So.. Is anyone actually surprised by this? Personally, I would have been surprised if they didn't expand beyond 24.
Why is that? They've already reached the 24 team number they said they'd be getting to and they need to let prospective owners that they are still open for business.
Some LA Galaxy fan argued with me about it for like six months after Garber first made his 24 by 2020 comments. But then I remember arguing with people that thought the league would stop at 18. And 20. Now I'm sure we'll get people who say the league will never go beyond 26 or 28, because this is Big Soccer and no matter how ridiculous the opinion, a good chunk of the folks here will hold it.
It really depends on the level of player available. Obviously potential franchise owners need capital and potential new franchises hinge on this minor detail (please note the touch of sarcasm). But, is there enough talent to field 24 teams currently? By currently I mean by 2018ish when Atlanta, Minnesota, LAFC, Miami are all supposed to be in the league. From 25 to, pick a number, you need players that can actually play at a top flight/major league level. MLS has never envisioned a league of 18-20 teams. Think more like 28-32.
There is not enough talent at the current salary cap. The global soccer talent market is, however, effectively limitless. The real issue is whether MLS is willing to pay for that talent. MLS already has the low-growing fruit on its rosters. The league will actually have to pay more to continue to get players of similar quality. In that sense, you really can't separate the expansion of MLS to 24 and beyond from the salary cap. If you don't want to sacrifice quality, then in practice the larger this league gets, the higher the cap will need to be. And if you want the quality to increase, then you really need to increase the cap by a lot. (Pure conjecture: A lot of people wonder why the MLSPU didn't fight for a higher cap. I wonder if it's because they know we're reaching a point when the ambitious team owners are going to want to raise the cap unilaterally. The owners can always raise the cap on their own. They just can't lower it without the MLSPU.) MLS will never grow beyond 50 teams! NEVER!
That would be an issue if this was the NFL or NBA. There is no dilution of talent because 1. soccer is a global game with hundreds of leagues from which players can come to MLS and 2. MLS is a middling league in terms of quality which means it doesn't only have players from the very tail end of the bell curve. Okay, now THAT we can actually all agree on. I think.
I personally think that the MLS will grow to 32 teams like NFL. However, I don't see us adopting the promotion relegation system. These are the cites I would like to see get the remaining teams: 21: Minneapolis (east) 22: LA (West) 23: Atlanta (East) 24: Miami (East) 25: San Antonio (West) 26: Sacramento (West) 27: Indianapolis (East) 28: Charlotte/Raleigh (East) 29: Memphis/Nashville (East) 30: St. Louis (West) 31: Oklahoma City (West) 32: Pheonix (West)
In terms of market size you can't go to 32 teams and not have one in the Detroit area. Detroit and Phoenix are the most populous metropolitan areas left uncovered after 24, and you've omitted the former and put the latter last. Tampa is also up there...
To achieve the stated goal of, "being one of the best leagues in the world, comparable to La Liga, Ligue 1, or, crap, even Liga MX," yes the salary cap needs to increase. I did paraphrase and exaggerate what MLS has said in the past on this. Conjecture aside, do you really see this, the cap increasing, happening before 2023? Even with a TV deal that brings in $90-million per season, or $4.5-million per team, the cap didn't get raised (only a threat of a strike raised the cap). MLS has and will continue to expand without raising the cap. Enticing a better quality foreign-born player with more money isn't the only variable. It goes beyond this and the, effectively, limitless supply of them. But in reality the supply of global talent isn’t limitless. MLS has a cap for these players as well. And it has nothing to do with money. There are only eight roster spots (actually more with green card holders) for international players. You'll still only get eight, obviously better, international players. However, I could see, for example, American players like Tim Ream or Rubio Rubin coming home to MLS if the salary cap were higher. Just doubling the cap, I believe, would make a huge dent in the quality of player. But that only gets you Liga MX levels, which is fine. I just don't see significant changes (a doubling from one season to the next would be a drastic change) to the cap until after the current TV deal expires. The owners had a chance to really increase the cap with the new/current TV deal. I also don't want to see MLS increase the international slots for the league. If I want to watch an international competition I will watch the Premier League, Serie A, UEFA Champions/Europa League, or national team games. Spots 9-30 are filled with your typical American born and soccer-bred player. Not to mention the players that currently fill out each MLS (hopefully all in the short term) USL entry. Each MLS teams needs 40 American born players (less as the their USL sides will have foreign-born players). I'm not including Canadian teams/players for the sake of debate. Expansion beyond 24 teams is going to happen quickly, while the cap will not keep pace. I can see around 27-28 by the end of the current TV deal. Where are the 250+, or so, players going to come from?
