which club will leave ECNL next

[Anonymous]

Here's a few more MLSN Boys and ECNL Girls

De Anza Force
FC Bay Area Surf
Real Colorado
RSL-AZ
Bethesda SC
Players Development Academy (PDA)
FC DELCO
Jacksonville FC
Tampa Bay United
St. Louis Scott Gallagher

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's a few more MLSN Boys and ECNL Girls

De Anza Force
FC Bay Area Surf
Real Colorado
RSL-AZ
Bethesda SC
Players Development Academy (PDA)
FC DELCO
Jacksonville FC
Tampa Bay United
St. Louis Scott Gallagher

So the logical next step would be which of the clubs listed dont really compete in girls ECNL. (Florida clubs) These are the ones that are vulnerable to leaving ECNL. This is assuming GA would want the low performers. But, if this occurred GA could make an all Florida conference and include TopHat somewhere else.

[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:

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.

Except for Union, which was panic-formed combination of underperforming Brave and McLean that had just lost its partner in Springfield. This undermines the narrative that these teams are all being made from strength. The same continues as Union added all of these partners clubs after McLean left that offer very little talent pipeline.

[Anonymous]

Funny that most of you miss the point of what really brings in money…it’s not the girls. I’ve heard from two “Grandfather” Clubs that have told me directly that they have no control because of the boys MLS that they will be moving to GA next year. Clubs with the resources will be able to follow the same path as Fairfax Union and have both GA and ECNL.

Was told this last May and the gentleman told us not to worry as they believe the level of competition will only get closer every year that goes by and believe a “a number of quality clubs” will be moving nationwide.

Going to be very interesting who has the funds and time available to create a separate entity for girls ECNL. NVA was not able to make it happen. Fairfax Union is a having a tough go at it right now on the administration side.

Things could have changed since I had these conversations but I don’t know. Figured I would just post what I had heard. I did not read the past 20 pages so it could be old news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Funny that most of you miss the point of what really brings in money…it’s not the girls. I’ve heard from two “Grandfather” Clubs that have told me directly that they have no control because of the boys MLS that they will be moving to GA next year. Clubs with the resources will be able to follow the same path as Fairfax Union and have both GA and ECNL.

Was told this last May and the gentleman told us not to worry as they believe the level of competition will only get closer every year that goes by and believe a “a number of quality clubs” will be moving nationwide.

Going to be very interesting who has the funds and time available to create a separate entity for girls ECNL. NVA was not able to make it happen. Fairfax Union is a having a tough go at it right now on the administration side.

Things could have changed since I had these conversations but I don’t know. Figured I would just post what I had heard. I did not read the past 20 pages so it could be old news.

What two clubs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a few more MLSN Boys and ECNL Girls

De Anza Force
FC Bay Area Surf
Real Colorado
RSL-AZ
Bethesda SC
Players Development Academy (PDA)
FC DELCO
Jacksonville FC
Tampa Bay United
St. Louis Scott Gallagher

So the logical next step would be which of the clubs listed dont really compete in girls ECNL. (Florida clubs) These are the ones that are vulnerable to leaving ECNL. This is assuming GA would want the low performers. But, if this occurred GA could make an all Florida conference and include TopHat somewhere else.

Another factor to consider is that some of these clubs had ECNL Boys and had it yanked a few years ago, since their top teams were in MLS Next. That was the case for PDA, Tampa, Delco. I would think they have some leverage to get it back or move the girls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a few more MLSN Boys and ECNL Girls

De Anza Force
FC Bay Area Surf
Real Colorado
RSL-AZ
Bethesda SC
Players Development Academy (PDA)
FC DELCO
Jacksonville FC
Tampa Bay United
St. Louis Scott Gallagher

So the logical next step would be which of the clubs listed dont really compete in girls ECNL. (Florida clubs) These are the ones that are vulnerable to leaving ECNL. This is assuming GA would want the low performers. But, if this occurred GA could make an all Florida conference and include TopHat somewhere else.

Another factor to consider is that some of these clubs had ECNL Boys and had it yanked a few years ago, since their top teams were in MLS Next. That was the case for PDA, Tampa, Delco. I would think they have some leverage to get it back or move the girls.

That makes 4 maybes overall.

Of that 4 of the 2 are very strong mabeys. (The Florida teams)

Next spring is going to be interesting for announcements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Funny that most of you miss the point of what really brings in money…it’s not the girls. I’ve heard from two “Grandfather” Clubs that have told me directly that they have no control because of the boys MLS that they will be moving to GA next year. Clubs with the resources will be able to follow the same path as Fairfax Union and have both GA and ECNL.

Was told this last May and the gentleman told us not to worry as they believe the level of competition will only get closer every year that goes by and believe a “a number of quality clubs” will be moving nationwide.

Going to be very interesting who has the funds and time available to create a separate entity for girls ECNL. NVA was not able to make it happen. Fairfax Union is a having a tough go at it right now on the administration side.

Things could have changed since I had these conversations but I don’t know. Figured I would just post what I had heard. I did not read the past 20 pages so it could be old news.

