lots of options, lots can be changed, but during the Cincy interviews Dom name dropped Sacramento, Detroit, San Diego, Las Vegas and San Antonio in particular. We also know that MLS is moving away from the "time table" thing. When you're ready, you're ready. And despite the "stop at 28" ultimatum, I don't think that's gonna happen, this is just more of a guess as to who the next two are coming in? So does this mean Phoenix is not the most appealing market for them? Do they know something about San Diego that others do not? It seems that is just about as dead and gridlocked as St Louis. Las Vegas is always going to be in the discussion because all it takes to get that going is a group of drunk rich people on a weekend in vegas to get a crazy idea and attempt to run with it. Especially with the ridiculous success of the Golden Knights, and the Raiders coming to town next year, Vegas is all a sudden a sports town. However........the Las Vegas local government has been surprisingly stingy and has killed city's prospects before (which is perplexing because in the "near downtown" there is ample land to make it happen). Sacramento.........MLS likes, they like the downtown SSS location, but they need deeper pockets. Can they find them?? San Antonio? Is it a gun to Austin's head in the upcoming days? Or is it truly a viable option? I say both. I would be extremely, extremely surprised if Austin's city council bit on Precourt's woefully inadequate stadium plan (funding, parking, fanbase, you name it). I think its also a signal that Garber is losing faith in Austin and will see San Antonio as his safe plan B. It is. It is no worse a stadium location than McKalla is, the stadium and parking are already in place, it can take on more parking, it just makes all around more sense. Detroit still insists it can get Ford Field to work. If it was a god awful idea last time, it will be a god awful idea this time. Unless they have a backup plan, I just don't see it. Who else will be there? Will Carolina get a hero.......or is MLS happy with covering their bases in the south? Will St Louis get more money together and try again? Will Tampa get consideration? Currently, I as things stand, I narrow it down to Sacramento and Vegas, conference alignment be damned (teams can easily switch conferences seamlessly, I don't think MLS is bothered by that at all). If Columbus's Austin move tanks, and all other markets are stagnant, San Antonio becomes the safe landing cushion. Given the way this last round went, I think it is very possible it will shake out that way. My vote becomes Sacramento and San Antonio if Austin is scuttled. if Sac finds money and Vegas city council approves: Sac and Vegas if Sacramento cant find more money; Vegas, San Antonio if Vegas city council remains butt hurt; Sacramento, San Antonio if Sac cant find money and Vegas is still butt hurt: San Antonio and Phoenix
I think if North Carolina FC gets their stadium plan approved than they jump up on the list. At this point we now know that it all comes down to stadium subsidies.
I think MLS 3.0 want to be a truly national league, not just a regional one. At this point they can afford to be strategic. I think they want to be sure they have major markets and no big empty spaces on the map. Ultimately a bid comes down to $$$. But I think MLS might preference certain areas for their long term strategic purposes (which will help the owners valuation). MLS is a business not a democracy. The owners will make decisions based on their long term interests. I think MLS really really wants Detroit despite the stadium issue. Detroit helps fill the map in the Great Lakes area and brings in the #14 metro (and several billionaires). Notice that the Don has not shut the door on Ford Field modifications. And given Atlanta...how can he? Phoenix is the number #11 market. It has a billionaire who owns a French Ligue 1 team. And it has plans for a privately funded SSS. They check a lot of boxes. I think Sacramento has earned a bid. But they are short a billionaire. I was surprised that The Don mentioned San Diego. Reading the local paper's website, it seems that the political maneuverings have taken a lot of wind out of the Soccer City sails, and San Diego State U. has the upper hand for the Mission Valley property. Still, San Diego is a larger metro area than Sac (#17 to #27). I think the Don pines for a NFL-less, NBA-less, NHL-less San Diego. The Austin stadium proposal is weak (I lived near that area.) So the Columbus Crew (now that Cincinnati is in) goes to San Diego if the Soccer City proposal somehow passes or to Sac if they get another billionaire on-board before the San Diego vote. Of course... I could be wrong. I'm not saying it's right or good or fair. It's not. But like Michael Corleone says in the Godfather (before he kills people), "It's not personal; it's business."
I believe The Don that 28 is end game for MLS. 1.) I believe that the limit helps to increase the team's valuation. That's where the money is, not the cash flow. They claim that they lose money on operations. But you buy a team for $150 million. And in 10 years it is worth $500 million. If your city doesn't make the top #28, that's OK, I'll sell my team for 5 times what I paid. 2.) The MLS's stated goal is to become a top 10 league in the world. Generally division 1 leagues have about 20 teams (although there are a few exceptions). If MLS can become a top 10 league, oh boy, the team valuations really expand and money making opportunities also expand. I think their time horizon is not the next 2 or 3 years, but 20 years out.
