I think you're right because he also said that of the 3 who've committed to 2020 or 2021, 2 are MLS teams and 1 is a USL team.
The west coast team for 2020 is puzzling. LAFC doesn't seem on board for 2020. So maybe this is Lyon's team? Bay Area? LAFC joins in 2021? 2020: Louisville & Bay Area 2021: Los Angeles (12 teams) 2022: Nashville & Hartford (14 teams)
If will be Sacramento Republic for 2020, while not officially an MLS team yet, they are the odds on favorite to get the next one. Paulson statement was "One is MLS, One will be MLS, One is USL." Paulsen was clear that the team for 2021 would be a MLS club from the Southeast and as he put it " a really, really significant big name." I don't think anyone fits that description except Arthur Blank and Atlanta United/Atlanta Falcons I am not sure about Hartford. Do they own a USL team? Are they building a large enough "Soccer Specific Stadium?
Still odd LAFC is "in the works". Do they wait until 2022? 2020: Louisville & Sacramento 2021: Atlanta 2022: Los Angeles & Nashville
That's why I said the 2021 Southeast team really couldn't be anyone other than ATL. Nashville and Miami don't even have MLS teams yet. Three teams in two years is okay but pushing it; five team in three years is a very bad idea. Lyon is a red herring. Just because the owner has voiced interest doesn't mean there's been any movement. Not to mention the interest seems recent - at least all the MLS&USL possibilities have been mentioned before, so they're not starting from square 1. Even if NWSL was open to Lyon (which seems DOA based on the Barca issue) they would still need to secure a stadium, and no way that happens between now and next season unless they go to some smaller city. The Sac mention is interesting though... I didn't hear Paulson's interview, so the "one will be MLS" is very telling and does make it sound like Sac. I did voice the possibility that some other team was beating LAFC to NWSL... Now, it could open the door for the 2020 West coast team being LAFC and the 2021 Southeast team being the "will be MLS" team, i.e. Miami or Nashville, but I still think it's ATLUTD because I don't think Paulson would have described Miami (and definitely not Nashville) as "a really, really significant big name".
Side note: buried in the Twitter thread of all of Paulson's spoilers, he mentioned that (assuming two 2020 expansion teams) that existing teams will only be allowed to protect TWO allocated players. Potentially huge hits to CHI, POR, UTA, and NC.
Not as big for North Carolina as both Jessica McDonald and McCall Zerboni are much closer to retirement. And Crystal Dunn has shown a willingness to leave NWSL if she's not a team she wants to be on. That still leaves three Federation Players - Dahlkemper, Mewis, and Labbé. With Rowland coming off being the winning goalkeeper in an NWSL final, I could see them leaving Labbé exposed. The real questions is whether they protect Dunn and leave Dahlkemper or Mewis exposed. I suspect they might. I think Mewis has the longer career upside, but that Dahlkemper is probably more important to the team in the short term given the wealth of midfield talent currently on the team. Hard to judge which way Johnson and Riley would go. EDIT: Another complication is that while Dunn does have collegiate ties to Raleigh-Durham, her husband works for Portland, and I wouldn't be shocked to see an eventual deal made between those two teams. Another thing is that the chosen 18 for Tokyo will miss a huge chunk of the 2020 season, and then with the three year gap, I could see a bunch of the Federation Players willing to take the European money that will likely be on offer, so getting too worked up about protecting a player for 2020 when you're not going to see them much*, when you possibly can't afford to keep them in 2021-22 at all, isn't worth the effort. *The 4 USA WWC players on the Courage haven't played a home league game since April 17 - 4 days into the season. That's over four months missing in a season that is less than six months long. Even if you count the WICC, you're still looking at four months: Apr 17 - Aug 15. Next summer could me much of the same as we know that USSF, based on the last seven years, is going to schedule a ton of friendlies leading up to the Olympics without regard to the needs of the WUSA or even the FIFA International Calendar. Especially since the Federation (with the complicity of the USWNTPA) is wasting the first five months of player development in the short period between the WWC and Olympics.
