When MLS commissioner Don Garber mentioned that Major League Soccer would look to add two more expansion teams by 2012, bringing the league to 20 teams, MLS fans were left wondering whether MLS wasn't going too fast in its expansion plans.
The league may not be moving quite that fast.
Garber clarified the comment he made at Vancouver's MLS expansion announcement on Wednesday, saying on Thursday that the league is not locked into a plan to add two more expansion teams in 2012.
"We've not said 20 by 2012, we're saying that we have to decide what we are going to do in the next round (of expansion)," Garber told SBI on Thursday night. "That next round would come no earlier than 2012, but we've got a lot of work to do to figure out when those next two teams come in, where they should be, where they should be geographically located and how we will manage the player pool."
While 2012 may not be a lock, MLS is keeping the possibility of 2012 expansion open at least in part to keep the losing 2011 bids engaged and interested in continuing their pushes for expansion. Whether teams 19 and 20 join in 2012 remains to be seen, but it is evident that MLS officials are aware of the challenges that expanding to 20 teams so quickly would present.
Given the early success in Seattle, and the promising reactions to expansion teams in Vancouver and Portland, MLS may find itself with a crop of expansion candidates eager to join MLS as soon as possible, which could force the league to add two more teams in 2012.
What do you think MLS should do? Should the league expand to 20 teams by 2012 or should MLS hold off a year or two in order to let the talent pool be replenished? Do you think MLS should stop at 18 teams?
Which did you choose, and why? Share your thoughts on Major League Soccer's expansion plans beyond 2011 in the comments section below.
yes, increase in salary cap would be nice also…. but harder for expansion then.
I too would like to see the addition of a second divison. We need at least 27 teams or so for that… so the more we get as soon as we can the happier i am.
the more the merrier. The more teams we have, the more players, coaches, fans, stadiums, news, money, etc. etc. we have. Also, the more teams we can get as soon as possible the sooner we will have better competition and stronger fan bases. Its like China, quantity has a quality all its own. 🙂
MLS roster of teams by 2035
1. LA Galaxy
2. Chivas USA
3. New York
4. Chicago
5. Colorado
6. Columbus
7. DC
8. Dallas
9. Houston
10. KC
11. New England
12. Real Salt Lake
13. San Jose
14. Seattle
15. Toronto
16. Phil
17. Vancouver
18. Portland
19. Miami
20. St. Louis
21. New York 2
22. Atlanta
23. Ottawa
24. San Diego
25. Las Vegas
26. PHX
27. Carolina
28. Cleveland
29. Montreal
30. Puerto Rico
31. New Orleans
32. Tampa Bay
33. San Antonio
34. Detroit
35. Minnasota
36. Milwakee
38. Indiana
39. Pittsburg
40. ?????
This would be enough for 1st and 2nd division with promotion and relegation and a 38 game Schedule. And Freddy Adu would still be playing and still only 20 years old. Am I missing any important cities? And who should have the 40th team?
I honestly doubt St. Louis will ever get a team. If it is such a soccer “hotbed” as most people have made it out to be, it would have had a team from the league’s outset.
20 teams would be nice either way. I wish that they would increase the salary cap rather than expansion every year.
I say Award teams in 2013 (St. Louis) and 2014 (Southern Geo – ATL or FLA).
1. I would hate to see the fire burn out on expansion!
2. It allows Ownership groups to begin the long process of bidding, funding, and galvanizing “citywide” support.
3. The CBA will have had some time to be in effect.
4. New teams get to have some of the Expansion hype for their BRAND to themselves for a year!
Realistically MLS has enough players for two maybe three decent sides. More teams only dilutes the poor talent pool further.
Of course we could and should expand. What cities? I have no preference, but it should have nothing to do with “deserve”; it should have to do with committed and wealthy ownership, with a viable stadium situation in an accessible location, and visible and enthusiastic fan support.
While years ago the league was so needy that teams like KC, SJ, and Chivas USA where shown a wide open door, the league is no longer in need of franchises that may struggle. The new model is Toronto, Seattle, Vancouver, and Portland (the last two I believe will be huge successes from season one).
(As a side note, I worked for 6 months in Portland a few years ago and going to see the Timbers was the most fun I’ve had watching soccer matches in America. 107 Army really rocks, the location of the stadium is perfect, and it feels cozy in there. And the rivalry with Seattle and Vancouver is going to be huge fun to watch).
St. Louis? Where is the Sons of Ben like fans we saw in Philadelphia pushing for a franchise? I don’t see it.
Montreal? Sounds like they could be a hit, but that owner sounds like a loose cannon.
Miami? Atlanta? Nothing in place that would suggest anything but a gamble at this point.
