Just how many teams/markets will the MLS expand to?

MMC

Global Moderator
May 11, 2014
47,805
38,364
Orange County, CA
I want to start off by saying I wouldn't call myself a fan of the MLS (I want to be, but I just struggle to get into it knowing its not a top tier league in the world), and I know very little about it (cannot really name any players outside of the LA teams), but its rapid expansion in recent times fascinates me. Even though 30 teams are announced, there still seems to be a lot of cities out there that could host a team. Now, I of course don't actually know what it takes for a city to be able to support a MLS team (which is why I'm making this thread), but just off the top of my head, the following cities all seem like they should be more than capable of hosting a MLS team.

Las Vegas
Detroit
Phoenix
San Francisco/Oakland
San Diego
Pittsburgh
Indianapolis
Milwaukee
Orange County

and also cities like San Antonio, Buffalo, Calgary, New Orleans, and Oklahoma City having a chance as well. There seems to be a lot of room for this league to keep growing, but is that likely to be the case in the near future, and if you do expect further expansion which of these cities do you think might be capable? Is there a chance it could even become like Austin and expand to a metro area that there are no big 4 teams in?
 

MMC

Global Moderator
May 11, 2014
47,805
38,364
Orange County, CA
Personally I would love it if Orange County added a team, though if I were to pick a team out of the current group, it would be the Galaxy.
 

AdmiralsFan24

Registered User
Mar 22, 2011
14,979
3,896
Wisconsin
Milwaukee tried in the 90s and again in the 2000s and couldn't get a stadium deal done. They had Peter Wilt as the CEO of their group in the mid 2000s and if he couldn't get a stadium deal done, I find it highly unlikely that anyone else could. I think the only way it happens at this point is if Marquette or UWM bring back their football programs which is a whole other can of worms with its own obstacles as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mymerlincat

Whalers Fan

Go Habs!
Sep 24, 2012
3,916
3,585
Plymouth, MI
I doubt that Detroit is a viable option. There was some talk briefly about turning the site of the old Pontiac Silverdome into a soccer stadium, but that quickly fell apart. Two iterations of the Detroit Express (NASL and ASL) have failed here as has professional indoor soccer a couple of times. The area does not support minor sports well, as there is too much competition from the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL and two major NCAA programs. Also, after funding three new sports facilities over the past few years -- Ford Field (NFL), Comerica Park (MLB), and Little Caesars Arena (NHL/NBA) -- I cannot see the area taxpayers being anxious to fund a fourth facility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mymerlincat

MMC

Global Moderator
May 11, 2014
47,805
38,364
Orange County, CA
Milwaukee tried in the 90s and again in the 2000s and couldn't get a stadium deal done. They had Peter Wilt as the CEO of their group in the mid 2000s and if he couldn't get a stadium deal done, I find it highly unlikely that anyone else could. I think the only way it happens at this point is if Marquette or UWM bring back their football programs which is a whole other can of worms with its own obstacles as well.

I doubt that Detroit is a viable option. There was some talk briefly about turning the site of the old Pontiac Silverdome into a soccer stadium, but that quickly fell apart. Two iterations of the Detroit Express (NASL and ASL) have failed here as has professional indoor soccer a couple of times. The area does not support minor sports well, as there is too much competition from the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL and two major NCAA programs. Also, after funding three new sports facilities over the past few years -- Ford Field (NFL), Comerica Park (MLB), and Little Caesars Arena (NHL/NBA) -- I cannot see the area taxpayers being anxious to fund a fourth facility.
Are Ford Field, Comerica Park, or Miller Park options for either? It seems like there are quite a few MLS teams that share stadiums with MLB and NFL
 

Whalers Fan

Go Habs!
Sep 24, 2012
3,916
3,585
Plymouth, MI
Are Ford Field, Comerica Park, or Miller Park options for either? It seems like there are quite a few MLS teams that share stadiums with MLB and NFL

Ford Field could probably fit a soccer field, but at 65,000 capacity it's a lot bigger than the soccer-only stadiums the league has been building. I doubt that a pro soccer team in this area would be able to fill up a third of the stands. It's also an indoor stadium with a Field Turf artificial surface. I don't really pay much attention to the MLS -- do they want to play on real grass? Comerica Park is designed for baseball only, so its seating layout would be terrible for a soccer field, if it could even fit.

