It’s not that soccer is so popular in the US that it can expand to more teams than the other leagues. It’s because fomestic American soccer is so unpopular in the US that expanding the league increases the footprint of its fandom every time.
Yes. Same with team #4 in Netherlands or Portugal, teams sitting in Everton position in the BL, La Liga, Serie A, etc. Or to use an American comparison, the Wisconsin football team. Good enough for 5-10 in the country every so often? Sure. Do they really have a reasonable shot of expecting to find themselves in a 4 team football playoff in the next 20 years? Probably not. You literally answered your own question with your prior post: disposable income. The NFL is a monster league that requires vaults of disposable income per franchise. NFL league revenue is roughly equal to EPL, BL, and La Liga combined. A franchise with a viable NFL stadium will pull $350 million minimum almost a billion at the top end. An handful of franchises generate more revenue from suites alone than any MLS club earns total. That's not MLS. They can't compete at that level. The market is too crowded and the league will never be able to pry those players loose from the Big 5 leagues + elite clubs outside the Big 5 in UEFA with Champions League access. What the league can be is a broad affiliation of $50-$150 million clubs. Punching at this level doesn't require the same level of income commitment from a market. Minor league doesn't work in the US. D League for NBA draws no one. The biggest minor league baseball clubs gross around $10 million. Half of AAA doesn't get $5 million. Hockey is less. There is no minor league football with any commercial appeal. All of them couldn't survive with any degree of relevance without subsidies from the global leagues above them. Minor league soccer would be the same here. All commercially viable clubs in the current system exist only to identify and groom markets for MLS expansion. Close the door on MLS and watch what happens to USL attendance. There may not be a team that gets 5K/match giving tickets away.
The talent pool has no direct effect on whether any professional league in the United States chooses to expand, contract, or keep the same number of teams. None. The only considerations are economic. Full stop. And other than the misguided NASL in the 70s and NHL in the 90s, the desire for expansion fee windfalls isn't part of the calculus (as opposed to expansion fees as selling a share of the overall business - thereby compensating existing teams for losing a piece of the pie). Leagues expand based on financial pressure from within and without. The NFL and AFL expanded out of competition to grab emerging markets before eachother. The NHL/WHA and NBA/ABA also went through similar races. And all three of those sports and MLB went through some expansion as a result of what the other leagues were doing. Part of that was to expand their national footprint - which became a big driver of expansion and relocation as the leagues began to move from strictly local businesses in competition with each other to leagues of business partners willing to cooperate in an effort to bring in larger amounts of sponsorship revenue in concert with nationalized broadcasts. Some of that was seen with radio, but the real boost started in the 60s as most homes finally had television sets. Long before broadcast rights revenues became a prime mover, it was the league sponsors that paid the freight for that exposure and returned revenue to the league and teams. The current arrangement where the big four leagues have 30-32 teams each isn't some hard and fast line, but it's where the current economic balance is. Not the talent balance. Currently the upward pressure for expansion is more or less balanced against the number of available owners. MLB, the NHL, and the NBA have all had league owned teams in the last 20 years. Leagues don't want to own teams. As it stands now, the big four leagues footprints are enough to keep their national sponsors happy. Gillette isn't pulling out of the NBA because there is no team in Norfolk, Tampa, Spartanburg and so on, nor are they likely to suddenly pay the NBA more in sponsorship money if the league expands to any of those (or other markets), expansion would just dilute the sponsorship revenue. MLS is continuing to expand because the expansion does bring in more national sponsorship, and the promise of more broadcast revenue. The markets coming into the league also are still apparently able to provide enough local revenue opportunities (or public financing) to make the expansion viable for the nascent team owners. The number of QBs turned out by the NCAA has no effect on NHL expansion. ------ I do think that MLS could eventually go well beyond 32, but not because of the talent base. I just think we're seeing another fundamental change in professional sports economics. National broadcast contracts are at a breaking point. if ESPN fundamentally changes, or fails, we could see a massive economic restructuring of the landscape. Currently MLS team turnover is far less than the big four. MLS is not beholden or dependent on the massive national broadcast revenues that the big four are. And MLS's risk/exposure should something catastrophic happen in that landscape is much, much less. As it stands now, far more markets can support MLS teams than teams in the big four leagues. As MLS grows economically, that gap decreases. The real brake on expansion will be economic. As MLS expansion fees grow (not out of profit taking, but as a reflection of the piece of the MLS business up for sale - expansion investors are buying a percentage of the business, it is not a Ponzi Scheme), and the economic footprint in available in potential markets (Raleigh doesn't offer the same local sponsorship/broadcast opportunities as Detroit) decreases, as the cost of operating MLS teams increases (player wages, academy systems, facility debt service) and the pool of potential sports team owners is reduced, expansion will naturally slow down or stop. But expansion is a fundamentally economic decision. Will expansion bring in desirable ownership? Will expansion help protect us against competition from other leagues (in our sport, or possibly other sports)? Will expansion bring in additional revenues (national sponsors/broadcasts) that will offset the shrinking slice of the pie each team receives?
