Yep. There's so much involvement, why not just "engulf" or "partner" or "merge?" Heck, even the NCAA is getting Canadian with Simon Fraser -- are more likely to come?
32 teams... 20. New York City FC 21. Orlando City SC 22. Miami (Beckham) 23. Atlanta (Blank) 24. Minnesota (new ownership group) 25. Charlotte (USL pro group) 26. San Antonio Scorpions 27. Carolina Railhawks 28. Indy Eleven 29. New York Cosmos 30. Oklahoma City 31. Detroit 32. Saint Louis *33. Chivas > San Diego REGIONAL PHASE WESTERN: 1. Los Angeles Galaxy 2. Seattle Sounders 3. Portland Timbers - 4. Vancouver Whitecaps 5. San Jose Earthquakes 6. Real Salt Lake 7. Colorado Rapids 8. San Diego MIDWESTERN: 1. Columbus Crew 2. Chicago Fire 3. Sporting Kansas City - 4. Indy Eleven 5. Minnesota 6. Detroit 7. Saint Louis 8. Oklahoma City SOUTHERN: 1. FC Dallas 2. Houston Dynamo 3. San Antonio Scorpions - 4. Orlando City SC 5. Miami 6. Atlanta 7. Charlotte 8. Carolina Railhawks NORTHERN: 1. New York Red Bulls 2. New York City FC 3. New York Cosmos - 4. DC United 5. Philadelphia Union 6. New England Revolution 7. Montreal Impact 8. Toronto FC *home/away games = 14 games NATIONAL PHASE -Top three teams advance to MLS Premier League (1, 12 team league) *home/away games = 22 games *top six advance to MLS play-offs -Bottom five play in MLS West & East Wildcard League; (2, 10 team leagues) *home/away games = 18 games *East & West Champion advance to MLS play-offs
What financial incentive would MLS have to reduce the regular season from 34 games to 22 games? This concept seems unlikely.
True. I would rather have more games than less games. Will MLS soon become an overpriced league where most fans will have to watch from the television?
Where does this come from? I haven't seen anything that would even hint at MLS being overpriced tickets. Comparing average ticket prices across all American leagues have MLS at some of the lowest prices. Now, I have my own complaints about certain clubs and how they operate -- costly pricing fees, concessions prices, etc. But the same could probably be said across the board in American sports too.
I think his argument is that, with the same sized stadiums and fewer games, and the same budget, that ticket prices are the easiest thing to throw out of whack to make the numbers work
Except you don't base ticket prices on making the numbers work. You base ticket prices - indeed, the prices of any goods - on what you believe the market will bear. If you wanted the numbers to work, you could double ticket prices tomorrow and voila! You're in the black. Except it doesn't work that way, because the market would very likely not bear those prices for this product. I think the statement was partially based on the prospect of demand rising (which is a good thing) to a point where, as supply remains constant, economic forces will necessarily force the market to pay more, and will price some folks out. We see this in the NFL, obviously, and the guy who's had season tickets for decades gets forced out because the games and teams themselves are so popular that the rational economic move is to raise prices. Not everybody's going to be left behind, and MLS is probably not yet going to get to a point where it's all prawn sandwich-eaters, but rising popularity (which we've all longed for) does have some unintended consequences.
Better, but I still prefer mine if you're gonna go split-season: https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...sion-is-complete.1947125/page-2#post-26250233 and https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/...ce-expansion-is-complete.1947125/page-2#post- 26250783 I'm pretty sure you're not going to be able to sell the owners a league set-up where some teams play 36 games but most only play 32. I'm not even sure how you'd sell season ticket packages with a product like that.
My fantasy 40 by '40. Far-fetched I know, but couldn't resist. Long-term, just not sure how long NASL can last with so many of its teams being in markets where MLS will eventually want to be. Maybe one day these MLS teams will organise their own MLS II and keep pro/rel in house, but I don't necessarily think we need to have it in the US.
some fan blog from 2008 I should mention that I don't necessarily think each of these is a legit expansion club, just a city MLS might be interested in.
You have an issue with 3 teams in NYC (which, by the way, has 4 or more times the population of most cities listed as expansion sites) but not teams in Winnepeg, Oklahoma, Calgary?
Some of those cities are just awfully small. I know OKC does well in the NBA but they have the benefit of being the only 'major league' in the state, my guess is that MLS won't draw the same kind of interest state-wide that the Thunder does (but I would be happy if I was wrong). I don't have any interest in adding any new Canadian teams in an effort to be 'fair'. This is a USSF D1 league, we invited a few Canadian teams in but to add these little cities seems silly when you'd leave our American cities that are many times bigger and also don't play in such cold weather. metro populations OK City - 1.3M Calgary - 1.1M Edmonton - 1.1M Ottawa - 1.1M Winnipeg - 700k Quebec - 700k compared to... San Francisco - 4.5M (that is the size without San Jose area) Inland Empire - 4.4M (size without LA area) San Diego - 3.3M Baltimore - 3.2M Baltimore - 2.8M Charlotte - 2.8M Cincinnati - 2.2M Cleveland - 2.0M Las Vegas - 2.0M Second, I would love someone to tell me the benefit of artificially creating a D2 when we don't need one in MLS. NASL and USL can try to develop their own teams/players in D2/D3 but why would MLS ever be interested in lowering value when you don't need to. If you can find 40 owners/stadiums and a talent pool that actually allows you to not dip in quality then why create a D2? Because of some fictional Fifa rule? Create 2 divisions in one large D1. Your 20 team western division and eastern division can play a single table on both sides and name winners and those two winners can play each other in a post season championship game. Everyone would be in MLS and there would never be relegation. Why would MLS want to build down? I never had someone explain to me the interest in this. Could you imagine a company wanting to expand by creating another less successful division of itself? Do you think people at Google are sitting around thinking how they could create another company entity and call it Ask Jeeves? At no point in Google's success did anyone ever want to create Ask Jeeves, they want to just grow Google. MLS wants to grow MLS, they don't want to create a lower division.
