— It’s been a heady few years for the United Soccer League. Left reeling following a schism in 2010 that bore the insurgent North American Soccer League, USL winnowed down to just 12 teams in 2013 occupying the third division of American professional soccer.

This year, USL supplanted NASL as the sole sanctioned U.S. second division pro league. The league’s ranks have swollen to 33 teams, with at least six more and a new third division league set to launch in 2019.

[North Carolina FC is a member of USL, rejoining the league in advance of the 2018 season.]

Jake Edwards joined USL in 2013 as its executive vice-president, and the Manchester, England native became the league’s president in 2015. Edwards spoke to WRALSportsFan’s Inverted Triangle Soccer Podcast this week about a wide array of league topics. The following excerpts were taken from the extended interview:

WRALSportsFan: The USL’s strategic growth plan, which dates back three or more years, is named Destination 2020. As we speak, it’s June 2018. What’s left to accomplish off that plan between now and the year 2020?

JAKE EDWARDS: When we go back towards the 2011-2012 season and we’re putting this Destination 2020 roadmap together, it was about a couple of core things, really. It was about focusing on the clubs and bringing the right ownership groups behind the clubs. It was about improving the venues we play in and starting to set the table for the others areas of the business that we needed to focus on, such as investing in the broadcast and digital/social programs, investing in the quality of the players coming into our league, and a whole host of other things …

We have a lot of work to do; we always will have. We’re not sitting here thinking we’ve arrived. We certainly don’t accept the status quo … We’re looking forward to the next two years, to 2020. Some of the projects are ongoing, certainly around the stadium investment, with 16 soccer-specific stadiums and many more coming, and bigger and grander stadiums coming into the league in the next few years … But we are focusing really over the next two years on our new commercial initiatives, to bring new commercial partners into the league and add value to our clubs …

We’re looking to expansion now through 2021, and that will be the end of the expansion for the USL as it is now in second division. We’ve got some exciting new groups who have been announced, and some exciting new groups we haven’t announced yet who will be coming in … We’ll also have now our third division running in the 2019 season, so we’ll have our two professional divisions and our pre-professional division, which is the PDL.

You mentioned one of the more immediate ventures, USL D3, which is set to launch next season. How does USL D3 fit within that wider strategic plan that I referenced before? What function does it serve, not necessarily in the wider American soccer landscape but [rather] the USL ethos?

It’s a critical piece of the structure for us. It gives us some flexibility to have another division. It’s also, as I’m viewing this, the foundation for professional soccer in the U.S. We’re going to be taking these professional clubs to markets that are perhaps underserved and building the footprint of professional soccer, and opportunities for players coming to the game at a professional level … The players are going to skew a little bit young. We’re looking at players in the range of 16, 17 up to about 22, 23. So, on average it’s going to be a younger age group and exciting young players just starting out their professional career.

We’ll start the league with about 12 teams, and it will grow significantly over the next few years … We can work with these clubs to start putting academies and youth development programs together, and professional coaching down through all of those clubs. We’ve got a phenomenal chance to build something special and really identify all the real talent we have in this country … A lot of players we’re losing because they don’t have that touchpoint with a professional club and professional coaching, and I think that will solve a major gap for us.

What is the sense or plan for how many teams are going to take part in the debut season next year in USL D3?

We’ve set a number at 12, and I think we’re going to surpass that because there’s been more interest, certainly in the west, in California particularly, than I thought at the time. We’ve already got several teams lined up to join in [2020], so I think it will grow relatively quickly.

One of the new teams that’s been reported and confirmed by folks on the ground is one that will be owned and operated by FC Dallas. Is that true, and where will that team be located?

Yes, it is true. It’s not announced yet, but FC Dallas has expressed a strong interest in it with us, so we’re just going through what it will look like, the business plan, and stadium options. So, we haven’t finalized all those details with them.

