Let me weigh in on the Bay Area discussion really quick. I think it's definitely feasible to have a team in the SF area and in San Jose, and others were right, it's something that hasn't been experimented with. You can't compare Giants/49ers-A's/Raiders with a potential San Jose scenario. First of all, you can almost literally watch an A's game from AT&T Park. There's not much of a real geographic divide between the fanbases. The A's historic fanbase is supposed to be the East Bay, but even there, no more than a third of baseball fans are A's fans. There's no distance between where the teams actually play, and if one team is wildly successful on the field and play in a beautiful state of the art ballpark, and another is an under-spending fringe team that plays in a decades old football stadium. San Jose is an hour from SF and is itself is what, the 9th most populated city in the country? It's the center of one of the fastest growing and most affluent places in the country. I don't think the health of things in San Jose are dependent on factors within San Francisco, like maybe things in Oakland are. Anyway, the reason I came into the thread, I've been thinking for a long time that an NASL or USL team in Center City Philadelphia would be wildly successful. The Union have little presence in the city, and there are a ton of 18-34 year olds that would support a project like that in droves. So many people here don't drive, and regional rail is such a pain. No one wants to spend all day trying to get to Chester and back. And that rivalry would even be great, even in different leagues.
In my opinion the problema of american soccer development and growth is the payment of a expansion fee. That doesn't make sense for me. Merit not Money! This is key to Soccer! Clubs should have Associates like all soccer or association football in the rest of the world. Shareholders and Associates responds to differents needs in a club life. Clubs that emerge from associates/fans initiative are strongers than clubs that emerge only from a economic interest. Before Rivalry you need competitivity. Promotion and Relegation is a major factor in Soccer. "Natural Selection" is a major factor to talent/club formation. Nothing compares to the magic of transformation (think like human growth) of a small Club into a major/successul Club. This atracts fans from over the places! THE MAGIC LINK Trying to make this artificially is much more harder and slow. 20, 30, 40 clubs depends the League System you use. I sugested a new model in other thread that could accomodate 64 pro-teams in US (by 2025). But by then you must have developed a Local Identity, a Regional Identity, another international competition (CONCACAF League CUP), etc. All MLS should start in Level 2, and then be promoted to Level 1. At least between this to levels should exist mobility. 16 teams in one Level is enough. Conferences and unbalanced schedule are not a good thing in soccer. WHY NOT? - In 2018, WHY NOT bring NASL clubs to MLS for a Special Selection/transition Season. Total: 32 clubs. 4 Conferences. unbalanced Schedule. 14 In-conference games, 24 out-conference games. 38 games. Playoffs: 8 clubs, 5 games. - The following year the top 16 Clubs stay in MLS and the others 16 Clubs in NASL. NO CONFERENCE HERE. 16 teams, 30 games. The conference model is not a good model. Balanced Schedule is the best model. - CREATION OF A LEAGUE CUP: tournament between all teams from MLS and NASL First Phase: 8 groups, then a knockt-out phase. (Promoting MLS and NASL competiton, like English League Cup. US Open Cup continues that contributes to this confrontation). - Starting promotion and relegation system between MLS and NASL by 2019. At the end of the 2019 season 2 clubs from NASL are promoted to MLS and 2 clubs from MLS and relegated to NASL. - Rivalry Cup/Tournament during preseason. - 2020 3rd tier and 4 tier on american soccer with 16 clubs each. A LEAGUE System Formed by 2020-2022: 64 clubs B LEAGUE SYSTEM for farm/reserve/satellite clubs: (64 clubs) (One League, 4 Conferences, 16 teams each, 30 regular games, one playoff phase). C League System (Amateur Soccer) (many leagues and clubs) A, B and C are closed leagues. US Open CUP between all teams from all League System (A, B, C). knock-out only. 1st Phase - C League Clubs, when 64 clubs left, B clubs joins competion (128 clubs), when 32 clubs left, 32 clubs from A League (4th and 3rd tiers teams) joins (64 teams), when 16 teams left, 2nd tier club joins, when 16 club left, 1st tier clubs join. A League CUP between 64 teams from A Leagues. with group stage and knock-out.
