I noticed someone above made mention of depleting the "talent pool." This is something I've wondered about. Will MLS keep expanding until every city that can sustain a team has one? Or will MLS at some point think that talent is stretched too thin, there's too much disparity between the best and worst players in the league, and stop expansion regardless of demand, at for example, 26 teams? Unlike basketball, hockey and baseball, Canadians and Americans have about even interest in soccer. So right away, I think there is potential for MLS to reach about 34 teams give or take a couple of teams, and do so in the relative short-term future. My opinion is that is exactly what will happen, albeit somewhat gradually. The reason why I say so is that as MLS expands interest will expand with it, so the talent pool will grow with the league. Moreover, unlike almost any other sport, with soccer, the talent pool is literally global and as long as pay is good enough, MLS will draw players from afar. In fact, I think it wont be long before MLS surpasses Mexican soccer in talent just for that reason. Also, if there's a buck to be made, you can bet they will expand to get it. People in most cities just want a pro soccer team to support, they aren't really thinking about the talent pool, and MLS will be there to fulfill the desire. If you want your league, or your sport, to be viewed as legitimacy, then you have to include everyone who can be included. The issue to MLS, I think, is expanding responsibly. That's why franchises aren't being handed out automatically. There's so many places interested right now, that the issue is really just making sure that the cities given a franchise are ready for them.
This has been covered before. The real reason why the NFL stopped expanding at 32 teams & why the NBA & MLB stopped expanding at 30 teams is that at some point expansion overly dilutes each individual owner's share of national T.V./cable cast money. That's the real barrier to MLS ever expanding past 30 or 32 teams.
I personally would like to see them stop at 26. Add Minnesota, San Antonio, and someone else. Maybe a team in the Carolinas.
Just thinking about larger cities that don't have MLS teams (whether there is an interest there, or not); Minneapolis Detroit Tampa San Diego San Antonio St. Louis Buffalo Cleveland Cincinnati Pittsburgh Charlotte Memphis Nashville Milwaukee Phoenix New Orleans Indianapolis Decent-sized cities that don't have MLS; Oklahoma City Tulsa Austin Birmingham Albuquerque Raleigh Louisville Wichita Des Moines El Paso Colorado Springs Sacramento From this, I can surmise that; MLS "CAN" expand to 30 teams (whether they SHOULD, or not is another story). Oklahoma City (my hometown) would NOT be on ANY short list for getting a team.
Was looking at projected metropolitan area populations in 2042 today, and made a map. It's not the best map, cause I did it in MS Paint, but it works. I also looked at a list of per capita income, to help inform my thoughts, since these are business decisions. If a city does not appear on the map (like Wichita or Des Moines), they are not projected to have more than 1 million in population by 2042. Numbers below are current population, 2042 population projections (in 1000s), and 2012 Per Capita Income For the second lists, I only have the population projections, not the current populations. Places MLS should look at strongly: Phoenix (4,332; 8,161; $38,000) Riverside-San Bernardino (4,381; 8,011; $31,900) San Francisco (4,442; 5,390; $66,600) San Antonio/Austin (2,243/1,844; 3,650/3,521; $39,000/$42,900; about 75 minutes apart) Minneapolis (3,355; 4,172; $50,300) San Diego (3,182; 4,242; $49,700) Places that might support an additional team: New York (19,127; 20,728; $58,400) Los Angeles (13,053; 14,667; $46,300) Dal/Ft. W (6,669; 11,034; $46,100, Stadium at edge of metro area, so Ft. Worth virtually untapped) Chicago (9,549; 11,064; $48,330, Stadium at edge of metro area, though reaching to northside) Places that should be considered: Tampa (4,361; $40,900) Baltimore (3,172; $54,200) Sacramento (3,422; $44,600) St. Louis (3,181; $44,600) Charlotte (3,051; $40,500) Las Vegas (3,320; $36,700) Indianapolis (2,542; $42,300) Nashville (2,512; $45,200) Current Small Markets already in League Kansas City (2,715; $44,800) San Jose (2,443; $65,700) Columbus (2,372; $42,700) Salt Lake City (1,947; $40,200)
i was just saying that about fort worth. i don't have stats, budget information, or knowledge of any owners or anything like that. but i have a crest and scarf design. here's some stats!
Also, I just found a powerpoint that claims that in 58 years, DFW will be larger than LA, and about the current size of the New York metro. However, I'm pretty sure that it was bad math on the part of the Bexar County Economic Development, assuming the projected growth rate between now and 2042, will remain constant between 2042 and 2072 (as a way of claiming that in 58 years, San Antonio will be a top 20 metro).
============== An additional thought to this idea. If the league keeps expanding, then go to 32, 16 in each conf. Regular season is 30 games within conf. > With 32 team, MLS cup becomes more like a league cup 32-16-8-4-2-1 Single knock out= only 5 games max > USOC continues to allow MLS teams to play NASL-USL-PDL and even other MLS teams that maybe you didn't play in the regular season or in the MLS Cup. = My 4 extra teams in the West could come out of SAC-SD-PHX-SA-STL or OKC (assuming MINN joins earlier) MY 4 extra teams in the East could come out of CAR-CONN-INDY-NASH-MICH - By the time we get to 32, we really should have covered all the markets that will support soccer.
