Far earlier in this thread, I pointed out how small Canada is. Its population in about 10-11% of the U.S. Vancouver is the third largest city in the entire nation. The next biggest cities are half its size. Despite this, Vancouver is one of the small market teams in the league, on par with Salt Lake, Columbus, and Kansas City, and the potential expansion markets Sacramento, Indianapolis, San Antonio, Las Vegas, and Cincinnati. Ottawa, Calgary, and Edmonton are on par with places like Birmingham, Richmond, Rochester, Albany, and Fresno. I like Fresno, but it's not a major league city. (And I'm relieved that neither RSL nor SKC went to Rochester.) Unless the sport in question is hockey, neither are the Canadian cities.
Voted St Louis, Detroit, NC, Cincinnati & San Diego for US. Ottawa is the only remaining viable market for Canada. The latest estimates peg its population around 1.3 million; it would be the smallest in the MLS by some margin, but its chances are buoyed by its status as a capital city, the fact it was once seriously considered for MLS expansion and its immediate rivalry with TFC can make it a possibility if MLS gets to 30-32 teams (and the Canadian league doesn't take off and swallow the rest of Canadian soccer with it). Calgary & Edmonton, despite similar population levels, have no chance because it doesn't enjoy the same benefits as Ottawa. Winnipeg and QC are non-starters - Winnipeg is tapped out after getting its NHL team back, and QC is still busy trying to get its to return with a giant taxpayer subsidized amphitheatre in waiting
Well, you could reconfigure things by swapping New England and Detroit for DC United and Columbus, but I thought the DCU-NYRB rivalry was hotter than Toronto-Columbus. If San Diego doesn't make it into MLS, then they would have to be replaced with Sacremento, which means probably that Las Vegas would have to go into Cascadia (can't break the RSL/Rapids rivalry). If Phoenix gets a team (and Las Vegas doesn't or vis versa), they could replace San Diego, but then MNUSC and SKC would move to the Mountain Division and their replacements would cascade all the way into the Eastern Conference with some poor orphan being forced to join the Texas Trio (unless New Orleans?). But it would probably allow one or two of Cincinnati/Indianapolis/Nashville to join the legue. Toronto has the 4th largest market in North America and Montreal ranks in the top 15. Vancouver is roughly on par with Portland and Charlotte in terms of MSA and TV market. It would still be top 25 in the States and that's not bad. Another thing to keep in mind that those three cities often pull in viewers from the rest of their respective provinces, which encompasses roughly 2/3 of the total Canadian population. All three teams are also some of the most successful in terms of stadium attendance and atmosphere, so I don't see MLS wanting to remove them for smaller market teams. In my mind, MLS got it just right with the number of Canadian teams in the league and it's a no-brainer to keep them there.
[QUOTE=" Toronto has the 4th largest market in North America and Montreal ranks in the top 15. Vancouver is roughly on par with Portland and Charlotte in terms of MSA and TV market. It would still be top 25 in the States and that's not bad. Another thing to keep in mind that those three cities often pull in viewers from the rest of their respective provinces, which encompasses roughly 2/3 of the total Canadian population. All three teams are also some of the most successful in terms of stadium attendance and atmosphere, so I don't see MLS wanting to remove them for smaller market teams. In my mind, MLS got it just right with the number of Canadian teams in the league and it's a no-brainer to keep them there.[/QUOTE] When are you going to understand that it won't be the call of MLS? It will be that of the USSF. All of what you say is true, but none of it will matter to a less friendly United States Soccer Federation. Some day soon someone will say, "I don't care how gleaming those cities are and how well their teams are run. They are not in the United States." And that will be every bit as true as your assertions. It won't be about hatred or punishment, but about enabling teams from less glamorous but still worthy US cities to compete in MLS and grow the game in the United States. Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver are wonderful cities with strong teams, but if one day there's no room for say a Nashville or San Antonio or Pittsburgh, people here are going to demand that room is made. Sure, MLS is a business. But it's overseen by USSF and it's not GM or Ford.
When are you going to understand that it won't be the call of MLS? It will be that of the USSF. All of what you say is true, but none of it will matter to a less friendly United States Soccer Federation. Some day soon someone will say, "I don't care how gleaming those cities are and how well their teams are run. They are not in the United States." And that will be every bit as true as your assertions. It won't be about hatred or punishment, but about enabling teams from less glamorous but still worthy US cities to compete in MLS and grow the game in the United States. Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver are wonderful cities with strong teams, but if one day there's no room for say a Nashville or San Antonio or Pittsburgh, people here are going to demand that room is made. Sure, MLS is a business. But it's overseen by USSF and it's not GM or Ford.[/QUOTE] FIFA certifies MLS, not the USSF. FIFA has already approved the grouping of Canadian-based and USA-based teams into a single first division league. Even if the USSF disapproves of the inclusion of Canadian teams in MLS - which it does not - it lacks the authority to de-certify MLS.
Let's assume USSF for some reason is inclined to examine this idea and thinks it may have means to impose it. (Neither are assumptions I'd make.) There's no set number of teams that the league will permanently stop at. It is responding to the demand for its product. They want to adequately reach the population of their market without splitting the money into too many shares. This doesn't mean it is perfect at gauging what the level of demand is any more than any other enterprise, but it will be concerned about overproduction. If asked to abandon a tenth of its market containing three major metro areas, I would expect an estimate of the ideal number of teams drops by about a tenth as well. It's not as if 28 or 32 (or 20 or 40) are magic. Without California or Texas, the ideal number of teams would be lower, too.
FIFA certifies MLS, not the USSF. FIFA has already approved the grouping of Canadian-based and USA-based teams into a single first division league. Even if the USSF disapproves of the inclusion of Canadian teams in MLS - which it does not - it lacks the authority to de-certify MLS.[/QUOTE] Not true. Fifa said that it would leave the matter in the hands of the USSF. That is a fact.
