When will the league be interested in expanding again?

[saskriders]

It's all a technicality or semantics. But clubs don't get promoted. It's just the branding stays with the city/owner while the license to operate gets sold to another city.

Like if San Diego got an NHL team, the Gulls' AHL license would be sold to someone else outside of San Diego and the new NHL team would be an NHL expansion team, drafting all new players. They might be the Gulls, if the NHL San Diego owner was the old AHL San Diego Gulls owner and retained the names and trademarks when he sold the AHL license.

That's what San Diego baseball did. The San Diego Padres played in the Pacific Coast League from 1936-1968. The owner of the team applied for an MLB expansion team, won the bid, and sold his PCL franchise license to a group from Eugene, Oregon.

But he retained ownership of the Padres name and trademarks, and brands and applied those brands to his new MLB team.

The Eagles did the same thing. It's the same with MLS... the Sounders did the same thing. There's really no difference to the local fans, since the same people work at the same stadium running the "Same team" but the league considers the franchise a brand new one, and the lower league considers that old franchise defunct.

Basically what I am hoping for, not saying it is likely, but I love to see markets retain historical team names.

 

[saskriders]

My ideal 36 would be:

West + San Diego Gulls
Central + Houston Aeros
Atlantic + QC Nordiques and Hamilton Tigers

Columbus, Florida, and Tampa swap divisions.


If 40 ever happened I think it would be cool (albeit unlikely)

West - San Francisco/Oakland/California Golden Seals
Central - Kansas City Scouts
Metro - Atlanta Thrashers
Atlantic - Hartford Whalers

Although those are all pipe dreams.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

You could put 2 more teams in southern Ontario. One in markham/north GTA, and one in Hamilton. IMO no problem. Buffalo and Toronto, obviously don't like this, but you could easily.

I don't think so. They still have to compete for money against Blue Jays, Raptors and TFC.

 

[Bucky_Hoyt]

Unless North American sports shifts to a pyramid model with promotion/relegation, I think 32 is the max all of these leagues go.

I like the idea of a market retaining its branding and history and that could potentially work in the relocation-driven model we see now.

Perhaps the pseudo promo/relegation type scenario we see in some minor leagues happens to major leagues, or something like that.

Say you have a market that "goes dormant" until it gets another shot back in that league. Or, once the market is granted a spot in another league, it activates the dormant franchise name, history, etc. That dormancy could be as short or as long as it takes for the market to get another team in any league.

 

[golfortennis]

I don't think so. They still have to compete for money against Blue Jays, Raptors and TFC.

I don't know about. They would siphon from the Leafs/REd Wings/Sabres, etc. I don' think you have many fans who are either/or. And a number of fans of those teams you listed are not hockey fans, period.

My thought has always been Canada is pretty much tapped out, but a franchise would be "successful" compared to some in the US because there is a such a Leafs base that can be siphoned for a critical mass.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

I don't know about. They would siphon from the Leafs/REd Wings/Sabres, etc. I don' think you have many fans who are either/or. And a number of fans of those teams you listed are not hockey fans, period.

My thought has always been Canada is pretty much tapped out, but a franchise would be "successful" compared to some in the US because there is a such a Leafs base that can be siphoned for a critical mass.

They have to compete because potential season tickets usually can’t afford more than one season ticket plans.

 

[StreetHawk]

I think the US markets who don’t have either an NBA team currently are basically all tapped out by the NHL in terms of market size. Don’t see the nhl going to KC for example.

so an future expansion they will have to have had discussions with the nba owner about a nhl team.

talking cities like Atlanta, Houston, etc. As I don’t think cities will want 2 18k arenas.

 

[golfortennis]

They have to compete because potential season tickets usually can’t afford more than one season ticket plans.

A bit, sure. But ACC only has so many seats, and Toronto is Canada's business centre. The number of people who want season tickets for hockey is massive, and very few of them are the same people who want Raptors tickets. Corporations might have to make decisions, but even there, it's not the same thing.

I see you're from NY. It's a very different market up here. The BLue Jays have to be good to generate over 50% attendance, the Raptors can flip back to a similar situation very easily after the championship aura fades. I would argue those three franchises would be more concerned with another hockey team showing up rather than the other way around. If you ranked Toronto sports, it would be 1)Leafs, 2)leafs playoffs if applicable, 3)leafs preseason, 4)leafs offseason, 5 leafs draft, 6)the rest of the NHL. &)Whichever other franchise is doing ok. If the BLue Jays can make the playoffs they may reach #3 on that list. Raptors have to be serious Finals contenders to do the same. TFC is still pretty much a niche market.