I actually attended an American Soccer League championship game the Detroit Express played in the early 1980's in the Pontiac Silverdome, which had a capacity of 80,000. There couldn't have been more than 10,000 people at the game -- the place looked empty. I don't remember the NASL version of the Express coming close to filling the Silverdome, either. The only time a soccer match did well there was for the four World Cup games that were played there in 1994. I attended two of those games, and the place was filled to capacity, but there were lots of fans from the competing countries in the stands. FIFA actually brought in real grass on trays for those games. The humidity due to the moisture on the grass, along with 80,000 people, made the place incredibly uncomfortable in the heat of the summer.
 

Barclay Donaldson

Registered User
Feb 4, 2018
2,531
2,058
Tatooine
How many? 30 or 32. It is well known they're attempting to become a legitimate competitor with the Top 4 Leagues in North America. And 30 or 32 are the golden numbers for North American pro sports leagues. Any fewer teams and they're not in enough markets to get good TV contracts and eyes on teams. Any more, and there's too many owners not getting enough money and the franchise value sinks because the supply is too high.

32 is the absolute maximum. The NFL figured it out a while ago. The NHL just realized it as well and is catching up. The MLB also announced their intention to do it, but they're running into trouble doing it. The NBA owners like the slice of pie they're receiving now and have said they will not expand past 30. With how easily the MLS has been handing out expansion franchises and with how much every team save for 5-6 loses money (and lots of it), you can do the math for when ownership groups are going to start asking when they'll start getting a return on their investments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CHRDANHUTCH

Zenos

Registered User
Oct 4, 2009
2,171
2,380
I will just add that I think Canada is already "maxed out" when it comes to MLS franchises.
With the current expansion costs and the way the Leauge seems to be going, I can't see any of the "second tier" Canadian cities like Ottawa, Calgary, or Edmonton joining the league. Those markets are already pretty small (1.3 million metro) by MLS standards and face competition from established and popular Canadian Football teams.

As it stands, all three of those markets (plus Winnipeg, Hamilton, etc) seem better positioned for the CPL (Canadian Premiere Leauge), which recently finished up a very successful inaugural season.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
MLS could probably very easily have a 40-team league that operates like two separate 20-team leagues (East and West). It's not like there's a lack of people world-wide who play soccer to fill the 7th to 10th best soccer league.

I think they missed a golden opportunity to start "MLS-2," growing that league from 8 to 24 teams, and when they hit 20 teams, start MLS-3 and grow it from 8 to 24 teams. Then "expand MLS via promotion" adding markets at MLS-3 and promoting two every few years before going to PRO/REL.

They could have dragged it out, collected 70 expansion fees, and taken like 25 to 30 years before actually relegating anyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveG

Barclay Donaldson

Registered User
Feb 4, 2018
2,531
2,058
Tatooine
MLS could probably very easily have a 40-team league that operates like two separate 20-team leagues (East and West). It's not like there's a lack of people world-wide who play soccer to fill the 7th to 10th best soccer league.

I think they missed a golden opportunity to start "MLS-2," growing that league from 8 to 24 teams, and when they hit 20 teams, start MLS-3 and grow it from 8 to 24 teams. Then "expand MLS via promotion" adding markets at MLS-3 and promoting two every few years before going to PRO/REL.

They could have dragged it out, collected 70 expansion fees, and taken like 25 to 30 years before actually relegating anyone.

While it would have been nice, that was never going to happen. Current MLS owners didn't agree to it with $4 billion on the table from MP & Silva and rightly so. There's more guaranteed money in a closed league with franchises than with an open system that promotion relegation provides. There is just one team and affiliates, and drafts, and everything else that comes with the guarantees of North American sports. Having a youth academy without a draft, and poor performance meaning playing in a lower league is something North American owners just wouldn't agree to.

North Americans as a fan market have showed there is a statistical correlation between team performance and team profitability. When a team stinks, the league helps them out through the draft with the intention the team will eventually be good. The MLS didn't agree to it for good reasons. Selfish reasons. Business reasons. But it's their league, their money.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
While it would have been nice, that was never going to happen. Current MLS owners didn't agree to it with $4 billion on the table from MP & Silva and rightly so. There's more guaranteed money in a closed league with franchises than with an open system that promotion relegation provides. There is just one team and affiliates, and drafts, and everything else that comes with the guarantees of North American sports. Having a youth academy without a draft, and poor performance meaning playing in a lower league is something North American owners just wouldn't agree to.

