Now before I get started, let me state, I do not think this is feasible with the state of the MLS right now, and if it were in the future it would definitely be the distant future. But I wanted to bring this up just for fun anyway and see what other's thought. I think one of the biggest selling factors in sports is rivalry. Sports rivalries maintain interest and can bring attention to a sport in a fun way. With the BPL, you see a lot of historic and bitter rivalries. Aside from factors that don't really apply to the sport in the US (religion, class, political differences between teams and fan bases), one of the biggest factors of rivalry is proximity. Look at the teams and rivalries found within the London area: Crystal Palace, Tottenham, Arsenal, Chelsea, West Ham, QPR. Not even to mention teams from lower leagues. And I think the trend continues in most sports based on proximity, or at least divisions within a league(that are based at least loosely on geographics effecting schedules and games played). Now a big problem with this in the US is the huge difference in landspace, but put that thought aside for now. With the addition of NYCFC we have out first city with 2 teams, and I'm sure a rivalry will develop between NYCFC and NYRB. New York with its vast size, money, and history of multiple teams was the obvious and natural start to this in the MLS. Again, I do not see it feasible for more cities to get a second team anytime soon but just for discussion, do you think it is something that could happen at some point. I'd like to see more multi-team cities and have some quality rivalries emerge. IF there were to be more multi-team cities, who do you think would be a good fit? Obviously I think LA would be up there with the popularity and success of the Galaxy already and LA's size and history. But where else? Densely populated areas like New England/DC? Intra-State rivalry like a Pittsburgh-Philly or Columbus/Cleveland? Other cities who have found success with soccer like Seattle/Portland? Or just places with opportune geographic Minneapolis/St. Paul twin cities kind of thing? I'm sure as time passes more southern states near Mexico could pick up another team too. Not a realistic look at the future but I think it could be fun to see where good rivalries could exist.
Never going to happen. It's going to be a long time, if ever, before MLS reaches the level of the NFL or MLB Curreently, we have 1 city with two NFL teams and 3 with two MLB teams.
It's unlikely to happen for the same reasons it doesn't happen in other US sports. Each franchise has exclusive rights to a certain area. The league cannot put another team in an area without the existing team's consent (when MLS was created provisions were made for a second NY team). So if I want to put another NFL team in Philadelphia not only must I pay the league expansion fee but I must also reach an agreement with the owner of the Eagles. Needless to say nobody wants competition, and even if I paid off Lurie I'd then have to actually run a team which isn't cheap, and I'd have to do this while competing with an established brand. This is all financial suicide. There are also issues that doubling up on markets leads to a larger league and how to organize such a beast. Those issues would make the league office extremely hesitant to give out franchises as well.
Again, like I said in the OP...I do not think this would happen or be feasible at all. But for the purpose of light-hearted discussion, I was asking what cities or locations would foster the best rivalries
NYC Metro, LA Metro, and the BAY Area Metro are where we see the double teams. For NFL and MLB it helps with each having seperate American and National Leagues/Conferences. NYC Metro has its boro's and North Jersey to carve up each of the 3 NHL and two NBA clubs. The same is happening in the MLS now. LA having two clubs in the same stadium in Orange County was a disaster. The new LA club will be within the city limits. Only the Giants/Jets and Lakers/ Clippers are making the same area and stadium work. Bay area teams in all pro sports are spread now down to San Jose as well as across the Bay. DC and Baltimore had struggled with dual teams in a league in the past but MLB and NFL are both back. American/National League/conference lends to help in those leagues. New England had NHL in Hartford but was short lived. You said it is a long way off but if there were a possible long shot a Hartford team with the Revs building a new SSS in Boston. Maybe. Bay Area could work but it looks unlikely with SAN Jose a strong secure MLS franchise and city and now Sacremento looking to be a likely MLS club very soon. San Antonio's proximetey to Mexico could likely see an MLS club moving past the 24 that will be in place by 2020. Orlando/Tampa are close. With Orlando now MLS and NBA and Tampa/St Pete MLB, NHL, and NFL.
In my opinion the state of California can support six to seven MLS clubs. Three in northern CA, three or four in southern CA.
SRFC seems to be in the drivers seat for a 2nd MLS club in Northern Cal. LAFC re branding of the second LA MLS franchise brings 4 MLS clubs in California. San Diego would be also a logical city and location for future expansion if someone were to have interests. The big question has been a club in San Fran. with San Jose in the MLS gives MLS an extended Bay Area team. 49ers have moved closer to San Jose. Leaving Warriors new home in SF. MLB clubs in SF and Oakland. As well so far the Raiders staying in oakland. With NBA and NFL both crossing over into part of the MLS season. As well two baseball teams playing the Spring, summer, to Fall the same as MLS.
I would say the best potential derby out there would be: NYC Los Angeles with Anaheim/OC always striving to express their individuality Chicago: North siders and South siders just hate each other and could follow a Cubs vs Sox example Twin Cities: a Minneapolis vs St. Paul derby would be pretty sweet An interesting one would be a Philadelphia and Bethlehem/Lehigh Valley derby. There is a bit of history of animosity between the two areas in the soccer world, but that was at its height 80 years ago. One interesting element is that Bethlehem is part of the Phily TV market, which is ranked 4th largest in the US. Another non-derby derby would be Milwaukee vs Chicago. Twin Cities/Milwaukee would be good too. Miami and Ft. Lauderdale for a non-derby derby
My Chicago Fire are so bad if there was a new team in Chicago I would be tempted to jump ship. Especially if they build a stadium in the NW suburbs where the Fire was originally rumored to be interested in.