One of the main arguments against expanding the NFL is lack of NFL ready QBs to sustain more teams. Their is definitely a demand for more NFL teams in cities that do not have them (look at San Antonio trying to pick up the Chargers for a year or all the cities that will be getting AAF and XFL teams) but there is not an international player pool to draw from and the current developmental system does not produce enough quality talent to add any more teams to the top level of pro football. The NFL has covered the map and does not need any more markets to negotiate a better deal, which means they do not have to divide the pie any further, true, but that is not the reason they won't expand.
Who is making that argument? Talking heads on sports talk shows? Fans on Twitter or message boards? Seriously, who is making that argument? Unless it's the NFL Board of Governors, and I highly doubt their deliberations are made public, talk about available quarterback talent is meaningless.
I have to agree with you that expansion will be driven by the economic factors. I also agree that MLS has no set cap on expansion. I personally believe that when the league reaches 30 clubs they will have the map covered, thus causing a much greater slowdown in awarding future clubs. Thus resulting in expansion locations becoming very selective. The "Soccer Don" has already stated that there will be no more expansion into Canada or the Southeastern United States. This makes you believe that the league is targeting specific areas to fill in the map for TV and corporate sponsorship dollars. But only time will tell.
View attachment 146691 Here's an interesting article on the economics on the MLS and its effect on expansion. https://www.cincinnati.com/story/sp...t-fc-cincinnati-ownership-counting/407941002/ BTW: Here is the comissioner's statement about future expansion in Canada from an article on Goal.com.
While I agree that MLS is done with Canada, I believe Garber added a qualifier of "for now" to the Southeast expansion.
I think the southeastern thing is overstated. It's become like the Julie Foudy quote. Raleigh, Charlotte, and Tampa have not been eliminated from the current round of expansion bidders. The league hasn't eliminated any of the 10 remaining bids from the original 12. And the league is not going to unilaterally eliminate a market the size of Tampa for pressing ceremonial reasons.
I will agree that MLS doesn't have a cap on number of teams and expansion will be driven by economic considerations. Last round of expansion had 12 suitors seeking teams, with 2 selected (Austin/Columbus not included for obvious reasons, but the $150 million and new stadium in Columbus are consistent with the point) at $150 million fee and a $200+ million stadium. Expansion will be limited by the ability to find someone willing to make a $ 500+ million investment. NFL expansion is limited finding people willing to invest $3.5+ billion in fees and stadium. Also, these guys are going to want a better return on their investment than a bank CD, or the S&P500. My expectation is that if someone from Berkshire Hathaway approached Garber and paid the price, there would be an MLS team in Omaha. Same is true for Roger Goodall and the NFL.
I disagree with this. Pretty strongly. People don't generally buy into professional sports for the monetary ROI. They don't do it to lose money, but the real return is in ego and entertainment. Being the BMOC. Having the best toy. The reason baseball owners keep losing collusion lawsuits to the players union, the reason that MLS and other newer leagues are built on SEM models isn't for ROI, but to keep ownership to manageable losses. To keep the owners from spending themselves and each other into 1970s era NASL oblivion.
I have to agree with this statement. I have to believe that the pool of investors available that are willing to invest half a billion in expansion fees and build stadium is going to dry up fairly soon. This alone should cap expansion to 30 (32 at most).
Sacramento lands what could be the missing piece in its quest to secure an MLS expansion franchise https://t.co/geOimlLjYl— SI Soccer (@si_soccer) January 22, 2019
I don't agree with this. While a new team might be looking at 150 mil expansion fee + 250 mil new stadium + 50 mil training complex + 25 mil to capitalize player acquisitions, it can also be done for much less. It's also not necessary that the money be local as long as prominent locals with clout are involved. So as long as their are decent sized markets which can find some rich owners and whose local governments are willing to offer incentives, there will be more teams. There are plenty of cities like Memphis, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, etc which could support regular 20K crowds.
There maybe plenty of markets, but not enough billionaires to go around. I disagree that they don't need to be local. The league wants local ownership. They don't want another Columbus Crew ownership fiasco. In addition the league is pushing for regular crowds of 30K as the new standard. Therefore, I stand by my statement.
once St Louis, Sacramento, and Phoenix are in, MLS needs to hold the cards tight for 31, 32 IMO. The next big priority after #30 should be to batten down the hatches in Colorado, Chicago, New England, Dallas, Houston.........and maybe even Phil and San Jose. A lot of the MLS OGs are not doing fantastic and need to have efforts refocused on them.
