Counterpoint: The Rowdies’ Problems Deserve Better Criticism

The recent article calling for Stu Sternberg to sell both the Tampa Bay Rays and the Tampa Bay Rowdies makes an emotionally charged argument, but ultimately fails to provide a compelling, evidence-based case for such a drastic move. There’s been a lot of this around the supporters and now in articles. It leans heavily on personal dislike and broad blame without identifying the root causes of the Rowdies’ current struggles – or what a new owner would actually need to fix.

Yes, this has been a frustrating year for Rowdies fans. But the timing of this critique, coming only as the team underperforms, makes it feel reactionary rather than thoughtful. It reads more like scapegoating than analysis.

Things are not great, but there’s a difference between wrapping every issue up into a one-size-fits-all solution and loudly holding ownership accountable.

If we’re serious about holding ownership accountable, then let’s talk about real, specific problems:

Roster Construction Issues:

This year’s squad was built around aging, once-excellent players on likely expensive contracts. That gamble hasn’t paid off – and it’s exposed a deeper issue: there’s virtually no experienced depth. The bench is loaded with unproven teenagers, and when injuries struck, the team had no reliable options to step in. This isn’t just bad luck, it’s poor planning.

Lack of Competition and Accountability:

Several starters have underperformed, but without legitimate alternatives pushing for minutes, there’s no internal pressure to raise the level. In a competitive league, that kind of complacency becomes toxic quickly.

No Public Long-Term Vision:

With the Rowdies’ lease at Al Lang Stadium just getting pushed one more year before it’s set to expire, fans are understandably nervous. Whether the team leaves two years or ten years from now, supporters deserve transparency.

Stu Sternberg or not, the city of St. Petersburg can do a lot of things with that land they own and developers know it. It might not matter who the owner of the Rowdies is.

What’s the plan for a future stadium? Will the club remain in downtown St. Petersburg? Will ownership invest in a permanent home, or are we looking at more uncertainty? The silence is creating anxiety, not confidence.

Would New Ownership Fix Everything?

Let’s address the common assumption: that replacing Stu Sternberg would automatically solve the Rowdies’ problems.

That’s a comforting idea, but it’s not a realistic one.

Roster mismanagement? It’s just as possible a new owner would bring in the wrong front office staff or chase flashier signings without building proper depth. Poor roster decisions happen at all levels – often with much bigger budgets than the Rowdies’.

Lack of depth? New owners don’t magically conjure an academy pipeline or a deep bench overnight. That requires long-term investment, planning, and a willingness to develop players, not just throw money around.

Stadium plan? Finding and funding a new stadium is one of the hardest challenges in American sports. There’s no guarantee a new owner would prioritize keeping the team in downtown St. Pete, or even in the region. In fact, without ties to the community, relocation risk increases, not decreases.

More importantly, bad ownership is a real threat, and it happens often in lower-division soccer. Some clubs fold entirely after ownership changes. Others sink money into vanity projects without building sustainable infrastructure. And some simply lose interest and treat the club like a side hustle.

Replacing one owner without a clear, committed successor with a strong track record could create more problems than it solves.

So yes, fans have every right to demand more from current ownership. But assuming any change will be a positive one is wishful thinking. If you’re going to write and advocate for a sale, you need to show what comes next, and why it would actually be better.

Ownership Isn’t Blameless, But It’s Not That Simple Either

When evaluating the Rowdies’ recent struggles, it’s tempting to point fingers at ownership, especially in an emotionally charged moment like a losing season. But oversimplifying the issue, as the original article does, doesn’t actually help fans or the club.

It’s easy to assume that the team is just being cheap. Maybe they are. But context matters, especially when the same ownership group is dealing with damage to Tropicana Field, stadium lease issues, and financial pressures across two teams.

Yes, the Rowdies’ roster this year is top-heavy – veteran players on likely high wages, with little experienced depth behind them. But some of that may not be simply penny-pinching. With hurricane damage to their MLB facility and no clear stadium deal in place, the organization may be in bootstrapping mode – allocating limited resources where they believe the long-term return is higher. That means developing the younger players in training instead of the weekend games. Today’s youth becomes tomorrow’s depth and starters. That’s not ideal for fans who want wins now, but it’s a reality any fair criticism should acknowledge.

That said, if financial strain is impacting the roster, ownership owes fans transparency about that. Communicating why the team is built this way, even in general terms, would go a long way in building trust.

Another key question: is it fair to blame Stu Sternberg for on-field performance? In most cases, no. Unless ownership is directly meddling in tactical decisions or ignoring a broken front office, players underperforming isn’t an ownership failure. That’s what coaching staffs are for. And they’ve already stepped in to send one coach packing in order to regain some hope for this season. While accountability matters, some years, things just don’t click. Bad form, injuries, or locker room dynamics can tank a season even with decent planning.

Let’s not forget that under Rays’ ownership, the Rowdies have seen some of their most successful seasons – including reaching multiple Eastern Conference Finals and contending for titles. There’s a real argument to be made that, until this downturn, the organization was consistently performing near the top of the USL. That success didn’t happen by accident.

Right now the ownership lets the soccer people do the soccer. Don’t take that for granted.

This isn’t to say criticism isn’t warranted, it absolutely is. But this year’s struggles don’t erase the last several. They also don’t justify overreacting to a single poor campaign with calls for sweeping, destabilizing changes. So if we’re going to hold ownership accountable, let’s do it thoughtfully. Ask for clarity on long-term plans. Demand better roster strategy. Expect communication with fans. But don’t fall into the trap of thinking that a change in name on the letterhead will automatically bring success.