(ETA: I apologize if that reads as a bit condescending. Not my intention. Just that your points are valid in most markets in the US, because all franchises are quite popular. There's just no comparison I can see in Toronto. It's like saying a hockey team in Leicester, England will compete for season tickets against the soccer club. It's almost a non-entity.)

Another franchise in GTA would be a money printing machine for that owner.

 

[voyageur]

I'd stay at 32, I'd just move Arizona to Quebec to keep 8 team in a Canadian Conference, and allow it to be split East-West for travel.

You could split all the other Conferences too, if you swap Dallas and Minnesota to have a Big 10 like North (Minny, Chicago, Detroit, Columbus) and South (Carolina, Nashville and the two Fla teams) for the Central. For the West, Vegas, Colorado, Dallas, St. Louis together and the Pacific teams together. The Atlantic is an easy split as well.

Keeps it tight, with Covid restrictions still looming.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

A bit, sure. But ACC only has so many seats, and Toronto is Canada's business centre. The number of people who want season tickets for hockey is massive, and very few of them are the same people who want Raptors tickets. Corporations might have to make decisions, but even there, it's not the same thing.

I see you're from NY. It's a very different market up here. The BLue Jays have to be good to generate over 50% attendance, the Raptors can flip back to a similar situation very easily after the championship aura fades. I would argue those three franchises would be more concerned with another hockey team showing up rather than the other way around. If you ranked Toronto sports, it would be 1)Leafs, 2)leafs playoffs if applicable, 3)leafs preseason, 4)leafs offseason, 5 leafs draft, 6)the rest of the NHL. &)Whichever other franchise is doing ok. If the BLue Jays can make the playoffs they may reach #3 on that list. Raptors have to be serious Finals contenders to do the same. TFC is still pretty much a niche market.

(ETA: I apologize if that reads as a bit condescending. Not my intention. Just that your points are valid in most markets in the US, because all franchises are quite popular. There's just no comparison I can see in Toronto. It's like saying a hockey team in Leicester, England will compete for season tickets against the soccer club. It's almost a non-entity.)

Another franchise in GTA would be a money printing machine for that owner.

I think another team could work but 3 is overkill.

 

[golfortennis]

I think another team could work but 3 is overkill.

Could be. But there are 3 teams in NY, and right now the Leafs are the Yankees with basically no other franchises to worry about, whereas NY has many franchises. The Islanders seem to be the only team that could be considered "weak sister." I know the Mets aren't near the Yankees, but they seem to be pretty strong in their own right. Far more than the Blue Jays or Raptors would be in Toronto.

I'm actually shocked the Knicks have been able to keep it so only the Nets are nearby.

 

[garbageteam]

I do wonder if the next generation of teens/adults is as interesting in pro sports anymore. Population growth will slowly continue sure, but I get a sense teens/kids are more preoccupied with other pursuits than when most of us grew up.

I know FIFA as a e-sport has become pretty big which should help soccer retain popularity (that and the obvious point that soccer is universally beloved in the world and has zero chance of "dying out" this century unless the human race is extinct). NBA has done a great job of also connecting with the newer fans. NFL is fairly entrenched in American sports and is also at no risk. NHL and MLB I think are the most tenuous with their franchise situations and demand.

The NHL would be wise I think to actually expand, while they still can and while there are buyers. From some appearances I think the number of interested markets at this point is not all that high. Basically Quebec City, and maybe Houston... but not really. Bettman could open another expansion process and I wouldn't be all that shocked there would just be one applicant. Last time all they got was two. I think if they can find a US partner franchise to go along with QC (if they still want in even, though the CAD is finally doing marginally better than when expansion opened in mid-2015) they should try to get in at 34 and call the process finished for a couple of decades at least.

On a tangential note, the MLS talks a big game about limiting their expansion slots but I frankly think they'd be lucky to find three more markets to make 32 when #30 just bailed. We had some prognosticators think this league could hit 40... fat chance.

The NBA is the only league that has a glut of buyers banging at the door really. That's until they find out Silver's desired price tag.

 

[StreetHawk]

I do wonder if the next generation of teens/adults is as interesting in pro sports anymore. Population growth will slowly continue sure, but I get a sense teens/kids are more preoccupied with other pursuits than when most of us grew up.

I know FIFA as a e-sport has become pretty big which should help soccer retain popularity (that and the obvious point that soccer is universally beloved in the world and has zero chance of "dying out" this century unless the human race is extinct). NBA has done a great job of also connecting with the newer fans. NFL is fairly entrenched in American sports and is also at no risk. NHL and MLB I think are the most tenuous with their franchise situations and demand.

