Garber or whomever is running MLS will just tell the USSF to stick it sideways up their tailpipe. USSF have zero influence over how MLS conducts their business no matter what wishful thinking purists say should happen.
Um, this is a civil rights issue. Put another way, it's about bigotry. There's a reason why the Pro sports didn't expand into the Southeastern United States until the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964.
If USSF somehow (for some unknown reason) decided to force MLS to cut out a tenth of its total market, why wouldn't it reduce its total number of teams by about a tenth?
That ship has sailed. FIFA, USSF, and CSA notwithstanding. The lawsuits stemming from any external attempt to force the three Canada based clubs out of MLS would be titanic - and extremely dangerous to FIFA, USSF, and CSA.
Well except for Atlanta. The real reason is because prior to the '60's outside of Atlanta there weren't many large markets. That all changed when air conditioning became affordable. Suddenly Florida became livable, and its population boomed. Then suddenly it made economic sense to have teams in Florida alongside Atlanta, and later came Charlotte. The change in politics was just coincidental. The change in economics was not.
Atlanta didn't have any professional major league sports teams until 1966 because Jim Crow laws would have been too awkward for the NFL, MLB and the NBA, which were racially integrated since the late 40's.
Oh, definitely. I meant that the existence of the Canadian clubs will have little effect the number of teams in the U.S. If the USSF or CSA tries to force the Canadian teams out, they'll likely have to buy them--above market value. I'm sure the owners of the Canadian teams are well protected from any caprice on the part of either federation.
Even paying off the owners wouldn't likely be enough. You've got whatever Canada has along the lines of class action suits. I'm sure families that have invested heavily in moving their boys through the various youth academies with the end game of MLS careers might have something (however frivolous). There is pretty much no believable scenario - short of general civil collapse - that gets the three Canadian teams out of MLS. And there's pretty much nothing I can imagine that would add another Canadian market to MLS (though eventually you could see a second Toronto team, and maybe call it Mississauga, but it's still Toronto - but I digress, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary, Quebec City, Yellowknight aren't getting into MLS).
I think most Canadian cities realize we'll never get an MLS team, hence why the CSA is trying to put together a Canadian Premier League. I know in Ottawa we look forward to seeing the MLS teams in the Canadian Championship matches, which provide some of the biggest crowds of the year for the Fury.
Thanks for this, though I believe that the map is relevant to the expansion and East/West Balance doesn't come into play. I believe MLS is going to fill in some of the empty space in the central part of the country. Something like San Diego, St. Louis, Nashville, Cincy or Indy. The reason I say that is that adding that group would allow for each team to have 4 or 5 easily drivable road trips and all for coverage of a large untapped portion of the country. If Miami fails that basically gives Tampa that spot IMO. Leaving 29-32 between 2 Pacific teams, 2 Midwest Teams, North Carolina and San Antonio.
This is frequently mentioned, but the two cities aren't that close to one another, and aren't cultural similar. This also ignores how big greater Miami is; there's no other city that size without a team. If Beckham fails, the league will hold a spot for other investors. If Tampa is admitted, the league will still hold a spot for Miami.
The State of Nevada is providing $1.9 billion in public funding towards the deal that will see the Raiders relocate to Las Vegas. The money will be generated by raising hotel tax rates in Las Vegas by up to 1.4% and allotting the monies raised towards the stadium project. The breakdown: $1.325 billion - stadium construction $375 million - land acquisition and infrastructure $100 million - construction of a separate practice facility $100 million - contingency fees Beyond the $1.9 billion, the deal calls for the State of Nevada to establish the Las Vegas Stadium Authority, which will own the stadium and the land it sits on. As owner of both the stadium and the land, the LVSA will be responsible for setting aside a percentage of its annual funds to maintain the stadium and add upgrades to it. All of this said, the Raiders, the stadium's developer (which is expected to be a subsidiary of the Raiders), the stadium's event management company (also expected to be a subsidiary of the Raiders), and the University of Nevada Las Vegas football program will not pay any money to the LVSA for leasing or operating the stadium. As for the private investment in the project, that comes to $1.15 billion. The breakdown of the private investment: $650 million loan from Bank of America $500 million combination of NFL loans, naming rights revenue, & private seat license sales The Raiders will keep all game day revenue - general ticket sales, club seat sales, luxury suite sales, concessions, digital and changing signage, parking, etc. - for their games. The University of Nevada Las Vegas will keep all UNLV football game day revenue - general ticket sales, club seat sales, luxury suites sales, concessions, digital and changing signage, parking, etc. - after paying game day and practice operating expenses to the stadium's event management company (expected to be a subsidiary of the Raiders). Bottom line? The State of Nevada is putting a good deal more than "some" public money into the Raiders' Las Vegas stadium deal, and said money is going towards more than just "things like infrastructure improvements".
While I'm not a big fan of public funds going to pay for projects like this, this seems to be less burdensome on residents. If out of town people are paying for it by visiting and staying in hotels, then it's not as bad a deal for locals. So long as it is not diverting other tax money already being collected from its intended purpose.
I'd like to note that the State of Nevada's contribution is $750 million of the total $1.9 billion price tag.
There are those who argue that if the State of Nevada is willing to raise hotel tax rates in Las Vegas by 1.4%, the additional money raised would be better spent on a public education system that a recent Education Week report ranked as the worst in the nation.
The caveat to that is the owners of those hotel rooms. They're willing to support a room tax increase if the recipient of that tax money, in this case a NFL stadium, helps put people in those rooms and creates a demand to support a room rate increase to offset the tax increase. Pub education does none of that, unfortunately. So a 1.4% increase could never get out of committee
Likely Miami won't be 24, 25, or 26. Quite possible they won't be ready for 27 & 28. I'd need better than even odds to lay my own money on it, to be sure. But again, there's someone who holds the right to the franchise, and it's the most desirable market left. There has been repeated interest from investors, but they generally want a controlling interest.
Geography is overrated in sports since the Wright Brothers and advent of TV contracts. Just look at the NCAAF conference realignment. MLS will pick the best markets, and considering most of the hyped bids are close to existing MLS team, geography is an afterthought.