Unfortunately xtomx is likely right. Cable cutting has dramatically changed the TV landscape. We will no longer see the large TV deals in the future. I think TV deals will begin to flat line for the most part. I think in the coming years we will see the rise of the streaming sports service. That might help to pick up the slack. I doubt that MLS will be able to double their current payout with the next contract.
The MLS doesn't have to catch the EPL .... or even Ligue 1 for that matter, in salary spending to be a "top league"
I'm noticing a lot of 'NEVERS' in your posts. Just to be clear, you are stating TV Broadcast Deals for MLS will never be $1 billion? Not a billion dollars a year in the US - you are saying a billion $ over the length of a contract in America, Can, Europu, Asia etc right?
We're probably not too far off from that right now, tho. Even so, top 5 by 2030 still seems like a stretch.
Meh, I'd prefer it be the best development league this side of the Atlantic. I'd prefer someday developing talent like the Brasileiro, Campeonato Nacional and Primera Division rather than making claim to best in the Americas on the backs of imports.
At some point, streaming and cord cutting will generate big money too. In fact, individuals I think, will pay more than they do now for the content they want to see. Aside from that, you still pay the same cable or phone company for your internet access so it's not real cord cutting. I think the market will adjust to different methods of buying content.
That's just going to take time. Academies here are still in their infancy. No player who entered a MLS academy at U-14 or a younger age group has yet turned 18.
I was referring to the quality of play. I don't care as much about attendance or excitement. We all know Liga MX is better on the field than MLS.
Very true, but it is also true that interest in MLS is growing, as there is a tipping point at which the size of the nation is quite relevant. But no one would disagree that without much more growth, MLS remains a niche, at best, league.
MLS really, really needs way more than 20 teams at the top flight. This isn't France, which is about the size of Texas, this isn't England or Spain. This is a country right around the size of Europe as a whole (though in fairness UEFA covers way more than just continental Europe). Travel in MLS is brutal, especially compared to every other league in the world. We absolutely need a lot more teams, we need scheduling that prioritizes geographical rivalries, and we need to get the amount of travel down. Drastically. Not to mention, more teams represents more content to televise, more markets, more investment, all the things that MLS needs very badly. There's no particular reason why going past 20 (on this continent, in this market) leads to any sort of diminishing returns and/or benefits. We're still very much at a point where we need expansion, and as present trends continue new MLS teams will either affiliate themselves with a lower-tier team or they'l just create one themselves. It's a perfectly valid way to grow and strengthen the lower tiers.
Growing up I remember MLB having the National and American leagues just play within each other's league this would work but I don't know if people would like it.
I'd still rather see clubs play different opponents as much as possible, and not see the Rapids play, say, FC Dallas 3 times a year. But, if the situation evolves to where the conferences don't play each other in the regular season, then MLS play-offs will need to look more like the Champions League in that you can't be drawn with teams from your country in the early rounds. Certainly, the only inter conference game can't be just the final.
I don't see cutting out interleague play. I'd prefer to see divisions created once the league passes 24 to somewhat reduce longer-distance intraconference play before eliminating all games against any single opponent. Two divisions in a conference pushes that back past 28, and three would allow 30.
At 28, two conference of 14 only means 26 games, so even without increasing the total, that leaves open the option for 8 interleague (or inter-conference) games each season, meaning everyone plays everyone at least every two years. You can even designate two inter conference rivals per team, against whom they will play every year, or one they will play every year home and away, and play the rest of the league every other year. And, of course, they could also expand past 34 league matches (though with playoffs I'm not sure this is that workable, gets to be a very long season).
I assume that MLS will continue to have a 34 game schedule after expanding to 28 teams by continuing to have unbalanced schedules. Perhaps, the league will subdivide into 4 divisions to make scheduling easier.
From a business perspective I understand the value of expanding. As a fan I'm not enthusiastic about it. When a league grows beyond about 20 teams the odds of the team you support winning a title in any given decade get pretty small. As a counter I'd like to see the prestige of the CCL and the Open Cup increased. The first round of the CCL is a joke - MLS teams play their reserves, and their competition sometimes does too. I won't pay money to see those games. It's the same with the US Open Cup. MLS teams play their reserves in the early rounds, which results in barely winning or even losing. Maybe it's different elsewhere, but in the U.S. fans expect to see major league clubs put their best teams on the field in meaningful competitions. If CCL and Open Cup were upgraded to top shelf events, that would help compensate for the infrequency with which most teams would seriously compete for the MLS Cup.