Well actually the worst MLS team gets first draft pick (unless there are expansion teams). I know that the MLS draft doesn't have as much value as NBA's. However, the NBA draft is a "lottery" so the worst team does not get the first pick. they just get more chances to get the first pick. So tanking in the NBA does not guarantee you anything. The NFL is where the worst team gets first pick and the draft is very valuable. Edit: NBA only top 4 picks are by lottery and only 14 teams that didn't make playoffs are eligible. Also, starting this year the worst 3 teams all have equal odds at winning 1st pick. Pelicans won this year's first pick and they were in the middle of the pack of the 14 eligible teams. they only had 60 out of 1000 chances to win first pick!
Pro/rel offers the potential for a convuleted expansion-ish process, maybe. Kind of. Someone can buy a 3rd level team, upgrade the players and get promoted to the top flight. Leicester City, Southampton, Brighton Hove Alban may be prototypes. All started there current run after being purchased at lower level clubs. There were also discussions here about financial troubles in lower level clubs brought on by FIFA fair play rules that require clubs to not lose money more than 3 years on a row. What was happening was people were buying lower level clubs, overspending on players and coming up against the three year limit.
So, if my math is correct, there were 16 franchise moves in the NASL (distinct from teams folding), whereas MLS has had only one, and that one is open to some debate. To compare, here are the numbers for the "Big Four" in my lifetime (meaning, since 1957) MLB - 8 (Giants to San Francisco, Dodgers to Los Angeles, Senators I to Minnesota, Braves to Atlanta, A's to Oakland, Pilots to Milwaukee, Senators II to Texas, Expos to DC) NHL - 9 (Seals to Cleveland, Scouts to Denver, Flames to Calgary, Rockies to New Jersey, North Stars to Dallas , Nordiques to Denver, Jets to Phoenix, Whalers to Carolina, Thrashers to Winnipeg) NFL - 12 (Cardinals to St. Louis, Chargers to San Diego, Texans to Kansas City, Raiders to Los Angeles, Colts to Indianapolis, Cardinals to Phoenix, Raiders to Oakland, Rams to St. Louis, Browns to Baltimore, Oilers to Tennessee, Rams to Los Angeles, Chargers to Los Angeles) NBA - 15 (Lakers to Los Angeles, Warriors to San Francisco, Zephyrs to Baltimore, Nationals to Philadelphia, Hawks to Atlanta, Rockets to Houston, Royals to Kansas City, Bullets to Washington, Braves to San Diego, Jazz to Salt Lake City, Clippers to Los Angeles, Kings to Sacramento, Grizzlies to Memphis, Hornets to New Orleans, Sonics to Oklahoma City)
1. Is Texans to KC an NFL move? That happened pre merger. Same with Chargers to San Diego. 2. Raiders will move again to LA and be rebranded the Vagabonds (no, not really). 3. There are rumors we'll be getting an NFL team here in Cincinnati and in Cleveland.
Yeah for some reason they listed those two as NFL moves, even though they were pre-merger. I'm not counting the Raiders as in Vegas until they play a game there.
If you're going to count baseball moves, you should start with the "modern" era when the Boston Braves moved to Milwaukee, the Philadelphia A's moved to Kansas City and the St. Louis Browns moved to Baltimore. The whole reason for the Dodgers and (less so) Giants moving was that Brooklyn didn't feel they could compete with the Braves any more. That and greed, but that's a whole nother story...
Yeah, but I wasn't alive in '53. Hence the qualifier "in my lifetime"...that would have added three more to the NBA as well.
How is the MLS move open to debate? San Jose was moved to Houston, full stop. Sucked for us here in SJ. You have the Browns to Baltimore listed for the NFL. Both SJ and Cleveland were lucky to get teams again, and both have had about as much success since returning.
The NBA in particular had a whole bunch of instability for many years until around 1960, when they settled into teams only in major cities. The NFL had a lot of instability as well through the 50s. Meanwhile the NHL only had 6 teams until 1967 and had been pretty stable for quite some time until the flurry of moves in the past 10-15 years.. If you compare MLS to those leagues, it really is pretty remarkable. The only changes, other than adding new teams, were losing the 2 Florida teams and Chivas, and San Jose moving to Houston. San Jose was replaced and you can argue that LAFC was a replacement for Chivas as the other LA team. That't pretty stable overall.
Miami is coming back as well, and while Tampa wasn't replaced Orlando is at least in the same general region. Essentially once Miami starts playing the only difference in footprint of the league from any point until then is that the Mutiny moved inland and became OCSC.
It was a mistake only in terms of branding. No one liked MLS being treated as a league where a "junior" team would be fielded as a 34 week tryout for a "major" team playing elsewhere and the MLS team not having its own identity. All the other things that went wrong with Chivas USA were clearly on Vergara's shoulders (not the league's) and were a result of his hubris, incompetence, and stupidity in running the team, not necessarily because the idea of chivas usa itself was bad ( i.e. having a Liga MX owner invest in MLS and have a team in MLS). I think if Chivas USA had been allowed to have its own colors,crest, and related but different enough name no one would have complained. Sierra Nevadas FC with a mountain goat in its crest for example? Unfortunately you cant fix stupid and the many gaffes that were committed by Vergara doomed the organization. It is easy to forget that at one point Chivas USA had competent coaching and was one of the better teams in the league--so it was not necessarily doomed right from the beginning. it was wrong decisions that turned the team into a soccer death trap. Barca Miami was once a thing and so was Boca Juniors USA but those attempts all failed before they even got past the preliminary exploration stage. I also remember that at one point Club America was looking into the possibliity of an MLS team in Chicago or Houston. Houston Desert Eagles anyone? NYC FC is an example of a team that that has done it right despite their ongoing stadium drama. At first many NYC area fans (myself included) were concerned that the MLS team would not be respected by the bigwigs at City Football Group, but NYC FC have been allowed to build their own identity and cultivate their own fans without too much interference from up top. The team now has a lot of fans.
Portland is THE outlier in MLS. Timbers support is predominately unrelated to results, or even soccer. (And I don't say that pejoratively.)
Good God... the Owners LOVE the Salary budget. They simply don't have to worry nearly so much about coaches and players leaving because the owners won't spend money to get better players. Look at what Pochettino is doing at Spurs. He's basically said that if the owners don't shop big on the transfer market he will entertain offers to go to one of the massive teams like Real Madrid. Now, I'm a Spurs fan and want him to get his way, because the team feels on the verge of greatness... but imagine being the owner being held hostage that way, by an employee. The owners LOVE the salary cap and league negotiated contracts, etc.
Officially it was a strike, but it also was kind of a lockout in that (IIRC) the USSF wouldn't let them play without the deal.