MLS isn’t stopping at 28.... Realistically, approximately 32-38 maybe even 40 is realistic and MLS just play east and west conference and meet in the Open Cup and MLS Cup. No, I’m not a promotion/relegation fanatic... please don’t paint me as one. But that said, once the league has stabilized in that 30+ team range with West and East conferences for a LONG time; where every team is pulling in 20k fans, every team has an academy, reserve team, unique stadium, and signing good players, mainly homegrown players; then, and only when that happens, which will be past the Garber era, promotion/relegation will become a serious debate of there being a MLS1 and MLS2 of 16-20 teams in each division. That said, that’s the trajectory the league is headed if anyone is watching.
San Diego has been mentioned in pretty much every MLS press conference around expansion from the moment the league began so not sure how much it signals, but one of the attacks on SoccerCity is they aren't "guaranteed" a team, so the more Garber talks us up the better it will be. Also curious which local press you read? The Union-Tribune's sports section was literally split down the middle on this issue. Half the writers were openly cheerleading for the plan while the other half were spinning crazy conspiracy theories against it, was kind of weird. To make it worse our local "soccer writer" Mark Zeigler was on the conspiracy side claiming MLS is nothing more than a pyramid scheme. The best source for unbiased writing on the stadium, both before the Chargers left and now, has been Scott Lewis in the "Voice of San Diego".
Not sure, one would think theyd be pretty high on the list. When Garber name-drops though, he does it for a reason and is very calculating when he does it. Vegas made the list, Phoenix didnt. That said, if there's anything we've learned from last round, things change......and quickly. Phoenix looks like itd be a prime candidate if Sac and Detroit continue to slip up, Vegas remains stingy at local government, Austin locks up Columbus, etc.
I wonder if the ultimate goal is 48 team league with two divisions and promotion/relegation? It seems like MLS could be a great implementation of this because with single entity, parity should be higher, and they could prevent a situation where there are 4-6 teams in NY, Chicago, and LA and a smattering from elsewhere. I think as long as they are able to find a way to rationally share any league wide funds (adidas, TV, etc), this could be really good for the league. MLS would benefit from high density team presence because of the nearly limitless talent pool, and having more regional rivalries.
You believe the Don. Hahahahahaha! No way they stop at 28. 32 at a min. Likely 34 or 36 in my view. Maybe even 38. He always says they will pause for a while at number X (to push candidate cities), then they do not. Simple math. We are at 26 now (counting Miami, and you know they want that market). Agree that MLS would like to target markets that: a) Are large, or b) lacking in major league teams, or c) growing rapidly, or d) have a natural rival in the league, or e) proven fan base support, and MUST have: 1) committed deep pocketed owners & 2) an approved stadium plan at a decent location. The last two for certain, as many of the top 5 as possible. There are 4 markets that are substantially larger than other competitors: Miami, Detroit/Windsor, San Diego/Tijuana, and Phoenix. MLS wants those markets. All are growing fast save Detroit. That puts us at 28 without resolving PSV/Austin/Columbus. No way is 28 the final number. So let's take a look at our markets, here is how I rank the likelihood/timeline of a team. 25 = Miami. Miami is both the most populous market (by CSA) in USA/Can without a team. And the most glamorous. With the most famous owner. With the most sex appeal. And the CSA is growing at +10.73% from 2010 to 2017. The only negatives are that the stadium deal still faces some legal hurdles and a referendum on a no bid sale of a parcel. And that Miami has NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL teams already & is not a rabid sports town. But even if the stadium hits a snag, MLS & Becks won't give up. They have a natural rival in Orlando & check 3 of 5 boxes. They are IN. And I think they come in with Nashville in 2020/2021. 26. Columbus. Columbus is the fastest growing city in the midwest. CSA growing at +7.50% and the city itself at +9.29% since 2010. They have a natural rival in Cincy starting in 2019. They have only an NHL team. Though there is OSU football. They have 11k season tickets pledged, over 350 local/national sponsors (10 at the million dollar to $10 million level), and a prime possible stadium location located downtown (really) in an entertainment district that already has hockey & minor league baseball stadia. Plus they have a place to play all ready while it gets built. And a team. The only boxes not checked are size & local ownership. MLS can fix the latter by allowing them to buy in and other than the four big fish mentioned earlier, Columbus is comparable in population to other bidders and has a 1 million MSA 50 minutes away (Dayton). It would be dumb to walk away from the market. And there is the lawsuit which may make it impossible to walk away, even if MLS wants to. Columbus stays with new DT stadium on the way by 2021/22. Regardless of what happens in Austin. ------------ That essentially keeps the status quo. I think Miami gets done & Columbus