I Know but Soccer should think differently, this could be one major factor to bring this sport to public atention and affection. When you have a paid fan base (associates) that can discuss sports decision, this change all, you make the difference. Usually they elect the President Shareholders are investors not fans. The two are essencials, they don't compete, they complete each other meaning. For example, my club - SL Benfica - have more than 150.000 paid-up members (at one time almost 300.000 but the economic crisis started in 2008 continues to bring this numbers down) and also a PLC with shareholders and shares that could be trade in a stock exchange.
Geography and History Lesson on Why We Can't Do Football Things Here They Do Them in Europe. History: Primera Liga - Founded 1934. Established traditions, established rivalries. MLS - Founded 1996. Was half the size it currently is today. Go back and see what the state of the Primera Liga was in 1953. That would be a fair comparison. Geography: Portugal - 35,603 square miles (about the size of Indiana) USA - 3,805,927 square miles (nearly 107 times the size of Portugal, and in fact, about the size of all of Europe) Think about that. If we took all 20 teams in MLS and stuffed them into Indiana...yeah we'd have some rivalries. Also smaller stadiums, for that battle between Fort Wayne FC and InterMuncie. Now, reverse that. One First Division League in Europe. One. 20 teams, that's all you get. Where do you put them? Who gets left out? Welcome to our world.
Yes, I understand all that! One European League with 20 clubs will be to small. That's why I think one US League with 20 clubs isn't enough! I'm not thinking right now, but 5-10 years into the future. How Portugal (3 clubs, 5th European League, poor country) and other small countries have competitive leagues? US problem is MLS franchise policy that rose artificially all operating/founding costs. Soccer needs small/regional teams to raise popularity in your country. Like in european countries soccer is popular because of that. Usually we are fan of a local and a national club (membership in soccer clubs also are important for engagement). Soccer needs massification, and MLS don't allow this to happen in US.
Massification is a strategy that some luxury companies use in order to attain growth in the sales of product. Massification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massification
The NFL is the gold standard of how to run a successful league in the USA. MLS and USSF are wise to follow its prototype. The irony is that it is a "socialist" type model, while European soccer runs on a "capitalist" type model.
Doesn't make sense two MLS in the same metro area! Only if they surpass 15 millions like NYC and LA. However makes sense a interleague rivalry (not the same level, but still one) in metro areas with more than 4-5 million (Seattle, Bay Area, LA, Dallas, Houston, Miami, Chicago, Boston, NY, Delaware Valley, Baltimore-DC and Atlanta) Below this value MLS and NASL (or other D2 in the future) shouldn't compete. In this case only D3 clubs.
Just for the record, at least in year one of NYCFC their presence has not effected the Red Bulls negatively at all. Their attendance during the regular season has been the 4th best in their existence, only topped by the inaugural MLS season 1996, the post-Lothar Matthäus season 2001 (must have been some relief effect ) as well 2011, the season in which they played the first full season with their DPs Thierry Henry and Rafa Márquez in their brand new stadium.
A second Dallas team located in Arlington would absolutely DESTROY FC Dallas at the gates. Initially, at least. Many Dallasites would probably think this was the only team in the city and be surprised to realize that a league called MLS started playing soccer as far back as 1996. But I think that it would move the needle. That said, it would probably actually go about to bring a tremendous amount of exposure to FC Dallas from North Dallasites and ppl in Frisco, Carrollton, Lewisville, Denton (all those college kids at UNT), McKinney, Plano (Prosper, Celina... maybe???), etc who had thus far not supported the team, but might get drawn into a rivalry between North Dallas and basically the rest of the DFW metroplex. The Hunts might actually start drawing a crowd, increasing profits and perhaps be able to perform a more comprehensive renovation with increased seating, a full roof and more high-priced seating. It would be a risk, but there's no reason why a metro area that is growing as fast as DFW couldn't support two teams in a sport if Chicago can. Especially with the big areas of growth being the sprawl between Dallas and Ft. Worth and North Dallas. Do it, MLS... do it... ...maybe come with an original name like Lone Stars of DFW. Bring on Jerry Jones and Mark Cuban as part-owners with Tatu as team president... ...that said, as short-sighted as FCD's ownership has been with regards to marketing, I can't see them being as having the foresight to see how ceding their regional hegemony might actually be a positive rather than a negative. What a second team would do is get the rest of the metroplex actively involved in MLS, as well as capture and refocus the attention of North Dallas on FCD. The new team might initially be larger in stature, but FCD would have an opportunity to rebound by finally consolidating support in it's area of the metro. And MLS would finally have a real foothold in Dallas.