Yes and no. San Diego as a market has been name checked in pretty much every public statement an MLS commissioner made about expansion since 1995. This particular project was a little out of nowhere I guess although SDSU was pretty open about wanting an MLS team at Snapdragon and there were rumors around town about a serious bid for a couple of years, Although the specific details didn't break until Nov '22 so I guess 6 months from the story officially breaking to a team announcement is pretty quick. My guess would be Sac. The cities behind the bid, they have good support, so they'll always be a plausible name to drop in, but they aren't a huge market so won't take much for another sexier market to jump ahead.
Just throwing this in the pile. It's interesting, at least. Downtown San Francisco Soccer Stadium Plans for Mall Revealed (sfstandard.com)
I really don't see it. That's potentially the most valuable real estate in the country. When Oracle Park was proposed things were very different. It was the mid-1990s and Mission Bay was a slum. By the time it was opened the Internet bubble was fully inflated and it had turned into home entrepeneur loft heaven.
This opinion piece on SF came out yesterday. https://www.houseofstrauss.com/p/dont-shoot-the-messenger-when-athletes
It's quite a funny read. Breed added she is discussing transit options with BART and Muni, as well as potential FIFA matches—the World Cup is coming to the Bay Area in 2026. "In Chase Center, we have about 18,000 seats there, and this could maybe serve up to about [25,000], or even more," Breed said of the stadium. So, they have it in their head that they could approve and build this in time to the World Cup 2 years. That's funny by itself given how long these things take in a city like that. Then you add on actually hosting games! Oh, and it would have up to 25k seats which doesn't even qualify for a WC stadium. They also refer to teams as "pre-professional". I'm pretty sure that's call amateur. The article ends with someone from the City Football Club saying is a dumb idea and that spending money on renovations to Kezar would make much more sense. The city is looking for ways to fix the area. They're trying to jump on a soccer and stadium wave but are way behind and pretty clueless. It feels more like this is all empty marketing BS to try to get other investments in the area fully knowing this isn't happening.
But he choose Los Angeles which doesn't really have "Urban Living" and the little it does have is dealing with similar problems as SF.
I don't disagree with anything you said there. But, these things are still true: 1) The city is looking for ways to invigorate the area 2) The Bay area has recently lost the Raiders and the A's. 3) SF/Oakland is the biggest/highest profile market on the table without an MLS team. With apologies to Vegas, Detroit, & Phoenix. 4) I don't view SJ as a deal breaker, but a built in rival. R /Citeh, LAG/LAFC, and Hell Is Real variety. While I agree this is all pretty preliminary and the mayor seems clueless on timelines and WC stadium eligibility, and that places like Sac & Indy are much further along ......it is getting less preliminary by the month. Not too long ago it was just some random comment. Now we have the mayor & an architectual firm involved. It is trending towards more serious, not less. I still maintain 40 is the ultimate goal. 4 divisions of 10. 2 vs your iwn division (18). Plus 10 vs the ither division in your conference (28). Plus the remaing 6 (or 8 or 10) vs teams in the other conference. For that to work, you need 10 in the Pacific division. LAG, SJ, Sea, Port, Van, LAFC, & SD make 7. The only real viable options are Sac, SF, Vegas, & Phoenix. The first 3 are all better geographically and Phoenix works better to help get 10 teams in the other division. In the interim, it would be 32 teams, 4 divisions of 8. Sac/SF would be the 8th (and then 9th) in the Pacific. You already have 8 in the other: SKC, FCD, COL, RSL, HOU, Minny, Austin, STL. Phoenix would be #9. Lots of candidates out east: Indy, Detroit, Raleigh, Tampa, Cleveland, Louisville, etc.
