When USL owners voted in March 2025 to launch a Division One league with promotion and relegation, they set in motion a transformation that could reshape American soccer. For the first time, professional clubs in the U.S. would be able to rise or fall based on results on the field, not expansion fees or closed-door boardroom deals.
But the dream of a true open pyramid collides with reality. The U.S. Soccer Federation’s Division One requirements—minimum 15,000-seat stadiums, ownership wealth benchmarks, and population standards—were designed for franchise-style leagues like MLS. As USL prepares to challenge the system, the tension between meritocracy and regulation looms large.
Where Clubs Stand
Looking across USL, a clear divide emerges between clubs that are fully compliant with Division One standards, those that are close but still need work, and those that fall short. Most metro areas easily clear the one-million population requirement, but stadium capacity is another matter. This split will shape how promotion and relegation plays out in practice.
Clubs Already Meeting the Standards
A handful of clubs are essentially ready for Division One tomorrow. Louisville City FC meets both the metro and stadium requirements with Lynn Family Stadium’s 15,304 seats. Detroit City FC, once their new 15,000-seat ground is complete, will fall into the same category. Sacramento Republic FC also belongs here, thanks to their Railyards project that opens at 12,000 with expansion to 20,000 built in, ensuring they can quickly surpass the threshold. These clubs can feel confident that if they earn promotion, nothing off the field will stand in their way.
Clubs Close but Not Quite There
Others are positioned to make the jump, but stadium limitations or uncertain timelines keep them in limbo. Oakland Roots SC have announced plans for a 25,000-seat stadium starting with a modular 15,000 design, but the project’s timeline remains unclear. Indy Eleven once had city support for a 20,000-seat venue, but with that plan stalled, they remain in a 12,111-seat stadium that falls short. San Antonio FC currently play in Toyota Field at 8,296 seats, with designs showing how it could be expanded to 18,500, though no work has begun. These clubs may find themselves in the awkward position of winning on the field but facing a waiting game off it.
Clubs Falling Short
Then there are the clubs that simply don’t fit the mold under current standards. Phoenix Rising, despite being in a massive metro, play in a 10,000-seat modular ground with no permanent expansion plans. New Mexico United, beloved in their city, are pushing forward with a stadium project capped at 10,000—short of the requirement—and their metro area of under one million also fails to clear the bar. Tampa Bay Rowdies remain in 7,500-seat Al Lang Stadium, with expansion ideas tied more to past MLS ambitions than to USL Division One. Even Oklahoma City Energy, with plans for a 12,300-seat stadium, would not qualify under the 15,000 rule.
What This Means for Smaller Sides
The implications are stark. Promotion and relegation is meant to promise every club a shot at the top. Yet under current standards, a club could win League One, earn promotion to the Championship, and then fight their way into the top two—only to be told their stadium or market disqualifies them. For ambitious smaller-market teams, this creates a ceiling. Unless standards are adjusted, promotion will only be truly open to clubs that already have—or can quickly build—the infrastructure.
Merit vs. Market: England and the U.S.
The contrast between English football and U.S. soccer could not be clearer. In the Premier League and the English Football League, promotion is earned entirely on sporting merit. A club’s owners are not required to meet a specific wealth threshold; instead, they must pass a fit-and-proper person test and manage within financial fair play rules. Stadiums must be all-seater, safe, and suitable for broadcast, but there is no rigid minimum capacity once a club reaches the top flight. Even Bournemouth, with a ground under 12,000 seats, was admitted to the Premier League with the understanding that upgrades would follow. Market size is irrelevant—Burnley, with fewer than 100,000 residents, plays alongside London clubs backed by global fanbases.
By comparison, the U.S. Soccer Federation takes a far more prescriptive approach to Division One status. Clubs must play in a stadium with at least 15,000 seats. Seventy-five percent of the league’s teams must be based in metropolitan areas of at least one million people. Ownership is also regulated: a principal investor must control at least 35 percent of the club and possess a net worth of $40 million, while the ownership group collectively must exceed $70 million. On top of that, Division One leagues are required to field at least 12 teams at launch and expand to 16 within three years, with clubs distributed across at least three different time zones. These criteria were written with franchise-driven leagues in mind, ensuring geographic spread, financial strength, and market size before sporting merit is even considered.