A city that often seems to get itself in big time rivalries is Indy (Pacers vs Knicks in the 90's, Pacers vs Bulls, pacers vs Pistons, Pacers vs Heat, Colts vs Pats, and Colts vs Ravens (its been 30 years get over it Baltimore)). I could easily see Eleven vs Fire or Eleven vs Crew being strong rivalries.
Problem with the Bay Area is that it's proving in the last 20 years to be a one team region. The Giants are far and away the more popular and profitable MLB team with the A's as also rans. The Niners are in another league compared to the Raiders (who had to artificially reduce capacity on their stadium to almost 10,000 under the next smallest NFL venue just to avoid blackouts). The Sharks are of course popular, but alone and same for the Warriors. If the Quakes were in San Francisco you can bet we wouldn't even be discussing the possibility that MLS could put a second team in the Bay Area. And I suspect even with the Quakes in San Jose the discussion is largely academic. The outlay to put a team in SF proper proved too much for the NFL, so I don't give MLS much of a chance. And on the off chance they did succeed, it would likely result in the Quakes being akin to the Raiders or A's long term.
No. The small benefit of one or two rivalry games per year is heavily outweighed by the cost to the teams of dividing the market. You make an extra $1 million on one game a year but struggle to fill the stadium the other games. Given that MLS is aiming to be a parity league (like other sports in the US and Canada) I want each team to draw from as big an area as possible. That way the league can continue its climb through the world soccer league rankings. If we start splitting markets, we are dooming ourselves to being a lower level league forever. If we end up with 24 (or whatever) teams that are in either markets over 5 million people or smaller markets with high soccer affinity (like Seattle) we can eventually bring in the money to rival the soccer big leagues.
No other sport has tried the SF/SJ combo. I certainly think its possible for the Bay Area to support 2 teams at an MLS level (and really there should be a third team at USL or NASL level). Surely the 18,000 capacity of the Avaya is not enough for the entire region. I have to think there would be support for another 22-25K in SF proper, if such a stadium was possible, or another 18-22k in Oakland. A team in Oakland, with the right image and ownership could be huge for the league as a whole to bring in a more diverse audience, not just locally, but nationwide.
It would also be a duplication of effort in some ways. It would divide up what is an already MLS served market at the expense of the Earthquakes if you did it at the MLS level (nevermind the Quakes would veto any such move so it's never happening). And at the NASL level it would only work outside SF proper given the tenor of that particular slice of the market. MLS would be better served spreading to areas that ignore them due to no local team than worrying about markets they already service.
Especially since the rumblings suggest sooner or later SacTown will be in the MLS giving people from San Fran two options that are right next door or decently close.
but then why have two LA teams and two NYC teams? I have never lived in SF proper, but I do live outside of DC, and the closest scenario is the Baltimore Orioles and Washington Nationals. Growing up, the Os were the only game in town, and since we lived in DC's Maryland suburbs, it wasn't too far. But I did not grow up an Orioles fan and did not feel a connection to the team, since they weren't from my city. When the Nationals came, then I had a baseball team, and the Orioles, huffed and puffed and put up a huge stink about it, but the team came and MLB is better off. Some things had to be done to make Baltimore whole, but for the most part the league was gaining new fans, or turning very casual fans into much more serious fans. I suspect the situation with a team in SF would have similar results. Also, a problem with the existing Bay Area teams that are in the same league is that they are not in the same division, there isn't the same kind of rivalry. Interleague baseball games are fun, but there isn't as much on the line in terms of pressure as compared to a game against a division rival. Playing once every 4 years in football doesn't really do much either. And I don't think that SF should be the next city to get a team, just that I don't think they should be forever ruled out just because there is a team in San Jose and possibly Sacramento. Three teams in Northern California plus the 2 in SoCal, that would be a lot of heated rivalry games, with the potential of being bigger than the Cascadia Cup.
Good question. It may be a decision MLS comes to regret. We've already seen one second LA team fail, and we'll soon see how NYCFCs presence effects the Red Bulls. Not comparable situations. Baltimore and DC are two distinct Metro areas. San Jose and San Francisco are both anchor cities in the overall Bay Area metro area. They've far more in common with LA/OC or the Twin Cities than they do Baltimore and DC. It'll all depend on the Quakes. The Quakes were granted exclusivity in the whole of Northern California when they re-entered the league in 2007. The Republic aren't likely to be blocked by them due to the Quakes having little presence in Sac. San Francisco will be a different animal. The Quakes have no reason to allow an SF based team which would do nothing but siphon fans and corporate sponsors away from them. Particularly in a region they're already competing with 2 MLB, 2 NFL, 1 NHL, 1 NBA at the top level , plus 6 D1 universities, an MiLB team, an NBA D-League team and an AHL hockey team as well. Anything to prevent further competition they can do, they will. And even absent an SF team there going to have plenty of rivalry. The Galaxy/Quakes California Clasico is already one of the league's best and the Sac-SJ rivalry will develop very fast for NorCal honors no doubt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Statistical_Area I just don't see it. They are number 4 and 5 respectively, and SF and SJ are two different MSAs as part of one larger CSA, just like DC and Baltimore. They are about the same driving distance away. DC and Baltimore share suburbs with each other, where the mother can work in Baltimore and the father in DC. Or it could have the opposite effect. Having so many teams in NorCal will make it a larger part of the overall sporting culture, and it could force people to get more involved 'come on man, you gotta have a team, everybody's doing it.' You would have many offices with split affiliations, and people with no affiliation might feel left out.