North Americans as a fan market have showed there is a statistical correlation between team performance and team profitability. When a team stinks, the league helps them out through the draft with the intention the team will eventually be good. The MLS didn't agree to it for good reasons. Selfish reasons. Business reasons. But it's their league, their money.

I don't disagree with that. But where they lacked vision was the idea that "top down growth = kicking someone out, non-starter" while starting MLS-2 in 2010 bigger than MLS and promoting from it makes everyone look like they're getting a discount and gives the original members a massive amount of time to be in MLS alone, building infrastructure and becoming powerful.

MLS
EAST: CBUS, DC, NE, NY, CHI, TOR, PHI, MON
WEST: LA, LA2, DAL, KC, SJ, SLC, HOU, SEA

MLS-2 launches with 12 teams:
EAST: Atlanta, New York 2, Miami, Orlando, Nashville, Cincinnati
WEST: Portland, Vancouver, Minnesota, St. Louis, Sacramento, Austin

Then after a few years, MLS-2 adds Charlotte, Detroit; Las Vegas, Phoenix (MLS promotes 2)
Then after a few years, MLS-2 adds Indianapolis, Cleveland, San Diego, San Antonio (MLS promotes 2) Then you're at 16/16
Do it again with four more MLS-2 markets and two promotions... 16/20 to 18/18.

Who do you think is winning promotion to MLS the first three times they add? NYCFC, Atlanta, Orlando, Portland and two others.

Then form MLS-3 with 12 teams and grow that... eventually hitting 18/18/24.
Again to 20/20/24. Again to 22/22/28, and finally 24/24/24.
THEN Start PRO/REL.

*** To this point is 14 years from 2010 to 2024. If they doubled their pace of expansion, it would be the 2045 season before they hit 24/24/24 and STARTED relegating anyone!
 

Barclay Donaldson

Registered User
Feb 4, 2018
2,531
2,058
Tatooine
I don't disagree with that. But where they lacked vision was the idea that "top down growth = kicking someone out, non-starter" while starting MLS-2 in 2010 bigger than MLS and promoting from it makes everyone look like they're getting a discount and gives the original members a massive amount of time to be in MLS alone, building infrastructure and becoming powerful.

MLS
EAST: CBUS, DC, NE, NY, CHI, TOR, PHI, MON
WEST: LA, LA2, DAL, KC, SJ, SLC, HOU, SEA

MLS-2 launches with 12 teams:
EAST: Atlanta, New York 2, Miami, Orlando, Nashville, Cincinnati
WEST: Portland, Vancouver, Minnesota, St. Louis, Sacramento, Austin

Then after a few years, MLS-2 adds Charlotte, Detroit; Las Vegas, Phoenix (MLS promotes 2)
Then after a few years, MLS-2 adds Indianapolis, Cleveland, San Diego, San Antonio (MLS promotes 2) Then you're at 16/16
Do it again with four more MLS-2 markets and two promotions... 16/20 to 18/18.

Who do you think is winning promotion to MLS the first three times they add? NYCFC, Atlanta, Orlando, Portland and two others.

Then form MLS-3 with 12 teams and grow that... eventually hitting 18/18/24.
Again to 20/20/24. Again to 22/22/28, and finally 24/24/24.
THEN Start PRO/REL.

*** To this point is 14 years from 2010 to 2024. If they doubled their pace of expansion, it would be the 2045 season before they hit 24/24/24 and STARTED relegating anyone!

While that is all well and good, sports based predominantly in United States just simply will never accept that system to begin with. No owner is going to join on the off chance they could get promoted. No owner is going to allow that system on the off chance they won't get relegated. It's unfortunate, but it's not even something worth thinking about.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
I'm going to let it go, because it's past the point of being possible.

But I just wanted to point out that the "off chance of getting promoted" and the "off chance they WON'T get relegated" would be the inverse of each other, not the same odds. I suspect you're talking about the "perception" but that's dumb (not by you, by an owner).

Furthermore, the original structure of MLS was an ownership stake in the company (MLS) and then running a team. PRO/REL could have worked within that context where the team ownership entitled people to a share of the league revenue as part of their RS structure based on the level they play in that year; and with a cut the RS pie to the original 16 owners regardless of level included.

