Interview with Tomislav Krizanovic: Financial incentives, player mobility, and league sustainability

For this post, I had the opportunity to speak with a personal friend of mine and ex-professional player both in the U.S. and Europe, Tomislav (Tommy) Krizanovic. Tommy’s journey in soccer has been anything but ordinary. A Croatian refugee who grew up in Germany before moving to the U.S. for high school, he carved out a professional career in both Europe and the States before settling in Jacksonville, Florida. There, he played Division 1 college soccer for Jacksonville University, and now, he continues to shape the game as the head coach of the Jacksonville Armada’s semi-professional team, which is set to turn pro in January 2026. In addition to coaching, he serves as the academy director for their youth system, giving him a firsthand perspective on the development pipeline in the U.S.

With his wealth of experience across different soccer landscapes, Tommy has a deep understanding of how league structures operate both in Europe and the U.S. When we sat down to talk, our conversation focused on what exactly makes Europe’s system so successful and what lessons the U.S. can take from it.

One of the first topics we tackled was the role of financial initiatives in shaping league success. In Europe, the promotion and relegation system drives competition in ways that the closed league model of the U.S. does not.

“Well, every game counts in Europe because of the promotion and relegation system,” Tommy explained. “Relegation may cost a team millions in sponsorships and media rights, so the bottom-of-the-table teams always fight to avoid it. That pressure creates a sense of urgency throughout the season—clubs have to constantly push forward, knowing that financial rewards like sponsorship deals and promotion bonuses can help them invest in stronger squads.”

In contrast, the U.S. operates on a closed league structure, where teams are shielded from the risk of relegation. Tommy pointed out that while this model guarantees continuity, it can also lead to complacency.

“When teams in the U.S. struggle, there’s less urgency to turn results around immediately because there’s always next season,” he said. “Maybe the leagues could keep competition going all season long by introducing some kind of performance-based financial incentive to change this mindset.”

Beyond competition, player movement is another area where the two systems differ dramatically. In European leagues, the transfer system allows clubs to buy and sell players even mid-season, creating a dynamic and fluid player market.

“That freedom gives players more opportunities to move between leagues based on their performance,” Tommy said. “It also allows clubs to adjust their rosters to fit their ambitions—whether that means signing a rising star, bringing in reinforcements due to injuries, or giving academy prospects a chance. Youth academies in Europe are a massive part of this system because they provide a steady flow of talent.”

The U.S., on the other hand, imposes stricter controls on player movement, with salary caps, wage limitations, allocation rules, and a draft system out of college. While this structure maintains financial balance, it can also limit a player’s career growth.

“If the U.S. relaxed some of these transfer restrictions, it could create a more competitive and fluid market,” Tommy suggested. “Clubs would have more flexibility to strengthen their squads and operate more like their European counterparts.”

As our conversation shifted toward league longevity, Tommy highlighted how European leagues have been able to maintain financial stability while staying competitive.

“I think financial fair play (FFP) has played a big role,” he said. “These rules prevent clubs from spending beyond their means, and while they’re not perfect, they encourage long-term stability. Ownership models also help, like Germany’s 50+1 rule, which ensures that fans have a voice in club management. That keeps teams from being reckless with finances.”

Meanwhile, in the U.S., financial stability is baked into the closed league model. Tommy acknowledged that while this system limits financial risks, it also sacrifices a certain level of competition.

“The U.S. already uses aspects of financial fair play, but if they found ways to encourage more investment, it could have the biggest positive impact on the league’s growth,” he noted.

By the end of our conversation, one thing was clear: the differences between the U.S. and European league structures highlight key opportunities for growth. An open transfer market, a more competitive promotion-relegation system, and stronger financial regulations could all contribute to a more dynamic and sustainable soccer ecosystem in the U.S.

As the sport continues to expand in North America, looking to successful international models will be crucial. If the U.S. can find the right balance between financial security and competitive intensity, its leagues could avoid stagnation and continue to rise on the global stage.