MLS Expansion: You choose the city

Kryptonite · Aug 20, 2025

mschofield said: ↑

I agree with you that Sacramento got hosed, but I don't think that hose is close to turning off. I got the sense from the last round of wow, Sacramento was really, really close but... that they're done.
I also think Cleveland would be tough with the Haslem's now commited to Columbus. I think a new Cleveland ownership group would end up fighting the Browns ownership group, and i don't think that tilts towards MLS.
Detroit and Phoenix make the most sense as the next announcements. I do kind of hope they do 2 at a time, maybe topping out at 32, but not more than 36.
36, btw, would probably kill the call for promotion and relegatoin, as the US/Can would have the equivalent of 2 full top tier leagues, and with that the same number of academies.
Click to expand...

The only path forward I see with Cleveland is if the Haslams sell the Crew to a local owner (Dr. Pete Edwards can't afford it) and they start their own Cleveland team that plays in the Brook Park stadium.

No way does another group start a Cleveland team, the way MLS likes things with the NFL owner owning the MLS team in that same city. Haslam Sports Group would just screw the MLS team over on rent.

newtex · Aug 20, 2025

Kryptonite said: ↑

The only path forward I see with Cleveland is if the Haslams sell the Crew to a local owner (Dr. Pete Edwards can't afford it) and they start their own Cleveland team that plays in the Brook Park stadium.

No way does another group start a Cleveland team, the way MLS likes things with the NFL owner owning the MLS team in that same city. Haslam Sports Group would just screw the MLS team over on rent.
Click to expand...

Lots of cities have MLS teams owned by someone other than the local NFL owner. The vast majority of them, in fact.

New England, Atlanta, and Charlotte are owed by NFL owners. That's it.

The Seahawks do not own the Sounders despite sharing a stadium. The Hunts, who own the KC Chiefs, own FC Dallas not the Dallas Cowboys. The Wilfs own the Minnesota Vikings and Orlando SC but not Minnesota United. Stan Kroenke owns a bunch of the Denver sports teams including the Rapids but not the Broncos. He owns the LA Rams.

Cincinnati FC's owner has no connection to the Bengals. The Tennessee Titans do not own Nashville SC. The Houston Texans do not own the Dynamo. And so on and so on.

Kryptonite · Aug 20, 2025

newtex said: ↑

Lots of cities have MLS teams owned by someone other than the local NFL owner. The vast majority of them, in fact.

New England, Atlanta, and Charlotte are owed by NFL owners. That's it.

The Seahawks do not own the Sounders despite sharing a stadium. The Hunts, who own the KC Chiefs, own FC Dallas not the Dallas Cowboys. The Wilfs own the Minnesota Vikings and Orlando SC but not Minnesota United. Stan Kroenke owns a bunch of the Denver sports teams including the Rapids but not the Broncos. He owns the LA Rams.

Cincinnati FC's owner has no connection to the Bengals. The Tennessee Titans do not own Nashville SC. The Houston Texans do not own the Dynamo. And so on and so on.
Click to expand...

I was probably focused those three teams so much haha. Everything there just seems to stack up so nice and neat. It's the same *local* group in charge of both. It just seems so...orderly, even if it is the exception.

It seems weird that a new group could come in to Cleveland when there's already a potential/hypothetical group there for this hypothetical situation.

mschofield · Aug 21, 2025

I think it's different to invade Haslem's NFL territory without their full blessing. The Haslems already own an MLS side just down the road, and didn't they once want to put one in Cleveland? Also, given the rate at which MLS franchise fees have gone up, wouldn't they want to move theirs to Cleveland, leaving the $500 to $900 million new franchise fee to the new guys? I could see this getting all kinds of messy (not Messi).

Kryptonite · Sep 5, 2025

mschofield said: ↑

I think it's different to invade Haslem's NFL territory without their full blessing. The Haslems already own an MLS side just down the road, and didn't they once want to put one in Cleveland? Also, given the rate at which MLS franchise fees have gone up, wouldn't they want to move theirs to Cleveland, leaving the $500 to $900 million new franchise fee to the new guys? I could see this getting all kinds of messy (not Messi).
Click to expand...

