Time for an adult conversation re MLS expansion
by Steve Davis on Mar 10, 2011 11:51 AM EST
Email
Print
It’s time for us to have an adult conversation about Major League Soccer and where the winds of expansion will blow next.
This one is going to be difficult for some people; the truth will sting a little. But it’s a conversation that needs to happen, so let’s sit down and get this over with.
Barely a week goes by that I don’t get an email asking about this city or that city and chances of an MLS team landing there soon.
San Antonio. Atlanta. Miami. Austin. St. Louis was popular for some time. San Diego is an oldie but a goodie. Las Vegas pops up here and there. The list goes on.
Today, I see where someone is beating the drum for Phoenix. That’s because all those MLS team just came and went, holding part of their preseason training in the Grand Canyon State.
And I always appreciate the enthusiasm and the spirit of these queries. After all, these are mostly from people who follow MLS even though they aren’t in MLS cities. God bless ‘em. I wish there were folks like them. So I always try to let them down easy.
What do I tell them? Read on …
It’s about ownership. And, really, not much else. It’s just ownership.
There are reasons to consider every one of these cities. Some may be slightly better positioned in terms of geography, demographics, civic support or media interest, all of which figure somewhere into the expansion equation.
But none of it matters until someone or some group (preferably local) steps forward and says “We want to own an MLS team, and dagnabbit we’re gonna make it happen!”
This “someone” has to have a few bucks. The group in St. Louis had bright ideas and enthusiasm to spare. But at the end of the day, MLS had concerns about local attorney Jeff Cooper and his ability to keep pace financially. The league was certainly proven correct on this account when things cratered embarrassingly for St. Louis Athletica last year.
In some markets, city officials are being very aggressive about arranging the stage for an MLS expansion outfit. Again, I applaud them for it. But until a Daddy Warbucks shows up with pen in hand, ready to write a few whopper checks, it’s probably not going to happen.
(Besides all that, MLS commish Don Garber has drawn a solid target on the New York market as the 20th franchise, after Montreal comes aboard as No. 19 at this time next year.)
I’m sorry we had to have this conversation. I hope we can still be friends.
14 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
thoughts...
Chivas should have gone to San Diego, still wouldn’t be a bad idea…. MLS doesn’t need its own Clippers
Second NYC area team— would it hurt RBNJ (by taking away fans) or would it help (by creating a rivalry and helping to provide the league with a bigger footprint in a major market)
Too bad the Revs are in such a crummy situation, such an important market
Don’t see St. Louis happening but it would be cool for SKC if it did. Maybe team 21?
Think we’d see another Florida team before another Texas team, espceically since FCD has attendance woes
Bring back the Rowdies!
Vegas baby?
Minnesota?
I think the league will stop at 20 for a while then 24.
Rowdies
Tampa would be a great situation for an expansion team despite the fact that they the Mutiny “failed” there previously. The history is there with the Rowdies and the city has a current NASL team TB FC (rights to the Rowdies name is under litigation) similar to the tier II teams in Vancouver and Portland prior to their MLS bids. Unfortunately Steve is right, they need more dollars behind them before they make sense.
New York , New York
They will bring a new team to New York. You are right about the rivalry, it will help NYRB and MLS in general. After we add the New York team, expansion should STOP. 20 is a good number and MLS needs to consolidate its gains before expanding anymore. Should their be a market that becomes too good to ignore, they should relocate a team not expand.
How is expansion hurting MLS?
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
I think the better question is "how expansion could hurt MLS"
There’s the issue of whether diluting the talent pool among additional teams would result in an inferior product. I think it’s a legitimate issue in the 30-team NBA, NHL and MLB. Would MLS be able to support 24 or more teams without similar dilution?
I also sense that 20 is psychologically the magic number beyond which league structure starts looking less and less like the European leagues many (I sense) wish MLS could emulate more. The less MLS can mirror those leagues structurally, the weaker the overall package might appear.
To be filled in later.
by Hopkins Horn on Mar 10, 2011 8:02 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
We should not expand past 20
What will this become, the NBA?
20 teams, a balanced schedule, a single table format, a secondary league to allow for relegation/promotion. Done and done. Thank you.
And then every city in the land can have a team.
Really?
You think promotion/relegation is feasible? Owners would be the ones to vote on implementing such a system. Relegation would guarantee that some of those owner would lose money. MLS clubs are on shaky enough ground financially as it is. It’s that simple.
Over-expansion has to be a concern, but I don’t think 20 is a magic number that can’t be surpassed. Not only is the US larger in population than European countries that set the model for footie leagues, it’s also far more vast gegraphically. Look at a map of MLS franchises now. MLS has to be hoping that solid ownership and fan support pop up in the North and, especially, the Southeast. Fans like to have a local, or at least regional team to follow. Someone in FL, GA, or Minnesota has no natural rooting interest now.
by fennsk1 on Mar 11, 2011 8:24 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
No I don't think it's feasible
Just ideal. And yes I know we don’t live in an ideal world. For me 20 is the magic number to ensure a balanced schedule which I feel is important to the game.