Wait, what? If anything the costs will continue to climb. Sure, you can scrimp on roster and training facilities, and possibly sucker a city into paying for the stadium, but MLS, LLC isn't looking for new investors planning on being cheap. And remember that's cash, not net worth. Most billionaires don't have a quarter million dollars of cash laying around. The universe of people with the resources and interest is shrinking.
There are 3 stadiums in the league that seat 30k. Four counting Nippert. That statement is moronic. A standard that 24/28 teams cannot meet. So is this idea that MLS lacks billionaire investors. It is just factually incorrect. Let us bet a posting ban. Once MLS hits 31/32, you go away? If plans beyond 30 are not announced within 2 years, I will. Sac, STL, and PHX already have the ownership. Dan Gilbert & the Fords in Detroit. The Spurs group was interested in SA before the Austin debacle. But, yeah, whatever. 32 minimum. Likely more. Sac (#28) https://www.bizjournals.com/sacrame...lionaire-investor-ron-burkle-to-purchase.html STL (#29) = Taylor family (Enterprise car rental) https://www.stlmag.com/news/sports/...prise-taylor-jim-kavanaugh-world-cup-stadium/ PHX (#30): Kona Grill owners Bakay family + Chinese Billionaire. https://www.stltoday.com/sports/soc...cle_06a66e35-bfba-5b76-8703-f5763e6ce21f.html Detroit (#31): Pistons owner + Dan Gilbert (Cavs owner) + Ford Family. https://www.stltoday.com/sports/soc...cle_06a66e35-bfba-5b76-8703-f5763e6ce21f.html San Antonio (#32): Spurs Sports & Entertainment. http://mlsinsa.com/ ------------ Look, I am not saying these bids are done deals. There are obstacles. But finding billionaire owners ain't one of them. I got 32 right there and it took 10 minutes. Charlotte, Raleigh, Tampa, Vegas, Indy, SD. I do not know where they stand with ownership. But your 'idea' that MLS just cannot find enough folk to invest to get beyond 30 is ridiculous.
Charlotte would have David Tepper ($11 Bill net Worth) as an owner, I think that is contingent on either a new SS Stadium or heavy renovations to BOA Stadium to make it capable of housing the Panthers and an MLS team. He brings it up at almost every presser. Raleigh is either dead or is going to pull an Undertaker move and find an owner plus stadium funding. Tampa is unknown, there is suspicion that the Rays may elevate that bid but they have not committed to it. Indy has new stadium plans but their ownership is comparable to NCFC if I'm not mistaken. I do not know anything about SD because there have been several groups and that SDSU stadium deal will be their way in, unless someone builds a stadium out there somewhere. San Antonio is basically done for.
Vegas is the biggest ace in the home as it were. That’s a potential bid that can come together after a few drunken billionaires hatch a scheme at a gambling table or pool party on the strip ........ albeit the city council has been unusually fickle, which surprises the hell out of me since there is plenty of sprawl even in downtown Vegas to throw a SSS
It's an open question whether interest will continue to increase but the number of US billionaires goes up every year. Unless the next media and merchandise contracts see significant overall increases, I doubt expansion fees continue to climb at a steep rate. The SUM money is the biggest revenue source for teams and the slices of the pie are already getting thin. Certainly MLS would prefer deep pockets but there's been no move to kick out Precourt, Sugarman, or Haupman. Teams can also combine investors ala LAFC or Seattle. A basic rule of the sports business is to get someone else to pay for stuff whether it be cities or minority partners.
Sure, the league would prefer local ownership but besides Precourt not living in Austin, the Wylfs don't live in Nashville, and neither Beckham nor Son live in Miami.
MLS isn't stopping at 28. That was obvious a year ago but became a near fact the day the Crew were saved. I think MLS wanted to "stop" at 28 had the Crew moved but the deal to save them, which necessitated an expansion slot in Cbus threw a wrench in all of that. Here's how I see things shaking out. MLS announces that they're expanding beyond 28 but doesn't give a number this time. MLS then announces St. Louis and Sacramento together this year. I'll spitball 2021 as their entry date. Phoenix is announced by the end of the year as the 30th team. Teams 31 and 32 are a toss-up. I could see Las Vegas, Charlotte, San Antonio, Detroit all making a run. I could also see a relocation in a sense. If Joey Saputo is really losing a ton of money, I could see him selling his franchise rights to another owner in another city.
But your 'idea' that MLS just cannot find enough folk to invest to get beyond 30 is ridiculous.[/QUOTE] Enough said, its time to ignore you.