> > Why would a major league team owner ever agree to the risk of relegation, which would destroy the value of their investment? Because they are supposedly an

> > Why would a major league team owner ever agree to the risk of relegation, which would destroy the value of their investment? Because they are supposedly an expert in the field and could build a portfolio of clubs so that even if one gets relegated, then others might come up and viceversa. Their skills would be then measured much more 'on the stuff' and less on the politics such as the political manouvers to get the league to agree to an expansion team in the geography of preference. Wouldn't it be much easier to create a soccer club in Vegas and inject capital into it to make it reach the MLS? Or an NFL franchise in Austin, again inject capital and see it rise to the NFL? The state of the art requires the businessmen who want to set up shop in such cities to politic their way into having the league accept an expansion team, wheres the natural order of things would be via the promotion/relegation system, so that Vegas could replace Commerce City, CO as the city represented in the MLS and Austin could replace Buffalo, NY in the NFL. And the best thing is that it would not be definitive in any way, as circumstances change then Buffalo could once again rise to the top tier once again and viceversa