MLS to expand to 30 teams. $200 Million expansion fee.

I’m hoping for Charlotte... maybe Indy but Not Phoenix...too hot and not San Antonio

 

Look, St Pete got an expansion team and that was a time when major league sports were looking to seriously expand. MLS had 26 teams, it made sense because larger comparable markets were available. LA is the second largest market in the US. Its not comparable to Indy, with two major league teams, or Louisville with none.

I'll concede that it might be plausible with Montreal given market size and the currency discount, but the "struggling teams" are bigger market teams and those will be be made more attractive to new ownership once IMO because the markets left won't be worth the investment. Would you pay $300m to join in Indy while having to build a stadium and develop an academy and training facility or would you pay $500m for an existing setup in Philly with more than double the population and all the pieces in place? If there's a racket, I think its boosting value for 1.0 and 2.0 owners to cash out.

 

So what really happened here is that Dee, Jimmy and Doc made $50 million in 4 months.

 

I think you could for a while.

You can leave say Chicago open for a few years and then use that market as bait when negotiating for tax breaks or funding to build stadiums.

 

To revisit this one...

I don't think European leagues will do away with pro/rel for domestic leagues, but I could see the formation of a closed pan-Europe super league that takes the top teams from the current domestic leagues.

Let's face it, there are probably 32 teams that could easily be named that dominate their domestic leagues, and routinely play in Champions or Europa Leagues.

 

Liga MX plans something and then 2 years later they change their mind and do a 180.

Chivas is danger of relegation next year, but Liga MX has a nice system where you can pay a fine and avoid the drop (Veracruz did that this year).

Rules are always flexible in Liga MX.

 

As an Indy resident, I wouldn't put Indy that high on the list. Not that I don't want Indy to get to MLS someday, but beyond the geographic crowding in the Midwest other posters have eluded to, there are two other problems though neither are insurmountable.

1) the team owner Ersal is not deep pocketed enough to be the point man on an MLS team. He is a local contractor and while he has the resources to be a very good USL owner, a multi-billionaire he ain't. A while back the team did bring in some other minority owners to bolster the financial clout of the ownership group, but the individuals being brought on were car dealers and other local business owners. Millionaires not billionaires. Jim Irsay (colts) or Herb Simon (pacers) would likely need to be brought on board to get the ownership financials to where MLS seems to want from expansion teams.

2) the proposed stadium has not yet had funding approved, public opinion in the city for the stadium is lukewarm at best (although the state assembly seems surprisingly open to the idea right now) and the proposed location is in a largely residential area with roads that are not designed for the traffic of a 20,000 seat stadium. My opinion as an observer is that it is a coin toss whether this gets approved.

 

Is the NFL stadium downtown?

If the Colts owner buys in, Lucas field (that is the right name right?) could be a solution (if a good rent deal can be worked out).

 

Alas, poor Sacramento. Always used as a stalking horse for MLS to maximize their negotiation with the actual expansion organization.

 

Yes, Lucas Oil Stadium (NFL stadium) is downtown. The team is currently playing there and played there last year. My understanding is that they are getting rent free use of the stadium (with cost sharing of gameday operating expenses) from the CIB (Capital Improvement Board) that actually owns the stadium.

My understanding is that although the team is using LOS rent free currently, the lack of ancillary revenue you get from stadium ownership and the high gameday operating costs for LOS that the team is sharing make LOS a bit of a financial drain on the team, hence the drive for a new stadium. Now you are correct that if Jim Irsay buys into the team, the math changes a bit.

Atmosphere wise LOS is not good for USL soccer. It's far too large. There are additional MLS 1.0 type problems with artificial turf, football lines and end zone painting, Colts paraphernalia on everything and scheduling conflicts in the fall and midsummer (GenCon) that necessitate more midweek games. However perhaps getting to MLS and routinely getting 18K+ crowds fixes these issues somewhat.

 

Rep for Butterbean call out.

 

does mls have youth academy requirements in place for new franchises?

 

And, one million heads on the North American continent explode on hearing the news as their talisman of excellence is destroyed by the almighty Euro.

 

More like guidelines, but as we all know those are flexible...*coughNYCFCstadiumcough*

 

One way to increase TV revenues is if every American city has a team.