There’s a natural segue: the launch of an MLS-owned USL D3 team fuels the long-held belief that USL D3 is the ultimate destination for the MLS-owned teams that are currently part of USL D2, that the benefits of operating out of D3 will suit MLS teams better, and perhaps USL better long-term. Is USL D3 the ultimate home for the MLS-owned teams in USL?

It’s not a one-size fits all … It’s worked well for some [MLS D2] teams and it hasn’t really worked well for other teams that have chosen to affiliate [with other USL teams] or do different things. It’s not a situation where we or MLS are mandating that those teams have to do one thing or the other … There are a number of those [MLS] teams both currently playing in the USL and those who don’t have a team in the USL who are strongly looking at division three, working with us on that at the moment. Perhaps that’s a league that’s going to be better suited to their objectives, whether that’s player development, roster flexibility, or business operations … That’s going to be the natural home for a number of those teams, you are correct, that have expressed that interest. It’s going to be a nice mix of independent teams and MLS teams in that league to start.

Beyond the benefits that you mentioned, is USL D3 also being viewed as a mechanism for clearing space for further expansion in USL D2? I don’t just mean the MLS-owned teams, but possibly independent teams that might find it more advantageous to play D3 instead of D2.

Yes, it will. Obviously I can’t give any specifics about any situations, but it will. That’s the benefit of the league: it gives the league some options in certain instances, and it gives the clubs an additional option … If the demands on the second division are moving too far ahead, then at least third division will give us and that club an option to carry on.

What’s the ceiling on the size of USL D2? How big is too big?

There’s a ceiling. Obviously, there’s only so many games you can play in a certain amount of time, and we’re at that time now around 32-33 weeks … We’ve been at a two-conference structure for quite some time, and there has been research that we’ve been doing about a three-conference structure, and potentially two divisions within each conference, keeping an East and West but having two internal divisions within each …

There is a finite number, really. We don’t put a hard cap on that, but I would imagine it would be somewhere in the high 30s. I can’t imagine going much beyond that.

The latest public information has five teams slated to join USL D2 next year: Austin, Birmingham, El Paso, Memphis, and Albuquerque. Are all five still set for next year, and are there still more to come that may join in 2019?

All those are still set to come [in 2019]. We do have another team coming in that will be announced later this month. It’s an exciting city coming into the league, and we’re working on an exciting stadium plan there, as well.

By the way, I keep using the terms USL D3 and USL D2. In late 2017, USL applied for trademarks for USL Championship, USL League One, USL League Two, and USL Youth. What are the ultimate usage for those marks and names?

Yeah, I heard about about, too [laughs] … We’ve been evaluating the naming and brand around our structure. We’re thinking about what it might turn into. We’re not moving forward calling ourselves division two and division three. It’s not a very exciting naming construct. So to market and promote the league, we’re going to have to come up with a new brand and name. We’re going through that process right now. We’re anticipating a brand launch and rebrand of everything ahead of the 2019 season.

You’ve spoken rather bullishly on a number occasions the last few months about a proposed inter-league cup competition that USL would like to launch in the next year or more. What is the overarching purpose, from your viewpoint, for such a mid-season cup competition?

By the way, this would be with team and Board of Governors approval; it’s not my independent decision. But, it’s something we’ve taken on to explore … We’ve thought it for a little while, and with a third division and potentially our PDL, it gives us the opportunity to have an additional competition that we can create some excitement around. How do we differentiate this competition from regular league play and from Open Cup play? Whether that’s playing teams cross-conference that you wouldn’t ordinarily play, or playing teams in division three and giving those D3 teams a chance to play against teams in division two …

I’ve been discussing this with potential naming rights partners, brands that might want to get behind this in a way that would add value to the competition and make it compelling for our teams, and perhaps have prize money for the winners to incentivize the teams to participate, and additional content that could be exciting for our media partners to broadcast. We’re still going through that, how it would fit into the season from a scheduling point-of-view.

What is the selling point for the clubs? Is it that this is just another fun thing for the fans, or is there some other strategic purpose?