The NHL would be wise I think to actually expand, while they still can and while there are buyers. From some appearances I think the number of interested markets at this point is not all that high. Basically Quebec City, and maybe Houston... but not really. Bettman could open another expansion process and I wouldn't be all that shocked there would just be one applicant. Last time all they got was two. I think if they can find a US partner franchise to go along with QC (if they still want in even, though the CAD is finally doing marginally better than when expansion opened in mid-2015) they should try to get in at 34 and call the process finished for a couple of decades at least.

On a tangential note, the MLS talks a big game about limiting their expansion slots but I frankly think they'd be lucky to find three more markets to make 32 when #30 just bailed. We had some prognosticators think this league could hit 40... fat chance.

The NBA is the only league that has a glut of buyers banging at the door really. That's until they find out Silver's desired price tag.

Limited markets left for the nhl in the USA to charge at least $650-$700 mill on the next round.
What are the top 3 markets without an nba team that would put in a bid for an nhl expansion team?

so you’re left with the markets which have an nba team. So there is no point in doing an open bid process since the nba team is going to control the revenue stream of the arena (see houston/Atlanta/Portland/Milwaukee). So completely up to the nba owner of they want an nhl club or not. None came knocking when Vegas and QC out in bids.

nhl can quietly find out through their nba connections if there is any interest from those nba owners in getting an nhl expansion team.

 

[Djp]

We have another sport’s example as a guide here.

Rob Manfred just surmised that the minimum expansion fee MLB would expect from expansion candidates is $2.2 billion. I know that the few remaining media folk in Portland who were still paying attention to the issue were thrown for a loop... they were essentially promising Portlanders that the whole package (stadium included) would be $2 billion.

You price it like that when expansion will NOT increase media rights fees.

So the questions are why you expand, and perhaps where. I see the MLB statement as being the forerunner to saying that they’ll consider international markets if TV rights are substantial enough. What can the NHL gain from expansion? Frankly, I don’t see where it can be done without onerous travel or without teams actually losing money from splitting media income 34 ways instead of 32 ways.

the difference in hockey expansion is it became more of a world sports league.

nba is about 20+ yrs behind the nhl but can catch up.

look at how many Europe/USA players in the league in the 80s vs now. If China develops or KHL folded , the nhl coukd get bigger.

other reason it coukd get bigger is the team costs to join goes down.

price of a team goes to $1B cities will drop out.

 

[PCSPounder]

the difference in hockey expansion is it became more of a world sports league.

nba is about 20+ yrs behind the nhl but can catch up.

look at how many Europe/USA players in the league in the 80s vs now. If China develops or KHL folded , the nhl coukd get bigger.

other reason it coukd get bigger is the team costs to join goes down.

price of a team goes to $1B cities will drop out.

I would sure as dung not want to see the league economy where the NHL would actually sell expansion franchises at reduced cost. That’s the kind of thing that happens with a dying league. EXCEPTION: a national government or two mandates promotion/relegation in exchange for an anti-trust exemption. Kind of different if you’re filling up the 4th division.

 

[Headshot77]

2025 - Arizona relocates to Houston.

2035 - Portland and Quebec are added to the league

2050 - Atlanta and Arizona get another chance at life as teams 35 and 36.

 

[KevFu]

Unless North American sports shifts to a pyramid model with promotion/relegation, I think 32 is the max all of these leagues go.

I like the idea of a market retaining its branding and history and that could potentially work in the relocation-driven model we see now.

Perhaps the pseudo promo/relegation type scenario we see in some minor leagues happens to major leagues, or something like that.

Say you have a market that "goes dormant" until it gets another shot back in that league. Or, once the market is granted a spot in another league, it activates the dormant franchise name, history, etc. That dormancy could be as short or as long as it takes for the market to get another team in any league.

About 40 years ago, they were saying that 24 is the max and leagues being at 32 would have been crazy.


Baseball went 50 years with separate AL/NL, 8 teams each, winners meet in World Series to determine the champion of 16 baseball teams. Those teams stretched from Boston to DC to St. Louis.
Four leagues of 8, but with a western and southern league joining AL/NL, makes just an absolute ton of sense; way more sense than how MLB will probably handle having 32 teams. I'm not saying go back to 22 games vs your league, as interleague is now accepted compared to the 1950s.

The point is, all these leagues have gone decades with a few teams playing each other a lot, and now decades with a lot of teams where there's some teams you play once a year or zero times a year.


