Top Stories

Garber addresses NYCFC stadium pursuit, Chivas USA rumors, future MLS expansion and more

Don Garber


NEW YORK — MLS commissioner Don Garber was standing in front of a herd of media members to discuss the addition of New York City FC on Wednesday and in his hands was a dark handkerchief that he used to wipe off sweat from his forehead.

The questions Garber was answering weren’t the reason for the perspiration – the quaint room with a kid-sized soccer field at the top of P.S. 72 in East Harlem was – but his responses to them revealed quite a bit about what MLS may look like in the near future.

Naturally, the subject that most of the talk revolved around was NYCFC and their hiring of Claudio Reyna as director of football. Garber touched on those topics as well as another of interest: the future home of New York City FC, which Garber said the club, not MLS, will be in charge of securing from this point forward.

“The league spent over a year working with the city of New York to try to reach an agreement on having an MLS team, our 20th team, playing in Flushing Meadows Corona Park,” said Garber. “Recently, as we were on a parallel path negotiating with (NYCFC owners) Manchester City, we realized that an owner should take over those negotiations. It wouldn’t have been right for the team, and frankly, it might not have been the right thing for the community, for the league to finalize an agreement before they had an opportunity to meet the ownership group.

“Now, that ownership group owns the team. They can go out and tell their story, they can listen as well as talk about all the great things that they’ve done and what they plan to do, talk about the contributions they were going to make to the park. They couldn’t talk about that because they didn’t own the team. This, to us, is a perfect scenario for them to continue the discussions on. If they decide that it’s not a stadium location that makes sense, they’ll have to find another location and the league is comfortable with that. We needed to hand over these discussions from the league to an owner, who will ultimately be the community partner.”

Garber also talked about the blowback that MLS’s recent soccer-specific stadium search yielded from several corners of the New York metro area. The 55-year-old Queens native expressed confidence in that having a face behind the team’s ownership group, which also includes the New York Yankees, will help NYCFC find a viable short-term option and a long-term solution.

“I think that the community doesn’t understand the team, they don’t understand the management and they have never met and were never able to go out and tell their story, so some of the issues that existed did not surprise us.” said Garber, who was also referencing some of the gender and human rights concerns that some have had with Manchester City’s owners. “Now, they’ll  have an opportunity to go out and meet them and I am absolutely convinced when they meet members of the Manchester City board, when they meet the players, when they meet their management, when they meet Claudio, they will not just be comfortable but they will embrace them.

“This I am for sure of.”

Inevitably, Garber was questioned as to why having a pair of teams in the New York market would be any different than having two in Los Angeles, where the LA Galaxy have been a rousing success both on and off the field while Chivas USA have struggled for mediocrity.

Garber acknowledged that Chivas USA has not worked in Los Angeles but added that the dynamics behind the City of Angels and New York are entirely distinct. He also dispelled recent rumors of MLS trying to takeover the club and Chivas USA’s ownership group being open to selling the team, which seems to indicate that the Goats will be in MLS for the foreseeable future.

“Anything you’ve heard is absolute nonsense,” said Garber. “However that report came out of Mexico, it’s irresponsible, it’s unprofessional and, frankly, that kind of reporting shouldn’t exist in your industry. We have no plans to take over that team. That being said, we want them to get better and we believe the situation there is not positive, not positive for them and their fans.

“I’ve spoken to (Chivas USA owners Jorge Vergara and Angelica Fuentes), met with them and they took over this team from their partner, the Cue family, 3-4 months ago and they had it for eight years,” added Garber. “They need some time and that’s basically what they’re saying. They’ve got a plan and they need some time to execute that plan. … They have expressed no interest in selling the team at all.”

Another hot topic Garber spoke about was future expansion. Garber said MLS had no preliminary timetable for adding teams and that its focus was instead on helping NYCFC find a home and helping out other teams in the league.

That may not seem to bode well for a club like Orlando City – which have been pushing hard for an MLS team for the better part of a year and have stated their target date to begin play in America’s top tier is 2015 – but Garber again mentioned Florida as a place for potential expansion in the somewhat near future.

“We’ve got to ensure that we find (NYCFC) the right place to play temporarily, ensure that they are making the right decisions in terms of their permanent home,” said Garber. “Then we’ll start, relatively soon, thinking about where we end up, in Florida or in other parts of the country.

“There’s more energy on expansion than there ever has been before. I’ve said in the past, we want to be sure we get it right and we’ve got a handful of clubs that have been here for a while that we’re working on to get them right.”


  1. I would like to see another team from California but from the Central Valley let it be from Fresno, Ca it would be nice to see a major sport team arrive in the valley you don’t know how much all the central valley would love this. Fresno Fuego….

  2. New York Cosmos will buy Chivas USA, (obviously rebrand to NY Cosmos) relocate the team to Long Island. Long live the New York Cosmos.

