With Canadian reports suggesting that MLS could add multiple Canadian teams in the near future, we are left wondering just how serious MLS is about further expansion into Canada.
Montreal and Vancouver have long been linked with potential MLS expansion, and now reports are surfacing that a Steve Nash-led group is set to bid for a team in Vancouver, so the easy question is this: Is further MLS expansion into Canada a good idea or a bad idea?
It remains to be seen just how serious the Canadian expansion talk is. We are hearing about bids and interest but people in Cleveland and San Antonio can tell you all about seemingly strong MLS expansion bids falling flat.
Vancouver and Montreal do look like strong candidates though and they both appear to have the elements to make MLS consider them for the expansion slots after Seattle and Philadelphia join MLS in the next two years.
What do you think? Do you like the idea of multiple Canadian cities joining Toronto in MLS? Do you think MLS should focus on American cities? Is there enough talent in Canada to stock two, three or four MLS teams?
Share your thoughts on Canadian expansion below.
Damn typos!
Move DC United to Ottawa. There were only a couple hundred people at the game at RFK yesterday… pathetic!
3 Words….
DETROIT ROCKY CITY
On a more serious note I personallt support a club going to St. Louis before another Canadian team is added.
Does anyone think the rules on international players in MLS is kind of stupid?
MLS should consider all North American players “domestic” for roster purposes. Especially if they plan on adding more teams in Canada because their won’t be enough quality Canadians to fill those rosters. I don’t think Canadians really need Canadians to cheer for on their teams. Look at the NBA, Steve Nash has never played in Canada and he’s really their only basketball player of note. I don’t think the Raptors have ever had a Canadian player either. It’s silly.
Also, I like the idea of “domestic player” having the definition of “American OR Canadian.” I doubt that AS Monaco is compelled to field very many Monagasque players in order to compete in Ligue 1.
Caldwell-
No way!
Why have the position of big fish in a small pond threatened ;p
Amongst the myriad of rules that need to be changed, US and Canadian citizens should be both considered “domestic players” to avoid fielding weaker than necessary Canadian teams. If the support (fan, financial and- to a degree goverment) then expand the league…
For that matter, consider all CONCACAF players as domestic to A) expand the MLS brand B) attract new sponsors C) compete with Mexico for the top league on both financial & talent levels D) expand the overall talent pool to improve the game, and E) makes the MLS rules similar to the European Union concept of foreign players
Erik-
But wouldnt all those latino fans go to see Chivas regardless of who their opponent is?
Just dont know that Arizona is that place, especially as no groups/owners have stepped forward.
Is it such a bad thing to have a side effect of our league be a stronger Canadian MNT? Isn’t a more competitive region GOOD for the USA?
Matt-
The game between Van and TFC wouldnt be nearly as exciting or big as Mont vs TFC.
Van vs Seattle would prob be bigger then Van vs TFC to be honest…
They need to delete KC from the league. They don’t even sellout a 10k stadium. Move them to Montreal. Then move Columbus to Vancouver. Columbus draws flies and they have violent fans.
Would you pay to see the Red Bulls’ reserves? Except for Angel, I wouldn’t even pay to see their starters right now. I think the lesson from the past decade of MLS is that if you market the team correctly from the start, you can really build momentum (TFC). However, if you do it wrong for years it’s hard to play catch-up. There are fans in most of these places, it’s just that the product and experience has to be sold right.
TFC has in fact integrated some good young US talent (Edu, James, etc.). That’s from smart drafting. But they do seem to have a weakness for surplus English league teams. The results from those signings have been mixed.
As for Montreal and Vancouver, I can’t tell you if they would be as enthousistic as Toronto. Certainly the fact that they are smaller cities than Toronto does and should give MLS pause. Especially when soccer-mad St.Louis and big media markets New York (not Red Bull New Jersey), Phoenix, San Diego, San Fran, and Miami are available.
I think another canadian team or 2 would help the league in many ways, with that said changes would have to be made with the roster setup, Americans & Canadians would just have to be classified as domestic players, in order to make all sides competitive.
As far as the next 2 teams that come in I think it should be Vancouver & St. Louis, why?
Vancouver would set up a Canadian derby between TFC & Vancouver, they also would set up a derby between them & Seattle. Hopefully those games would get fans more excited.
St. Louis would help the continental crossing of games (i.e. LA to Columbus, etc…) It would also hopefully spark a KC v. St louis derby and maybe a St. Louis v. Chicago derby like the Cubs & Cards.
After those 2 teams i think Montreal would have a great shot as well as Portland. I also think Chivas need to move maybe Portland could be a place they could end up.