So there is no number of teams that is "too many" for a sports league to eventually have from an administrative side of things. The number is dictated by market sizes and revenue growth.

 

[Bucky_Hoyt]

About 40 years ago, they were saying that 24 is the max and leagues being at 32 would have been crazy.


Baseball went 50 years with separate AL/NL, 8 teams each, winners meet in World Series to determine the champion of 16 baseball teams. Those teams stretched from Boston to DC to St. Louis.
Four leagues of 8, but with a western and southern league joining AL/NL, makes just an absolute ton of sense; way more sense than how MLB will probably handle having 32 teams. I'm not saying go back to 22 games vs your league, as interleague is now accepted compared to the 1950s.

The point is, all these leagues have gone decades with a few teams playing each other a lot, and now decades with a lot of teams where there's some teams you play once a year or zero times a year.


So there is no number of teams that is "too many" for a sports league to eventually have from an administrative side of things. The number is dictated by market sizes and revenue growth.

Just had my reply crash on me.... Arrrgh. Trying this again...

I will disagree for a few reasons:

1, expansion costs are hyper-inflated and the number of prospective owners is getting ever-so smaller. MLB is saying 2.2b and that's not even including building costs. Even some MLS clubs are going for more than the bottom NHL valued prices.

2, Participation in all sports is getting super expensive with all types of specialist coaching and training costs. Participation is already MUCH, MUCH, lower in Hockey globally. Less available talent limits expansion.

3, Younger fans watch stars - not teams. Old days of seeing the same 7 teams got tired a LONG time ago. Even MLB is opening up access with interleague play but still a long way to go with appealing to younger audiences. NHL is right behind them in terms of diminishing relevancy.

4, We are approaching peak population due largely in part to economics. Therefore, there aren't an unlimited number of markets to expand to.

5, A multi-continental league isn't going to happen. Too many logistic and time-zone issues.

6, Having a limited number of franchises creates scarcity and drives franchise values even higher. Yes they're already out of control but relo/resale costs will eventually outstrip the expansion costs we see today. Though still have to deal with that ever-shrinking pool of owners to tap into.

 

[PCSPounder]

You either make expansion too expensive, or there’s too much TV money lost on a year-to-year basis by adding a number of mouths to feed. If you think Houston causes a commensurate increase in those TV contracts, think again. And if you think there’s going to be a European division without the kind of demonstrations that ended up haunting ESL participants, think again.

Or... the NHL accepts pro/rel in exchange for some sort of anti-trust exemption and/or other considerations. That’s kind of hard to bet on that coming true.

 

[KevFu]

Just had my reply crash on me.... Arrrgh. Trying this again...

I will disagree for a few reasons:

1, expansion costs are hyper-inflated and the number of prospective owners is getting ever-so smaller. MLB is saying 2.2b and that's not even including building costs. Even some MLS clubs are going for more than the bottom NHL valued prices.

2, Participation in all sports is getting super expensive with all types of specialist coaching and training costs. Participation is already MUCH, MUCH, lower in Hockey globally. Less available talent limits expansion.

3, Younger fans watch stars - not teams. Old days of seeing the same 7 teams got tired a LONG time ago. Even MLB is opening up access with interleague play but still a long way to go with appealing to younger audiences. NHL is right behind them in terms of diminishing relevancy.

4, We are approaching peak population due largely in part to economics. Therefore, there aren't an unlimited number of markets to expand to.

5, A multi-continental league isn't going to happen. Too many logistic and time-zone issues.

6, Having a limited number of franchises creates scarcity and drives franchise values even higher. Yes they're already out of control but relo/resale costs will eventually outstrip the expansion costs we see today. Though still have to deal with that ever-shrinking pool of owners to tap into.

I don't disagree with you... I'm just replying to the original question: When will the league be interest in expanding again.

The high costs would make expansion OWNERS hard to find, but the LEAGUE would be interested.

I do disagree with you on point 4 though: We're always at Peak Population, and that peak keeps rising every year. The population of the World didn't go down during World War II, or during plagues, or because of COVID. And Urban population keeps going up. It was 44% back in 1996, 25 years ago, and now it's at 56% (worldwide). In the US, it's gone for 77% of 82% And that's important because the determining factor of expansion is "untapped markets."

The 1990 average Metro population for the smallest places that got teams in the 1990s was 1.74 million (Denver, Tampa, San Jose, Columbus, Nashville).

There are THIRTEEN US Cities with 1.74 million people, no NHL team AND a population growth rate of 7% or higher.