I'm no Canadian, but it seems you have some beef with our neighbors from the North. What's wrong with Calgary/Edmonton and/or Ottawa? I mean cold weather is never really going to be a factor when MLS seems most likely to stay with its March-October season (see the endorsement from UEFA's Rummenigge). So these two/three larger Canadian markets (Calgary/Edmonton and Ottawa) shouldn't be ignored, as long as there's interest and money to be made. The markets you listed seem too saturated with other pro teams or infringe upon other markets, apart from maybe SanFran and Charlotte. I'm from NC, so I would love for Charlotte or Raleigh to snap up an expansion spot. But I don't see Las Vegas as a legit candidate because of its image and its tough entertainment competition. Baltimore is DC territory. Inland Empire is a television region, not a place with which people align. San Diego = Xolos. Cincy or Clevlnd might work, as long as Pittsburgh (who has MLS aspirations) doesn't get there first. So after the dust settles, I'm thinking OKC doesn't look like such a long shot after all.
No beef, but MLS is a USSF D1. There are 3 Canadian cities that make sense, after that there are far too many viable American markets. Not big enough. Ottawa - 1.3M - NHL + CFL Edmonton - 1.1M - NHL + CFL Calgary - 1.1M - NHL + CFL Winnipeg - 700k - NHL + CFL You underestimate the popularity of CFL. MLS teams could be the 3rd most popular pro team in those markets, but they'd be a fraction of the size of available American markets. Every market is going to have some issues, but these markets you name have almost nothing going for it.
If we are going to have a 40 team league, we should create 2 leagues of 20 teams with promotion and relegation. Each team isn't going to face all the other teams in a season.
Again, I am waiting for an answer on this... If you can find 40 MLS level markets with stadiums, owners, fans, academies etc. then why does MLS need to create pro/rel? No owner wants it. No franchise league ever wants to create a lower division league that will lower franchise values. I understand that other leagues around the world started with lots and lots of amateur teams in a pro/rel set up and they eventually went pro...but that isn't what we are talking about here. We are talking about start up franchise teams. If you have 40 teams then simply split it in half and create a Pacific League/Atlantic League like NFL has AFC/NFC and MLB has National/American leagues. Play your single table only on your league, name a winner, and than have those winners play in a post season championship game. Oh, and the Fifa 'mandate' is crap. Its not true. There have been D1 leagues with 40 teams before (Iraq had one for sure and I think others). Fifa isn't coming knocking on anyones door. Fifa had a proposal about limiting games (mostly directed at Europe) so that Fifa could have more dates for international competition. That is where they get to make money. The PROPOSED rule was about less games so they can make more money, FIFA is not getting involved in how every single league in the world wants to format itself. It never has and never will. The moment they do then they become responsible for EVERYTHING, and god knows they don't want that. They leave it up to the FAs, they are only interested in cashing checks. And if soccer grew so popular that we could support 40 teams, then Fifa would be thrilled (and cashing checks).
Under my idea, all 40 teams in MLS1 and MLS2 will be considered tier 1 teams because none of the 40 franchise teams be relegated down to other leagues. MLS 2 will only have promotion to MLS1. MLS1 will have relegation to MLS2. All 40 teams will be treated as tier 1 teams. Oh, I never said that FIFA wanted to limit each league at 40 teams. Personally, I just don't want 40 teams in a single league. I am fine, if they want the league at 40 teams. It is not my decision.
No they won't. The public perception will be that MLS2 teams are in a lower division than MLS1 teams. It means that means teams in MLS2 will have a harder time selling tickets, getting local TV deals, etc. Even if they still get an equal share of league revenues, you are still creating this artificial system that will lower the perceived value of some teams when you don't have to. American League/National League or AFC/NFC are not considered lower than the other. You are free to not like certain league formats, I think its safe to say that any format MLS ever adopts will be disliked by some people. A league that large is highly unlucky or decades away. I just don't think that pro/rel needs to happen if MLS owners do not want it. They are building/designing a league they are not managing 100s of amateur teams that eventually evolved into pro teams like in other countries. If expansion doesn't make sense, then it won't happen but if expansion makes sense someday to include 40 clubs, I think it would be easy to manage those teams in one D1 league by using conferences.
Of course, what you said it true, but it makes for great excitement for the top 3 teams in MLS2. Since there will be no relegation in MLS2, other bottom teams don't have to worry about another relegation and potential loss of additional money. Unlike other promotion and relegation leagues, MLS2's only goal is to promote to MLS1. I agree with your other paragraph.
It makes for 'excitement' for a league that doesn't exist or ever need to exist. They can ALL be in MLS, we accomplish that with conferences. Pro/rel doesn't ever NEED to happen. How many teams exist in NCAA football? Its not like there was a point where NCAA HAD to implement pro/rel or else it wouldn't work anymore. You play in your conference and if you do well, you can advance for the national championship. This idea that MLS will hit a number in which it HAS to implement pro/rel is silly. Our teams paid money to get into the league, in fact they OWN the league. And those owners will never want to create a sub-category of MLS teams that will be perceived as lower quality. The best teams will make the playoffs and the worst teams won't.