re: MLS moving to 30 teams

quote:

---

one day? that’s too far in the future. if they go to 30, they’re choking off more potential expansion cities(read, expansion fees). this whole shibang will collapse on itself within 2 seasons once 29 and 30 are added


unless the USSF steps in and wastes our NT money on the domestic league. which will signal the death of football here

---

sad thing it will die and won't be bc of lack of interest

it will be from complete mismanagement

Supporting the teams is not an issue for me. It's the standard of play that will suffer. Unless they get rid of foreign player limits, which will not happen, we do not produce enough good players to cover this many teams.

And to my second point, I can't believe some of you are still buying the nonsense Soccernomics idea that MLS isn't profitable in 2019. This isn't 2001, when the league was legitimately on its financial deathbed. No doubt there are several teams like Chicago that are losing money for a number of reasons, but they are the minority. The league as a whole is profitable. MLS Financial Study (2018)

If the league is losing money like some still claim, then it sure has a strange way of showing it. Continually increasing the salary cap over the last few years (which is paid by the league, not the owners) and adding lots more allocation money is not something a league that's losing money would be doing. If anything, they would be adding more DP spots to transfer more of the roster costs onto the owners.

The league is also investing lots of money into things off the field. They just built new offices in Manhattan to house an expanded full-time staff. They're investing lots of money into digital content and gaming. Not to mention a hefty amount of money to help buy out the Chicago Fire's awful stadium deal in Bridgeview.

Do you really think all these billionaires would be investing into MLS teams if the league weren't making a profit in its 24th year of existence? Do you really think all these teams would spend hundreds of millions of dollars building new stadiums and investing into their academies if the league weren't profitable by now? Adidas just signed a new deal with MLS worth 5x the value of the previous deal. They wouldn't do that if they didn't like where the league is financially. The value of an MLS team has skyrocketed over the past 10 years. We're getting to the point where soon where multiple teams will be worth $500 million in the near future.

If you wanna see what a league in financial peril looks like, MLS isn't it anymore. Look at the AAF this year. I don't take anyone seriously who still thinks MLS isn't profitable in 2019.

And the idea that MLS expansion is somehow a Ponzi scheme is equally ridiculous. People on this board seem to have forgotten that every other major league also went through a rapid expansion process 40-50 years ago. Look at how quickly the NHL expanded from 1967 to 1979. It went from 6 teams to 21, then it added 9 more teams in the 90s and two more this decade. MLS is just behind the times because the league only began play in 1996. We're witnessing now with MLS what all the other leagues did decades ago.

The idea some people have that expansion fees are the league's primary source of profit is ridiculous. The expansion fee doesn't even stay in the league's coffers. It's evenly divided among the ownership groups to compensate them for the loss of value in their ownership stake when a new team joins the league. It's not designed to make anyone profit; it's designed to compensate for projected value lost when each team's ownership stake gets smaller.

Each of the 27 current MLS ownership groups gets $7.4 million as compensation when Sacramento and St. Louis will join the league. That's an accounting error for many of the MLS owners, not some huge money-making bonanza like the conspiracy theorists claim. Even the cheapest MLS teams spend more than that on just the salaries of their non-DP players.

The idea that expansion is somehow diluting the player pool and making the league worse is also silly. The domestic and foreign talent in the league is better now than it's ever been. The last 4 titles have been won by recent expansion teams. This isn't other American sports where the talent pool is very limited. There are literally thousands of players out there who can play at the MLS level and improve the league's quality. The level of play in MLS has always been determined by the salary cap, not the number of teams. The league is way better right now with 24 teams than it ever was with 10 teams. It will continue to improve as the salary cap rises.

If you go 30, why not go 32 and have the league based on regional geography. I would have 8 geographic divisions divided into two conferences. You would have 12 total divisional matches (3 oppenents in a two home / two away format). Within your geographic conference, you would have a permant cross divisional opponent from the nearest geographic division (8 more games...home/away x 4). From the opposite conference you would play a divisional opponent as well, but it would be rotated by location over a two year period and rotated every two years by division (4 games total per year...2 home 2 away with the reverse fixtures occuring the following year or 4 years later-depending on the format). In this way, you play every team in the other conference either once every 4 years or twice every 8 years with those matches being in back to back seasons. That would mean 24 "League table matches" to determine playoff teams. I would have 8 division winners and 4 wildcards based on points. The top four divisional winners get a bye.

As for league cup...the divisions would play cross division within their conference but against the two divisions that are not played in "League table matches." You would have home and away x 4 for 8 total matches. This allows a team to play everyone in their conference at least once every other year. The top two teams from the four divisions based on points would then play for the conference cup home and away). The winners of the two conference cups play in the final of the League Cup.

As for the Lamar Hunt US Open Cup...I would play cross conference by division just like in league play. Obviously, you would play a division currently not scheduled. You end up with 4 winners that would then be the semifinalist for the US Open Cup.