 

[KevFu]

I just think people are being relatively close minded, short-sighted and unrealistic about the nature of expansion.


In the time I've been posting here, I keep having to remind people that this topic isn't about 5 years from now. Five years from now will be like, no change. We were talking about the NHL going to 36 teams NINE YEARS AGO on this site, and Seattle's check just cleared last week.

There's going to be one of the big sports leagues at 40 teams. Not by 2031 or probably not by 2041. Maybe 2081, or maybe 2151. But the NHL will have 40 teams one day, or the world will have an apocalyptic event first.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Unless North American sports shifts to a pyramid model with promotion/relegation, I think 32 is the max all of these leagues go.

I like the idea of a market retaining its branding and history and that could potentially work in the relocation-driven model we see now.

Perhaps the pseudo promo/relegation type scenario we see in some minor leagues happens to major leagues, or something like that.

Say you have a market that "goes dormant" until it gets another shot back in that league. Or, once the market is granted a spot in another league, it activates the dormant franchise name, history, etc. That dormancy could be as short or as long as it takes for the market to get another team in any league.

I don't see any of the major leagues going to a relegation model. Imagine convincing an owner to spend $650M on a franchise, and convincing a municipality to pay for a $750M arena, and then informing that they'll have a second-tier team until they stop sucking so much. Inevitably this would depress franchise values, which is an absolute no-go for the NA major leagues. The whole scheme relies on the promise that investing in a franchise will pay off in nine-figure value inflation when it comes time to sell.

Addressing the issue of leagues simply being unwieldy as they approach 40 teams, I think we're close to the point where we'll see some fragmentation with an increased focus on divisions rather than leaguewide success. The NHL should rightfully be concerned about the perception that nothing matters other than winning the Stanley Cup. Division championships should matter, regular season success should matter. The 2021 NHL was actually an interesting experiment to that effect... the world didn't stop turning when they went to an all-divisional schedule. If anything, segregating the Canadian teams into their own "league" seemed to really juice up those rivalries and create a great deal more interest in their regular seasons. Especially for teams like Ottawa and Calgary, who remained somewhat on-the-radar despite having disastrous seasons. The opportunity to play spoiler in their division's playoff race is much more interesting than random inter-conference games against other bad teams. IMO that's the solution to making a 40 team league make sense.

The continuation of brand-history seems to be more on people's minds now that the Sens, Browns, Jets, Hornets have shown the value of connecting a brand to a city rather than a franchise. I think that's something that leagues will be more careful about in future relocation scenarios.

 

[Martin Veillette]

Ottawa to Houston and Galgary to Kansas city or Atlanta

Ottawa may move, but not the Flames

 

[JMROWE]

I do see at least 2 more expansion teams by 2030 along with 1 or 2 relocations & it obvious who are the teams that could be relocated namely the coyotes which is a no brainer & most likely be headed to Houston in the near future , the panthers are another one that could be relocated if they don't get out of Sunrise & move somewhere in state like Miami or Orlando or else they would move out Florida all together another one could be the senators if they don't get that downtown arena .

As for expansion the cities I see getting expansion teams are Hamilton & Kansas City because Kansas City has an NHL ready arena all set to go & Hamilton is going to be starting 200 million dollar renovations of the FOC in October & you are wondering why left Quebec City off the list that is simple I think they are most likely to get a relocated team rather than expansion team because they are a smaller market

 

[Barclay Donaldson]

I do see at least 2 more expansion teams by 2030 along with 1 or 2 relocations & it obvious who are the teams that could be relocated namely the coyotes which is a no brainer & most likely be headed to Houston in the near future , the panthers are another one that could be relocated if they don't get out of Sunrise & move somewhere in state like Miami or Orlando or else they would move out Florida all together another one could be the senators if they don't get that downtown arena .

As for expansion the cities I see getting expansion teams are Hamilton & Kansas City because Kansas City has an NHL ready arena all set to go & Hamilton is going to be starting 200 million dollar renovations of the FOC in October & you are wondering why left Quebec City off the list that is simple I think they are most likely to get a relocated team rather than expansion team because they are a smaller market

Arizona is actually getting stabilized and it is well established Houston doesn't have anyone who wants to spend the money to get the NHL in the building.

Kansas City has had an NHL ready building for almost two decades and hasn't had a sniff at a team besides the Penguins using them as a way to get their arena built for next to nothing. Hamilton is too close to Buffalo and Toronto, too teams unwilling to split off pieces of their respective areas.

Try again...