The state of the U.S. Open Cup featuring Hudson River Blue’s Michael Battista

Over the last 48 hours, reports regarding the U.S. Open Cup have shaken the national soccer scene and revealed some major disagreements between Major League Soccer and the United States Soccer Federation in its role as a governing body.

Jeff Carlisle of ESPN reported Monday that the 2024 edition of the historic tournament will go ahead, but not with the participation of all MLS teams (Per USSF regulations, all teams in a Division 1-sanctioned league (MLS) are required to participate). And earlier on Monday, Michael Battista of Hudson River Blue reported on how MLS was holding the USSF “hostage” until an agreement related to the tournament was finalized. At the time of writing, an agreement has not been finalized for the tournament to proceed, so while it’s expected to go ahead, there is still a risk of cancellation.

To find out more about the Open Cup situation and how MLS is leveraging itself, Scarves and Spikes interviewed Michael, and it’s highly recommended to check out his article at Hudson River Blue before continuing on to the interview below.

Support independent ATLUTD coverage!
Join our Patreon—starting at $1.17/mo. Click here

Can you give a brief introduction of yourself?

I am a freelance sports writer from the northeast with a major focus on New York and New Jersey soccer – especially at the lower league level. My previous credits include Once A Metro, Hudson River Blue, TheCup.us, Protagonist Soccer, and I have previously written articles about the U.S. Open Cup for U.S. Soccer. I also am one of the few people who can call themselves a fan of The Miami FC.

Wait hold on, you’re a The Miami FC fan?

Yes, lol.

That’s brilliant, why?

Long story. But I interned with the NASL in 2017 and their run to the USOC Quarterfinals got me into soccer, especially the Open Cup. First it was ironically liking them, then it wasn’t a joke anymore.

Awesome. Now, back to the questions…Can you provide a quick background to readers regarding the Open Cup drama of the last few months?

The Open Cup drama started back in mid-December when Major League Soccer announced it was going to pull its first teams out of the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup and replace them with reserve teams from MLS Next Pro. This was huge for multiple reasons. It would be the first time a Division 1 league abandoned the tournament since the original NASL in the 1970s. It was challenging U.S. Soccer’s professional league standards which state all professional teams, except those owned by a higher division team, had to take part in the U.S. Open Cup. Which… not every MLS team had an MLSNP anyway (D.C. United). Around a week later, U.S. Soccer denied MLS’s waiver request and MLS told the media it would not appeal the decision. While that was the end of it on the surface, both parties have been talking behind closed doors about the tournament and MLS’s part in it.

According to your article, the MLS is holding the USSF “hostage” when it comes to the tournament. How so?

As it stands (stood? Maybe?) U.S. Soccer is stuck because MLS has all of the bargaining chips in this situation. USSF knows without Major League Soccer, there is no U.S. Open Cup tournament. There are rumblings that CONCACAF would take away the Champions Cup spot if MLS was not involved (which I haven’t confirmed). While Division 1 sanctioning requires MLS to take part, logically the threat of de-sanctioning is a pipe dream. Especially with the North American Soccer League anti-trust lawsuit still hanging around. Right now, its a matter of USSF trying to leverage itself and MLS knowing what it can do.

Your article also mentions the separate proposals for the tournament brought forth by the USSF, USL, and MLS. Can you explain them more in detail and why each proposal was shot down?

At this time I can only talk about the Adult Soccer Council’s (part of USSF) proposal for the U.S. Open Cup, which I already went over in my article on Hudson River Blue. I would only be speculating. From what I can tell though, MLS only wanted to put eight teams into the tournament which would come in during the Round of 16. But I don’t know anything else about it.

One proposal included a 60-40 revenue split when MLS teams travel away to a lower-division host and receive 40%. You said the USL shot it down. The whole idea sounds ridiculous…whose idea was it? And has the USSF agreed to it, as indicated by other reports?

At this time I do not know officially if USSF has agreed to it. However James Nalton, someone I trust highly, said talks were trending that way. The idea was definitely MLS’s, going back to them looking for concessions for participating.

