The only reason FCD can be in this poll is nostalgia for the good old "Move FCD days!!!" If you compare today's FC Dallas to say..................the New England Revolution, in what ways is FCD inferior. FCD is spending plenty on its roster via DPs and signings, they do have a SSS, and their attendance is actually better than the Revs. Their front office is making improvements year after year to the gameday experience. They've invested in having the best academy in MLS, and their U18s won the academy title last year. FCD's attendance rose another 10% from 2011 to 2012.............................. This is why, of course, FCD is last in this poll. It's impossible to fathom how somebody could vote FCD over ChivasUSA.........................
I'd say the Galaxy should be on this list. Everyone keeps mentioning how the Revs have lost four MLS Cup finals. Well so have the Galaxy. Pathetic. Especially when you consider how much more money has been spent on this team compared to New England over the years. And don't forget losing in the SuperLiga final too. And two US Open Cup final losses as well. The Galaxy have a losing record in cup finals. The Galaxy are losers. That can not be denied. Also consider that their ownership sabatoged their archrival, San Jose, by taking away their best player, the face of MLS Landon Donovan, and forced the Quakes to go on a 2-year hiatus. And what did the Galaxy do now that their enemy was out of the way? Win more championships? No. They proceeded to miss the playoffs for the next three years in a row. I mean.. talk about total ineptitude. And they were eliminated by Toronto in the Champions League. C'mon now. LA Galaxy: Worst Franchise in MLS History.
I would think it has to be Chivas USA. Toronto FC at least has their own stadium and a rabid fanbase. Chivas is the only club that shares their stadium with another MLS team. And I'm pretty sure if Toronto FC put together a winning team, the fans that have left would return. I'm not sure about Chivas USA. They don't even have their own crest, uniforms, name....well, identity. I think teams like New York, Dallas, Columbus and Toronto would see a major bump if they put together talented, competitive squads. I'm just not 100% that things would increase for Chivas USA. I think they're just too far in one direction to broaden themselves to the masses, even if they had a winning team.
Its funny that we have people arguing how bad a franchise is based on attendance rather than longevity, history, and competitiveness. We'll call it the "Seattle Rationalization".
Or, because they are one of only two original teams to have not won a Supporter's Shield or MLS Cup...
Only two years in the league, were close to the play offs in their debut season, draw well to their matches, some of the best fans in the league. Why on earth would they be a candidate?
"New York" is the worst franchise in MLS, mostly because it's so inaptly named. As a longtime NYC resident, I can tell you that very few people who actually live in the New York City (or even state) support the Red Bulls. They got it all wrong geographically. This club resonates only with people from New Jersey, the stadium is a pain in the ass to get to via public transportation from Manhattan, and they have zero grassroots connections to the NYC area. This club totally misrepresents it's identity and for that reason, I vote it to be the worst MLS franchise. NYC needs it's own grassroots club, even if it were the worst club in the league or conference it would still be heavily supported. Common Mr.MLS Commissioner, it's time for New York to have it's own club, not a New Jersey imposter with an identity crisis.
I would prefer the Brooklyn something-rather, but even NY Cosmos will do as long as the stadium is in one of the boroughs (just not the Bronx or SI, haha).
You do realize 75% of the original Cosmos' home games were played outside the NYC city limits, right? Most of them in NJ?
I have about as much connection to the original NY Cosmos as I do to RBNY. To me Cosmos is just an abstract idea, I'm not old enough to have seen them play, their name means nothing to me. All I know about them is that they had a bunch of washed up stars who'd come to NYC to finish up their careers. I want a real team, that is one mostly comprised of local players. You bring a team like that to NYC and I'm buying season tickets no matter how much they suck.
I think you are wrong. If I want to see European superstars in their prime, I'll just turn on the TV and tune into a CL game. To me, seeing young promising American players is a hell of a lot more attractive then seeing Thiery Henry or Beckham finishing up their careers. We've already seen Thiery Henry when he was in his prime at Arsenal, what's the attraction now? Good player, yes, playing at a club that has zero connection to the population of the city it's supposed to represent. I don't think you realize how much of a draw the local boys are for an area. Why do you think England has so many heavily supported smaller clubs? I'm talking about QPRs, Swanseas, Readings, Bolton's etc of England. None of these teams are star studded and they primarily comprised of domestic players and they play in sold out stadiums. Stars are not a requirement to the popularity of a club. It's all about the competitive spirit and the grassroots connection to the area. That arouses feelings of pride especially when they are playing against the big star studded teams. There's a big "us-vs-them" factor present at games like that, which is entirely lacking in the relationship of NYC to RBNY. Speaking of stupid plastic teams; I think the Brooklyn Nets is a prime example of that.