Those 16 owners have cut their share of league RS from 6.25% (at 16 teams) to 3.3% (at 30 teams). So just make a formula for dividing revenues where MLS1 teams get the most, MLS2 teams get less, MLS3 teams get less and the non-original teams are dividing 47.2% of revenues. And of course, you go from $1.7 billion in expansion fees to something like 3 to 4 billion by the time all is said and done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaveG

PCSPounder

Stadium Groupie
Apr 12, 2012
2,852
564
The Outskirts of Nutria Nanny
I doubt that Detroit is a viable option. There was some talk briefly about turning the site of the old Pontiac Silverdome into a soccer stadium, but that quickly fell apart. Two iterations of the Detroit Express (NASL and ASL) have failed here as has professional indoor soccer a couple of times. The area does not support minor sports well, as there is too much competition from the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL and two major NCAA programs. Also, after funding three new sports facilities over the past few years -- Ford Field (NFL), Comerica Park (MLB), and Little Caesars Arena (NHL/NBA) -- I cannot see the area taxpayers being anxious to fund a fourth facility.

One of the reasons we even have the discussion about Detroit...

Detroit City FC set to join pro ranks, move to new league in 2020.

The NPSL is fourth or fifth tier, most teams likely don't make money from ticket sales, so to be almost 6,000 a game is insane. NISA is barely any better... but we're talking about a fan base with the integrity to eventually decide the old model needed updating.

Frankly, they're a fair chunk of the reason Detroit won't get MLS. Too much integrity with the core fans. Right now, it's hard to blame those fans.
 

MMC

Global Moderator
May 11, 2014
47,805
38,364
Orange County, CA
I'm curious as to why people say only 30 or 32 teams is the maximum? To me it seems like the MLS could support as many as 40
 

Barclay Donaldson

Registered User
Feb 4, 2018
2,531
2,058
Tatooine
I'm curious as to why people say only 30 or 32 teams is the maximum? To me it seems like the MLS could support as many as 40

You ever take economics?

It's all supply and demand. The NFL and NHL already figured it out. Can't just give out a team to any place that can support it. 40 divides the revenue streams too much. Limiting the number of spaces available increases the ability of each respective team to draw in revenues. The NFL could easily have put a team in half a dozen markets by now to go beyond 32. But doing so would mean teams would lost a big chunk of revenue, much more than would be gained by allowing another team into the league.

It's the same thing with arena sizes. Several NHL teams could sell out a 30,000 seat arena as their maximum draw. But, it is more profitable to sell out a 20,000 seat arena with much higher ticket prices and 5,000 STH waiting list.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
You ever take economics?

It's all supply and demand. The NFL and NHL already figured it out. Can't just give out a team to any place that can support it. 40 divides the revenue streams too much. Limiting the number of spaces available increases the ability of each respective team to draw in revenues. The NFL could easily have put a team in half a dozen markets by now to go beyond 32. But doing so would mean teams would lost a big chunk of revenue, much more than would be gained by allowing another team into the league.

It's the same thing with arena sizes. Several NHL teams could sell out a 30,000 seat arena as their maximum draw. But, it is more profitable to sell out a 20,000 seat arena with much higher ticket prices and 5,000 STH waiting list.

I definitely agree on Supply and Demand.
MLB learned that with their stadium sizes and everyone opening stadiums are opening smaller ones.
The low Supply = high Demand keeps franchise values growing at massive rates, since there are very few to buy.


I disagree strongly with the whole "Smaller shares of revenue streams" thing though, because the pool of shared revenue isn't that big. Adding two teams in the NHL to 34 teams would cost each team less than $1.3 million a year from the slices being smaller; and expansion fees of $293 million each would offset that for 15 years -- since no TV contract is going to be longer than 15 years; and TV contracts get bigger whenever they are up AND with more markets in them.

For MLS it's even smaller: going from 30 to 40 teams would cost each existing MLS team $750,000 in revenue. The MLS expansion fees are 2.2 times as big as their TV deal (that would be like an NHL franchise costing $1.8 billion). Each MLS team would make $66.67 million expanding to 40, in exchange for $750,000 a year (89 years worth of the difference).


The reason the NFL doesn't expand is because the NFL has a 100% national TV contract with only 5 time slots for their games. They don't get any more sellable product as a league from adding teams. Adding teams just means more games that AREN'T ON TV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sexydonut

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->