MLS Expansion

do not like the Atlanta thing, its just an excuse for a rich guy to push his stadium agenda down the throats of the public. They are literally destroying one of the oldest black communities in Atlanta for the stadium. eff that.

also, completely ignoring one of the oldest second division teams in the country? that is bullshit too.

Orlando I can deal with, NYC2 I cringe at... but Miami and Atlanta? just f'ing dumb.

 

"They are literally destroying one of the oldest black communities in Atlanta for the stadium."
Yeah sure, that sounds reasonable....

 

It's still too early to tell how Atlanta is going to turn out. Everyone said the same for Seattle and look how that turned out, their attendance is the envy of MLS.

 

I don't recall anyone thinking Seattle wouldn't be at least somewhat successful. Same with Portland. Markets with legacy of pro soccer and reasonably deep roots with college game as well (plus a lot of urban hipster doofus types)

 

maybe but only if San Antonio gets new owners with deep pockets...
I would expect to have 32 teams by 2030

 

yep-I could see this too.

"We now have 32 teams, but we we're not the old NASL, we've learned from their mistakes"

 

I'm all for growing the game, but I think we are close to the number of teams exceeding the talent pool. Adding more team isn't going to help. How do you market a big league with a crap product on the field?

 

I remember there were grumblings. SEA wasn't pulling in eye popping numbers for the A League Sounders and I recall people not knowing what to think with the Seahawks partnership (which is now dead). But the thing with Seattle-it was good timing with the Sonics moving and there not being a NHL team there.

As for Atlanta-this is what worries me-they have the Braves (arguably the most consistently good team of the last 20 years), they are tepid about the Hawks and Falcons, and lost the Thrashers. The Silverbacks even went dormant for a season or two. Regardless of Blank's involvement and a new stadium, Atlanta has always struck me as more fairweather than Houston and soccer just isn't a draw in the South.

What this should show us is deep pockets is what trumps all. San Antonio makes a lot of sense (they are one of the biggest populated cities that is under represented with pro sports) and has a healthy growth rate over the last decade-but as we all know, the current owner isn't necessarily interested in MLS and couldn't afford it if he was. Now if there were deeper pockets that came in, and immediately increased the stadium to 18K I think San Antonio would be up in two years.

This current wave expansion doesn't necessarily worry me, but all these smaller tier cities (OKC, Indy, Sacramento, Pittsburgh) barking and making noise does have me worried about over expansion.

A top flight league that spans a continent (2 countries) four time zones and 32 teams sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

IMHO 20 is perfect number, 22 is doable, 24 is pushing it, anything more is bordering on jumping the shark.

 

Anyone got a name for Atlanta? I was thinking they should go for the Freebirds in paying homage to a pro wrestling group called the Fabulous Freebirds.

The Atlanta Freebirds

 

FC Georgia United Sporting Club.

 

Georgia Peaches FC

 

I think 24 is a really good number for awhile. We want to reach all areas so that people in America can have a team to follow, but don't want to do too much too fast. We should be in no hurry for anything beyond that. The perfect storm is required to get a team after that point.

 

I don't understand this. You're talking about a country the size of Europe. With dozens of cities capable of supporting a team. Why stop at 20? There's a reason all the other pro leagues hang around 30....

 

I agree with this partially but here's where I steer away from this-unless MLS rules for acquiring players change, a sizable chuck of the talent pool comes from US colleges. Adding teams means this thins out, which means the product on the field sucks.

Now if they got away from the single entity structure and had owners that could afford to go out and get talent and you had teams that have their own development systems up and running and actually churning out some talent for the first teams, then I would not have a problem with 28 teams. I am just worried that the current system is not going to support the growth and along with that, I am not sure about some of these smaller cities being able to support a team realistically. When that newness wears out and you realize that you don't really love soccer, you wind up with crowd of 4K.

Now if things keep going in this country the way they have the past ten years in terms of soccer, I could see 28 teams being feasible in another 20 years. I just feel like MLS is having this "strike while the iron is hot" mentality and is going to wind up in places what will be a mistake. See the Atlanta Thrashers, Phoenix Coyotes, Vancouver Grizzlies, Florida Marlins, Florida Panthers, etc.