In short, 38 total matches with League Table matches, League Cup matches, and US Open Cup matches combined. As for the top teams, it could reach 48 total matches.

The positives

Geographic ties typically draw the most interest so it is good for the fans imho (and possibly tv as well).

Travel costs should go down which means the league becomes more profitable.

The negatives

The level of play could suffer. There may be ways to mitigate this, but, it would mean structural changes to foreign player participation policies.

You don't see every team every year so it isn't a European table type format.

I get that it would be an Americanized version, but I would imagine people would become comfortable with it in time. Just my .02.

The questions as they relate to what I proposed are...
1. Who would be the next two teams to be added?
2. Which 16 teams form the Eastern and Western conferences respectively?
3. Which teams for the four 4 team divisions within each conference?

quote:

---

a country where soccer is their passion and primary sport and they produce much better players than we do here

---

and their economy is like 1/10th our size.

I'm all for expanding until NOLA SC is a reality

People on here can go back and forth whether or not the league can handle 30 or more teams and the standard of play gets worse, stays the same or gets better. One thing I do know that is fact. Since I saw Waldo score that late goal in small arse Spartan stadium in a hideous looking clash kit, the league has not progressed in international competitions at all. I remember D.C. United (El Diablo and Jaime were really good players) played Corinthians (Sp?) from Brazil in the intercontinental cup back in the late 90's which they won (both legs played in the states) and that's it.

I don't want to hear "the league has only been around for 20+ years" or "MLS teams are in preseason". frick that, Mexican and even Costa Rican teams often knock out MLS teams in the CCL. That competition will show if you make progress. The thing that makes MLS look even worse is those Mexican teams often loose to the Asian or African champion and can't even reach the South American or European champ. The system will hold back the league as long as it stays as structured.

If all you care about is league play then that's fine. I don't knock people for supporting the league. They are bringing in a higher quality foreign player which is needed severely.

Me personally, I watch a league for enjoyment and a high standard of play. Unfortunately, the league is substandard IMO, and I'd rather spend time watching a higher quality product. Getting more teams will make this worse IMO. Until I see with my own eyes, I will be skeptical.

quote:

---

Also compare salary budgets between MLS and Mexican teams. It’s not close.

---

Who's fault is that? People are arguing on here that our league is wealthy. Why is Mexico outspending us? I know, do you?

quote:

---

MLS had 3/4 of the semifinalists in last years CCL.

---

Did you just see KC get their balls ripped off and handed to them? Another Mexican final for the confederation's title is what I see.

quote:

---

Michael Stein

---

I enjoy your MLS post very much bc you bring great content unlike other MLS fan boys on here but your view point on this is best case scenario

quote:

---

The USA is not Argentina. We have roughly 8x their population, and our population is WAY more spread out than Argentina's, meaning there are more independent markets that can support teams where fanbases don't overlap.

---

MLS struggles in a town of markets with attendance and its 5th on the pecking order in most cities with all major sports. Not to mention a bad tv deal still

quote:

---

The US currently has 34 (soon to be 35) metro areas of more than 2 million residents. Argentina has only one (Buenos Aires). If you want to go even further than that, the US has 53 (soon to be 55) metro areas of more than a million residents; Argentina has only 4. To elaborate on that further, the entire United Kingdom has only 5 metro areas of at least 1 million residents. Russia has 15; Japan has 12; Germany has 9; France has 7. That means the US has more such metro areas (53) than all six of those countries combined (52), even though combined those nations have about 200 million more people than the US at 534.4 million. That doesn't even factor in Canada, which MLS also covers in three cities.

It's not valid to compare the United States to any countries besides China and India, in terms of sheer population and geographic distribution of that population. Those three nations are in their own category entirely. Even when you compare the US to India, our average metro areas are significantly larger, despite India having over 4x our population. China is the only country with bigger metro areas than the US.

Bottom line: Every major North American sports league has a minimum of 30 teams for a very good reason. That's what it takes to even come close to covering our massive country, and even then, you still won't have a presence in some massive TV markets. I'm tired of seeing this silly argument that 30 teams won't work for MLS because it won't work in other countries. The United States is NOT most countries. We are much bigger and our population is more spread out than almost every other nation.

---

we have the population to support teams but don't produce enough players to improve the quality of the league bc soccer still isn't there yet

quote:

---

Who's fault is that? People are arguing on here that our league is wealthy. Why is Mexico outspending us? I know, do you?

---

It’s the biggest sports league in that country by a mile. It had a 50+ year head start on MLS. Are you being intentionally dense?

people even on this board were shitting all over Rooney before he came to MLS saying he could not hang and it was a terrible move

as for youth MLS have made great strides but like i posted early MLS will always be hindered as long as youth development in this country is broken

20-30 MLS academies is not even close to enough.