I'm not asking what city is the best candidate or anything of that nature. But if you could put a team in any US or Canadian city...which one? IIRC, Sam's Army started in Buffalo, NY. A Buffalo MLS team (Buffalo Yanks or some such) would be a good nod to the recent history of the game in the country. They may not be able to use "Yanks" but obviously "Patriots" is out as well. Buffalo FC or whatever other Eurocentric nickname would be stupid.
"But if you could put a team [MLS] in any US or Canadian city...which one?" Six months ago, I would have said "Chicago," but now that the Fire do not suck quite as much any more, I will go with Tampa/St. Pete or San Antonio. Milwaukee or Detroit would be good options.
All of those would be good picks. Idaho-Iowa and points north have almost nothing in terms of teams. Minnesota is the lone exception. Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot of people in that part of the country. Edmonton or Calgary? Then again, Canada has their own league now.
I'm OK with Milwaukee or Detroit. Not Tampa. They had a shot already. Also, there's already two Florida teams. Ditto San Antonio -- Texas already has three teams. If you're going to put an MLS team "wherever," I'd rather go to an area that's not being served already.
Just because I hate the asymetry of the 3 clubs in Canada, I think I'd want a fourth there. But we would probably have to build a new city to host it. Ottawa? I mean, 1.4 metro population makes it bigger than, uhm, SLC. Probably no chance of that. Probably more chance of the Canadian owners deciding to toss in with the CPL and make bank selling their MLS franchises. What is it now, $250m? If we're talking about an idea I would like to see. I do love the setting of the Pittsburgh Riverhounds stadium. don't know if you could add 15,000 seats, though, stuck between a ridge and the river, and I have no idea if that place floods a lot. Also, realistically, it's two additions, as you can't sit on 31 clubs. So, in the west: add both Phoenix and Las Vegas. Move 2 of Minn, SKC or St. Louis to the east. Minn would provide Chicago with a legitimate regional (black and blue division) rival, really should not separate SKC and StL, but it could be a move with a guarantee of an every year match up, rotating home field. A problem with that, if they decide to move to 34, and esp 36, that moves both right back to the west. If we need to have one for each conference. Phoenix and Detroit. If it's just one, whoever is the most ready goes first.
Okay, having now checked into it, the expansion fee for San Diego is reported at $500m. and RSL sells for $600m, though that comes with a stadium, setup and NWSL team in place. But, as has been noted, $500m tops the price for Newcastle. I'm actually kind of surprised at least one of them isn't selling the franchise to Detroit or Phoenix or Las Vegas or whereever, just keeping the team and moving it to the CPL. True, they would take a revenue hit, but $500 million is about 10 years of revenue, and there is no indication that they would lose their ticket buying fans by playing Canadian clubs every week. If all three moved, it would raise all boats in that league (tv deal would increase, level of play would increase). I like that MLS has Canadian and US clubs, but I can't help but think that a franchise fee is way, way over priced right now, and the smart move in their situation (where someone wants it for a different city, country) would be to sell.
The player contracts are with MLS, not the individual teams. Plsu those three clubs aren't going to instantly raise the TV money that CPL gets either. There's also no guarantee that any of those groups would want to have a team in the CPL either.
So are all the branding trademarks. Moving a team out of MLS means you keep the infrastructure and the staff, that's essentially it. All the name, branding, players, etc. stay with MLS.
I can't imagine that TFC would recover from losing their Italians. Montreal would want to keep their bell, though. Would MLS keep their branding? I seem to remember it was a deal with Columbus, the city, keeping the Crew name, logo, etc, but didn't that have to be negotiated. In any case, i bet MLS would be willing to let the name Toronto Football Club go for free. That said, it does reduce their overall potential TV audience, so it might be a non-starter of an idea. And the quality of the clubs would clearly change, at least at first. Just saying, $500 million has to be tempting, given that the TFC average annual revenue is $60m and they reportedly operate at a loss. And, I think the TV revenue for the CPL would certainly be increased with high visibility clubs joining. Wouldn't be close to what they get from Apple TV, which is pretty good, something like $10m a year per club, right? they would not be making as much, and the value of an MLS franchise does keep increasing. Okay, stupid idea. I'm back to just Phoenix.