I’m sorry.
Can someone explain why we can’t just have US and Canadian players be considered domestic whereever they play?
I heard there was some legal reason (Canadian law?) but never got an explanation. Certainly, there seems to be no holdup in MLB, NBA, NHL, etc.
MLS is no longer an American league. We (us American’s) aren’t going to be overwhelmed by a deluge of Canadian talent like we would if we offered the same opportunity to Mexico.
I think there’s only like five Canadians starting in the league.
What’s the real problem?
Ted-
Fair enough 🙂
Was simply saying that the training of americans extends into our great lands, HA
PS We are all jealous up here that hes one of yours
DCU Fan makes some good points. MLS needs to be careful with expansion, no more than one team a year, and I think that’s too many, there frankly aren’t enough quality players available at the salary numbers we have to add competitive teams at a clip any faster than that. think about it. could you build a competitive team from an expansion draft from the other teams? there aren’t enough quality, experienced players that help a new team raise the level of play across the league instead of just diluting it. I’m not talking about the $250,000 guys, more like the $50-$75,000 ones. or even the $30,000 workhorses that the league depends on. Seattle and Philly alone will need 20 of these players in the next two years. are there really 20 MLS quality regulars out there not getting playing time? or are we just moving barely capable players from one team to another and diluting the entire pool? expansion teams need to be competitive within two-three years, at least mid-table, to succeed. And the only way that can happen, right now, is by simultaneously weakening other teams. Depth is the problem all clubs have, everyone is already going to lose two role players in the next two seasons (I assume there will be a similar expansion draft for Seattle and Philly) so take a breath, wait a season and let some of the young talent season and mature, let the academies begin to produce some players. when the options for a larger number of clubs to replenish talent includes academies, scouting and the draft and we will be better placed to handle talent dilution.
all that said, I would support another Canadian club or two, along with a few other US ones to get to 20 by 2016. Why is it that there is an actual distinction between US and Canadian players for domestic slots? is this a FIFA rule? they should be completely interchangeable.
I like 1-2 more teams in Canada. No more after that. I would also like to know how many teams Garber expects in MLS. 22 would be my number but if its anything less I would only want one more Canadian team..MLS is about improving the USA game not the Canadian game.
CD – I think what was meant was further expansion to markets based SOLELY on the fact that there is a large Latino/Hispanic community is not enough to guarentee success. Miami could be a good example of this except the fact that the Miami Fusion were based in Ft. Lauderdale which has a decidedly less Latino population than Miami Dade county. Obviously having soccer in Latino rich area’s has been good most of the time. it doesn’t however mean the team will succesfully draw fans to games.
A couple comments on the Dallas market, with regard to Hispanic fans… The original location was at the Cotton Bowl, which is in an old part of Dallas with a mostly black and partly Hispanic population. It was easy to reach for the Hispanic population. The problem was the stadium was 1) a dump and 2) way too big.
The new stadium is at the extreme northeast edge of the Metroplex, in a very wealthy, white area. Not only is it far from the DFW Hispanic population, but it’s far from the big population centers of Fort Worth, Arlington, and other mid-city areas. For me, living on the southwest side of Fort Worth, going to Frisco is about 2 hours away. If they’d chosen a site in Arlington or Irving, between Dallas and Fort Worth, I think they’d be doing a lot better with ALL fans, and especially Hispanic fans. I think the low attendance figures at Pizza Hut Park are due to this poor planning, and not a reflection on the DFW market overall.
If anyone can help me i have a question, why is it that Montreal doesnt play any saturday games, I wanted to go to one, but fridays coming up from CT are impossible and sunday games going back down to CT suck
DC fan – way too long….can’t pay attention long enough to read that. I’m overwhelmed just looking at it.
@Homey
Just to clarify, I don’t want the Sonics here in the OKC. I went to a few Sonics games five or six years ago. I would rather have the Hornets, or wait a few years for when the Grizzlies inevitably relocate again. I think Bennett screwed Seattle over.
@OSS
My point was you are rushing a little bit. Wait at least until the kid has played a season there. I’m glad he’s playing for you guys, and I’m sure you will have him for awhile, but he just got to Toronto. 🙂
Eric K, how many times has the MLS tried to put a team in a large Latino market only for it to not be as successful as planned? Putting a team in Arizona would be a mistake.
Posted by:JC | July 24, 2008 at 03:20 PM
So are you proposing no MLS teams in Texas or California? Houston has won the last 2 MLS Cups and they have a very good following. Most places in the US have a large Latino Population.