 

True, which is why it was so important for the Academy system to be put in place in 2007/8. By the time Atlanta (and Miami?) are in place, it'll be a decade old. That helps ease the burden on the college system.

I don't see MLS' expansion as "strike while the iron is hot" so much as "we need a legit TV deal to get anywhere and no one will give us one with only 16/18/20 teams". They've established a great foundation. I really hope MLS takes a breath after this round of expansion, or at least spends the next 3 years or so keeping a close eye on the Academy/college/minor league talent. If it keeps pace, it wouldn't be such a bad thing to add another couple teams by 2022/25.

We're at the point where MLS can be a but more picky about their markets. They may look at the SanAn's of the country and say they're too small and instead go to...Phoenix or some other major market.

Excepting Chivas, I don't think MLS has made any mistakes in expansion and it looks like the current 3 will be solid additions.

As for single entity...it ain't going anywhere. Book it. Learn to love it.

 

Supply and demand. Just a few years ago, MLS was contracting. It's not like they are flush with funds. Just wait until next year when the players go on strike. They are doing much, much, much better....but the economy can swing in a moments notice.

You have 20 teams, and you have 5-10 teams with legitimate interest in joining the league chomping at the bit to get in and the value of each franchise goes up. You have 30 or 40 teams - great, but who buys a Chivas USA when the owner drives it into the ground?

Also, I think Chivas USA shows you why you don't do NY 2, but hell if the commissioner was going to listen to me on that one. While Man City will bring in huge players, what is going to happen to the Red Bulls? Does MLS give a shit?

IMHO - maybe I am too scared by the history of soccer in this country. NASL, MLS contract, etc.

 

Two things:

1) If Newtex's prediction of BOTH HOU and SKC moving to the West happens, that'll lead to some fireworks in terms of rivalries. Keep our rivalry with SKC and renew (increase) our rivalry with FCD. I would LOVE to see that.

2) Anyone else picturing a NASCAR team with Atlanta's MLS team as the main sponsor? No, just me?Kinda like Payne Stewart wearing NFL colors at each PGA stop. Gotta admit that might be pretty cool. If Denver Mattress can be a main sponsor, surely MLS could pony up for a season.

I lied about the two things:

3) Figure Delta Airlines as the main sponsor for Atlanta's team? Makes sense doesn't it?

 

I don't see the players going on strike this time. Next CBA seems more likely. As for the economy...that is something MLS can't control. As a result they should strike while the iron is hot...and the American player pool can support it.

30 teams is possible in a couple decades. 40 is doubtful. As for Chivas...I'm sure they won't have a hard time finding a guy in LA who wants them.

I don't see one having anything to do with the other...beyond being a cautionary tale they have learned from.

I imagine that the RedBulls will continue to deficit spend in the near future, chugging along like normal.

Don't blame you. But I look at MLS and see that they've earned the benefit of the doubt. In a decade of expansion, they've hit every market right, except 1. That's impressive.

 

I will practically guarantee you the players strike unless the league opens up the purse strings in a big, big fashion.

 

I just don't see enough money coming in via the TV deals to justify a huge increase in pay. Most of that money will go just to help teams break even.

 

Is a 5 Million a year cap per team really that unreachable right now?
Think about the Jump in quality that would bring !!!

 

Bingo. Doesn't mean the players won't demand it. As for teams breaking even, the players will never see the full financial picture. Stadium corporations with different books, SUM, expansion fees ---- it's all a shell game. Oh look, MLS teams are poor or only breaking even right now? Sure and I have some Ocean Front Property for sale in Arizona.

 

both teams announced today that they're pushing their SSS-builds until 2016, way to kick the stone down the road guys, ugh.

 

Expansion fees are non-recurring revenue or at least at some point it is non-recurring and I see no reason for the players to benefit from the owners selling off shares in MLS LLC and SUM. The SUM revenue is sort of interesting to see if the MLS portion is in play to share with the players.

Most terms have stadium debt which probably offsets most of the stadium income. I suspect you have half of the teams cash-flow positive but the rest are marginal or losing cash.