I do like the thought expressed upthread about boosting the value to make it more palatable for MLS 1.0/2.0 owners to cash out. Especially those who do not seem too interested in competing (Kraft, etc).

This aligns with what many on here say, that committed ownership is the #1 driver of success. I think MLS HQ is recognizing this fact & is trying to make it easier for the coasters to cash out & more attractive for others to buy them out.

The big market teams with issues (CHI, NE, FCD, NYCFC, etc) are not getting moved out of those markets. Period.

 

Have to agree that it seems like 40 teams is ultimately where we are going as a league. There's just too many markets interested in MLS currently that wouldn't necessarily be gung ho for a 2nd div team. It seems crazy from a business standpoint to leave all that money on the floor. What you do is you make them wait a little to let the anxiety build as well as the entrance price.

Regarding a 40 team league: Two conferences made up of 20 teams each seems doable. Furthermore if MLS wanted to, they could further subdivide with each conference having two divisions of ten teams each. The Eastern Conference could have a Northeast and Southeast division and the Western Conference could have a Midwest and a Pacific division. First two teams from each division and and the 2 best overall wildcards in each conference make the playoffs for a total of a 12 team playoff. The 2nd team from each division goes against a wildcard in week 1 of the playoffs with the 1st team from each division getting a bye to the 2nd round. The SS champion gets home field advantage throughout the playoffs.

 

Agreed. I think MLS needs to stop with the lies on how many teams it will field every year in order for current team values to rise precipitously. Big money will come into the league once the league is set in stone and push out the inactive ones.

 

It's called the Grand Canyon.

 

Carroll Stadium, which is owned by Indiana University/Purdue University at Indianapolis (IUPUI) as you say, was the home of the team from '14-'17. However the university was never really happy having the team play at their stadium. I don't know if it was a liability issue, a parking issue or if they just wanted to use the stadium for other things. After '17, IUPUI let the 11 know they would not be allowed back in '18 and beyond. That's when the team worked out a deal with the CIB (who are very interested in avoiding paying for another stadium for the 11 and are very interested in showing that LOS isn't an underused money pit) and moved to LOS.

 

One last thing, I think MLS wants more warm weather markets, for a number of reasons:

1) Helps avoid early season weather/attendance problems for northern teams.

2) A lot of the fastest growing cities are in the sun belt.

Now, a crappy bid won't get a team just because it is warm there, but I think cold weather bids are going to have to be really strong to get a team. Detroit has market size. Indy does not.

No other large northern cities are even talked about (Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee).

I really think #30 will be somewhere warm (PHX, Charlotte, Raleigh, SA, Vegas).

Assuming Sac/STL are in:

1. No real March/Nov cold issues = 10. LAG, LAFC, Mia, Orl, Hou, Austin, ATL (dome), Van (dome), FCD, Sac.

2. Awful weather likely = 15.
Montreal, TFC, NE, Colorado, Minny, Chi, CLB, NYRB, NYCFC, RSL, STL, SKC, Phi, Cincy, DC.

3. Borderline = 4.
SJ, Nash, Sea, Portland.

Another warm city takes snow off the menu if you schedule it right. At least for early March. 15 tolerable out of 30 by 2022.

 

Let’s make it so that each of the lower 48’s have a MLS team.

 

Yeah, more teams means more TV revenue. It also means that larger pie has to be cut into more pieces. So it only works on that level if a new franchise brings enough eyeballs to justify that extra piece of pie.

I’m dubious about going over 30 teams on these terms. I’m dubious about the move in on business grounds and n general. I have two thoughts.

1. In general, MLS owners care about their sport more than other owners. My suspicion is that they are, say, 80% committed to the business side of things and 20% soccer evangelists.
2. MLS is very different from the other sports in two vital ways. One is the obvious, that MLS isn’t the biggest kid on the block. The other is that MLS is incredibly important in providing players. More teams = more academies. The rise of Phoenix (see what I did there?) and STL while Detroit fades is a small data point in favor of that theory. Expansion is in part about the player pool.

 

If I'm not mistaken, the biggest problem with playing at IUPUI was having to admit to people that your team played at IUPUI

 

Liga MX pro/rel is as fake as MLS salary cap.