FYI:
“The latest numbers put the Hispanic population in the U.S. at about 41.3 million, or about 14.1 percent of the total.”
4 words: WEEK CANADIAN PLAYER POOL
What is MLS gonna do, make a bunch of (more) roster exceptions for Canadian MLS clubs? That will go over really well Stateside I’m sure.
Great cities for expansion, just not yet.
MLS IN STL NOW!
I would love Montreal in MLS – any more reasons to go to that city is a positive.
(And I need a new team..seems NJ Bulls are going to continue the trend of metros)
you people are nuts about Portland being chosen. TV revenue is critical to developing a stronger league with better teams. Its also an area of growth opportunity for the league. How can a city of Portland’s size be expected to generate enough money for the team? How would Portland add value to a national tv contract. Ya’ll are crazy.
San Antonio, NY 2, Montreal, and Vancover make the most sense on this front.
Too much expansion =NASL
Not too mention the allready diluted talent
What do people mean with comments like “the southeast needs a team”? Are people in places like Jackson, Birmingham, and Orlando going to watch a team from Atlanta on tv? I really doubt it. For that matter, I don’t think people from Atlanta are going to watch a team from Atlanta.
Ted-
The kid is 16 and i dont think we are ridding of him anytime soon (unless europe comes a calling) so im sure we will have him til hes at least 18
What seems to be forgotten in the discussion about what makes for a successful MLS expansion is how the San Jose Earthquakes are doing. That’s a classic case of what could happen to other teams if we look to other markets too quickly or gut existing franchises by moving them or overextend the league by chasing the latest mirage of a hot market. I’d argue that San Jose and its fans were as solid as any in the league and now the fact that they have to rebuild from scratch has been tremendously harmful to MLS in one of its most strategic markets (wealth, location, history, etc.). Now one of the proudest names in the league with 2 MLS titles has become a forgotten step-child in this frenzy to expand (Canada or U.S.). Let’s not forget that the San Jose Earthquakes are THIS YEAR’S expansion team. Just like Toronto FC the MLS must highlight the importance of their viability and success to the league. The franchise’s incarnation in Houston is obviously going well on the field. However it still struggles with a stadium deal that looks dead in the water and therefore cannot hope to turn a profit anytime soon. Meanwhile it may take many years for the Earthquakes to recover both on the field and to reestablish and grow their full fan base and visibility.
Yes, some locations like Kansas City and Columbus aren’t pulling their weight attendance-wise (even before KC moved to its matchbook sized temporary park). It makes them tempting to move. Dallas and Colorado also made the folly of settling for outer suburb locations for their facilities and thereby dispersing their fans. However, in addition to expanding the league it’s first and foremost important to make sure EVERY franchise is healthy enough to compete where they are. Otherwise the league could very quickly destabilize financially and head down the road of NASL-dom if they get too greedy with their growth even at this stage. Franchises could start to flounder and ultimately go under.
The league isn’t in a position to start marketing itself as a global brand that can routinely compete yet with the biggest football leagues in the world or the best soccer leagues in Europe. It still needs QUALITY of market coverage in terms of attendance, community involvement and profitability and a sense of franchise permanence through SSS ownership as well as performance on the field more than just more teams. Signing Beckham was great but to achieve deeper, more lasting growth the league needs to avoid failing franchises and ensure more Toronto-like success within the markets IT ALREADY HAS. By encouraging growth that is more targeted, gradual and natural than it has shown in its earlier history the expansion that will happen over the next 5-10 years can be much more solid. Big money from flashy new names by itself without proper focus on existing teams only means the potential for big problems down the road wherever the MLS expands to next.
“I’d like a team in Oklahoma City, but 2004 was our only hope and there is no way it happens now. Unless Clay Bennett buys the Sounders.”
Dang, Ted… You’re ruthless.
I think people forget that once MLS expanded into Toronto it no longer was a US centric league! MLS needs to answer not only to USSF but also now to CSA as it is considered by FIFA to be Division one in BOTH countries. It will get harder to say NO to both Vancouver and Montreal over time, as both organizations are well funded,well supported and two of the largest developmental CLUBS in North America
MLS is an American league. There should not be more expansion into Canada while we still have an entire quarter of the country with no MLS footprint. Atlanta needs a team. The southeast needs a team.
“Well said Seven, after all take a look at Ibee, hes playing for the US under 20s, and we are developing him…
Posted by:Ossington Mental Youth | July 24, 2008 at 03:25 PM”
I’m not denying that playing in Toronto has helped players Edu and Wynne, but come on, Ibrahim has been in Toronto what, a month? I know you guys gave him his debut but come on. There are beer stains on BMO’s seats that have been there longer than him.
