This is a branch of conversation triggered by this post by @triplet1 This is meant to debate how MLS expands further, how clubs get access to the league, the viability and roles of leagues outside MLS, the future landscape and so on. The idea is to have this discussion without the noise and politics that dog the pro/rel debate. I can see that pro/rel might be seen by some as having an application here and I'm open to discussing it in that specific context. I'd urge people to refrain from the general pros and cons of pro/rel as other threads exist for that.
I'm not sure you can remove pro/rel from the discussion though.. While you can eliminate the concept of an open pyramid, I'm not sure MLS can continue to expand forever and remain as a single league. I could foresee MLS implementing a second division with pro/rel so that it can continue to expand beyond the 30-32 clubs the other US leagues have stopped at.
I could foresee that also, and also could imagine MLS making second-division status more attractive to potential investors by letting one second-division team make the playoffs, so that no one would start the season with no hope at all of winning the title.
Hmmmm. I'm not sure about letting a second division club join the MLS playoffs, I'd be worried about the quality difference between a top D2 club and the top D1 clubs and whether it would be worthwhile. I'd be worried that it would cause D2 teams to overspend on the hopes of making the MLS playoffs and not getting curb stomped. I was thinking more along the lines of what J-League did with the creation of the J-League affiliate program and allow teams to "certify" to join MLS while they are still in the USL/NASL. It would, obviously, have to include expansion fees of some sort (probably smaller than projected $200 million now), but it would allow MLS to expand into smaller markets that aren't necessarily MLS sized, even if those teams never make it into MLS. That's one thing that J-League owners found. While there are markets that can't support a J1 club, there were a lot that could support at J2 club and, as long as they were smart about it, they could field a solid J2 club and get solid J2 numbers even if they never got promoted.
This was my plan for expanding well beyond the current MLS number or the US norm: http://wp.me/p5ioea-BH It's long.
I'm terrified that once MLS caps the league all the strides the lower divisions have made are going to collapse.
I'd suggest that's a good place to start. Should there be an upper limit on the size of MLS, or is a 40 or even 60 team league in the best interests of soccer in the United States? Remember, at this point in its development, much of MLS' revenue is derived locally. The national television and sponsorship money, such as it is, simply doesn't amount to much per team on an annual basis. Rather, financially, the MLS blueprint for success seems to be selling somewhere north of 17,000 tickets a game and controlling a stadium, or, more accurately, the revenues a stadium can generate. (Alternatively, MLS teams can be grafted into ownership organizations that own other professional teams in other sports, the NFL being popular, saving money on overhead to make them viable, but the bigger MLS gets, the fewer opportunities like that will exist. For that reason, I'll focus on soccer only sports organizations). I'll use media markets as a proxy for catchment area, not because of their importance to the national television deal -- again those dollars are modest for MLS -- but because they represent a decent measure for the potential revenue for local sponsorship and media deals IMO. Currently, Columbus is 31, Kansas City 33 and Salt Lake City 34. Places like Cincinnati at 36, Austin at 39 and Las Vegas at 40 have been mentioned as expansion candidates at one time or another. Even Louisville at 49 isn't out of the question. http://www.newsgeneration.com/broadcast-resources/top-100-radio-markets/ I submit if selling about 17,000 tickets and getting a 20,000 seat stadium solution are the benchmarks, there probably are more than 30 markets that could achieve that. Likely 40, and perhaps many more. Today, they are potentially weeded out by net worth requirements and the size of the expansion fee, but the current fee suggests no shortage of takers. Were that to change, USSF could certainly push MLS to expand further. It has already set net worth tests in the past, and it could also provide for a higher license fee -- essentially a windfall profits tax -- from MLS that would take away much of the advantage of MLS spiraling the fees beyond the reach of would be expansion candidates. USSF also bundles its own television deal with MLS, which probably gives MLS television contracts a lift. The point is, if they deem it good for the game for MLS to keep growing, USSF has some carrots and some sticks in its arsenal. So, to me, the conversation should begin with this for MLS: How big is too big?
This is an issue I have with soccer fans. So many of the US fans act like anything over 20-22 teams is too big because, well, rest of the world (England). While most US major leagues naturally top-out at around 30-32 teams, none of them have closed their doors. The NBA will expand to Seattle ASAP and possibly Las Vegas. The NFL might expand to London and/or Las Vegas if a team doesn't move. MLB has recently talked about putting a team back in Montreal and a team in Mexico City. Soccer is different in this regard. It has an entire planet's worth of talent to choose from. It probably won't happen, but you could see a day where 40 teams are in the first division playing in two "leagues". A National and American league if you will. What you won't see is pro/rel. It's totally unnecessary in any context when it comes to soccer in the US. As more people are cutting the cord and major sports leagues start looking at ala carte streaming options, there's really no need to stop expanding. It will all naturally sort itself out as some cities just can't support a major league team.
Is there an upper limit to how big MLS can grow? One of the causes for past "wars" between rival leagues was the dominant league stopping expansion and owners that wanted in starting a rival league to compete and/or force a merger. If MLS never stops expanding, then there isn't a need for potential owners to be locked out to create a rival league. In fact, the point you noted about MLS relying upon local revenue could be seen as justification for never stopping expansion. The more local teams there are, the more local revenue there is. Obviously there are issues with this approach as it means less money per owner from the national sponsors. As MLS grows, it's going to need some way to organize those clubs. The dominance of pro/rel as THE organization model is going to put a lot of pressure on MLS and USSF as they get larger (particularly if they approach 40 clubs), but there are certainly other ways. Splitting into 2 separate D1 leagues ala MLB as mentioned by CrazyJ is one way, adding divisions below the existing conferences ala NFL and setting up a rotation of play between the divisions is another.
Even though you're correct in outlining the dependence on local revenues, the de facto answer is "When national revenues begin to diminish on a per-team basis." That those revenues are small right now doesn't mean MLS isn't trying to grow them, plus MLS remains poor enough that every dollar counts. Plus, given that local revenues likely have a low ceiling for many markets, the only real hope for becoming a stronger, more prominent league is to grow the national media contracts. Granted, the line/curve denoting how these revenues will evolve over time isn't certain. We could reach that point with the candidates for 29-32, or we could see a surge in revenues and slow growth in MLS that suggests it might not be reached until #40. But logic says they'll want to maximize revenues, so the cap on teams is at least tied to, if not eventually dependent upon, the national revenues. The other angle to it that comes to mind for me is the aspect of return on investment for fans and their support. As the league grows and the competition for trophies deepens then it can become very taxing as a fan to continue supporting a team that seemingly has no chance of winning anything. The playoff format helps, as does having secondary trophies for Supporters' Shield, US Open Cup, Conference titles, etc. We don't know yet how bad it can get for certain teams/cities if they evolve into the perennial doormats for the league but the margin for error financially for teams is such that because they are so dependent on local revenues they can ill-afford to struggle at the gate for too long. So any growth must still retain a league format that still endows fans with hope, lest they begin to feel lost in the noise.
I've proposed 64, divided into four 16 team leagues, that generally only play inter-conference fixtures as part of an "Amaricanada" championship competition. I honestly think that between global player production and as-yet-untapped domestic talent pools, the personnel is available, so talent dilution shouldn't be an issue.
64 is a huge threshold. The goal should be 28 and assess marketing, tv, and are there still teams like FC Sac, Cincinnati, etc. drawing 15+ thousand. If there are then go up two and split divisions into sub-conferences as needed. Eventually I think 36 maybe up to 40 could be very viable but it's all going to depend on local, national, and international revenue streams. If MLS becomes a mega feeder league of young Americans and South/Central Americans where are you watching this kid, rumor has it Juventus is looking at him, then growth is very sustainable. People don't like to talk about it but there's a reason all these Argentines are coming up here to play. It's about stability and knowing their paycheck is going to cash. If American clubs snap up these guys that European clubs traditionally do and start producing our own league revenue as a whole goes up. At this point I don't think you can say there's a target number beyond 28. Get there, give it a season or two and see where the underlying dollars lead you.
Oh, I agree absolutely. Expansion should be based on what's available at the time. I just see 64 as a workable endgame should we get that far.
That being said, Garber said today that 28 was it.. Prepare for the demands for pro/rel to increase and this time it will be from potential owners that want in.
As discussed on the pro/rel thread, do we take Garber at face value? EDIT: My instinct on Garber says "no" btw.
Yes, no, maybe? His wording this time is different this time than before. On previous occasions he either said they would pause at XX, or that they would get to XX and re-evaluate further expansion.. Him just saying they would stop seems like a significant change from previous statements, which may add more credence to this statement vs. other statements.
That's true but 28 seems an odd place to put a hard stop, especially as other US leagues are at the 30-32 team range and future expansion in those hasn't been completely ruled out.
64 and a replica of the NCAA tournament would be amazing and absolutely get people talking. I think a smaller scale like 40 also works really well. As long as the league continues it's upward revenue trend stopping at 28 seems counter productive. We'll see. Like every other politician Garber may have misspoke or feel that way today but change his mind tomorrow.
The other sports are also more popular than MLS and the change in NHL is a recent thing and NBA is still waffling as it waits to see what Seattle does...
This is a statement I wrote in an MLS thread: MLS is using expansion to beef up the lower divisions. Whether it's on purpose or not doesn't really matter. Investors are pumping money into Div II and the teams are better supported because MLS is dangling an expansion spot like a carrot. To keep interest up when MLS caps the league at 28, 30, 32 whatever don't be surprised if they start talking about that they are looking into possibly implementing pro/rel. It puts a fire under underperforming teams and keeps investors interested in the lower divisions. How long they can keep that up is probably short and they will eventually have to either implement it or just say its not feasible and hope the investors don't put out support. I don't believe that pro/rel will happen but I think it might be mentioned before eventually being dismissed.
I agree. But that said, I'm not sure MLS should look like the other major professional leagues in the United States any more than it should resemble the typical foreign pyramid. To me, major college athletics might present a better organizational alternative, where the USSF is akin to the NCAA and serves as an umbrella for a number of leagues to operate on roughly the same level (albeit with a de facto "pecking order", just as exists now with the various college conferences.) That's not too far off from what was envisioned in the 1920s, with the National Challenge Cup (now US Open Cup) serving as the national championship tournament.
This is true. And any hard stop to MLS could realistically result in some demand for a rival league. With a clear vision and solid diligence regarding incoming ownership, I think there's easily room for another contender to emerge if the path into MLS is closed.
The threshold question is given the struggles of the lower divisions historically, is U.S. soccer better off just letting MLS be the main organizational vehicle for professional soccer and let it get as big as it can get, or should seek some kind of cap to foster some more stable rival leagues?