Not true. Fifa said that it would leave the matter in the hands of the USSF. That is a fact. And the USSF can decertify MLS.
Not true. Fifa said that it would leave the matter in the hands of the USSF. That is a fact.[/QUOTE] Even so, that's not ever going to happen.
How does it work for the other leagues? Why is Toronto in every single Major League save the NFL (and that is because they don't want to kill the CFL)? Surely there are teams in the US that would better use their slot?
I don't know if there is any official agreement or not, but there is at least an understanding between the NFL and CFL that the NFL isn't allowed in Canada. As for why other sports don't bring it up is because the governance of the sports is handled differently. It mainly goes back to these leagues were the leaders and pioneers of their sports. They weren't created in a FIFA environment where each nation had its own federation that sanctioned leagues and teams within that nation, but not outside of that nation. They are the most powerful entities in their sports, and they don't answer to a USSF or FIFA. Whereas MLS is a relatively minor player in the world of soccer where precedent dictates, with a few exceptions, that leagues don't break national borders.
Not sure how true that is. Leagues actually seem to break national borders in a large number of situations where one nation without a well developed league system borders a much better developed one. Obviously there's Wellington Phoenix in the A-League. Also, Cardiff City and Swansea City are not the only Welsh clubs playing in England; there is also Newport County in League Two and about a dozen playing in English non-league football. Andorra has an amateur league, but also has a single semipro club that plays in the Spanish league system; likewise, San Marino has an amateur league but a single semipro club plays in the Italian league system. All the clubs in Liechtenstein play in the Swiss league system, and all the clubs in Monaco play in the French league system. In Asia, Brunei has its own amateur league, but a single pro club that competed in Malaysia from 2005-2008 and has competed in Singapore since 2009. Singapore had a single pro club, run by the Singapore FA, which competed in Malaysia from 1921 until 1996 when the S-League went pro. There are also clubs playing in a foreign league for geographic convenience: numerous semipro and amateur clubs near the England/Wales and England/Scotland borders, several clubs in the Åland Islands (part of Finland, but clubs play in Sweden), UE Bossòst (Spanish club playing in France), FC Büsingen (located in a German exclave in Switzerland), SV Kleinwalsertal (Austrian club playing in Germany), several Chinese semipro/amateur clubs that play in the Hong Kong league system, and two Australian clubs that played in Singapore in the 1990s because it was less expensive to travel to Singapore than to travel to Australia's east coast.
It looks like Ottawa has a super-high median household income. It might be the same size as Birmingham Alabama, but it has either twice as high or 50 percent higher median household income (unsure if the figures I'm looking at are in US or Canadian Dollars).
Atlanta United FC CHARLOTTE Chicago Fire Colorado Rapids Columbus Crew SC D.C. United DETROIT FC Dallas Houston Dynamo INDIANAPOLIS LA Galaxy Los Angeles FC MIAMI Minnesota United FC Montreal Impact NASHVILLE New England Revolution New York City FC New York Red Bulls Orlando City SC Philadelphia Union Portland Timbers Real Salt Lake SACRAMENTO SAN ANTONIO SAN DIEGO San Jose Earthquakes Seattle Sounders FC Sporting Kansas City ST. LOUIS Toronto FC Vancouver Whitecaps FC
I see a lot of people picking Saint Louis. Do they even have an ownership group. MLS2STL is a group trying to lure an ownership group there. After nine months still no group. With Saint Louis' popularity what gives?
With Tamp Bay Rowdies moving to USL, I wouldnt mind seeing them make a push for MLS. I would love to have a FL Cup rivalry. Miam v Orlando v Tampa. This could be just as good as the Cascadia Cup.
Pros: 1 Several corporate HQs of large businesses. This means potential owners and potential sponsors. 2 Soccer history. Perhaps an MLS team will cause the area to embrace the sport as it did in the past. 3 Rams departure may have freed up sponsors and could make local governments more interested in providing incentives. 4 Another Midwest team. There are only four teams between Philadelphia and Denver. Cons: 1 No ownership group yet. 2 Not a big city. Despite common perception, this is a slightly smaller market than Orlando or Portland. 3 Close to Kansas City and Chicago.
This reason is why I think St Louis and San Antonio get clubs at some point in the future. San Antonio will fill out the Texas footprint and in a 28-team league, you could have one 7-team division of the Texas teams plus RSL, Colorado, SKC, and either Minnesota or St Louis. (I'd probably go with St Louis since the Mississippi has been the dividing line between east and west.)
True that, but an owner/investor has to step up to make it happen. San Antonio has the NBA Spurs behind them, but no one has stepped up in St. Louis thus far. For that reason, I'd have to rate FC Cincinnati, Detroit City FC and the Charlotte Independence as having a better shot than St. Louis at present.
You're going to quibble over 3 miles? (That's the St. Paul site, btw. For where we're playing next year, TCF Bank Stadium considerably less distance to the Mississippi.)
Not as many corporate HQ's as they used to. Not one of these companies has stepped up to the plate as of yet. Actually had the Ramsstayed Saint Louis would probably have a team. There were plans for an MLS team to play in the proposed Rams stadium. Local governments were roundly criticized for ponying up money for the proposed Rams stadium.. Problem is the ROI on an NFL stadium through state and local taxes (from Rams players and opponents) to the state and city are greater than those of an MLS team. The salary cap of an NFL team is greater than an MLS team. Garber said MLS (on January 16th) was excited about the prospect of a stadium (after the Rams moved). There currently is no stadium plan so I have no idea what he is talking about. The only stadium plan was the riverfront one for the Rams. That is dead now and has been since January 13th.