grandfathered clubs. ECNL only kicks out girls if a current ECNL boys club makes a choice to move their boys to MLS Next during the 'renewal' period (i.e. NVA is a good example). Clubs make the choice to switch come renewal time, and ECNL makes the choice not to extend a renewal come renewal time--the league contracts allow both parties to opt out. It's a business decision for both. To date, I am not aware of ECNL kicking out a girls team simply because a boys team (which was never in ECNL) decides to continue the renewal of their MLS Next league. A lot of this goes back to the collapse of the DA --a league that existed well before ECNL boys ever was stood up. Do you have an example where ECNL booted a girls team because their MLS Next boys team decided to renew MLS Next boys vs. changing over to ECNL boys? If so please share for visibility...For brand new clubs, ECNL sells a joint package. This is also different than forcing a grandfathered club to cancel their MLS renewal and go ECNL boys They only want new clubs that are all in and they only want to renew clubs who choose to renew both. Totally different scenario than the handful of grandfathered clubs...

say it louder for the people in the back. I wish this was a sticky/per post.

+1. This argument is just another failed argument that every club will be GA in 2 years. ECNL is just choosing to have a stronger league rather than accepting every team that applies. Quality over quantity. That is why their model is working. Although, I do wish they would decouple the girls from the boys. Forcing the girls to leave ECNL so the boys can go MLSN2 isn’t good for anyone.

[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:

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.

NP here - I think you are missing the PPs point about these grandfathered clubs. ECNL only kicks out girls if a current ECNL boys club makes a choice to move their boys to MLS Next during the 'renewal' period (i.e. NVA is a good example). Clubs make the choice to switch come renewal time, and ECNL makes the choice not to extend a renewal come renewal time--the league contracts allow both parties to opt out. It's a business decision for both. To date, I am not aware of ECNL kicking out a girls team simply because a boys team (which was never in ECNL) decides to continue the renewal of their MLS Next league. A lot of this goes back to the collapse of the DA --a league that existed well before ECNL boys ever was stood up. Do you have an example where ECNL booted a girls team because their MLS Next boys team decided to renew MLS Next boys vs. changing over to ECNL boys? If so please share for visibility...For brand new clubs, ECNL sells a joint package. This is also different than forcing a grandfathered club to cancel their MLS renewal and go ECNL boys They only want new clubs that are all in and they only want to renew clubs who choose to renew both. Totally differnet scenario than the handful of grandfathered clubs...

Here's a whole thread about it...
https://socalsoccer.com/threads/strikers-ecnl-rumors.19769/

This is just one of the most egregious examples. Same kind of things still happen today.

[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:

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.

NP here - I think you are missing the PPs point about these grandfathered clubs. ECNL only kicks out girls if a current ECNL boys club makes a choice to move their boys to MLS Next during the 'renewal' period (i.e. NVA is a good example). Clubs make the choice to switch come renewal time, and ECNL makes the choice not to extend a renewal come renewal time--the league contracts allow both parties to opt out. It's a business decision for both. To date, I am not aware of ECNL kicking out a girls team simply because a boys team (which was never in ECNL) decides to continue the renewal of their MLS Next league. A lot of this goes back to the collapse of the DA --a league that existed well before ECNL boys ever was stood up. Do you have an example where ECNL booted a girls team because their MLS Next boys team decided to renew MLS Next boys vs. changing over to ECNL boys? If so please share for visibility...For brand new clubs, ECNL sells a joint package. This is also different than forcing a grandfathered club to cancel their MLS renewal and go ECNL boys They only want new clubs that are all in and they only want to renew clubs who choose to renew both. Totally differnet scenario than the handful of grandfathered clubs...

Is this what happened with Midwest United in Michigan?

[Anonymous]

So, locally, Bethesda is grandfathered, but most are not? Arlington, VDA, Pipeline, Richmond United…all are not, is that right?

[Anonymous]

Any boys MLSN + girls ECNL clubs that ive missed?

De Anza Force
Bay Area Surf
Bethesda SC
Players Development Academy
Jacksonville FC
Tampa Bay United SC
FC DELCO
RSL‑AZ (Real Salt Lake Arizona)

[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:

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.