As far as expansion, I’m fine with adding up to 24 teams, provided roster sizes are enlarged and salaries increased. We make the season a month longer, no big deal.
Portland and Montreal would be choices to get the team to 20, followed by St. Louis, Atlanta, Queens and Vancouver.
I’d like a team in Oklahoma City, but 2004 was our only hope and there is no way it happens now. Unless Clay Bennett buys the Sounders.
I was in Montreal with the away TFC fans last month for the first Champions League game and i was at the match on Tuesday. Trust me folks, derby rivalries are critical to this league as much as stadia, TV revenue and player development are if we are to grow the game beyond where we are today.
The TFC/Impact hatred is already on the boil and will lead to massive games, strong away fan support and exposure to the league as a whole.
If their fan base is anything like Toronto FC, their stadiums will ultimately meet MLS’ criteria and there are viable ownership groups, this is a no brainer… have Montreal and Vancouver join ASAP.
If they can support a franchise and they won’t tank, I say go for it. This league needs more teams as well as better quality. More opportunities for young players could help build that.
My only issue on this was always the conversion rate, that so famously used to trouble NHL and NBA teams based in Canada (i.e. paying in American dollars, making money in Canadian dollars). Obviously the two are nearly identical now. I say bring it on.
Get your own league canada
Canada needs 1 more team and I think Montreal is the stronger choice. After that the idea that cities should be chosen only if they bring what Toronto has brought and what Seattle and Philly seem to be bringing. Relocating teams might be a better option than too quickly expanding.
The sport is growing. As it gets “cooler” to be a soccer fan the right market will be obvious. IMO Montreal, Portland and STL are the only markets ready NOW for a team – whether it’s a transplant or a new one.
Butts in seats is much, much more important than TV contracts right now. Go where the financial backers and crowds are.
Atlanta is currently the largest market without a current or future MLS team (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_TV_markets_and_major_sports_teams). The next five are Detroit, Phoenix, Tampa Bay and Minneapolis.
Most important criteria, in order:
1) financial backers
2) market size and support
3) soccer stadium
Figuring out what the six above cities are deficient in the criteria is an exercise to be left to the reader. Or even better, sports business types.
Well said Seven, after all take a look at Ibee, hes playing for the US under 20s, and we are developing him…
Hopefully at some point tv revenue is an important factor for the league, but in the near future the MLS is a gate-driven league. The biggest factor in choosing new markets is the ability to draw people to the stadium. That means a soccer stadium in an accessible area. BMO Field is far from perfect, but it is a big part of Toronto’s success.
I don’t think MLS should have more than 20 teams. That’s 38 games, to which some teams will have to add tournaments and friendlies, squeezed into an eight month season. And, as has been already been noted, there are areas of the US that aren’t covered yet, especially the southeast. There may be room for one more from Canada, probably not two and certainly not three. It’s a bit of a shame because if all Canadian fans are like TFCs, they would be a great addition to the league.
There is no justification for further Candadian expansion at this time, not with larger untapped American markets and salaries/caps/resulting talent pool as they are. There is arguably little justification for futher U.S. expansion now, at least until teams are given more financial freedom. The bottom line that the pay, play, and players have to improve for the teams that already exist (and the ones coming on line) before MLS should even think of adding more sides.
by the way…
has anyone who suggested Phoenix ever considered who would attend a game in the heat? or would the team play in a cavern in Glendale? no thank you.
and Atlanta? terrible support for almost everything else – why waste an MLS team?
it should be VANCOUVER, MONTREAL, PORTLAND, NYC, SAN ANTONIO, AND ST LOUIS
Eric K, how many times has the MLS tried to put a team in a large Latino market only for it to not be as successful as planned? Putting a team in Arizona would be a mistake. A team in Montreal and Vancouver would be excellent in my opinion. Those cities love soccer, and I don’t think the Canadian talent pool would be that big of an issue. Montreal had 5 Canadians in the starting line-up when they tied TFC on Tuesday and they did just fine.
Well said SAsoccerfan
Portland is being touted because they get 30k out to womens national games and have great support at their Timbers games. Who cares about the size of the city, especially if the majority is out for support (newcastle anyone?)
Being a Seattle fan I would love to see Vancouver get a spot. Coming into the league we really don’t have an away game you can drive to which I think is key to a good derby. San Jose is the closest rival and thats 11 hours. I think a continuation of our USL rivalry would go along way to ensuring the longterm prospects of both teams.