I am interested in what Garber was thinking when he expressed incredulously that only ONE person emailed him after Miami was nixed.
I for one, supported Miami, but why do you need to email him when it is clear one of the top strengths of the bid–Barca, pulled out? It was a no-brainer, even for the most ardent fan, that Miami would not be an option this time around.
NOW, if Barca had remained, and all was hunky-dory, then I would have written had they been passed over for Vancouver and Portland on this round. (but I am pleased at those two picks, too).
I don’t think you can count out Miami. It is unique, to be sure, and a challenge, but only uninformed fanboys of other regions will continue to propagate the myth that “Miami is a failed soccer city” or some variation of that.
i think working off of the seattle/portland model of incorporating USL franchises (and their fans) is probably a safe bet for the near future.
watching Seattle last night was awesome. good fan support is so important- and I don’t just mean numbers of fans.
Realistically, Montreal will be one of the 2012 teams. MLS probably wants to get them in the league as they have the stadium(with a few upgrades) and the fan support which seattle, phi, vancouver and portland all have. Montreal already has a pretty decent team, so they can sign the best of them when they make the move up. The real question is who is the 20th team? St Louis can never get their ducks in a row. Will NYC2 be ready? Doubt it. Atlanta is a joke, Ottawa will probably lose their stadium to the CFL. Miami, who knows whats going on down there. So really, who is the 20th team going to be?
one fourth of the country doesn’t have a team in it–the SouthEast Needs a team!
Yeah, there is enough talent out there to field teams, though quality of play might be another issue. I’m going with adding one expansion team per season, which is not in the choices.
The ineptitude of Metromedia/AEG/Red Bull in their management of the team is not a reflection of the NYC soccer market.
Fact of the matter is that if there were an investor willing to sink money into a place to play, and would pony up the franchise fees, there would by an NYC team.
Sulky snit-fits from soccer nerds have nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Haig
how has the team management stopped people (ie the market) from going to games? just by the product on the field? not promoting the games enough? stadium location? terrible stadium? but if there is a soccer market large enough for two teams, why would you need to promote for one team all that much? it just doesn’t make sense to me that the soccer market is so large and can hold two teams, when the one team already there can’t draw any fans to games. make me believe!!
and i don’t even know what that last sentence means.
Barca should join the St. Louis bid. If they really want a presence in MLS that would be smart for them. Some of the best American talent comes from St. Louis and the fan base is ready. It seems they just need the $$$
I think that Garber has some precise markets in mind and is waiting a solid proposition from investors in those markets (St-Louis, Montreal probably).
Talent dillution is a myth, there are nearly 200 Americans and Canadians playing outside of MLS and not in starting in significant Euro leagues. Getting those players into MLS and playing rather riding pine would solve talent pool issues for nearly a dozen teams. Certainly the league can’t get them all back, but even half would add the depth needed to improve talent and expand at the same time.
And of course there is still the untapped by MLS Brazil
it’s sad but true about Miami. We couldn’t get the fan base excited.
We have a ton of “football” fans and about 10 “soccer” fans. We have it all Eurosnobs and whatever the South American equivalent is. MLS simply doesn’t interest people.
it’s really a sad state of affairs. I’m completely defeated by the lack of interest.
what do you want me to do- write out a full proposal? talk to the mayor about new transit lines? find every empty lot within a 3 mile radius for future parking (and from google maps, there’s plenty)?
it was a suggestion man. chill out.
if Charleston wouldn’t be profitable, then it shouldn’t and wouldn’t happen. i have no access to the club’s current finances or future prospectus. my only argument was that they are club that has been around for sometime and in my view done good things for the soccer community. i’d like to see that continue in MLS. i think it would be nice to have a small market team in a nice cozy but fun stadium.
I would have kept the league at 16, for now, and I would definitely not get beyond 18 in the next couple of years. My concern is the talent pool dilution. Salary cap increase and roster size increase would help, but still, the league would depend too much on infusion of foreign talent. With 18 teams, you can have a nice full season.
Instead of expanding, I’d focus on growing the level of play, returning of the reserve division, and somehow getting a shot at playing in the Copa Libertadores (may be some kind of a playoff with the Mexican teams). Improvements on these fronts should lead, eventually, to the ability to expandn to 20, if there is a continuing interest.
Having said the above, there is a reason why Garber is an MLS commissioner and I am not. Let’s hope he is right about the pace of expansion.
you guys need to chill with this expansion to the south nonsense. atlanta had a usl-1 team. and what happened to them? they had to fold. i dont know about other areas of the south but atlanta is definitely not ready to support an MLS squad. as much as i’d like atlanta to have one people down here just dont care that much about soccer yet. MLS shouldnt be expanding to make it geographically fair. do we want another repeat of kanas city, dallas, chivas usa, etc? i think the best bet would be to expand to montreal next. i’m not sure what kind of support st. louis has so i wont comment.