stays. Along with Cincy & Nashville, that brings the east to 14 teams and the west stays at 12. ---------------- 27. Austin/Precourt (Sac/SA fallbacks) There has to be a resolution of the Precourt issue. ACC votes today on a term sheet for the McKalla stadiym plan. Council action could face a referendum if opposition groups (led by local USL owner) gather signatures. Austin is the fastest growing MSA among all cities in the USA/Can with over 2 million people at +23.28% since 2010. There are 40 cities at 2 million or more. Austin has no major pro sports teams (not counting UT). They have decent local rivals in MLS already in FCD & Houston and a potential one on the horizon in San Antonio. They check 3 of 4 boxes & would make a good MLS city on paper. Now or later. Though 2 USL teams have flopped there. I think Precourt & council will come to an agreement, somehow. If it goes to a referendum there could be trouble as PSV has very little cash (they are financing the stadium & refuse to pay any appreciable rent or infrastructure upgrades) to sweeten the pot, apparently. If they are just being cheap they can resolve it. If they do not have it = trouble. If Austin falls apart (and Columbus staying in), I would think MLS would grant PSV a Beckham type deal. A franchise with time to make it work in Austin, or somewhere else. Or sell his stake if he cannot make it work. I think he finds a way in Austin, runs home to Sac, or sells to SA, in that order of likelihood. ------------------- That leaves one spot open out. I think MLS would want, badly, for it to be a big fish (Det, SD, Phx) with Cincy, Nashville, & Austin (or Sac/SA) being 3 of the last 4 in (with Miami) and deciding to throw Columbus a lifeline. Whichever big city makes it to the starting line first gets in. A western one (Phx/SD) would be preferable. I would rank them: 28a. San Diego. No NFL, NBA, or NHL. Better weather than Phoenix with less sports competition. Fan support could be an issue. If Soccer City passes, they are at the front. 28b. Phoenix. I think absent Soccer City Phoenix will have the best stadium plan. Question is, do we want outdoor soccer here and are we ready for retractable/indoor grass? Will it work? 28c. Detroit. Least attractive stadium plan with the most pro sports competition. Deep pockets. Good sports town. If none of those are ready, I think SA/SAC are the nextias they are closest to being over the line now. Deep pockets is all Sac is missing (and size), size and the prosoect of 4 Texas teams may hurt SA but they have the best, most proven ownership. Prediction: Soccer City fails. MLS wants to keep up pressure on Det for SSS. They do not want Texas to get another team so soon. And to see if Austin works. Phoenix convinces them soccer can work with fancy stadium. If so, Vegas is a factor later. 28. = Phoenix. --------------- 29/30. Detroit & SA 31/32. SD/Sac 33/34. STL/Tampa Then we pause, for reals. Char, Ral/Dur, Indy, Vegas on deck if someone stumbles. Possibly Chicago #2, SF, Baltimore, or Cleveland too. If there arexstill more interested parties, we think hard on MLS2nd div with pro/rel. Merge with existing teams in lower divisions.
I'm confused by your numbering. Cincinnati and Nashville are #23 & #24? Because you're subtracting Columbus, and then adding in Columbus and PSV/Austin as #26 & #27?
MLS right now has 23 teams playing. If Columbus moves to Austin or not that organization is still part of the 23 teams. #24 - Cincinnati 2019 #25 - Nashville 2020 #26 - Miami 2020? Carry on.
Could someone supply the link that has Don Garber saying that 28 is the end of expansion? I do not believe that he would ever limit himself in any conversation, he's too clever for that.
Yep. At present, Cincy and Nashville are in. Future unclear for Austin & Columbus (and Miami). How those dominos fall has an impact on subsequent expansion decisions. PSV could move to Austin & Columbus gets nada. Austin could fall through & PSV sells to local OH ownership. Both cities could get teams. Austin could fall through, Crew sold to locals, and Precourt gets a Beckham like deal where he is given time to make Austin work (or even choose another locale: Sac? SA?). How do all those permutations impact San Antonio? Sacramento? Phoenix? Vegas? Detroit? Indy? Ditto with Beckham in Miami? If it falls through is Tampa more likely? San Diego? NC? Point being, I do not count Columbus as being IN beyond this year. Miami is not a done deal yet. And neither is Austin. How all that shakes out will impact future expansion decisions. And it will likely shake out soon (90 days). It will happen before future decisions. So if you want to play who gets 27 & 28, you have to first play who gets 25 & 26. 23 current - Columbus + Cincy + Nashville = 24. I think Miami passes the no bid referendum in November. They are nearly over the finish line at that point. 25. The Columbus/Austin web could end up resolved before then, or drag on into next season. ACC hasn't green lit anything and a referendum is possible. And that lawsuit is still going in Columbus. If it isn't dismissed in Sept, trial starts in March. But I think both cities end up with teams somehow. Columbus never leaves & Austin comes in in 2020/21/22. That makes 26 & 27. Which leaves only 28. My money is on Miami, Columbus, & Austin all being wrapped by the end of the year (unless Austin goes to referendum). MLS takes their time with 28. Phoenix has the best proposal left after Soccer City fails. 28 = Phoenix.