Your report says that the MLS and its players’ association are not willing to change roster rules to allow more players for the Cup. Doing this would solve MLS’ main two complaints about the cups, schedule congestion and player fatigue. So, why are they refusing?

If I say what I think, I’ll be suspended for six months.

Finally, what is your opinion on how this saga ends?

I don’t think this is over. But if we have a tournament… it’s time to play I guess. Go watch some early round games.

Now, what are the main points to take away from the interview? First, MLS is essentially holding all the cards. At the end of the day, it has all the bargaining chips since it’s the product the federation relies on to keep its relevance and the product competing in CONCACAF. Losing a CONCACAF Champions Cup spot is something the Federation cannot afford, yet if MLS teams leave the tournament, it’s most likely gone.

Justly punishing MLS for a breach in the PLS (pro-league standards) is not a real option, either. Stripping MLS of its first division status leaves the USSF without a top league right before hosting the 2026 World Cup. That’s not going to sit well with FIFA. Giving into MLS’ side of the argument seems to be the easy way out, but if that happens, the anti-trust lawsuit against MLS and the USSF by the former professional league NASL gains room to run.

Therefore, the USSF is in a really tough situation. Proposing entering 8 teams into the Round of 16 is extremely unfavorable to lower-league teams. However, the worst proposal is the 60/40 revenue split. Open Cup games are usually some of the highest moneymakers of the season for lower-level teams, especially amateur teams that have happened to make a Cinderella run. MLS teams taking 40% of the profit just for showing up is less than ideal.

At that rate, is it even worth it for USL teams to show up? Many believe that it’s not: rumors online (reported by Kaylor Hodges of The USL Show and others) state that some, but not all, USL clubs are looking at pulling out of the tournament themselves, contingent on the fact that this 60/40 rule is only in place when MLS goes away and not for all the matches. These rumors add weight to Carlisle’s statement about the precise level of participation from USL clubs not yet being determined. If Nalton’s report that the USSF gave into the 60/40 demands to allow the tournament to commence this year is true, expect that number to be low. And if the number is low, it brings the tournament even closer to its slow demise.

Why? Well, other than the earlier-stated fact that MLS’ attempt to leave the tournament would most likely kill it, the league is gobbling up all revenue it can in the domestic market, whether that be by putting MLS NEXT Pro teams in the Open Cup, the 60/40 revenue proposal, or other methods. The placement of an MLS expansion franchise in San Diego essentially killed one of the most successful USL franchises ever in San Diego Loyal. And then there’s the curious case of Orange County SC – a USL Championship side who recently fetched a record transfer fee by sending defender Kobi Henry to French club Stade de Reims – fighting a battle for its stadium as the MLS side moved LA Galaxy II 30+ miles to play at OCSC’s home. Understandably, MLS is a business, but there are two vastly opposing schools of thought when it comes to their tactics; the Open Cup saga is simply the cherry on top for many fans.

Finally, it should be clarified that the “If I say what I think I’ll be suspended six months” meme was Michael’s actual response to the questions regarding MLS’ refusal to change its roster rules and fix its Open Cup-related issues. It seems very nonsensical for MLS and MLSPA to refuse rule changes that solve schedule congestion and player fatigue, a problem blamed on the Open Cup but one MLS has only put on themselves with a longer postseason and Leagues Cup.

Then, what is the reason for holding out on the changes? Is it to kill off the Open Cup? Is MLS just investing in tournaments in which it has sway over those it doesn’t?

As it stands, it seems the Open Cup is approaching its end – or at minimum a vast set of changes. And even though the tournament is expected to continue for this year, the exodus of MLS clubs is already beginning. Former Open Cup Committee Chairman Arthur Mattson who, according to ESPN, stepped down after being told multiple times by superiors to “stand down” in terms of finding a solution with MLS, stated that the Cup is “in grave danger.”

The proverbial ball is in USSF’s court, so here’s hoping the two sides can come to an agreement that benefits MLS, U.S. Soccer, and ultimately the fans who just want to enjoy the beautiful game.