Why It's Too Soon to Love the USL Division-1

And why its vital to focus on the now and not the future

On Thursday, The Athletic dropped a bombshell—the USL is officially launching a Division I league in 2027/28. And since yesterday was Valentine’s Day, let me remind you why it’s too soon to fall in love with this idea. While researching the rules of the USSF’s Division I league requirements, one stands out— all of the league’s 12 teams must have a stadium with a minimum capacity of 15,000.

Now, consider the Riverhounds’ proposed expansion of Highmark Stadium to that exact number. With the addition of Detroit City FC, Oakland Roots, New Mexico United, and Sacramento Republic all revealing stadium plans or renderings, the message seems to be that these franchises are angling for a Division I league. So there can finally be some tangible belief that promotion and relegation could become a reality in American soccer if or when the USL can get there.

But here’s my question—why aim to share Division I status with MLS instead of focusing on stabilizing and growing the current system first?

The Unanswered Questions

While it’s exciting to see teams pushing for Division I, the reality is that many still have major hurdles to clear before they can meet USSF’s standards.

Take the Riverhounds, for example. Fortunately, Pittsburgh’s metro population exceeds 2 million, so they check one of the three boxes. Yes, they have plans to expand Highmark Stadium to 15,000 seats, but even if Highmark reaches the required capacity—does it even count as "enclosed"? The USSF’s standards specify that all stadiums must be enclosed, and Highmark’s riverside is essentially open. Every game, people stop at the fence to peek in, and soccer balls regularly end up on the train tracks or in the Monongahela—so much so that the team keeps a running "Surfside Splash Counter." If USSF enforces this standard along with the capacity requirement, does that mean Highmark’s expansion would need additional modifications? But what about the ownership? USSF requires Division I teams to have an owner (or ownership group) worth at least $70 million. Is Tuffy Shallenberger already at that level? If not, will he bring in additional investors?

Even LouCity, arguably the Championship’s flagship club, falls short of the 15,000-seat requirement. Lynn Family Stadium has just 11,700 seats, though it can hold 15,304 with standing-room sections. Then there’s New Mexico United and Detroit City. Both clubs have released stadium renderings, but their proposals only mention capacities of 13,000. Does this mean they’ll have to modify their plans or go back to the drawing board entirely? Will USSF count that as compliant? Or would even Louisville need to renovate or expand a stadium they just built?

These aren’t minor details—they’re fundamental roadblocks that could derail the USL’s D1 aspirations. USL’s announcement raises more questions than answers, and until teams can confidently meet the requirements, it’s hard to buy into this vision just yet.

The League’s Shaky Foundation

On an annual basis, USL fans speculate on which clubs might fold or relocate. Two years ago, San Diego Loyal and Rio Grande Valley were on the chopping block. At the end of last season, it was Memphis 901 FC. Meanwhile, the USL’s long-awaited Milwaukee franchise has potential fans frustrated over the team’s lack of engagement on social media. Then there are announced expansion teams—like Wilmington for USL-1 and New Orleans for USL-C—that seem dead in the water, based on the lack of activity on their socials.

In addition, USL fans already know there will be a few head-scratching decisions along the way. Take Roswell, Georgia—a newly announced USL club that won’t last more than two decades if it even gets off the ground. Atlanta has never been a city that successfully supported multiple teams in the same sport. Atlanta United already dominates the soccer market, boasting MLS’s highest attendance despite finishing ninth in the Eastern Conference last season.

While it is fair to point out that cities like Liverpool and Manchester—both of which have smaller metro populations than Atlanta—support multiple Premier League clubs. I’ll counter that American sports culture is different, and I don’t believe that ATL-United fans will leave their team simply because of cheaper tickets or a quicker drive. If the USL wants a foothold in major markets, why not target cities with a history of supporting multiple teams? Like Boston, Chicago, or LA/Anaheim.

Better yet, the league could have placed a team in a market desperate for a senior team professional presence in any sport like Norfolk/Virginia Beach with a metro population of 1.7 million. Or—if USL wanted a ready-made success story—they could have pushed Annapolis Blues FC to field a pro team. Why Annapolis? Because in the NPSL, they were putting 7,000+ fans in the stands for multiple games—numbers that make the Riverhounds’ attendance records incomparable.

There’s also Ozark United FC. One of the most confusing expansion decisions not only in the USL but in the American sports landscape in general. Instead of putting a team in a major metro area, USL chose Rogers, Arkansas—a market of around 500,000 people. Meanwhile, they had an opportunity to launch a club in New Orleans, where the metro population is 1.2 million, more than double that of Rogers. And if USL was dead set on expanding into Arkansas, why not go for Little Rock, the state’s biggest market?

The USL wants to establish a system with a top-tier league, but these expansion choices don’t exactly scream “big league ambition.” Suppose the league wants to make a serious push toward Division I. It will need to prioritize markets with real, sustainable potential—not just whichever ownership group shows up with a check.

Focus on the Now, Not the Next

The USL may be the best league in the States because of its potential within a decade, but what feels like a rushed attempt to reach Division I could do more harm than good. I’m all for building up the USL system, especially if it means implementing a pro/rel structure—because that would prevent USL ownership from becoming "deadweight" owners, like Bob Nutting, who refuse to invest in their teams. But instead of making vague promises, the USL should’ve said, "We're launching a Division I league with these 12 teams on this date, and then we’ll consider a pro/rel system." Until then, the league should focus on reinforcing what’s already in place—because with the strong, independent second division with culture, identity, and fanbase the USL has in place, with a clear plan forward, the USL system could be the apex of the American soccer system.

What do you think? Should USL go all-in on Division I status, or should it take a step back and build from within first?