NP here - I think you are missing the PPs point about these grandfathered clubs. ECNL only kicks out girls if a current ECNL boys club makes a choice to move their boys to MLS Next during the 'renewal' period (i.e. NVA is a good example). Clubs make the choice to switch come renewal time, and ECNL makes the choice not to extend a renewal come renewal time--the league contracts allow both parties to opt out. It's a business decision for both. To date, I am not aware of ECNL kicking out a girls team simply because a boys team (which was never in ECNL) decides to continue the renewal of their MLS Next league. A lot of this goes back to the collapse of the DA --a league that existed well before ECNL boys ever was stood up. Do you have an example where ECNL booted a girls team because their MLS Next boys team decided to renew MLS Next boys vs. changing over to ECNL boys? If so please share for visibility...For brand new clubs, ECNL sells a joint package. This is also different than forcing a grandfathered club to cancel their MLS renewal and go ECNL boys They only want new clubs that are all in and they only want to renew clubs who choose to renew both. Totally different scenario than the handful of grandfathered clubs...

say it louder for the people in the back. I wish this was a sticky/per post.

+1. This argument is just another failed argument that every club will be GA in 2 years. ECNL is just choosing to have a stronger league rather than accepting every team that applies. Quality over quantity. That is why their model is working. Although, I do wish they would decouple the girls from the boys. Forcing the girls to leave ECNL so the boys can go MLSN2 isn’t good for anyone.

I don't think you can really say this, given the clubs that ECNL has accepted in/promoted up most recently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, locally, Bethesda is grandfathered, but most are not? Arlington, VDA, Pipeline, Richmond United…all are not, is that right?

When people say Grandfathered in, they are referring to clubs who have Boys in MLSNext and Girls in ECNL. This happened in the immediate aftermath of USSF shutting down DA at the start of Covid. The teams you mentioned, Arl, VDA, Richmond, have ECNL for boys and girls. There is nothing to "Grandfather" in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any boys MLSN + girls ECNL clubs that ive missed?

De Anza Force
Bay Area Surf
Bethesda SC
Players Development Academy
Jacksonville FC
Tampa Bay United SC
FC DELCO
RSL‑AZ (Real Salt Lake Arizona)

Yeah you missed like 8-10 more

[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:

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.

NP here - I think you are missing the PPs point about these grandfathered clubs. ECNL only kicks out girls if a current ECNL boys club makes a choice to move their boys to MLS Next during the 'renewal' period (i.e. NVA is a good example). Clubs make the choice to switch come renewal time, and ECNL makes the choice not to extend a renewal come renewal time--the league contracts allow both parties to opt out. It's a business decision for both. To date, I am not aware of ECNL kicking out a girls team simply because a boys team (which was never in ECNL) decides to continue the renewal of their MLS Next league. A lot of this goes back to the collapse of the DA --a league that existed well before ECNL boys ever was stood up. Do you have an example where ECNL booted a girls team because their MLS Next boys team decided to renew MLS Next boys vs. changing over to ECNL boys? If so please share for visibility...For brand new clubs, ECNL sells a joint package. This is also different than forcing a grandfathered club to cancel their MLS renewal and go ECNL boys They only want new clubs that are all in and they only want to renew clubs who choose to renew both. Totally different scenario than the handful of grandfathered clubs...

say it louder for the people in the back. I wish this was a sticky/per post.

+1. This argument is just another failed argument that every club will be GA in 2 years. ECNL is just choosing to have a stronger league rather than accepting every team that applies. Quality over quantity. That is why their model is working. Although, I do wish they would decouple the girls from the boys. Forcing the girls to leave ECNL so the boys can go MLSN2 isn’t good for anyone.

I don't think you can really say this, given the clubs that ECNL has accepted in/promoted up most recently.

Might be a difference on boys side vs girls side, but on the girls side, besides the three big names they radided from GA two years ago, every other team accepted into ECNL Girls had to prove them selves and be top acrioss all age divisions in ECRL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any boys MLSN + girls ECNL clubs that ive missed?

De Anza Force
Bay Area Surf
Bethesda SC
Players Development Academy
Jacksonville FC
Tampa Bay United SC
FC DELCO
RSL‑AZ (Real Salt Lake Arizona)

Yeah you missed like 8-10 more

Which ones?