No particular link, because I've seen it dozens of places. Angry fans in England and elsewhere have blamed the Super League fiasco on the American PL owners, Henry, Kroenke, and Glazer, all of whom own/have owned American sports franchises. The criticism is that the SL is an "American model" of a "closed shop," with franchises awarded by the league, and not clubs which have grown organically and which are part of the pro/rel pyramid (as romantic and outdated as those notions might be).
MLS of course is the object of derision among English fans as a "retirement league," although in chatting with Everton fans, those who have followed MLS say that the quality of play and of the players have improved. But they're blasting MLS now for being of the same model - closed shop, no pro/rel. Of course the weird MLS setup exacerbates this.
American financiers and cities are unfamiliar with the pro/rel model and would be leery of financing new stadiums, "what do you mean this could be a minor league team if we don't win?" I still think that American footy needs to implement pro/rel. There is case by case de facto promotion as in the case of Cincinnati, where a second-tier club shows enough on-field and market success to warrant an MLS spot. It's the relegation that no one wants to talk about. But without it, you can have franchises languish for years with apathetic owners (I'm looking at you, Revs). Threat of relegation forces clubs to compete, puts MLS in accord with the world footy structure, and (if the league realizes it) creates compelling storylines at the end of the season that drive eyeballs - a PL six-pointer between the 17th and 18th sides in April or May is appointment TV.