Lol, no. As it turns out, the least expensive team in MLS (St. Louis) is about even with the 85th team in the European big 5 (Las Palmas). Valencia is the middle of the pack of the 96 clubs in the big 5, and their payroll is less than Miami but more than Toronto. The upper half of MLS would slot in the 50-80 range. And this list doesn't include smaller and broker leagues like Scotland, Portugal, and the Netherlands, to say nothing of your bizarre examples like Armenia. MLS has already surpassed the vast majority of Europe in team budgets, and by valuation the situation is even worse for old, broke, and dying Europe -- 9 of the 30 most valuable teams on the planet are in MLS. But yes, absolutely, Kazakhstan -- great point!
It's a damn site better than it was ten years ago. And the top leagues in Europe are a moving target. Top 20 teams have had a 50% increase in revenue in the last ten years, which nearly all goes on salaries. MLS revenue is roughly at where La Liga was in 2010 and most of that was shared between 2 or 3 teams.
No, Dinamo Jalal-Abad would wipe the floor with any MLS team! Seriously, there is far less of a gap between the best and the worst teams in MLS when compared to other leagues. MLS teams can't compete with the teams who are regulars in UEFA CL/Europa Cup, but they'd more than hold their own against the mid and lower teams in all but the Big 5 leagues. They aren't better than Ajax, PSV or Feyenoord, but would the really have a problem with Go Ahead Eagles?
Friends would be easily be the best 1990s sitcom cast at 5 a side lunar head tennis (RIP Chandler). I'm just saying random crap authoritatively like @crookeddy
It's hard to win MLS cup when you're not allowed into MLS because you're a tiny club that plays in a 6000 seat stadium. So no, they would never win anything, because they're irrelevant by definition, like 90% of non-MLS clubs on the planet.
Everyone is allowed into MLS when enough cash is paid. FC Dallas literally played in a 6000 seat stadium lol
Welp, I was wrong. Dragon stadium is actually 11k capacity it's just that Dallas could rarely fill it. EDIT: nope, not wrong. They expanded the stadium since the Burn left.
Their average at Dragon Stadium that season was just under 8,000. It was meant to be a temporary move during the construction of Pizza Hut park but following fan complaints they moved back to the Cotton Bowl. Also in 2003, the US and allies invaded Iraq, Yugoslavia still existed, Concorde was still flying commercially, MySpace and Tesla were founded and Paxten Aaronson was born. I don't see what any of those have to do with how MLS teams would perform in European Leagues in 2024.
I am responding to an MLS nut (and we're all MLS nuts to a degree here, but there are levels to this game) who said a club wouldn't be let in with a 6,000 people stadium. If Bill Gates wanted into MLS but the only condition was a small stadium, he'd be in. But that's silly. If there are minimum requirements you just expand.
Dallas weren't let in with a 6,000 people stadium. They were "let in" with a 68,252 people stadium. They played at appears to have held just under 8,000, for one season while their brand new stadium was being developed.
4,109 in Seattle for the open cup semi. Wikipedia lists capacity as 4,500 so its unclear if this even sold out.
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL Kid, step away from the keyboard before you hurt yourself.
Very good weekend numbers for MLS so far. Only one missing from Saturday is RSL vs. New England. St. Louis hosts the Galaxy Sunday afternoon. New York Red Bulls (vs. Philadelphia) 19,951 Charlotte (vs. Atlanta) 30,011 Orlando (vs. Nashville) 22,853 Toronto (vs. DC United) 28,489 Columbus (vs. New York City) 20,618 Cincinnati (vs. Montreal) 25,513 Chicago (vs. Miami) 55,385 Austin (vs. Vancouver) 20,738 Dallas (vs. Colorado) 19,096 Real Salt Lake (vs. New England) Unknown Los Angeles FC (vs. Houston) 22,176 Portland (vs. Seattle) 25,218 San Jose (vs. Minnesota) 15,122 St. Louis (vs. Los Angeles Galaxy) Sunday afternoon WEEKEND TOTAL (SO FAR): 305,170 AVERAGE: 25,430 Toss in the Philadelphia (vs. Columbus) figure from Midweek: 18,513 TOTAL: 323,683 AVERAGE: 24,899
Final numbers from the weekend: Real Salt Lake (vs. New England) 20,475 St. Louis (vs. Los Angeles Galaxy) 22,423 AUGUST 31-SEPTEMBER 1 TOTAL: 348,068 AVERAGE: 24,862 ADDING MIDWEEK GAME AT CHESTER: 366,581 AVERAGE (15 MATCHES): 24,439
Gotta say your crowds are impressive and your stadiums look amazing, especially the newer ones... With the infrastructure already in place, twill be interesting to see the influence the WC has on Football in the USA in general and on the MLS in particular..
MLS has already surpassed the vast majority of Europe in team budgets, and by valuation the situation is even worse for old, broke, and dying Europe -- 9 of the 30 most valuable teams on the planet are in MLS. thats an amazing stat... and its TRUE !! forbes.com/lists/soccer-valuations/
The big difference of course is revenue. Although MLS revenue overall is close to Ligue Un at $2 billion year the revenue per club is a lot lower than the big European teams. But it shows how stable financially MLS is. One of the things I've noticed is how pro-rel advocates conveniently ignore just how much pro-rel depends on philanthropy and generous bankruptcy protection schemes. For instance, the former owner of Derby County said he sunk $250 million of his own money into the club before handing it on with no expectation of a return. Derby were subsequently promoted from League One. Ipswich's former owner wrote off the club's debts before handing it over to the current owners. The new owners pumped money in without expectation of a return and hit the jackpot with a double promotion. I think the majority of professional clubs in England have benefited from a combination of bankruptcy protection, debt forgiveness and generous donations just to stay alive, including Crystal Palace in 1999 and 2010. Most are the original club in name only. We have that level of philanthropy in US sport but it's all at college or high school level. I really don't see many examples of wealthy locals pumping money into local minor league teams just to keep the name alive.
@Paul Berry (and anyone interested) US pro sports used to have a lot of that. Local Rich Guy Saves Team happened frequently in the 20s, 30s, and 40s. Some combination of a change of mentality, plus the dollars needed getting a bit too big for philanthropy, ended that.