#28 came from a pre-All Star game interview on Aug 2, 2017 when The Don was asked about expansion. Garber on expansion, refers to 'the four last expansion teams.' So 28 is a hard final number, apparently.— Andrew Das (@AndrewDasNYT) August 2, 2017 also I quickly found this: NBC Sports PRO SOCCER TALK Garber: MLS in Miami close, league cap is 28 teams By Nicholas Mendola Aug 2, 2017, 8:10 PM EDT https://soccer.nbcsports.com/2017/08/02/garber-mls-in-miami-close-league-cap-is-28-teams/ *inside the article it posts an update: UPDATE: Garber said on the FS1 broadcast that the cap was “28 in my tenure” as commish in order to focus on nurturing the markets who have just birthed franchises. Let me ask the opposite question: Does anyone have a quote where The Don says that he sees MLS growing to 30 or 32 or more? My guess is that now that MLS 2.0 has assured the survival of the league, investors in MLS 3.0 are now going to be looking at what maximizes their investments. Scarcity of teams and prestige of the league will enhance team valuations in the long term. That's where the big money is: not selling tickets and t-shirts.
I still don't see Don saying 28 and thats it, even in that quoted-requoted-quote. His job is to take it to the 28 number, and when they get to 28 they move on. So moving on from arguing about if Don is a liar or not (he is just the face man for the MLS owners, lets be real here); Miami is already in, when they start in 2020 with Nashville. The referendum is about building at the golf course, they still have the approved land in downtown. They are planning on starting in Hardrock or Marlins stadium (most likely Hard Rock) in 2020 regardless of any vote or stadium build.
Has much thought been given to an MLS -2 with say 28 or 32 teams and MLS with 28 to 32 teams... Then in time have P & R, so you remain in MLS its just what division you play in. To keep it competitive the Belgium model of P & R could be used. It works by the bottom three sides in Div 1 playing the top 3 sides in Div 2 in a home and away series with the top 3 going to Div 1. Very often the bottom teams remain in Div 1, as the Div 2 sides are still not ready. Could work well in
My recollection on this was Miami made 24. The 2017 expansion race would bring in 25&26. Two more soon after (27 & 28). Then consolidation. 28 was never a hard cap, but there was no immediate desire to go beyond 28. I'd also say that they probably didn't expect that none of the deferred candidates from 2017 would be viable in 2018. So, as for Garber and his commissionership... He will probably wait until Miami enters the league, which should also mark the end of the Columbus/Austin snafu. He'll retire with a 26 or 27 team league in 2021.
Huh? How can Columbus be a negative for the total? If Columbus moves to Austin there are still 23 teams in the league. Cincinnati and Nashville make 25. Miami would be 26. Unless you somehow think that the Columbus/Austin team shuts down if the move/non-move isn't resolved. Do you have any evidence that will happen?
Yeesh, did you just look at the numbers & not read anything? The team would not shut down, but CLB/Austin are not the only options. Precourt already threatened ACC with going to Sacramento if they did not approve his deal. If MLS is dead set on getting out of Columbus (plenty of evidence there), and the Austin vote fails (it looked dicey last week), then what does PSV do? He still owns....something. But has no place to play. He said he won't sell repeatedly. Columbus is not viable as no business folk will deal with him there. The lease is up in 2023 I think. The most obvious move is another city. MLS makes up a rule for the situation. He joins the Sac ownership group. Or he agrees to sell to the next expansion ownership group. Or MLS forces him to sell (like Chivas) & opens up a spot. Plenty of possibilities outside a simple binary choice. Explained for the third time. Neither Columbus nor Austin are guaranteed teams. Nor Miami. All three could fail to have teams. Comprende?
I guess I did not read your posts closely enough. Until the PSV team disappears I'm going to count it but you can count the teams however you want.
Ummm..............Miami is listed on the MLS site............they're a done deal. Where they are going to play remains to be seen.
Why is Ford Field such an awful idea? Sure, a SSS in a good location would be preferable but Ford Field is a fairly modern NFL stadium in a downtown location. Atlanta and Seattle has shown that NFL stadiums can work in MLS. If an Detroit MLS team get sub 15K crowds, then yes Ford Field would be awful. With 25K filling up the lower stands it would be ok and if they could get 40-45K crowds on a regular basis it would be a great stadium. I have no idea about what MLS maximum number of teams will be but I am sure that before the league stops expanding Detroit and Phoenix will be included. They are the two biggest markets that do not have a team at the moment.