A number of our clubs have expressed a strong desire to play more games against teams they don’t usually see in their conference. So, a lot of our teams would like to play more cross-conference games. We still try to regionalize the schedule, but more teams would like to play somebody they don’t ordinarily get a chance to play during the season. Rather than jamming this odd game into regular season play, maybe that’s our opportunity to have cross-conference play in a competition that means something. Additionally, we can bring on a naming rights partner, and there will be revenue implications for the teams to progress through the competition, prize money that’s real money. And additional exposure, as well—if this is something that a media partner or ESPN picks up in a big way and it’s compelling enough, maybe it’s another opportunity for our teams to get onto a national TV platform …

There’s additional interesting opportunities as we think about maybe a cross-border angle to this. I’m heading to Mexico later on this year, meeting with their federation and their league officials, and there may be some interest in doing something with their second division. I’m not sure if that would apply to the new CPL in Canada in a few years time, but there may some interesting opportunities to have some of their teams to participate, as well …

The earliest that we would launch anything would be for the 2020 season at this point … Once we have a model that we think makes sense and is workable, we’ll present that to our competition committee to vet it out, and then we’ll present it to the board to let them decide whether they want us to explore it further or shelve it for now.

It wasn’t too long ago that USL appeared to eschew expansion into markets where MLS was currently existing or had expressed interest—investors a couple of years ago in San Diego spring to mind. Recently, USL has announced new startups in Chicago and Austin, TX. Do these new efforts mark a change in approach by USL regarding potential expansion markets, or a re-alignment with your partnership with MLS?

A few years ago, if we had looked at a market that had an MLS team or any professional soccer team, we’d have had to really think whether that made sense for us to go in there to give our club the best possible chance of success … You saw the struggles that the former NASL club in Oklahoma City had after we already had a very successful USL club in Oklahoma City. They launched there and struggled, and they didn’t get through their first season, really. It’s not good for the game, it’s not good for investors, it’s not good for the fans, and it’s something we’ve steered away from.

As the support for the game has grown and our league is a very different league than we were even just a couple of seasons ago, you don’t need to shy away from some of those things. We had a group in Chicago, Sterling Bay, who came to us with a plan to secure 72 acres downtown, they were going to build a soccer stadium, and they wanted a professional soccer team there. They were going to have a concert venue and a mixed-use development … As we look at that, we think, OK, there’s a MLS team there, the Fire, that have been there for a long time and have a strong fan base in that city. But it’s an 8 million-plus person city, and their stadium and club is in one part of the city that’s not necessarily attracting a lot of the other people who live there. I think the sport has evolved to a point now where, maybe not in every city but a lot of big cities, you can support two teams. You’ve got multiple teams in the New York/Jersey area, and the L.A. area, and I think we’re there now …

We had a team in Austin. Orlando City started in Austin before they relocated. We had the Austin Aztex in PDL that made a step up in 2015 and were unlucky on a number of fronts … This, for us, is really a relaunch. It’s not us going to a new city. It’s relaunching the Aztex. Obviously, there’s some noise in the marketplace about the [Columbus] Crew relocating down there …

That’s a good way to put it.

And that might happen, and it very well might happen for next season, and that’s been a contentious issue, obviously. But, we’re not in a place anymore where you have to run for the hills if there’s another team there. We’ve been trying to relaunch the team in Austin for two seasons now, and they’ve finally got the stadium plan together and they’re going to relaunch in 2019. If there’s a relocated Crew in the marketplace at the same time, so be it. They’ll be in different locations, have different positioning, it’ll be a different fan experience, and in that instance the market is going to decide, really … There may well be more instances in the future where we have multiple teams in one city.

I wonder, is the Chicago effort, with the stadium plan the way it is and an investor like the Ricketts family coming in, is this seen as a USL cornerstone or it is designed as some sort of MLS incubator?

