As long as there is a checkbook, there’s a way. In all seriousness, I see a need to ensure that all the clubs catch up to this MLS 3.0 season of life, which I think we can accurately define MLS 1.0 as the start to DP / David Beckham / expansion to 30 teams age, and MLS 3.0 post Messi / Apple TV / Leagues Cup / Next Pro etc. So, there is a reason to slow expansion to some degree. At the same time, there are too many good markets on the table and it would not be wise to build out the national footprint. We just have to figure out, what does this building out mean?
The "Soccer DON" talked about the buildout of MLS Next Pro. I think this will be their new expansion revenue stream. They want to see more Cleveland's and Core Carolina's come into the MLS family as MLS Next Pro.
I honestly don’t think they will stop at 32. Looking back, the 1994 World Cup gave Alan Rothenberg the idea to start up MLS. The 2026 tournament will have an even be a bigger impact on potential owners wanting to get into the league and invest in the sport. If that is the case, a country this size can easily expand beyond 32 teams.
----- I am still not clear on the concept of independent teams in the D-3 Next Pro. Are the expansion fees that much so that becomes their next revenue stream ? Or are they just going after markets before USL does? Are they playing hard ball? Or is there something bigger going on here? MLS-1 and MLS-3 become big, USL-C is in between and either gets boxed in or becomes a future acquisition target....(Merger or purchase) and suddenly comes MLS-2 and suddenly MLS has a monopoly on the first 3 levels of professional soccer in this country. If they try to buy USL or merge, do you think there would be legal/anti-trust issues, even if its a friendly merger?
Who are these "good markets" on the table? And who are their prospective owners who can afford to shell out over a billion dollars in startup costs? Because outside of Phoenix and Detroit.... I'm struggling to find any.... Maybe a case can be made for Tampa.... There just aren't any "must have, can't miss" markets out there. Plus MLS already has a national footprint.
In all seriousness, it’s just pedantic when posters post this dumb comment, who’s the owner? Who was the owner for teams 11-30? Throughout the history of this forum, there have been trolls who make this argument against an MLS expansion team. They made it for Atlanta. Miami. Etc. You know, some of the best clubs in the league right now. And it is trolling because what we know, there’s not necessarily a shortage of potential owners, and there’s not necessarily been a shortage of these potential owners being interested in purchasing their own MLS team. In other words, this point does not need to be quantified. Because, of course, we all know that it takes a potential owner to be the key ingredient to get a team over the finish line. And, again, it’s just a pedantic argument made by trolls. That said, are there any “good” markets left? Give me a break. The hubris of some people. Heck, there are probably 20-30 potentially “good” markets left….of course, if they had the right ownership group. Not only Phoenix and Detroit. But what about Las Vegas and Indianapolis? Louisville and Sacramento? 6 great markets right there. Moving on, you still have Tampa Bay, Jacksonville, Cleveland, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, upstate NY, Birmingham, New Orleans, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Milwaukee, El Paso, Albuquerque, San Francisco, and maybe another team in the Northeast/New England area. There’s still the mountain west, which could surprise some people. Other markets in California. Other markets in Texas. Other markets in the South. Oh, and there’s even some of the bigger markets, such as, Chicago, Dallas, etc. that might be able to work an extra team too. Simply put, it’s not a lack of potential “good” markets left that prevents MLS expansion. That’s not the issue. Rather, the only argument to pause or slow down expansion is that we have reached a point where we don’t need to expand for expansion sake anymore, and we do need to help some teams catch up with MLS 3.0. That’s it. It’s not a potential owner nor lack of good markets issue.
You mean all of the markets that don't move the TV needle? All of the markets that don't have Major League teams currently? Those markets? There are NO billionaires out there that are going to pluck down over Billion dollars in startup costs to put a MLS team in Syracuse, Rochester, Cleveland, Greenville, Memphis, Louisville, New Orleans, Omaha, Oklahoma City, Hartford, Jacksonville, etc. Las Vegas? The owner of the Knights flat out said the costs of a MLS team wasn't worth it!!! Seriously.... the next team will have an expansion fee OVER $500M just to get into the club! Then there would still need a stadium to possibly be built, team facility, academy, etc...
You have no way to prove this. I guarantee 10 years ago, you would have said, there’s no way we’ll have an owner put down the mega millions to bring a team to San Diego or Charlotte. I remember posters saying even no way that MLS should expand to Atlanta or Miami. Or, that we would have teams in smaller markets like Nashville, Utah, and Cincinnati. I guarantee that there were posters who would have said no way we would have landed Messi. In other words, history does not agree with you.
Just doing a rough search, if we based it solely on TV markets, there are 10 markets left that are bigger than the smallest market in MLS (Cincinnati). Phoenix, Detroit, Cleveland, Sacramento, Raleigh, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, San Antonio, Hartford/New Haven. That does not include Las Vegas and Milwaukee, which probably should be lumped in there. And I’m not even mentioning other markets which would probably be successful under the right ownership.
Oh, and if I go off Green Bay as the benchmark, which I know is a different sport but I don’t think anyone would doubt Green Bay Packers as a legitimate professional market for the major leagues…. Then, I want to say there are roughly 30 TV markets larger than Green Bay not in the league. Does that I mean I’m saying to expand in ALL of these markets? No. Do NOT quote me as saying that. Rather, I’m just saying, there are still A LOT of markets left on the table that could still be very successful - IF they are brought into the league in the right way. And, I don’t believe that interest in MLS ownership has completely dried up.
Now, I know how controversial this issue has been, but I’m going to make the argument that the most lucrative thing is always possible. This argument is that MLS forms a partnership with, or buys out, USL to form a legitimate 2nd division. My shortest and simplest argument in favor of why this could happen is, in part, because of the Apple TV deal. I could see this springing the opportunity for MLS to want to gobble up the rest of the competition. So, let’s just say MLS stays at its current 30 teams, and it’s next adventure is to build a competitive 2nd division, cannibalizing the USL in order to do so. What could this 2nd division look like? First, I’m not going to “over-regionalize” it, although I’d like to, in order to keep it in the same format as MLS. MLS 2 West 1. Phoenix 2. Las Vegas 3. Sacramento 4. San Antonio 5. Albuquerque 6. El Paso 7. Milwaukee 8. Oklahoma City 9. Orange County 10. Chicago-Bridgeview USL/Alternates: Madison, Memphis, New Orleans, Oakland, Tulsa, Monterey Bay, San Francisco, Riverside, Fresno, Santa Barbara, Laredo, Corpus Christi, Fort Worth, Galveston, Waco, Des Moines, Boise, Billings, Wichita, Dakotas, Wyoming, Northern Colorado, Honolulu, Tucson, Spokane, Omaha MLS 2 East 1. Detroit 2. Indianapolis 3. Louisville 4. Raleigh 5. Rochester 6. Birmingham 7. Tampa Bay 8. Cleveland 9. Hartford 10. Pittsburgh USL/Alternates: Grand Rapids, Providence, Long Island, Staten Island, New Jersey, Lehigh Valley, Harrisburg, Hudson River Valley, New Orleans, Mississippi, Arkansas, Bradenton-Sarasota, Fort Myers, Jacksonville, Daytona, Dayton, West Palm Beach, Central Florida, Mobile-FL panhandle, Virginia Beach, Richmond, Greenville, Wilmington, Columbia, Myrtle Beach, Roanoke, Charlottesville, Asheville, Charleston, Greensboro-Piedmont Triad, Savannah-Statesboro, Huntsville, Chattanooga, Knoxville, Baltimore, Syracuse, Providence, Portland, Burlington, Manchester, West Virginia, Delaware, Memphis, Atlanta-Kennesaw-or-Norcross, Fort Lauderdale, Lexington, Brooklyn, Lansing, Toledo, Fort Wayne, South Bend, Evansville Simply put, you can lower the “expansion costs”, while requiring a stadium deal in place, with other infrastructure (academies, etc.), that would be “major league” ready.
It boggles my mind we dont have a team in Detroit. Major metropolitan area with a thirst for football, and nothing! It's so frustrating. After the Dan Gilbert land grab debacle, I havent heard anything about someone trying to bring a team here, unfortunately.
Yeah it is surprising. That's a key component though, a willing ownership group that WANTS to own a MLS team. Gilbert and Ford family only wanted to be in MLS, so that they could expand their real estate empire. They have the money, more than enough. That group would be one of the richest in MLS. They didn't have the will, and desire to own a MLS team. When we look back on MLS expansion, that's the key component. It's why there is a team in Salt Lake City. Dave Checketts WANTED to own a MLS team, and the price was right (the buy in was $7.5M). Vergara paid $7.5M for his "failed" Chivas USA venture, where he eventually netted a buyout in the neighborhood of $70M!!! MLSE paid $10M for TFC!?!?!?!?! I honestly think people forget just how much hard Phil Rawlins had to work in order to get Orlando City into MLS. Without the immense efforts of Rawlins, Orlando does not have a MLS team. The cost to not only get into MLS now, coupled with the startup costs has changed the landscape significantly for prospective expansion candidates. The calculus in 2023 is vastly different than it was in 2011. Here's some perspective: The Philadelphia Union practiced at local high schools/colleges and public parks for the first 6 years of their existence. They didn't move into their training complex until 2016 (they entered the league in 2010, were announced in 2008). Now they are expanding that training center (initial cost was somewhere around $15M) with a new $55M complex and community center adjacent to the stadium and current training/team facilities. Point being, teams cannot come into the league nowadays like they did 10-15 years ago. If teams don't have a modern training facility, they're at a competitive disadvantage. If they have any plans on being successful with youth development.... that's another significant outlay of cash. There are ownership groups and also teams in the league today, that had they not got in when the cost of entry was low would not be in the league today. RSL, Philly, Montreal, Orlando, Portland, Vancouver, San Jose (second round), Austin (If Precourt hadn't bought the crew for $68M and then "sold them for $150M" there's no team in Austin today).... those teams very likely are not in MLS today had they not gotten in when they did. MLS is at a point today where they can be HIGHLY selective of who gets in. That just simply wasn't the case in 1-15 years ago when they needed to expand in order to get more lucrative TV and sponsorship deals. MLS has matured into Logan Roy, and now when they talk to prospective expansion owners:
With the recent passing of Trevor Francis , I also found myself dreaming of a new or revived version of the Detroit Express. I’m sure they would do well if they had their own stadium and a strong ownership group. I could see it happening in the next 5-10 years.
I really can't see this as being an option for MLS, especially since has invested in MLS Next Pro. MLS Next Pro will be MLS's expansion project moving forward. It's always been MLS philosophy built their own, rather than aquire, especially since the fall-out between MLS and USL.
---------------- MLS could very well build out MLS Next Pro- both cities that don't have USL teams and cities that do. Then like many teams in the lower divisions, some could jump over to the MLS league. That could cause issues for USL if some of their best or strongest markets make the move. Does monopoly or anti-trust (or whatever that issue is) come in to play if many USL teams jump to MLS and USL falls apart (not quite like NASL teams jumping to the USL (?)). If they are moving on their free will? Does anyone know why MLS got MLS Next Pro approved as a D3 rather than a D2? If this like other countries around the world- does your reserve team have to be D2, D3 etc.? I just have this weird feeling MLS has an ulterior motive
Most reserve teams around the world are third division. This is normally due to the operating costs associated with being in the third division. MLS choose for MLS Next Pro as D3 due to the much simpler requirements for USSF sanctioning and costs to maintain a D3 league.
So Sacramento might have very well found their whale recently, didn’t see that discussed much. And it’s a female whale too so brownie points. Rule number one on expansion……. There’s always room for 1-2 more when the expansion fee is above 500 million thinking end of they day 31, 32 are gonna be Vegas and sac. Dunno how long it’ll take but that’s gonna be the final rounding out baring a wholesale revamp beyond 32. I think that only happens if soccer spreads like wildfire snd grows in popularity in a way we cannot imagine. I’m talking more popular than NFL levels of popularity
It's a non-story and won't happen any time soon, perhaps in 7 to 8 years. Besides there are already 4 clubs in California. I think the map is covered. Boo-who Sacramento.
so you think MLS won’t take 500 million cash money to the bank literally tomorrow if the offer was there? MLS would probably let Omaha in if 500 million cash money was on the table. Furthermore they’d tell them you can start 2024 if you want
No they won't.. They would need to check all the boxes and fit in with the current league ownership group.
so stadium, political support, Whale owner. What exactly us missing here ? Is there a fourth item now? I’m just here for the cope and seethe when MLS has five teams in California.
MLS has already been burned by Sacramento twice now..... It'd be a shock if MLS took Nagle and Mayor Steinberg's calls at this point.