You have a very stupid idea.
Balanced schedules mean nothing to the game. It’s just a miserable excuse for you whinny Europosers to want soccer in America to be like Europe.
fennsk1 flammed your ass. Now crawl away.
by victor_the_crab on Mar 18, 2011 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions
I don't think we should expand anymore without a great ownership group lined up first.
I don’t think we should stop at 20 though. We have the population in raw numbers to support it, at least compared to the big European leagues.
US 310M
Germany 81M
France 65M
UK 61M
Italy 60M
Spain 46M
I really don’t believe that we will dilute the talent pool. I personally think that MLS is overall gaining in popularity. If you believe that, as I do, then I believe a combination of things will happen over the next 5-10 years…
Sponsorship and TV deals become more valuable, which will allow the MLS teams to raise the salary caps, which produce a better product on the field, etc. I don’t think adding expansion teams dilute the talent field nearly as much as people think it does… and so begins the cycle of making soccer a bigger player on the American sports scene.
If you believe that expansion dilutes the talent pool, then would you agree that any of the top MLS teams the last few years would lose to any of the top MLS teams ten years ago? You could argue that we now have the DP rule when we didn’t have it ten years ago. But we have the DP rule, players coming up through academies, soccer specific stadiums, a larger salary cap, and even better scouting BECAUSE the MLS has been expanding.
Also, I think more kids are growing up soccer having played at a higher level than I did when I was growing up (I’m 36). This means better players coming up through the academies in addition through the colleges. I believe we are going to start seeing a lot more of those kids growing up to be pretty good MLS players. I think a lot more people/parents are taking soccer more seriously as a sport in the U.S. in general.
Once again, I would only want expansion into places that had great ownership groups along with a SSS in place or on the way. But I think there is room to keep growing.
by soundersfcfanboy on Mar 11, 2011 1:25 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
I agree Chivas should've went to SD
The bottom line to me is two fold:
1) MLS is not doing enough to reach to Middle America. Say it’s “ownership” if you wish and I don’t deny we need better groups. But when the league has put as many teams in Canada as it has in the Central Time Zone, there’s something wrong with priorities. MLS doesn’t exist to enhance the Canadian National Team. The League needed TFC, it was a sweetheart deal at a time the league was barely above water. The league did not need to add Montreal or Vancouver. And I think doing so was a violation of its purpose and its obligations as a Domestic League, both to the development of the sport in the US, and to the USMNT. Ultimately, if we’re talking about stopping at 20 teams, with 3 in Canada, we’re talking about the equivalent of a Bundesliga for US fans, against a much larger geographical construct.
2) Because MLS is committed to having 3 Canadian teams, I don’t think it’s unrealistic to ultimately have 24 teams without diluting the product. And I would say ownership is a 2 way issue, MLS needs to prove it can cultivate quality ownership groups as well. If the league is going to grow beyond a niche sport, it needs to have a national footprint. More coastal teams is not going to enhance the long-term growth of the sport. So while a 2nd NY team might be ‘sustainable.’ I don’t see it being good for the league, long-term. Classicos may be interesting in the locale they’re played. But they do nothing to attract new fans in new areas of the country.
my 2 cents
In an ideal world, MLS would expand sufficiently to cover all the major markets in the US, and go to a two division format with internal relegation and promotion. Screw NASL. Were I commissioner, this would be my long term goal. 18 team MLS 1st division and a 14-16 team second division. Top gets promoted, play-in for a second promotion spot. Lower salary cap for the 2nd division. Win for everyone. But who am I? Just a fan.
I know everyone would love to copy the standard European model, but that is going to be almost impossible to implement in MLS
The ownership groups payed to have an MLS team, and there is no way you are ever going to get the owners to agree to the possibility that their team could get sent down to a lower level with lower revenue potential. I might not like it as a fan, but I completely understand why they wouldn’t accept investing millions of dollars for an MLS team and then having that team kicked out of the league.
The relegation system grew organically in Europe. If a European league were starting from scratch in todays world I doubt they would be able to implement the same system. As much as I like the idea of a team having to perform or get knocked down a level, I’m not so sure that I want the MLS to be like the EPL where only a handful of teams have a legitamate shot at the title and a decent numbers of teams goal is simply avoid relegation.
"Well, at least our players kept their helmets on, so that showed some intelligence"-Bob McNair
And that's why you're not the commissioner.
Because the owners, who invested a whole lot of money in MLS, will not allow their franchises to be in a position where they would be forced into a lower league and risk losing their fanbase. They’d fire your ass quicker than they can say "don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
This is not Europe. Deal with it!
by victor_the_crab on Mar 18, 2011 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions
