I think it's an important change from player development. I dunno what it means for the Toronto and New York's of the league between January and April yet. I wonder if they will require renos to the pitches.
I'm skeptical, at best, of MLS's switch to a more traditional calendar. It's a business and I'm sure they've done the risk/reward analysis properly, but I can't help but worry about what this means in the northern reaches. 6 weeks without home matches? Plastic pitches? Winter mini tournaments in warmer climates? I'm willing to pass judgment once we've seen it in action. Also worth noting: I'm not a huge MLS follower. I absolutely love going down to Columbus matches and have been since their first season at the Shoe, but wouldn't say I'm emotionally invested. It will be a much bigger adjustment to those who are, obviously.
I think it makes MLS's player development problems worse, because this is shortening the season. Playoffs in May, no games in June or July, plus a 2-month winter break means that the regular season will take up a month less of the calendar. So, if you're a 19-year-old and your team doesn't make a deep playoff run, that means you're not playing matches for 5 months out of the year. It's good for integrating with the high-end European transfer windows, but I think it's actively harmful domestically.
Closer to 3 months without home matches if you consider the full winter break. They've been moving towards eliminating the summer regular season already with the addition of Leagues Cup - in 2024, Chicago didn't play a home game between July 13 and August 31. That was enough for me to cancel my season tickets, because June-August is basically the only time that games in that stadium are worth going to. The official calendar change just solidifies that trend.
Here in KC, multiple fans had amputations after getting frostbite at a Chiefs playoff game in January against Miami a couple years ago. Sporting has undersoil heating but that doesn't do much for fans. They need to built enough flexibility into the schedule to move games if the weather dips below a certain temp.
Genuinely think it will be fine but I also think they should go with the a clausura/apertura model. (I actually think all of football should go with that model, tbh)
Partly it's because by the time 2027 rolls around, most (if not all) of the MLS will have their own soccer/football specific stadium. So there will be no worries about certain clubs having their schedule clash with NFL/MLB/CFB teams. As far as the schedule during the winter, I can see them scheduling games in the south and west during that time so that there will be very little (if any) games in cold weather climates. Then again we do have climate change issues and it's not that unusual to have a game in say, Miami and the gametime temperature is around 39 F/3.9 C during January because of a cold snap.
Back to WC'26, I heard from a fairly reputable pod source something pretty remarkable about San Marino... UEFA's WC qualifying formula has a bit of a problem. Apparently you can qualify (for playoffs?) not just from the straight-up WC qualies, but also from your results in Nations League. So San Marino, who apparently did well in the NL, can only qualify if they manage to lose by huge amount in their WC qualifier(s) this week. Hmm... this is like open-book match-fixing?! If I got that right, then I suspect UEFA will be looking to close that loophole somehow if they can.
Most already do, but 7 will not at the start of the 2027-28 season - Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, New England, San Diego, Seattle, and Vancouver. Of those, only Chicago has concrete plans to leave their current situation. Houston, D.C., Orlando, Toronto, and Dallas also groundshare with football teams, but they're the primary tenants so it matters less.
Nobody has mentioned Minnesota United on this topic in the thread yet. Winter matches (where temps routinely are below 32F/0C in Oct-April) will royally suck there if this change is made. I lived there nearly 40 years and speak from experience. Extremely cold matchdays (say sub 10F) could potentially move indoors to US Bank Stadium where the Vikings play, but I'd guess that the team would prefer to train and play in cold weather so they have a competitive advantage for home matches.
The last day of below-freezing temps in St. Paul this winter/spring was April 8 and the first was October 24. So if the regular season schedule runs from August - April, with roughly December 15 - February 15 off, you're only looking at about half the season where game temperatures are potentially freezing. What's the big deal with a little frostbite between friends? Like, it was 19 degrees (-7 C) there on Monday, and the idea is to play an entire month past that.
I wonder if this change will force Mansueto to add a retractable roof or something on the new Fire stadium
Did you know that the MLS have 5 of the top 25 most valuable clubs in the world? That shit blew my mind.
With Arthur owning the Falcons and Atlanta United, the latter will not be getting a soccer-specific stadium any time soon if at all.
Yeah, all of those teams do. They also share their stadiums with football teams whose seasons overlap with MLS, but the MLS team is the primary tenant, so they get priority when it comes to scheduling conflicts.
What football team? DC United shares the stadium with the Washington Spirits (women’s soccer). The Commanders play at Northwest Stadium.
Mu understanding is that owning your own stadium pretty much puts you amongst the most valuable clubs, but I haven't looked into it closely to know if what I’ve been told passes muster.
It's interesting because the Benz was built knowing United would play their along with the Falcons. But if you've ever been, depending on your seat, you immediately realize American football was the architect's primary concern----corner kicks and other play down near the sidelines on each end can be hard to see with the widened footy pitch.
8 of the top 30 here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/justinteitelbaum/2025/05/30/the-worlds-most-valuable-soccer-teams-2025/ Basically European market is tapped out and there's always the threat of relegation, US clubs have growth potential and the freedom to do what they want to pursue that growth. Forbes excluded revenue from related mixed-use real estate projects. Mark Cuban, when he sold the Mavs, said sports ownership is all about real estate now. Build a stadium to attract people, whether it is the primary tenant, other teams, or concerts, and get them to spend money at the adjacent shops, restaurants and hotels in the entertainment district that the team owner controls. Goes beyond MLS, KC Current built a $117m stadium and Detroit's USL club is building a $150m stadium.
You don’t even have to go there in person to see how poorly they accommodated a soccer pitch. Even The main TV camera position can’t see the player taking a corner. Isn’t ATL one of the WC venues? And wasn’t there some discussion about them removing part of the stands to fix that issue? Or am I thinking of another place like Sofi?
It’s a cartel system and you can’t get relegated. You have to buy into the league versus what happens elsewhere. It makes a lot of sense.