What???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny that most of you miss the point of what really brings in money…it’s not the girls. I’ve heard from two “Grandfather” Clubs that have told me directly that they have no control because of the boys MLS that they will be moving to GA next year. Clubs with the resources will be able to follow the same path as Fairfax Union and have both GA and ECNL.

Was told this last May and the gentleman told us not to worry as they believe the level of competition will only get closer every year that goes by and believe a “a number of quality clubs” will be moving nationwide.

Going to be very interesting who has the funds and time available to create a separate entity for girls ECNL. NVA was not able to make it happen. Fairfax Union is a having a tough go at it right now on the administration side.

Things could have changed since I had these conversations but I don’t know. Figured I would just post what I had heard. I did not read the past 20 pages so it could be old news.

What???

Actually...FVU will be GA/MLSN 2 next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny that most of you miss the point of what really brings in money…it’s not the girls. I’ve heard from two “Grandfather” Clubs that have told me directly that they have no control because of the boys MLS that they will be moving to GA next year. Clubs with the resources will be able to follow the same path as Fairfax Union and have both GA and ECNL.

Was told this last May and the gentleman told us not to worry as they believe the level of competition will only get closer every year that goes by and believe a “a number of quality clubs” will be moving nationwide.

Going to be very interesting who has the funds and time available to create a separate entity for girls ECNL. NVA was not able to make it happen. Fairfax Union is a having a tough go at it right now on the administration side.

Things could have changed since I had these conversations but I don’t know. Figured I would just post what I had heard. I did not read the past 20 pages so it could be old news.

What???

Fairfax Union is a separate entity. Pretty sure they divorced from McLean Soccer late last fall because they knew GA was coming for them. I don’t know how exactly they did it but obviously much of the same personnel from McLean are at Union. NVA tried the same approach but were too late.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny that most of you miss the point of what really brings in money…it’s not the girls. I’ve heard from two “Grandfather” Clubs that have told me directly that they have no control because of the boys MLS that they will be moving to GA next year. Clubs with the resources will be able to follow the same path as Fairfax Union and have both GA and ECNL.

Was told this last May and the gentleman told us not to worry as they believe the level of competition will only get closer every year that goes by and believe a “a number of quality clubs” will be moving nationwide.

Going to be very interesting who has the funds and time available to create a separate entity for girls ECNL. NVA was not able to make it happen. Fairfax Union is a having a tough go at it right now on the administration side.

Things could have changed since I had these conversations but I don’t know. Figured I would just post what I had heard. I did not read the past 20 pages so it could be old news.

What???

Fairfax Union is a separate entity. Pretty sure they divorced from McLean Soccer late last fall because they knew GA was coming for them. I don’t know how exactly they did it but obviously much of the same personnel from McLean are at Union. NVA tried the same approach but were too late.

I think the PP was saying "what??" because the poster before them said "Clubs with the resources will be able to follow the same path as Fairfax Union and have both GA and ECNL." Which is not true, so they were probably confused by what that person was trying to say because Fairfax does not have GA and ECNL.

[Anonymous]

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

VDA will be an interesting one, there is massive hole not having an MLSN club within PWC. How that happens will be another story, maybe PWSI breaks off on their own.

[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:

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.

Except for Union, which was panic-formed combination of underperforming Brave and McLean that had just lost its partner in Springfield. This undermines the narrative that these teams are all being made from strength. The same continues as Union added all of these partners clubs after McLean left that offer very little talent pipeline.

Was takling abouts clubs added. Union was not an add, it was a net subtraction - as you say - they forced merger of two existing ECNL clubs.

[Anonymous]

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

Correct- if they moved to MLS (which they won’t) these clubs would be discontinuing their ECNL at renewal time in order to move to MLS. At that point, ECNL would likely elect not to renew their girls programs.

Vda, pipeline , Richmond, Arlington are all current ECNL boys programs that were former DA clubs and after DA collapsed they joined ECNL boys rather than be relegated to EDP or NPL or other local leagues. The current MLS Next programs like Alexandria, SYC and Achilles were never part of the DA. They were all EDP clubs that Next went after when the DA collapsed as they were not part of ECNL and therefore were up for grabs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Funny that most of you miss the point of what really brings in money…it’s not the girls. I’ve heard from two “Grandfather” Clubs that have told me directly that they have no control because of the boys MLS that they will be moving to GA next year. Clubs with the resources will be able to follow the same path as Fairfax Union and have both GA and ECNL.

Was told this last May and the gentleman told us not to worry as they believe the level of competition will only get closer every year that goes by and believe a “a number of quality clubs” will be moving nationwide.

Going to be very interesting who has the funds and time available to create a separate entity for girls ECNL. NVA was not able to make it happen. Fairfax Union is a having a tough go at it right now on the administration side.

Things could have changed since I had these conversations but I don’t know. Figured I would just post what I had heard. I did not read the past 20 pages so it could be old news.

What???

Actually...FVU will be GA/MLSN 2 next year.

troll detected