MLS Expansion: New timeline released for inaugural season of newest clubs MLS announced a new timeline for the inaugural seasons of three of the four expansion clubs in light of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Austin FC, which was announced back in January 2019 and made significant progress before the onset of the pandemic, will remain on schedule for a 2021 launch. The other three clubs, all announced in the second half of 2019, will each have their expansion seasons rescheduled by one year. The updated schedule follows below: Austin FC: 2021 inaugural season Charlotte: 2022 inaugural season St. Louis: 2023 inaugural season Sacramento: 2023 inaugural season The decision was made by MLS Commissioner Don Garber, in conjunction with the league’s expansion committee. “We have always taken a thoughtful and strategic approach to our expansion planning and have delivered successful launches for every new club,” said MLS Commissioner Don Garber in a league statement. “It is important for each club to take the necessary time to launch their inaugural MLS seasons the way their fans and communities deserve. With the extra year to make up for what has been a challenging 2020, these teams will be well-positioned for their debuts and for long-term success.”
I'm honestly not sure how I feel about this decision. For certain, no one really knows what the future holds in terms of the timeline regarding COVID-19. No one has any idea when the return to normalcy for sports will happen. Which also means no one really knows how things are going to work out in terms of finances, TV contracts, revenue... it's a gigantic mess. So I can certainly understand why you wouldn't want to bring new franchises into the mix at a time like this. Bad enough to have 26 teams dealing with the mess. That said, I don't understand why Austin stays on schedule for next year, but Charlotte doesn't. They were both scheduled for next year. If we're OK with Austin starting in the midst of all this, Charlotte should be prepared for it as well. And the other two teams should be able to stay on schedule as well. And if we're NOT OK with Charlotte starting next year, then why the hell are we expecting Austin to do it? They were both planning on 2021 launches. Either it's a good idea to launch, or it's not. Also, 2022 is far enough into the future that I would have thought pushing St. Louis and Sacramento off by one year would be a decision that could be made later, after we had a better idea of what was happening. I'm just confused by the thought process.
I would assume Austin's stadium will be ready by next year. Can't let it just sit there and collect dust for 12 months. Charlotte doesn't have that "problem". That said, good luck to Nashville and Miami and Austin and any other team trying to build a fanbase right now. Not exactly ideal. You don't want all your potential fans to get into the habit of just watching games on tv and not going to them.
I don't think it's a case of how bad the virus is in a particular city, it's more a case of trying to do business in the current climate. Austin's FO is a transplant from Columbus at least in part, plus they have a TD and a manager so they're ready to roll. Charlotte has to create a brand new FO and doesn't have a head coach yet. I'm not sure how their only player, Sergio Ruiz, will feel about this.
It's probably an excuse to delay so they'll be more prepared come the time. It gives them both a chance to start life in MLS in their new stadiums, neither of which will be ready until 2023.
Also, you have to consider Nashville & Miami have essentially had Prom Night ruined. At least Nashville got a home opener, Lockhart 2.0 has not had a grand opening yet, and might not. This way, they kind of get to be the Belle of the Ball next year like they should have been this year. Of course, I'm not sure NEXT year is not problematic, the way we are going.
Interested in seeing how this impacts the conferences moving forward. Obviously it is all subject to change due to COVID-19 and other factors, but this would allow for more regional play if they wanted to split into 3 conferences of 9 teams for next season (if the virus is worse in some regions than others). If they stick with just 2 conferences then Nashville could stay East in 2021 with Austin going into the West, but 2022 would probably force an Eastern team to the West at least temporarily.
I mean, I get it, but the Austin thing is a little weird. Okay, their stadium will be ready (probably) but Charlotte’s is ready now. Another season with unbalanced conferences seems more in line with the norm than an exception at this point, so while it sucks, it’s also NBD, too.
Possible- I thought Charlotte was kind of rushed as a 2021 team anyway, but was under the impression it was their ownership that rushed it. Obviously a pandemic will change a lot of folx minds, I guess if that was the case it would indicate the league collaborated with the teams and took their feedback into account instead of just saying, “here’s the new plan”. I’m guessing we’ll find out sooner or later, assuming there isn’t already reporting on the decision making process out there.
My hunch is sponsors and dollars... Austin was all set, right? not so much on the other three. I know STL has not announced anything as yet.
3 of 9 is interesting. Quick swing at it: West: LAG, LAFC, SJ, Sea, Port, Van, RSL, COL, Minny (Sac). Central/South: FCD, Hou, Austin, ATL, Mia, Orl, Nash, SKC, Chi. (Cha, STL) Midwest/East: NYRB, NYFC, NE, Phi, TFC, Mon, CLB, Cincy, DC. (Chi moves here). Feel free to flip DC/Chicago.
I don't think Austin is "set," but hey have announced a few sponsors, including some big ones (jersey, training center). No stadium sponsor yet, but I assume they're negotiating with people.
Don't get why they can't announce Sac Town for next season? They have a team, administration, they have a venue, and they have a fan base. If MLS is worried about the TV revenue split I'm sure they could make a deal, and it's not like that deal us worth so much that it would affect each team by 7 figures! And yes, the SRFC roster is USL guys right now but at least it's something. Think the fans and players (for which there'd at least be some turnover) wouldn't enjoy playing MLS matches? If anything it would be a rather quintessential expansion season. I'm sure everyone has their reasons but this seems silly to not take them next season.
Probably because they were originally slated to come into MLS in 2022? This. Plus the on-field track record of the teams coming up from a lower league are also.....NOT good. FCC - arguably still a USL team playing in an MLS world MNU - Took 3 years of on-field futility before figuring it out ORL - On-field have been a consistent mediocre mess MTL - yo-yo results on field. Good season, then bad season VAN - Not good. Rudderless on field ship POR - struggled initially before figuring it out SEA - the exception
Sacramento to MLS in 2021 is a non-starter this late in the year. That said, if the delay is just about the stadium, then I don't see a problem with keeping the 2022 start date. Although Papa Murphy's Park doesn't meet MLS standards for a permanent stadium, it is more than acceptable as a temporary venue if the Railyards stadium is delayed.
...except that the FO has stated, in short words and simple phrases, that MLS games would NOT be played at CalExpo. I actually saw and heard Ben Gumpert say this in 2018, and I'll take him at his word. Looking back on it now, this maneuver does not surprise. SRFC has been delaying and delaying the start of construction of the new stadium, and with them now pretty much outside the 19-22 month construction window, a one-year delay of entry into MLS seems to me to be a good idea.
I don't know. After watching some of these games on TV, I think people will be itching to experience the game another way.