The big 4 aren't looking at staying at 30 or 32. NFL expansion is already talked about. MLB expansion is pretty much a given in the next 10 years. NHL is adding another team and hasn't closed the door on Quebec, KC, and a few other locations. NBA expansion is a hot topic as well. 30-32 is just where things landed before TV money exploded. Now that TV money is going to move to "broadcast" money with streaming options as the primary driver. Once larger leagues, like the NFL, stop tying themselves to things like DirecTV, they're going to expand again to grab emerging metro areas to further expand their foothold.
One, MLS is not the NFL. Two, that was an ownership decision, not a league decision. And Davis sued the NFL when they moved back to Oakland (where they started). And now they are leaving again. And LA has the Chargers as well. Caught the Rams in St. Louis lately, have you?
The benefit of more teams is a bigger footprint. Plus, if most of the teams are profitable, it means more revenue streams. And there is synergy. The bigger the national footprint, hopefully league wide advertising/sponsorship deals go up. Each team gets a piece. But a larger footprint also drives up value for team specific sponsorships. Making each team more profitable. Thus incentivizing adding teams. There is also value in driving up franchise value. Which rising expansion fees contribute to. Obviously franchise values increasing is good for ownership, and higher expansion fees make them $$$. Rising franchise fees also may attract more investors. Either for new teams or existing ones. Which provides an avenue to replace some of less enthusiastic/successful ownership groups.
Another reason for expansion is that it limits opportunities for competing leagues to spring up. The lessons of NFL/AFL, NHL/WHA. and NBA/ABA are still in the minds of people running sports leagues today. The NASL is probably a bunch of no-hopers these days but it's still possible for some people with a whole lot of money to cause trouble for MLS if they saw an opportunity.
Speaking of LigaMX, is there a possible 2026 "Super League" angle to MLS' expansion ambitions? It's being mentioned in other forums, but here's my take: I can see MLS going to 40 teams prior to 2026 and (as mentioned above) LigaMX becoming a closed league of 20-22 teams. Sometime in the early 2020's, MLS going to a Apertura/Clausura schedule. Then, for (say) the 2027 season, have the top 10 MLS/LigaMX teams form a new 20 team Top Flight (American Premier League or Super Liga). The remainder of MLS and LigaMX teams would become a new second division, with the USL and Ascenso MX teams becoming a 3rd division tier. Finally, promotion/relegation for American soccer!
Honolulu? I know American sports always consider Hawaii too far to travel for a domestic league but hear me out. 1) Super rugby has a weekly competition that includes teams in Japan, Argentina, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa. 2) The NFL has been toying with London as an expansion city. If London can be included in an American sports league, surely Hawaii isn't too far to go. 3) College sports includes Hawaii. Who wouldn't want to do a road trip for that!
If you've been to Honolulu, you know the stadium is essentially a metaphor for the whole state. Impressive from a distance, but once you're there it's barely on par with a third world country. Also, Hawaii to California is as long of a flight as LA to NY.
Yeah, I get that. I meant more along the lines of being surprised that some fans think MLS is nuts for even going to 20 or so teams.
I know. I address the supposed relevance of that my points 1, 2 and 3 in the post you quoted. If the NFL can schedule Seattle to play in London, then NY playing in Hawaii isn't prohibitive, given Seattle to London involves more time zone changes than NY to Honolulu.
Outside of Jacksonville, whose owner is also a Premier League owner, everyone bitches nonstop about playing in London. It's not viable unless there's an entire division in Europe.
If it's not viable, then explain how Super Rugby can have a division with one team in Japan and four in Australia, and another division with one team in Argentina and four in South Africa. (New Zealand teams are fortunate in that their division consists of five NZ teams. However, they still travel to Australia, South Africa, Argentina and Japan.) Keep in mind my Honolulu team was presented tongue-in-cheek, but I do challenge notions of "it's too far". College teams regularly travel there in their seasons.
Southern Hemisphere travel is much, much cheaper. Rugby is also much more of a world game than American Football.
That's a TERRIBLE location. Aloha Stadium is a pain in the ass to get to if you're anywhere south of Manoa. I'm not surprised that the inept local doops can't figure that out though, Hawaii gets by on the novelty and natural beauty outweighing incompetent and corrupt morons running nearly everything.
San Jose State football was on the island and slated to play there when the bombing of Pearl Harbor happened in 1941. https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/12...rbor-connection-with-san-jose-state-football/
Left out one thing. College football teams that play in Hawaii are rewarded with a 13th regular season game to recoup the lost money involved with travelling to Hawaii.
The financial hardship would almost entirely be on the Hawaii owners. If we look at scheduling, you would effectively have Eastern teams making the trip once every two years. Given that, financial excuses don't become all that compelling as teams can charter a plane if they have to and tack on the trip to Hawaii to one of the West Coast trips. And with careful scheduling, a team from Hawaii would only have to make 3 trips to the East. Western teams would make the trip once a year, but for roughly half the West, that is not significantly different than going to the East Coast, as you already noted. For the other more midwestern Western teams, going to 4 divisions would instantly solve that (as some have already speculated on as the league continues to grow). And then look at the example set by Asian Champions League football. In the round-robin part of the tournament, both Melbourne Victory and Sydney FC travel to China, Korea and Japan. These distances are effectively equivalent to New York to Honolulu. If either advance, then they could be playing teams in the Middle East as well, which is even farther away.. The reality is, if there were investors, etc., the traditional excuses excluding Hawaii from league play really don't hold much water.
If Hawaii was added, it would need to be at either 36 or 40, with conferences that are East/West and no inter conference play. There would also be the difficulty in getting anyone to take on the absurd Honolulu cost of living while also not having anything close to the sponsorship and marketing tradeoffs you get for playing in expensive locations like NY and LA.
I've presented example after example of why inter-conference play would barely be a factor. Effectively, your counterarguments have been "I'll ignore that and instead come up with a different excuse". However, I think we do agree that there is currently no whisper at all about a Hawaii franchise trying to get into MLS. I've simply presented reason after reason for why traditional excuses, which you have used, are simply just excuses and not legitimate arguments. And with that, I'll bring my part of this tangent to a close (but reserving the right to respond if compelled to if other reasons are raised).