Yes and no. It's likely that 28 isn't the tipping point. But the line ends before they run out of people willing to buy in. It ends when the value to the league (broadcast and sponsorship revenues) of adding a new, likely smaller, market is less than revenue lost to the other owners due to dilution of their share of the league. Certainly national sponsors and broadcasts like that the MLS is growing it's national footprint. Bringing in large markets like Detroit and Phoenix would add to the value that Target, adidas, Wells Fargo, VW/Audi, and so on get from being associated with the league and increases their willingness to invest further. And it helps to bring in more sponsorship. But there are diminishing returns. In the next 10 years Spartanburg-Greenville will be a larger market than Cincinnati. Is anyone even remotely talking about Spartanburg? If Warren Buffett wants a team in Omaha, is the league really going to oblige? Again, I don't think 28 is the final number.
I'd agree with this, but think adding teams beyond the current 27 (including Miami and Austin) will be less important for the league. Getting the four expansion teams, Cincinnati, Nashville, Miami, and Austin playing should be the priority for the league. It's been a difficult time over the past few years getting these teams. When they hit 27 playing teams, the league will be pretty much built out. They will need to solidify the brand and improve the quality of play. But, if someone comes along with $500 million for expansion fee and stadium, I'm sure MLS will listen to their sales pitch. 2021 will be MLS's 25th season. They started with 10 teams. They can have 27 teams play then.
https://www.10news.com/news/san-die...e-likely-to-pass-in-november-than-soccer-city There you go. Right now SDSU West is polling at 57%. SoccerCity at a paltry 32%. MLS isn’t coming to San Diego via SoccerCity.
Still, SDSU West isn’t discounting the idea of MLS or working with the investors/league to make it happen. This stadium wouldn’t be a bad venue for soccer provided the team got a good deal on stadium revenues for their games. It’s only 35,000 seats and the field is being designed with soccer in mind.
This is what I have been saying all along. If SDSUWest passes either FSI will work with them or we will hear of a new ownership group next year.
And if FSI won’t work with them IMO it’ll prove their detractors right, that Measure E was always about the land grab, not the soccer team.
Yea. They could go ahead and give it to Detroit right now, they’re ready. Sacramento is waiting to put a shovel in the ground with low assets. St. Louis is like San Diego, they are a priority if they figure out a stadium. It’s a good sign for San Diego that they’ve waited.
They’re just trying to influence the election now that it’s pretty clear E is in serious trouble. But it’s too little too late. G appears poised to roll with a 25pt lead going into the final days of election season.
yup, as things stand currently, San Diego is hopeless at the polls. Itll be lucky to break 35 percent. Darn shame.......i think MLS in san diego would have been wonderful.
Is everyone just referencing that same SDUT poll from 8 days ago? I can’t find anywhere else projecting it.
yup, same poll. its a pretty reasonable gauge of public thought. I dont see anything that is going to cause the public opinion to deviate much.
The UT is endorsing “no” votes on both E and G so not sure where the pro G bias would come in. But the UTs polling last week was in line with, little less support for, Gs internal polling from early August.
I mean, im certainly hoping for a pleasant surprise. Ive obviously been wrong about a few things with expansion before, so id be happy to be proven wrong about San diego looking bleak. Would love to see MLS down there.
I disagree. SDSU West doesn't want a MLS club in San Diego period as they don't want the competition. Add to that the SDSU stadium won't get built for at least a decade. If Measure E fails San Diego is done.
Dan's post on the BS home page made me think of something. NFL is made for TV. Neutrals will watch the Rams, Raiders, Cardinals etc because of who they are and because of their history. It doesn't matter to the neutral fan whether the Rams play in St Louis or LA, they're still the Rams. MLS is a spectator sport. Most of the interest comes from people who show up at the stadiums. Combined attendances on any given weekend often outnumber TV audiences. So while NFL is saturated at 32 teams, MLS could continue to expand almost indefinitely as its strength is getting people to games on a local basis. Let's say MLS expanded to 40 teams, 4 conferences of 10 teams, with some inter-conference play and 4 teams from each going to the playoffs. I think that would work provided you don't dilute the talent base.
This is so wrong. Not sure if you are local or not (doesn't seem like it so not sure how you would come to this conclusion) but this couldn't be further from the truth. SDSU has said multiple times they want to partner with MLS (they've even said they will reach out to MLS if they win). The more tenants the stadium has the more rent money SDSU collects and doesn't have to pay for stadium maintenance.
What would be the point of that? Talent dilution would be a major problem for a league that Garber insists has the ambition of being on of the half-dozen or so best leagues in the world. At present, MLS probably just marginal for being one of the dozen best leagues in the world.
This exactly why if SDSU wins, MLS won't be coming to San Diego. Paying rent and not having control over game day and non game day revenues is a non-starter for MLS these days. Those revenue streams are crucial for MLS teams to be financially viable/stable. The days of MLS teams paying rent to another sports team/University are by and large over. The only recent times it's been approved is on a temporary basis (Minnesota United and FC Cincinnati).
Agreed but I will say that SDSU has said they will work with MLS to make the relationship viable. This is all speculative but I am bullish on SD still
Why not do it if it can be done without talent dilution. MLS would be the only major league with a team in every major city, you could have 40 academies covering most of the contiguous US and affiliates everywhere else.
Something's not adding up here. With St Louis back in the mix and San Diego looking promising, both markets that Garber is known to covet, there isn't room for both of them now that Austin and Columbus both get teams. Also, there are still big geographic holes to be filled in Phoenix, St Louis, and Charlotte/Raleigh. We're already at 27 teams assuming Austin has found a way in the back door. Why do I have the feeling that (surprise!) MLS is going to add another two teams to bring the franchises up to 30 by 2022. Phoenix/Charlotte/Raleigh, San Diego, St Louis, C'mon down! Two Conferences of three Divisions of five Teams each, NBA style.