Taken together, these rules tilt the U.S. system heavily toward market and money, often at the expense of competitive fairness. Whereas England allows small clubs to climb on results alone and trusts governance to protect against financial collapse, the U.S. framework places significant barriers in front of teams from smaller markets or with modest investors, regardless of what they achieve on the field.
The Tradeoffs: Stability vs. Openness
The divide between U.S. Soccer’s model and the English system comes down to what each values most. In England, the pyramid prizes openness. Any club can rise if it earns promotion, regardless of its market size or ownership profile. The benefit is a system full of possibility—clubs like Bournemouth and Burnley prove that small towns can reach the top and compete against global giants. This makes the competition compelling and unpredictable. But it also carries risk. Smaller clubs may not have the financial base or facilities to meet the demands of top-flight soccer right away, which can strain both the league and the club itself.
The American approach, by contrast, prioritizes stability. By requiring large metro areas, wealthy ownership, and bigger stadiums, U.S. Soccer all but guarantees that top-tier clubs are financially secure and attractive to broadcasters. That security is why the model appeals to sponsors and investors, and why MLS has grown steadily without major collapses. The tradeoff, however, is credibility. If promotion and relegation is supposed to reward merit, but clubs are excluded because their stadium is too small or their metro is too modest, the system will look like a closed shop under a different name.
The real challenge for USL is whether it can strike a balance between these two philosophies. Too much emphasis on standards risks smothering the drama and inclusivity that make promotion and relegation special. Too much emphasis on pure merit risks putting underprepared clubs into Division One and weakening the league’s professional image. USL has a rare opportunity to show that American soccer can combine the best of both worlds: the openness that makes the game thrive elsewhere, and the stability that investors demand here.
What It Means for Republic FC
Sacramento Republic FC find themselves in a fortunate position. With the Railyards stadium project designed to open at 12,000 seats and expand to 20,000, and a metro population well over two million, the club checks every box U.S. Soccer has set. While other ambitious USL sides may sweat over capacity limits or ownership profiles, Republic are already aligned with Division One expectations.
But that security comes with perspective. Sacramento’s place in Division One is almost assured, not because of league generosity but because the club invested years into planning for the top flight. In many ways, Republic exemplify what USL hopes its strongest clubs can become: community-backed, modern in infrastructure, and ready for a bigger stage.
Yet the club’s comfort also underscores the danger. If Republic enter Division One while others are barred despite winning on the field, the credibility of the system will be called into question. For Sacramento fans, the excitement of reaching the top tier will be real—but it will mean more if they are joined by rivals who earned their place the same way: through results, not just resources.
The Case for Merit First
The U.S. Soccer Federation’s strict Division One standards—stadium size, market population, and ownership wealth—were created to protect against instability and reassure broadcasters and sponsors. But in doing so, they risk undermining the very spirit of promotion and relegation. Soccer is more than a business model. The point of an open pyramid is that any club, from any city, can dream of reaching the top if they perform on the field.
That doesn’t mean throwing out standards altogether. Requirements around stadium safety, broadcast readiness, and financial responsibility are essential, and clubs must be held accountable to them. The key is flexibility. Just as England allowed Bournemouth to enter the Premier League with a smaller ground, USL should permit promotion first, with upgrades focused on safety and broadcast standards—not capacity as the defining factor.
For Sacramento, the hurdles are already cleared. The Railyards stadium and the city’s strong metro size ensure Republic FC will be at the heart of Division One from the start. But for the league to succeed, USL must ensure others have the same chance. If results on the field are overshadowed by market size and investor wealth, the system will lose credibility before it begins. The league’s historic opportunity lies in trusting merit first, regulation second.
Glad to have your coverage of republic and Usl!
I enjoy Quail City’s clear narrative and storytelling.
Thank you.
Great article.