MLS' Club Capacity and why pro/rel won't happen

I underlined five areas that I think are close enough to where MLS clubs already are:

From Riverside-San Bernardino to Los Angeles
From Baltimore to D.C.
From Providence to New England
From Bridgeport to New York City
From Lakeland to Orlando City

In addition, San Diego, Sacramento, Cincinnati, Dayton, Milwaukee, Buffalo, Hamilton, Allentown-Bethlehem, Poughkeepsie, Worcester, Colorado Springs, Harrisburg, and Oxnard are thirteen areas within 120 miles (2 hours at 60 miles per hour, I know there could be traffic) of MLS clubs.

 

---------You could come up with many tiebreakers=I like most goals (as opposed to goal difference), fewest red cards (play fair AND win), most wins (as opposed to a pile of ties)

 

Th

------------
This would be great if we were the only game in town, but we have 4 other long established sports leagues. I think at some point, there are only so many $ to go around. Another spin, I forget how many teams say like London have in all divisions. Using all the math in this thread, how many teams should New York City have and LA ?

 

You can't have a tie-breaker decide a Championship in North American Sports. You'd have to have a playoff match or 4

 

To match the density of, say, the Netherlands, 30 in each.
I agree, we won't ever reach the sort of max capacity of euro nations, btw.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_in_London#Clubs says London has 13 professional clubs in the Top 4 levels and 28 clubs in Levels 5 through 8. Wikipedia says London has a population of 8,673,713 and the USA has a population of 324,106,000. Working with only the Top 4 levels in England, London has 1 club per 667,209 people. With that ratio of clubs to people, USA would have 486 clubs.

 

Providence is actually closer to the Revs than Boston is.

 

-----
So if London has 8.6 million people, LA population per Google is 3.5 million, so LA could have 10-11 teams (?)
I think we would almost have to involve all Southern California and depending on that geographical boundary, you would actually have more people than London. That would be crazy to see that many soccer teams in my area.

 

The Los Angeles radio market, which includes suburbs, has 11,419,500 people ages 6 and up.

 

Major League Top-Flight Sports' Teams
LA - London
Rams - Arsenal
Dodgers - Spurs
Angels - West Ham
Lakers - Crystal Palace
Kings - Middlesex
Ducks - Surrey
Galaxy - Harlequins
LAFC - Saracens

There are 7 minor league soccer clubs in the LA area.
Orange County Blues FC, Los Angeles Misioneros, Southern California Seahorses, Ventura County Fusion, Hollywood United Hitmen, Orange County Blue Star, and FC Santa Clarita.

 

That's a fair point to make.

Arguably we have over 140 top-flight clubs in the US right now, they're just divided between five different sports.

In England it's mostly just soccer. I just had a quick look across English team sports attendances; there are only 11 non-soccer clubs (9 rugby union, 2 rugby league) that get average attendances over 10,000, and none that exceed 20,000.

 

You aren't counting Chelsea as a London team? They certainly would be by U.S. geographic standards.

 

Pretty certain Leicester Tigers is over 20000 average

 

I was looking quickly. I thought I saw 17,000 last season, but may be mistaken.

 

21400 apparently

http://www.leicestertigers.com/news/24706.php

 

Who?

 

There are also internationals which 'Murica doesn't know much about

 

And Fulham too!!!!

 

Fulham aren't in to top-flight but Chelsea doh!

 

Leicester 21,770
Harlequins 19,307
Saracens 17,914
Northampton 15,474
Wasps 15,051
Gloucester 13,885
Bath 13,231
London Irish 11,833
Exeter 11,159
Worcester 9,042
Newcastle 6,472
Sale 6,152

LA attendances across sports must blow away London attendances. The combined attendances of the Dodgers and the Lakers was more or less the same as the the total for the London Premier League clubs.

 

What a stupid remark and completely irrelevant and misleading.

That has nothing at all to do with the fact that the Dodgers play more home games (81) that the Four top Premiership teams in London (Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham, West Ham) combined, does it?

This has nothing to do with the fact that the Lakers play more home games (41) than any two teams combined, does it?

This has nothing to do with the fact that the Dodgers play in a larger stadium than any Premiership team in London, other than Arsenal, does it?
(Edit: West Ham has played 1 Premiership game in the new stadium, so this is technically no longer the case).

Also, this has nothing to do with the fact the Lakers have an arena/stadium (19,500) that is almost the size of the smallest Premiership team stadium (25,456) in London (and plays more than twice as many games), does it?


Dodger Stadium: 56,000 (by the way, they average 46,000 a game. They are at 82% capacity).

Emirates: 60,432. (average 59,944. 99% capacity)
Stamford Bridge: 41,663 (41,500. 99+%)
White Hart Lane: 36,284. (average 35.776. 98.6%)
Upton Park: 35,016 (average 34,910. 99% capacity)
Selhurst Park: 25,456 (average 24,636. 97%)

http://www.worldfootball.net/attendance/eng-premier-league-2015-2016/1/
http://www.espn.com/mlb/attendance

 

Yes it has to do with all of that.

 

So, you are simply wrong.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

If add you add up the total attendances for LA teams they are higher than total attendances for London teams for the reasons you alluded to.

You're welcome!