They can't move the Crew. Ohio's "Modell Law" states that the owner of any pro team which receives public funding has to give notice and allow someone else a chance to buy. This is what saved the team previously.
https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-9.67

The fun part is what's happening in Cleveland now. They want to move the Browns to what's basically a suburb (it may be for all I know or care) but at one point, they ran afoul of this same law.

Obviously, most of the fans don't care a team moves from (say) Chicago to Elk Grove, but the city government definitely does when it comes to taxes.

superdave · Sep 18, 2025

They could rename it the Anti Steve Miller Law…you can’t ooh-oooh Lord, take the money and run.

TrueCrew · Nov 7, 2025

mschofield said: ↑

I agree with you that Sacramento got hosed, but I don't think that hose is close to turning off. I got the sense from the last round of wow, Sacramento was really, really close but... that they're done.
I also think Cleveland would be tough with the Haslem's now commited to Columbus. I think a new Cleveland ownership group would end up fighting the Browns ownership group, and i don't think that tilts towards MLS.
Detroit and Phoenix make the most sense as the next announcements. I do kind of hope they do 2 at a time, maybe topping out at 32, but not more than 36.
36, btw, would probably kill the call for promotion and relegatoin, as the US/Can would have the equivalent of 2 full top tier leagues, and with that the same number of academies.
Click to expand...

In a Cleveland scenario, the Haslams would get the CLE team and a majority interest in the Crew sold to local owners. Crew are 30% local already.

TrueCrew · Nov 7, 2025

Kryptonite said: ↑

They can't move the Crew. Ohio's "Modell Law" states that the owner of any pro team which receives public funding has to give notice and allow someone else a chance to buy. This is what saved the team previously.
https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-9.67

The fun part is what's happening in Cleveland now. They want to move the Browns to what's basically a suburb (it may be for all I know or care) but at one point, they ran afoul of this same law.

Obviously, most of the fans don't care a team moves from (say) Chicago to Elk Grove, but the city government definitely does when it comes to taxes.
Click to expand...

The Ohio legislature amended the Modell law so it does not apply to ANY move away from a taxpayer funded facility, but only out of state moves.

So, they could, for instance, move the Crew to Cleveland now.

tallguy · Nov 13, 2025

I think that Detroit & Phoenix make the most sense as the next expansion team candidates. Beyond that, I'd look at high growth areas like Tampa/St. Pete, Las Vegas, Baltimore/Annapolis, San Antonio, Indianapolis or Richmond/Virginia Beach as being the next group of top tier candidates. Finally, why not consider Rochester (which is located on the Erie Canal between Buffalo & Syracuse) out of sentiment and tradition - which, of course, is not going to happen. MLS could also consider putting a second team in Chicago or D.C. As with most things in professional sports these days, it's all going to come down to who can plump down the Benjamins to buy an expansion team and build a soccer specific stadium.

Kryptonite · Nov 17, 2025

tallguy said: ↑

I think that Detroit & Phoenix make the most sense as the next expansion team candidates. Beyond that, I'd look at high growth areas like Tampa/St. Pete, Las Vegas, Baltimore/Annapolis, San Antonio, Indianapolis or Richmond/Virginia Beach as being the next group of top tier candidates. Finally, why not consider Rochester (which is located on the Erie Canal between Buffalo & Syracuse) out of sentiment and tradition - which, of course, is not going to happen. MLS could also consider putting a second team in Chicago or D.C. As with most things in professional sports these days, it's all going to come down to who can plump down the Benjamins to buy an expansion team and build a soccer specific stadium.
Click to expand...

Speaking of Chicago, they were originally planned as a 1996 expansion team along with two teams in the NYC market. Obviously the Fire were delayed until 1998 and the two NYC-area teams were just one until NYC FC came along.

Possible 1996:
LA, San Jose, Colorado, KC, Dallas, Chicago
Columbus, DC, New England, MetroStars, NYC 2, Tampa

If it was just five teams per conference, then which ones? It's just a random guess, but given how Tampa shut down after just a small handful of seasons, they might be the logical guess.

Oh and the then-MetroStars were originally owned MetroMedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metromedia

Lucho305 · Nov 25, 2025

Add Tampa Bay, get a PNW rivalry going on down here in the South East ‍(State of Florida rivalry)