Here is an idea to not dilute the talent pool in the United States and to also amplfy the level of talent in the MLS…pay them more!
The best athletes from the United States long do not play soccer or commit to the MLS for several reasons.
1) There is no money in it. If you are a stud, why won’t you try to get into the NFL, NBA, or MLB? In Europe, some of the best athletes play soccer because of fame and money.
2) The players that do make it to the MLS or are top prospects go to Europe because the competition level is better. If we could keep players like Jozy Altidore, Carlos Bocenegra, and Clint Dempsey here while luring some players from Europe to the US, the MLS would be much more respected.
I know that the teams have to be making money, which all of them are not, for this to make sense business-wise, but until they can afford to keep good players, raise the quality of play, which will in turn recruit more kids to play soccer and make it a profession creating a loop that would propel soccer upwards.
Just an idea and a dream.
Posted by: Justin Miami, with its hispanic population, could support a team.
I get the sense Garber is over Miami. He mentioned in a recent article how surprised he was at the lack of enthusiasm down there for a team. Miami looks good on paper when you check out the demographics, but they couldn’t support the Fusion, their USL team is on life support…I don’t think Garber is impressed at what he’s seeing down there.
“are the Red bulls even going to be able to fill their new stadium?”
The ineptitude of Metromedia/AEG/Red Bull in their management of the team is not a reflection of the NYC soccer market.
Fact of the matter is that if there were an investor willing to sink money into a place to play, and would pony up the franchise fees, there would by an NYC team.
Sulky snit-fits from soccer nerds have nothing to do with it.
Wow. Do you know anything about Charleston? First of all, don’t you think Fulham has public transportation? Charleston doesn’t, except for some buses — where would you expand parking? That’s right, nowhere.
As for Green Bay — are you serious? That’s a team and city with an 80(?)-year tradition. It isn’t even remotely comparable. And there is plenty more to do in Charleston in the summer than Green Bay in the winter.
The team exists in Charleston because the founder of Blackbaud bankrolls it. Without him, his money, or dedication, the market would not be viable. Sad but true.
Two teams in 2012 makes sense as long as those two teams are St. Louis and Montreal.
A town of 500k? I love Charleston, but never. And expand Blackbaud? Onto 526? Into the swamp and estuaries?
Posted by: RK
i’m not saying build an Emirates stadium. just work on the stadium a little (but there is plenty of room to expand.. see links). if they think that expanding the seating (5000) wouldn’t be necessary, they can just through some partial roofs over the stands to close in the stadium a bit. make it feel more intimate, amplify the crowd noise, etc.
look at Blackbaud’s footprint: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=&gl=us&ie=UTF8&ll=32.87068,-79.919985&spn=0.003366,0.004828&t=h&z=18
look at Craven Cottage’s footprint: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=&gl=us&ie=UTF8&ll=51.47442,-0.220488&spn=0.004992,0.009656&t=h&z=17
Blackbaud already takes up almost the same amount of space.
too small of a city? first, it just matters whether the team can be profitable. second, green bay packers.
Miami, with its hispanic population, could support a team. I’d be fine with Miami and St. Louis being the last two teams.
The South doesn’t “deserve” a team. Realistically the only area which might support a team is the Carolinas – not Atlanta – not Miami.
The whole idea of a league requiring a “national footprint” has been put to rest by the ill-advised NHL expansions.
and i think that at some point, the Charleston Battery deserve/need to move into MLS. a classy club. just expand Blackbaud a little. keep it nice and cozy with a partial roof to amplify the noise. craven cottage west.
Posted by: mb
A town of 500k? I love Charleston, but never. And expand Blackbaud? Onto 526? Into the swamp and estuaries?
Go to 20 teams, but then freeze expansion for five years or so. Use the freeze period to let teams get their finances into the black, make sure the multi-team ownership groups sell down to one team, one owner, give the rosters some room to breathe, build up stadiums for the teams that don’t have them already, and plan out the logistics of what will happen when they go beyond 20 teams and need to limit play by conference/geography/etc.
On another note…my boy EJ just got another call up for the Nats. Bradley loves this guy
whats the deal with this “2nd team in NY” crap? that would be stupid. are the Red bulls even going to be able to fill their new stadium?
I need Ives to post my appology to all the SSFC fans. Your hype and belief has been substantiated. SSFC was truely impressive in dismanteling RBNY last night.
i think expansion in the south should come before more expansion in Canada.
I’d love to see Montreal and St. Louis added in 2012. Two West Coast teams in 2011, two easten (well, ish) teams the next.