A question is, when the time comes, which players will be allocated? I'd see Portland protecting Horan and Heath. That would leave Sonnett and Franch unprotected, but is Sonnett going to be allocated? Franch? Other teams that currently have NT players would have similar questions. And, how many allocated players would the two new teams be allowed to take? There probably would be a limit. Let's say it's two each. Then, the question would be which four unprotected allocated players would be most likely to be taken? And, would unprotected allocated players opt to play in Europe rather than play for the teams that take them? And, what kind of trading would go on that would affect the drafting of unprotected allocated players? I could see things getting really complicated.
I think things certainly will get complicated with allocation... but I doubt there will be an exodus to Europe. I know the current CBA isn't worth much with the lawsuit pending, but IIRC there's a stipulation that only so many WNT players can be abroad at any given time, and considering that most WNT players do seem invested in NWSL, I doubt that would change.
For 2021, I'd take that bet. Frankly the only chance to keep more than a few players would the the NWSL putting a "Beckham Rule" or "Larry Bird Rule" in place that allows individual teams to break the bank for specific players. We all know Marta is making substantially more than the $40k (or whatever) NWSL maximum, but when teams like Lyon and Man City start offering the big USWNT stars $200k and more, and we're looking at roughly two years until the USWNT plays its next meaningful match (qualifiers for WWC 2023), the need to stick around the NWSL to collect the USSF $100k subsidy begins to pale. Sure. Morgan and Rapinoe would possibly be damaging some huge domestic marketing deals, and will likely stay - but the other U.S. stars would be relative soccer gods in Europe, and their sponsorship opportunities would likely be far, far higher than they are stateside.
Here is another tidbit I picked up on out of some of his comments, that makes me feel that Atlanta United will in fact be the team for 2021. It is this statement, “I want a team that challenges Portland Thorns for attendance." I don't know of anybody in the Southeast or anywhere else, for that matter, that actually could do it, other then Atlanta United.
I addressed that later in my post. Some people do seem hyped on Miami, but that group has been relatively silent. IIRC they're still having stadium issues, and they certainly haven't touted STH presale numbers. To which, if someone suggests Miami could be on par with Atlanta, I also say: LOL
Sacramento, Louisville & Atlanta: Merritt Paulson spoke on Wednesday night about three groups committed to joining the #NWSL over the next two years. A source says they are Sacramento Republic, Louisville City FC and Atlanta United FC, with Sac/L'ville being the most advanced discussions.https://t.co/BVoZafiG72— Jeff Kassouf (@JeffKassouf) August 23, 2019
So Sacramento is in for 2020. Louisville only starts in 2020 if a team needs to relocate(SkyBlue), otherwise they're in for 2021 with Atlanta. Los Angeles on hold.
Well I did figure out the 3 teams. Is there some kind of prize. So you have to wonder that if Louisville does come in 2020, will they try to get another team to come in along with Atlanta United? That way they can keep it even for scheduling purposes. You have to think the league is trying to work out something so that Sky Blue ends up in Louisville.
From someone with knowledge: #ATLUTD is not in discussions with #NWSL about a possible expansion franchise.— Doug Roberson (@DougRobersonAJC) August 23, 2019
...wtf??? That's a massive reach. No way the league is trying to ship Sky Blue out after the massive turnaround Sky Blue has seen in just the past few months. That line in the updated article sounds more like WMG than an informed statement.
That's a question? Not only has the team gotten much better on-field, but off-field they've fixed their relationship with their SG, massively increased their attendance, made a game at RBA possible and seem well on their way to securing a different stadium for next year, and generally have increased their visibility and PR in their region. How is that not a turnaround?
We'll see if the drain of players continues or stops. That's the turnaround I'm interested in. Having two draft picks sign overseas instead of Sky Blue - and not because of the on-field situation, but because of the facilities/training/housing/transportation issues.
Fair enough, but that happened more than a few months ago, and they still had Reddy at the helm back then too, not to mention that people were unsure if Sky Blue's offseason commitments to improve housing & transportation would actually materialize (they did). I was referring to mostly recent developments. It certainly is worth seeing if the upswing continues - so my point was I find it hard to believe that Sky Blue gets cut off just as they're starting to see real improvements in every area of the club.