Honestly, since 1974 , when Milan Mandaric decided to put an NASL expansion team there, San Jose has always been the go-to place for soccer. Even the San Francisco Bay Blackhawks of the WSA/APSL, ended up there at the end of their run. Although I wouldn’t mind seeing another team in the Bay Area, (despite the efforts of the Roots) Oakland is really not an ideal place to house any pro team. Another reason on why the Raiders moved to Vegas and why the A's are about to leavce as well. The peninsula, South San Francisco, Palo Alto/Stanford would be great locations but because land is so scarce and very expensive, I doubt we will ever see a stadium built or a team there. The colleges, University of California, Berkeley and Stanford will never give up their land to build a stadium. I mean they will always rent out their own stadia for games or tournaments but they will not partner with a professional team and share revenue. That leaves the city of San Francisco proper but there is really no place to build a stadium there either. Sacramento seemed like it was going to happen before Covid but since that fell through, I don't think we will be seeing them in MLS any time soon either.
Appreciate the perspective. But in my view, 32 with 4 divisions of 8, is assured for MLS. The Pacific division needs 8 but only has 7. Sac or SF are the best bets. Vegas and Phoenix eould be next, but Vegas is suddenly flush with teams and, as I said earlier, Phoenix works better in the other division.
---------- Since MLS seems to endlessly change formats every season, then I add another crazy idea for when we get to 32 = 16 West & 16 East Regular Season is within conference 15 home/15 Away Keeps travel down a bit, continue to build rivals, allows fan travel etc. At end of 'season". you have a West Shield winner and an East Shield winner. They play a neutral site or yes, you could play at the team with better record. The MLS cup becomes an "East-West Challenge Cup" 32 > 16 > 8 > 4 > 2. Only 4 rounds and what I will call "cross-seeded" #16 in west plays at #1 east, #15 west plays at #2 east etc. #16 in east plays at #1 west, #15 east plays at #2 west etc. Reseeded after each round so highest seeded teams are rewarded with home games as long at they are in playoffs. Truthfully, because of the size of the league, not every team in the West plays every team in the East every year anyway. They are somewhat meaningless since not in conference. SO, make the cross-over games more meaningful since they will "be the playoff games now". Teams in the West will also bump into East teams in the USOC, maybe even the Champions League or Leagues Cup if that comes back. I am currently not happy with MLS anyway. I am a traditionalist who believes in a 20 team league with balanced home and away for the Regular Season Champion and then the USOC for the national championship. I think MLS misses the boat with traditional fans by not following what most leagues do around the world. This is why people are fasinated with the EPL and the FA Cup. Traditional fans know the value of this and new fans would learn to also. We don't always need to follow what other American sports do. Sorry for the rant. Garber is starting to piss me off more each year.
MLS has a traditional American unbalanced schedule. Liga MX is the most popular league in the US and their fans seem OK with teams not playing each other twice to determine champions. I don't think Premier League or La Liga fans are going to switch to MLS based on one feature. Leagues in countries like Scotland, Austria, Denmark and Belgium have moved away from the traditional round robin to make their leagues more competitive. I wouldn't mind the format your suggesting, as long as there were playoffs to decide the regional titles. Without the threat of relegation you need the playoffs to give fans a stake until as late as possible in the season.
MLS is, and has been from day 1, about 'American sports'. That means making money for the owners. I can rant all day about how competition should be first in mind, but that's not what the business was built for.
If competition is based on how much you spend is it really competition? For instance, there's a reason the same teams appear at the top of the Portuguese League every year. Annual payroll Benfica € 62,760,000 Porto € 33,580,000 Lisbon € 26,640,000 Braga € 16,760,000 Famalicao € 7,860,000 Estoril € 6,820,000 Arouca € 6,050,000 Vitoria € 5,900,000 Chaves € 5,820,000 Casa Pia € 4,580,000 Portimonense € 4,570,000 Farense € 4,530,000 Boavista € 4,380,000 Vizela € 4,300,000 Gil Vicente € 4,240,000 Moreirense € 3,690,000 Rio Ave € 3,180,000 Amadora € 3,090,000 I think fans in Europe would love to find a way of making their leagues more competitive. Belgium has even introduced playoffs.
Not my point at all, but the lack of competition for players between MLS clubs certainly is very American and very much in place to increase owner profit.