San Jose is a "small market"?? How come the rest of the bay area presumably doesn't count in the San Jose population figures, but does in the San Francisco figures? More people current live in San Jose than in San Francisco (population 840k), and SF is surrounded by water on three sides and has all sorts of laws limiting development... Having said that, I definitely think MLS should put a team in SF, unfortunately it's probably as difficult to fit a new stadium there as it would be in Manhattan or Boston...
Would it be easier to put a team in Oakland? Would that side of the bay support a team there? Just wondering
So, here’s what I could find out: The San Francisco Bay Area combined had roughly 8.5 million people in 2010. By 2042, the population is expected to grow to 10.6 million, according to the US Council of Mayors. The Census Bureau divides the Bay Area into 7 Metropolitan Areas – SF/Oakland, San Jose/Santa Clara, and five others that don’t matter for our purposes (the largest, Stockton, is actually closer to Sacramento, but I guess has indirect access to the bay). It should be noted that both Marin and San Mateo County (North Bay and the Peninsula) count towards San Fran. The two that matter currently total 6.2 million in population, and are expected to grow to 7.8 million by 2042. But, we can break that down further – county-by-county 2010 population (US Census Bureau), projected 2045 population (CA Dept of Finance), along with 2012 personal per capita income (from the BEA) (I just realized I should probably have used per capital income, but this is what I used previous, and I want the numbers to be comparable between posts). San Francisco/Oakland North Bay Marin – 0.25 million; 0.26 million; $93,407 West Bay San Francisco County (San Fran) – 0.81 million; 0.90 million; $80,014 San Mateo County (Peninsula) – 0.72 million; 0.88 million; $74,583 East Bay Alameda County (Oakland) – 1.51 million; 1.68 million; $54,683 Contra Costa County (Richmond/Antioch) – 1.05 million; 1.44 million; $61,638 San Jose Santa Clara County – 1.78 million; 2.12 million; $66,535 So, of the 1.6 million in growth that the Mayors predict, the DOF only predicts 1.2. Wonderful. Anyhow, 300,000 to Santa Clara, Contra Costa; 150,000 to Alameda, San Mateo; and 90,000 to San Francisco. San Francisco is obviously the hot spot with the money, and the young professionals and so forth, and probably drawing from Oakland, but space is an issue. If an Oakland team would draw from San Francisco (with only an SJ team in addition), then we could safely put a team there and not worry. But, I think the Quakes have a presence in the East Bay; so an additional Bay Area Team is Probably Not the best route.
I have no idea how you made those groupings based on those numbers other than haphazardly using your own opinions. Your list also does not factor in the presence of other professional sports teams competing for disposable income per capita, which seems to be the main flaw, other than using the way too distant population estimates of nearly 30 years into the future.
Personal opinion is fine. It's just that you laid out the connections between these different statistics like they drew your conclusions, but in the end they don't tell us anything.
It was mostly inspired by seeing ManU Sooner's list with Wichita and Des Moines on it (no offense meant, I usually find your posts to be good); and wanting to inject some numbers into the discussion. The groupings were ancillary to the point of the post; I'm sorry they detracted from it.
Just be careful using CSA/MSA population numbers to make your point. The basis for those numbers have nothing to do with marketing draw for sports/entertainment. Based on my research, MSA/CSA "boundaries" are heavily influenced by commuter traffic origination (nothing to do with where entertainment dollars are spent). You can get a 1000 ft level overview of a market size, but beyond that, it loses accuracy. Use Nielsen media rankings. Its the most accurate, IMO, since its sole purpose is "media/ marketing". Being from Sacramento, I use Stockton/Lodi/Modesto as a perfect example. The Stockton market is included in the Bay area MSA/CSA, probably because the percentage of commuters to the bay area is higher than to Sacramento (and the Stockton market is too small to be its own MSA/CSA). From Nielsen perspective, Stockton is included with Sacramento. This makes sense; Stockton is closer, Stockton's news is included with Sacramento, and advertising overlaps. From an entertainment (sports) perspective, where your advertising reaches is where your fans come from. You can use a City population, an MSA or a CSA to argue market relevance or attractiveness for expansion, but the only one that is truly accurate, IMO, is Nielsen.
Good list. I would include Toronto in the "Places that might support an additional team:" category but you probably only have access to US Cities
I'm unfamiliar with the layout of the Greater Toronto Area. By 2041, it is projected to have 9.4 million people; which is far larger than other metros of interest, but smaller than Chicago and DFW. Moreover, Chicago probably wouldn't work because the Fire are making moves in the Northside with their new complex. DFW would work, since FC Dallas is based on edge of the Metroplex, and putting another on the other edge would work. Is there a similar situation with Toronto, where the metro could feasibly be divided without moving TFC?