Charlotte as well. as mentioned already.
i’ll let the eggheads do the financial math.
i just think MLS needs to expand in the South. I think Atlanta should have a team. obviously any number of cities in Florida could get a team- with Miami at the top of the list. Maybe even a Nashville.
and i think that at some point, the Charleston Battery deserve/need to move into MLS. a classy club. just expand Blackbaud a little. keep it nice and cozy with a partial roof to amplify the noise. craven cottage west.
i’d be thrilled about the increasing number of expansion teams, if i thought MLS would adjust its roster restrictions, in turn. if they don’t, i don’t think expansion is a good idea, because the quality of the player pool will be spread thinner over more teams.
1. I’m not worried about the watering down of talent. The level of play at the youth and college levels continues to improve, get broader and deeper every year. MLS is now open to loans, is expanding what it spends on players. It might be an issue for Canadian MLS clubs (unless they’re willing to field a side with only 1 or 2 Canadians on the field) but not for US teams.
2. I think the two biggest reasons for playing a “wait and see” approach (ie: open to adding 2 in 2012 but not guaranteeing it) are:
–the economy, and
–the economy.
In short, the economy means that perfectly good markets and ownership teams (Montreal, Miami with Barca) may back out. The economy affects sponsorship. The economy affects the ability to get stadiums built (DC United may not get their PG County stadium because of economic problems manifested at the county level–you’ve got to figure it will be an even bigger issue for most expansion teams).
So it makes sense for MLS to play a “wait and see” approach. I’d like to add 2 more teams in 2012. But not if it means taking the 2 best contenders even if you exclude some better options who aren’t willing to bid just yet. For instance, the next two best options might be Ottawa and Montreal. But MLS can’t continue to grow and become 22 and then 24 and then 26 teams. And it’s incredibly important to get some clubs in the South (Miami, Atlanta, Charlotte, Charleston, maybe Birmingham) and more in the center of the US (St. Louis, Memphis, Oklahoma). That makes TV contracts more likely, the league becomes more attractive to sponsorship, and improves overall media coverage. Now all of those markets I just named aren’t going to be realistic options. But if the economy turns around, I bet that St. Louis and Miami either go into play or become more viable.
3. My thinking is that the idea of a 2nd team in NYC is becoming less and less likely due to size limitations–the league really shouldn’t go above 20 teams (for a bunch of reasons–balanced schedule, FIFA dictates). I don’t think it’s fair to RBNY to award a second team until after the new stadium in Harrison has had a year or two and fan interest and draw can be gauged. If 90% of the fans at Harrison are from NJ than a second NY team becomes more attractive but if it’s more 50-50 it’s harder to make that case (and yes, I know Harrison isn’t close to most NYC residents). So I personally think that the best chance of a 2nd team in the NY area is for a longer recession that discourages other attractive expansion bids (like St. Louis and Miami can’t build their owner-base, others can’t get stadium financing, Montreal won’t pony up the $40 million a year from now), maybe Chivas is bought and moved (Phoenix, Miami, St. Louis–whatever) so that that come 2 years after Harrison’s opening, we still aren’t at 20 teams.
how about 18 teams with deeper roster and better pay?
I’m worried about the watering down of talent in the league by starting up potentially 5 teams in 5 years.
I thought it was in interesting comment from Garber about how they have a lot of work to do, including figuring out where these two new teams should be geographically located. What does that mean? Would they exclude certain bids based on location? Are they shying away from the two teams in one city approach (like NY)?
“where they should be geographically located” It doesn’t take a geography major to figure that one out. Of course, they did just drop the ball in that area twice this week, so you never know what their plans are. The closest team to me is over a 14 hour drive. I live in the continental US, in one of the highest populated states. That should not happen with a Major League.
18 teams is 34 games; that’s more than enough with the roster sizes. Form a 2nd division, with relegation/promotion if you want to add more teams.
Go to 20 teams. Have 2 divisions in each conference, with the top 2 teams in each division going forward to the play-offs.
Expand!!! The player pool will catch up but take advantage of the interest cities and owners have right now! Ideally, if MLS could grow to a 20-28 team league, then it would be perfect.
I think if you expand senior rosters to 25 and up the salary cap to 4 mill next year you can get away with it. Otherwise the expansion draft will really decimate the limited depth some teams have.
I think the league would like to wait and see how 2011 works out with bringing in two expansion teams at the same time before they pursue additional expansion. Player pool dilution may be a major concern. Additionally, the result of the impending CBA negotiations will play a huge part in expansion in regards to total cash required to operate a team.
Give the soccer fans some time to savor what they have. Maybe when MLS game highlights and not the last thought to pop into Beckham’s head becomes a part of sportscenter (I mean mainstream sports culture in the USA) then the league can safely go into 20 or even more teams if it’s viable.