News: Garber: Next round of MLS expansion "likely happening in 2020"

Yeah...we know. That was announced ages ago.

 

True...

But the tidbit out of that was The Don himself making a statement that the goal for 2017 is both Atlanta and Minnesota.

 

Did he call them both "United?"

 

I like his quote at the end.

“As we go across the country, every one of these events seems to outdeliver the previous one,” Garber said. “We had one in Atlanta with thousands of people, we had one in Orlando with thousands of people.“I sit with my group and I say, ‘This is unbelievable. I can’t believe that this is happening in America.’”

Amen, Don Garber. Amen.

Mentions several potential markets. No mention of Miami.

...Oh wait. Here it is:

"I'm tired on my own of saying how we're making progress [in Miami], but we are," he said. "They've purchased the land, but we've got work that needs to happen to ensure that they have the right ownership structure so that they'll be successful. And we have the ability to require that.'

I'm guessing Miami is eventually getting in. Eventually.

 

Dirty Don Garber. He made these announcements only to distract from the fact that golden-boys LA Galaxy aren't going to be punished for De Jong's horror tackle on Nagbe.






Just kidding. Hopefully thread isn't derailed.

 

He said pretty much the same thing about "stopping at 24" and "at 20" before that, and thinking about managing expansion beyond that on some 10-20 year timeline, right?

I'm beginning to see a pattern here.

 

i agree with sacramento for 2020- that will happen- but i think #26, also in 2020, will be a city located for the eastern conference, probably st louis who are starting- with MLS pushing and pulling the strings- to get ready for a serious play

MLS will not keep moving franchises from conference to conference, so SA will have to wait for 2022 for the possibility of being #27-28

 

the money is just too good to pass up- think 32 by 2030- and by then the franchise fees will be heading for $200 mill IMO

 

It's an interesting question. We see a strong demand for franchises but we don't see an increase in price. The current owners seem to be putting a lot of value in expanding the base. Perhaps they see a limited upside in the value of franchises over the near future so expanding sideways is what's available.

Edit: Of course it would help if I read the article.

 

And since I'm reading the (ESPN) article

I found this very telling. It encapsulates the difference in approaches between MLS and the NASL. In MLS's mind, their philosophy isn't that they needed to work collectively when the league starting out but then each team will go their own way as the league develops, but rather that the value added of the league is their knowledge about what it takes to make a franchise successful and that being involved in a franchise's operations is what they do.

 

That's the most depressing thing I've read on the Revs stadium situation in years. I guess it can't even be called a "situation" if hope is totally nonexistent.

They might as well build a 20K stadium in Foxboro and model it on SKC's, which is far from downtown, adjacent to a mall and a much larger venue for another sport, but is all focused internally and for that reason it works.

The new Revs stadium in Foxboro would itself be 30-40 years old before anything in Boston would be remotely ready, anyway.

 

If Minnesota and Atlanta paid $110 million I bet #25 and #26 will either at least $120 million or more. MLS may say $175 million in four years.

 

They're likely going to decide to give CR7 an expansion/ownership discount when he signs with MLS.

 

Highly doubt that.

 

Cristiano Ronaldo isn't the breakout figure that Beckham was. Americans who didn't know soccer knew Becks. There are more people here who know the sport than eight or nine years ago, but Ronaldo signing would still just be about a soccer player coming here. Yes, CR's a better player compared to others of his age, but that wasn't what brought the crowds.

 

I agree. But I thought Blank paid $70m and Minn United $75m

 

I have the same question. Same with Austin. Seems like there's a lot of talk going on that hasn't been publicized, or it could just be stuff being said to try to get other competing cities to step up their bids perhaps?

 

"Garber explained that part of the league’s expansion strategy was to fill in the holes in the map where there were large markets without teams, specifically mentioning the dearth of teams in the Midwest and Southeast as contributing factors for the inclusion of Atlanta United FC and the Minnesota franchise."

While I wouldn't say this is a complete shift -- MLS certainly played a role in cultivating owners in specific markets before -- the idea of filling in "holes in the map" via expansion is typically a sign of a mature, stable major U.S. professional league. That's the best news MLS could possibly ask for.

I think there's no question MLS will hit at least 30 teams.

Book it.

 

It's never been a secret that MLS will get to 28 and perhaps as many as 32 teams. All major leagues in this country have at least 30 teams. The country is just too large geographically. This also means that in terms of scheduling the 2 table (East/West) structure is not going anywhere and it may perhaps even be split further into divisions. The only question is how long the league is willing to wait to expand to 28+ teams.

MLB= 30 teams
NFL=32 teams
NBA=30 teams
NHL=30 teams

 

MLS could just stick with two conferences, and ditch inter conference play. This would keep the schedule at 34 games, cut down on travel, and promote regional rivalries. What would suck is that east and west teams wouldn't play one another, thus depriving fans of being able to see star players. Though that would make the All Star game have a potentially stronger appeal then it currently does.