Read on Twitter
Dear #ProRelforUSA folks: just in case you need reminding, you don't have any obligation to engage with arguments that are not based on the merits or downsides of Pro/Rel.
The argument "the MLS doesn't want it" is not a merits argument. It's a statement of existing fact. 1/
The argument "the MLS doesn't want it" is not a merits argument. It's a statement of existing fact. 1/
It has absolutely zero relevance to the question of whether Pro/Rel is good or bad. Its only relevance is tactical; knowing that MLS ownership is opposed we know that there is something that we need to overcome.
We already knew this. It adds nothing to the conversation. 2/
We already knew this. It adds nothing to the conversation. 2/
You also don't need to engage with people making this argument b/c they are not well-positioned to add to your understanding of MLS's position. MLS ownership is rich & well-organized. Their messaging and rhetoric are not being enriched by the contributions of AtlUFan432513 3/
Nor is your understanding of this issue being enriched by the sycophantic PR flacks masquerading as journalists. Remember the adage: "Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed; everything else is public relations."[ https://bit.ly/32VCsTN ] 5/
The interesting questions are things like whether Pro/Rel is more fun, better for competition, for development of the game, or for the business of soccer. And while it's clear what I think, there are non-trivial argument on both sides! 6/
But "MLS owners don't want it" is as interesting and useful as learning that certain industries are opposed to environmental regulations. It's neither a substantive point nor something anyone else needs to hear. <end>