If I pick the cities then these would be it: NY (NY Cosmos) Phoenix (Phoenix Rising) Louisville (Louisville City FC)- name change. No more FCs or United Send TFC, Vancouver and Montreal to CPL. While we are at it expand MLS to 32 teams that way we can have 4 Conferences and move the season to 38 games. You play everyone one time and your own Conference twice. #31 Tampa Bay Rowdies #32 New Mexico United (need name change. Tired of the United and FCs) Ohio with 2 teams Texas with 3 teams NY with 3 teams Florida with 3 teams California with 4 teams
If it's purely the market than Phoenix makes the most sense. It's the largest metro area without a MLS team, and the market should continue to grow going forwards. It's supported the USL Rising pretty well and has good attendance for friendlies and Gold Cup matches. The downsides are the heat, and that it's a pretty saturated market that hasn't always supported it's teams. No offense to any Zonies in here, the same criticism can be labeled at my city too. But if I look at the biggest metro areas without a team Phoenix stands out.
I thought they did away with that years ago. I distinctly remember "Player Signs With MLS, Is Immediately Allocated To Team." Nowadays, it's all "Team Signs Player".
The contracts are still with MLS. They just changed the language because the teams are now doing the scouting, negotiating, etc. in a way the league did in the early years. But the checks (direct deposits) players get come from MLS LLC, not LA Galaxy LLC or Colorado Rapids LLC or whatever.
Here's an idea: Nebraska Outlaws SC. What does that part of the country have for pro sports besides Denver and KC? Not much, right? There's an instant rivalry with the Rapids and Sporting KC. The population of Omaha is somewhere around 477k. Don't they already have a USL team? Why would it not work?
Why Denver? Is there any sort of existing rivalry between Omaha and Denver? I have not heard of that. They are 550 miles apart. Omaha is just across the river from Iowa. Omaha is much closer to the Twin Cities than Denver (over 200 miles closer) Omaha is closer to St. Louis than Denver (120 miles closer). Omaha is closer to Chicago than Denver (over 100 miles closer)
Yeah, there's nothing really between Omaha and Denver other than all the people who came from Nebraska to the "big city" instead of Omaha. Unless we're talking about Peyton Manning's OMAHA! that is.
States don’t have teams, markets do. There are 5 teams on the Acela corridor, which I’m going to assert without checking facts (lol) is a lot smaller than Texas. California I know for a fact is smaller and it has 4 teams. This isn’t the US senate, folks.
Because while the metro Omaha area does have 1 milloin people, it's the 55th largest metro area in the US. If they're looking to push the needle up on viewership, you don't go for number 55 when 10 Phoenix, 14 Detroit, 17 Tampa, 24 San Anoonio, 27 Sacramento, 28 Pittsburg and 29 Vegas all have at least 2.3x (and up to 5x) the population, potentially expanding viewership. Beyond that, there is no evidence that Nebraskans are yearning tragically for a bit o' footie. A study, which I actually find it hard to believe that was conducted, on the interest in the sport gauged by per capita internet searches ranks Nebraska as 22nd. 22nd is not bad, but it is behind Conn (10), Nevada (11) and Arizona (14). However, as tickets and viewers are not really ranked on a per capita basis, the Nebraska numbers look really bad when un-percapitaed. The actual numbers indicated one fifth the interested population of Arizona, and about one third of Conn, and 42 percent of the interest from Nevada. Paraphrasing Boromir: Nebraska has no MLS team. Nebraska needs no MLS team.
Loved your post, especially your creative spelling. I'm totally using that word when I can think of a reason. Given the information you dug up and MLS's desire to play more winter games, it seems like Phoenix and Tampa would be good options.