No, absolutely not. I’m having some really interesting conversations for the last year or so with some very significant potential investors, current owner-operators of sports teams in other leagues in other sports, who are approaching us now because they’re looking at the USL business model and are very attracted to it. The economics make sense; it’s not a half-billion or three-quarters billion dollar outlay. In many cases, some of these folks could afford to do that, but it’s not a business decision that makes sense for those investors who have approached us.

Folks like the Ricketts family are included. They’re looking at our league as a tremendous growth potential. When I think about some of our franchises now, some of our clubs who are bringing on new investors and valuations upwards of $32-33 million on the high end. To buy a franchise in the USL, go back five years you were talking about $300,000 to $500,000 to buy that franchise. Now those franchises to join in are $5 million and escalating, and we’ve got teams trading hands for upwards of $32 million. So, the investment opportunity for these owners is significant.

I mentioned San Diego a few moments ago. A couple of questions: does USL have any interest in the current San Diego 1904 FC investment group, and does USL have any current, active interest in the San Diego market?

We’re very interested in San Diego. We had some interested parties a few years back. There was noise in the market with competing groups, and there’s a situation right now with the redevelopment of the land around Qualcomm Stadium and a potential MLS group bidding for a new venue with the city, and with the university there competing for a new stadium, too. So, there’s a lot of things going on there … We’re watching and keeping an eye on it. It’s a great city for a USL team to be in, but we’re not in any rush. We’ll let that one play out a little bit …

We’ve had a number of applications, some of which we’ve rejected because one thing or another wasn’t in place. We’re not steaming forward there until the lay of the land clears up a little bit and we get the right group.

Some of the questions and topics I’ve asked about today naturally dovetail into this question: Does USL have Division One aspirations?

[Pause] The plans that we’re working on right now really is not looking at that. The plan we’re working on is just about focusing on where we’re at right now, because we’ve come here quite quickly. We have to be aspirational—we’re an aspirational league. But, that’s not a conversation we’re having. The conversation we’re having internally and with our owners is how do we come out of the rebrand and repositioning of this league and really tidy up some areas that we have to tidy up … As we bring on high level, more quality ownership and more investment into facilities and academies, that will drive the league forward to new heights. We’ve got to make sure the next few years of the plan are achievable and done in right order so we can continue with the upward trajectory but in a sustainable way. We can’t shoot for the stars and miss; the risk is too high. So, we’ve just got to make sure we keep building upon what we’ve created thus far, which is a great league, and we’ll see ultimately what it looks like in a couple of years.

Is video assistant referee, or VAR, in USL a dead letter?

It is something we experimented with MLS [last year] before many of the other leagues were doing it. We had a short run of VAR games in New York and we expanded it to other stadiums. Obviously, we haven’t done it this season. Fundamentally, we believe in the system and the use of the technology to aid referees and help them get more decisions correct. It’s still not without its challenges … The challenge that we have to implement it over here is two-fold. One is the cost to implement the camera infrastructure that you’re going to need in the stadiums, and not all of the stadiums [in USL] have the ability to put cameras in the angles and positions that you need to be actually effective. It’s a massive infrastructure investment per club to get those type of cameras needed there. The second part is you have to have referee crews who are fully trained on that. They go through a long, extensive training program through the Professional Referee Organization, and they’re stretched as it is … So, to have an additional 500 to 600 games next season that have trained referee crews on VAR is not practical … We’re not there anytime soon to be able to implement anything like that league-wide.

So, what breaking news that USL is going to announce in the next few months are you going to leak today?

Well, we’ve got a team announcement for 2019 that’s coming at the end of this month.

And you’re going to tell us where that is, right?

It might be somewhere in the northeast. That’s as much as I’ll tell you [laughs]. It’s a city we’ve long been hoping we could bring into the league, so that’ll be a big announcement. There’ll be a few more announcements coming, obviously, with division three as that wraps up. And then, as I said, we’re looking at a bit of a rebrand, a tweak to our brand, and I would look for that public announcement sometime late August.