I like this set up, these cities would be making a serious push for one of those spots: 33. Tampa Bay 34. Las Vegas 35. Austin 36. Jacksonville Armada 37. San Diego 38. Detroit 39. NY Cosmos 40. Rochester Rhinos 41. Virginia Cavalry 42. Pittsburgh 43. Cleveland/Cincinnati 44. Ottawa Fury ... And a few others. Just to show that there is a lot of competition just for 32 spots
Only a few of these would be legitimate contenders. 1. I cant see Florida getting three teams and with Orlando and Miami already I highly highly doubt Tampa is considered 2. Solid option and I considered them, but they lack a "sports connection" by not having any other pro teams. (although they do have all that betting...) Plus, already being shot down with all the effort they already put in doesn't bode well for the future. 3. Much like Florida, I don't see Texas getting 4 teams (Houston, Dallas, San Antoni0) especially considering Austin doesn't have any other pro teams and is a football city. 4. See explanation for Tampa 5. I doubt this happens. I think most of the San Diegans will become fans of the new LA team. I just think that giving them a team would put too many teams (galaxy, LAFC, and to an extent although it is pretty far, san jose) too close to each other. Cali will not get 5 teams regardless of how many soccer fans are there. 6. Detroit is a good possibility in the east and I contemplated including them. I eventually chose Nashville/Memphis over them based on pretty much nothing haha. If it expands more then 32 both will likely get a team 7.Cosmos will always be an interesting option. I really don't know what will happen with them, but following the traditional sports model, its hard to see one city getting three teams (although it is NY and the cosmos have the pedigree.) 8.This was another tough choice put I eventually opted not to included them in the 23 because of their lack other pro sports teams. I see Pittsburg getting a team before them. 9. Possible. 10. Pittsburg is possible. 11. Not going to happen. Columbus is going to stay the only Ohio MLS team. 12. Likely too happen if it expands over 32. So if it expands to 32 these are the cities I think should get teams: 33.Detroit (east) 34. Las Vegas (West) 35.Pittsburg (East) 36.Ottawa (east) 37. New Orleans (west) *wild card. Not much talk about them but its a possibility 38. Ny Cosmos (east) *move Minnesota to west to even the conferences up
Actually, I think the majority of San Diegans who follow soccer passionately will stick with the team they already have, even if they play across the border in Tijuana...
Speculation on which cities 'should' or 'should not' get teams is always interesting to me. A couple of arguments are especially common, but don't hold water to me. "[State] shouldn't get more than X teams." Does SKC playing in KC, Kansas mean St. Louis is more deserving of a team than if Sporting Park had been built ten or twenty miles east? Do fans in Buffalo feel an affinity for NYCFC? Are residents of Vancouver, Washington cheering for Seattle, not Portland? If five teams isn't too many for BosNyWash, then why would three teams be too many in Florida or Ohio, four as too many in Texas, or five too many in California? Communities which are too far to draw fans from one to the other on a regular basis but close enough to travel for rivalry games seem positive, not negative. "[City] doesn't have any other professional teams." The Colorado Rapids play in a city with every major league represented, but have always struggled to cut through the noise. They fight for sports entertainment sponsors and attendees. Virginia Beach and Austin are more than half Denver's size, but lack any major league presence; Sacramento and San Antonio both currently support only NBA teams and both offer great support to their lower division soccer teams. There's open capital to access in such markets, and municipal governments are more incentivized to help. Sacramento and San Antonio also seem far more ready to accommodate than Miami has been. Even worse would be Detroit, with teams in every other major league, but lacks the money to provide corporate sponsorship, and widespread economic hardship that would also limit paying crowds. As always though, making lists beyond Don Garber's most recent public addresses on expansion is just wild mass guessing.
I've got two things I would love to share with this thread: 1) my Big Fat Expansion Sheet that attempts to show why certain US/Canadian cities over 1 million MSA and with at least a Tier 4 USSF club should or should not receive MLS expansion. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XXUGQddXUcJURUchDCVzu5N2yv_LqmJwRmByULzFGu8/edit?usp=sharing 2) an attempt at a structuring a 40-team league with two divisions and pro/rel https://docs.google.com/document/d/16wbZ4eeRu2aI4uro0nxIlUUqzByCzXL6G1E_vwkY0WY/edit?usp=sharing Hope there's food for thought there. It continues to be fun thinking about MLS 10.0 and beyond.
I think 30 should be the max. The NBA & NHL have only 30, the NFL 32. Once at 30, the league should really focus on stabilizing any weak teams or relocate them. My list of who's next: #23: Minnesota(2018) #24: Sacramento(2018) #25: San Antonio(2020) #26: Miami(2020) #27: Indianapolis(2021) #28: St. Louis(2021) #29: Las Vegas(2023) #30: Charlotte(2023) The league goes the traditional American route and aligns into 6 divisions of 5 teams each: EAST: NY RedBulls, NYCFC, New England, Philadelphia, Columbus NORTH: Toronto: Montreal, Chicago, Indy, Minnesota SOUTH: Miami, Orlando, Atlanta, Charlotte, DC United MIDWEST: St. Louis, Kansas City, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio WEST: Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, Real Salt Lake, Colorado PACIFIC: San Jose, Sacramento, LA Galaxy, LAFC, Las Vegas
unlike some of the cities, Austin is starting to get whispers http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/b...inting-shift-sparks-speculation.html?page=all Still, the news has sparked lots of speculation in real estate circles that a deal could happen soon that would see the Statesman move its remaining office operations to a smaller site and sell the 18.9 acres it now occupies for a premium price. In recent years, that property has been suggested as a choice location for a downtown athletic facility, either as the location for the replacement of the University of Texas’ Frank Erwin Center, or for a stadium to host a Major League Soccer team.
Why not? California is all but certain to get 4 MLS teams during the next two to six years. (My guess is that Sacramento is in the "on deck" position and could come in as early as 2017 if LAFC is not ready or in 2018 if Miami is not ready.) Why shouldn't Texas eventually be awarded 4 teams? It may be just a matter of timing because Garber seems to be hot for Austin and the San Antonio Scorpions have made themselves impossible to ignore.
I think it would make for one of those nice fanciful derbys that MLS likes to build. I initially thought no way in hell San Antonio and Austin could both work, since I moved out here and got a feel for each city, Ive changed my mind. Both of these cities could easily host a team. And heck if the likes of St Louis, Indianapolis, Miami arent exactly breaking down the door, I would be perfectly fine with it.