I firmly believe MLS is headed towards 40, or at least 36. 32 is assured. I also think divisions are coming. Once we hit 32 it won't be long. The Pacific division is the easiest, as these teams don't really make sense anywhere else. Depending on how the rest of expansion shakes out.
Everyone wants a European type llimit but no country other than maybe Russia has the territory that the US and Canada cover. When you look at a map and size of North America, 35-40 teams is not all that many. Excluding the two NY & LA teams and going east to west or even north and south, there are hundreds if not thousands of miles when traveling from one town to the next. I can see the league easily expand into those towns that only have USL clubs. If there are that more teams though, the only change I foresee is more of a regional league schedule for at least half of the games each season. It could happen in the next 5 years.
FWIW: Largest CSA's without an MLS team + # of Big 5 pro teams. 1. Detroit: 5.4 mil. Sans Windsor. Four. 2. Phoenix: 5.1 mil. Four (soon three). --------- 3. Cleveland: 3.7 mil. Three. ---------- 4. San Antonio: 2.8 mil. One. 5. Pittsburgh: 2.7 mil. Three. 6. Sacramento: 2.7 mil. One. 7. Hartford: 2.7 mil. Zero. 8. Indianapolis: 2.7 mil. Two 9. Las Vegas: 2.4 mil. Three (A's counted). 10. Raleigh: 2.4 mil. One. 11. San Juan: 2.4 mil. Zero. 12. Milwaukee: 2.0. Two. I cut it off at 2 mil. Apologies to OKC, Tulsa, NO, Jacksonville, Louisville, etc. MSA's: 1. Phoenix: 5.1 mil. 4/3. 2. Riverside/San Bernadino: 4.7 mil. (LA CSA). Zero. LA has 9. 3. San Francisco/Oakland: 4.6 mil. Two. Three counting the 49ers. 4. Detroit: 4.3 mil. Four. 5. Tampa Bay: 3.3 mil. Three. 6. Baltimore: 2.8 mil. Two. (+DC has 5). 7. San Antonio: 2.7 mil. One. 8. Pittsburgh: 2.4 mil. Three. 9. Sacramento: 2.4. One. 10. Las Vegas: 2.3 mil. Three. 11. Cleveland: 2.2 mil. Three. 12. Indianapolis: 2.1 mil. Two
Only difference is the 49ers are located in Santa Clara maybe only 5-6 miles down Central Expressway from the San Jose Earthquakes. San Francisco is 50-60 miles north so they could field a team. Not sure where they could build a stadium though than on the waterfront.
We've talked about this many times. 40 isn't unreasonable. As much as I always have and still want a single table, that is very difficult in a country the size of the US. It's actually easier in Russia as the vast majority of their population is on the western 3rd of the country with no population centers in the middle or east to speak of. The US is empty in the middle which means a lot of travel. Remember, in England the further away clubs are under 400 miles apart with some of them actual walking distant. Because of this, I have to resign myself to divisions (because pro/rel isn't happening with these huge franchise fees). If you're going to have divisions, then why not maximize the number of teams? The NFL is limited because of talent. There are only so many pro-level quarterbacks, for example, so expanding the league means reducing the quality of it. MLS' talent pool is worldwide and limited by money and quality of the play in general. So, yeah, 40 teams is not unreasonable. Not the typical one to think of, but a few thoughts on it just for the fun of it. That would add significant flight time to almost all teams. Their closest team would be Miami at over 2.5 hours (1000 miles.) Then you have Seattle at 10 hours! That's longer than an NFL game in London for any of the east coast teams. Sure, divisions would reduce this, but still. I couldn't see this happening, but it's an interesting one on the list.
They're building it on Market St and going to host World Cup games in 2026! I mean, that's what the city was claiming 6 months ago.
Yeah, I think the SF mayor said to build a stadium at the mall but 2026 is only 2 years away and they haven’t even begin planning or construction. I’ll believe that when I see it.
They should try to clean up there homeless problem before they build a soccer stadium for A non existent team