Do you think they are worried about reliance interests for season tickets already sold/renewed or are there logistical issues associated with union/CBA sign-off, stadium availability, streaming/TV windows, etc. that they need time to address?

Even if it costs FIFA a solid gold trophy (and it will), it's pretty cheap insurance against the US deciding on a whim to move the World Cup games out of Los Angeles or New York. This is one area where Infantino has experience.

That's why the measure of success of WC '26 isn't about convincing a generation of kids to play soccer, but convincing wealthy individuals/sponsors to bet on domestic soccer leagues by investing/promoting them w/ the goal of elevating them to the status of of the top leagues 8/8

It doesn't require a "Moonshot" investment. US leagues are fairly well established already. It does, however, require taking risks and making investments before the revenues are there. That's what happened after WC '94 and what needs to be happens after WC '26. 7/

That doesn't mean that the US league(s) have to be the same as top foreign leagues in format, governance etc., but it does mean they have to be competitive for the same players, in some of the int'l competitions, and be part of the discussion. And that takes investment. 6/

US domestic leagues aren't going to "convert" fans of foreign leagues, but they may convince those fans to watch or even adopt a favorite team in the US. That's much easier if the US leagues are part of the global conversation on transfers, int'l competitions, nat'l teams etc. 5/

Second, the growth of domestic leagues is in part a function of attracting fans of foreign leagues who live in the US and elsewhere. MLS acknowledges that in its recent report on Apple TV viewers from abroad, but that's likely the effect of a few individual players like Messi 4/

Why? First, top leagues are already competing for US soccer fans/sponsors. That will only increase w/ the Relevent case permitting foreign leagues to stage league games in the US. La Liga may have temporarily put the brakes on that, but it's inevitable. 3/

If the measure of success of WC '94 was the establishment of pro US domestic leagues, the measure of success of WC '26 has to be the elevation of those leagues to the ranks of the top global leagues. That requires taking investment risks, not just by spending new revenues. 2/

Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital (Cleveland) 1887
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (1855)

Corporate tax revenue in the 1950s, well before the LLC started in 1977 or check-the-box in 1997, was much higher as a percentage of GDP than it is today. Of course, corporate tax rates were also higher.

Sounds like you’re talking about D3 college soccer preseason training

It's possible US Soccer already agreed to sanction future matches between int'l teams as part of the settlement of the Relevent Sports lawsuit back in April, assuming the parties met all safety, bonding, fees, and other normal sanctioning requirements.

It's possible that the petitioner is hoping for a quick settlement or wants to disrupt the licensing deal for the new team (perhaps claiming that the deal was struck because of its activity in restarting a league for NASL-branded teams). Too early to tell. 9/9

Moreover, with the announcement of a licensing deal for the trademark to a new USL League 1 team, there's an argument that they resumed using the IP for a soccer team right after the jury verdict was rendered in the NASL litigation (where an appeal is currently pending). We'll see. 8/

It seems like there's at least a plausible argument against abandonment given that Cosmos officials have been in court for years arguing US Soccer/MLS were preventing them from operating their league/team in a commercially viable manner. 7/

I can't speak to the legitimacy of the allegations, but it will be interesting to see how the NASL litigation factored into claims of non-use even apart from sales of apparel. 6/