  3. I do think if Garber (…and the Owners of NYCFC) really want to make a statement with MLS and NYCFC, they should be looking for a better and less controversial location than Flushing Meadow Park for the future home of NYCFC. While, I do not pretend to know all the political maneuverings, zoning laws and cost of the land acquisition involved in a project like this. The locations I will suggest vs. Flushing, in my opinion would be more appealing and would make a bold statement about the arrival of MLS as true pro-league. Build the Stadium in;
    Redhook, Brooklyn Next to IKEA. This location has the land space and an awesome Skyline of Freedom Tower and NYC. It’s close to the F-Train and an easy walk from DUMBO/Brooklyn Bridge Park, Downtown Brooklyn. It’s right off the I-278 that links BROOKLYN/QUEENS/BRONX/CT/STATEN Island, Long Island and New Jersey. An adventurous person can walk the Brooklyn Bridge, then the BBP to the stadium.

    Industry City, Brooklyn. This area offers that same awesome views of NYC/Manhattan. The distance from Subways and some of the features (Restaurants, Bars, waterfront seats and leisure spaces of Redhook are way less.

    Navy Yard/Williamsburg, option worth looking into

  4. Here’s an idea. Have Disney make a movie about soccer. It could even be about 2 fictional teams from Annaheim and Orlando. Maybe the teams could be called the Anaheim Jedi or the Annaheim Alliance. Orlando’s team could be the Orlando Sith or Orlando Vaders. Then Disney could buy out Chivas and Orlando FC and rename them and move a team to Annaheim a la the Ducks. Didn’t the Maloufs want to move the Sacto Kings to Annaheim at one point. Maybe they could use the money they got from selling the Kings and buy a soccer team. Maybe they would be better at managing soccer?

    You all realise this is tongue in cheek, but maybe it could work.

  5. It seems to me that The Don might be waiting to deal with Chivas in order to move them to Orlando. Basically killing two birds with one stone. Orlando City buys the MLS franchise rights from Chivas instead of buying franchise expansion rights from the league.

    Then the presence in the south east is solidified quickly with the addition of FC Beckham in Miami, and Arthur Blank get his team in Atlanta. Add another team by promoting Minnesota United FC in Minneapolis or expansion in St. Louis to add more to the Midwest foundation of the league.

    24 team MLS by 2020 for sure.

    • The south is geographically huge. It’s about as far from Richmond to Charlotte as it is from DC to NYC. DC and Philadelphia are closer to each other than Atlanta and Savannah. I don’t see how putting a team in Orlando covers that entire region of the country. Plus, sports fans from Charlotte and Nashville view teams from Atlanta as rivals. I don’t see people driving to Atlanta from Alabama to root for a team that represents a city whose teams they traditionally view as rivals.

    • Minnesota United FC all the way. In talks with several locales for new stadium build, as I hear it. Some decent recent signings as well.

  6. I think Mexico City is now the most important city in North America without a MLS team. When will MLS expand there?

  7. If MLS wants to become more prominent nationally, they would do better to not have two teams in the same city. Both Chivas and the new NYC team should be in other cities in order to extend and expand interest generally in MLS.

    • NYRB is in Harrison NJ, NYCFC is in NYC…..Expanding into NYC is valuable and marketable for MLS. The distance marketing that works for the Jets and Giants will not work for MLS…..Hence, a real team in the target market. Chivas needs to be relocated withing LA and out of Galaxy’s domain.

  8. Why dont the mex league and mls league join forces and make one huge league. Then we can have two teirs like in Europe. Its funny, I know but a thought for 2010, which is when the transformers cartoon movie took place.

  9. The reason why you have such great support for the Seattle Sounders and Portland Timbers is b/c the team name and spirit represents those specific cities. They don’t have team names that were stolen from other famous clubs from other countries such as DC United or Real Salt Lake. (There’s nothing “royal’ in Salt Lake) Although these two teams have fan bases and clubs that are doing great as most teams are all over the league (except Chivas) it’s always more meaningful when a soccer team represents the spirit of the city it’s playing for.

  10. the countdown has started for red bull to join powers with cosmos. if I was red bull ceo i would buy the cosmos brand in a beat and i would just make red bull our jersey and stadium sponsor. any jersey design ideas? I dare anyone to sketch one.

    • At first I thought, “That’s crazy,” but the more I think about it, the more it seems like a great way to respond to the unveiling of the Mankees. I don’t think either the Cosmos or RBNY wants to have anything to do with the other, but stranger things have happened.

      • If “Mankees” doesn’t instantly catch on as the main nickname of derision for NYCFC, there’s something just terribly, terribly wrong.

    • Like everything this guy writes – it’s crazy and makes no sense. Just calling something the Cosmos isn’t going to make anyone come to a game.

      • Well, when Red Bull eventually sells RBNY (as I predict they will at some point) the new owners will HAVE to rename the team. At that stage they would have to at least consider purchasing the Cosmos brand — why wouldn’t they?

  11. Well said by the don; this opperation needs to be run by the club not the league.. Centralized planning is not a good idea for a national league..

  12. “That being said, we want them to get better and we believe the situation there is not positive, not positive for them and their fans.”

    No, no, no Don. You made a point to publicly state you liked the direction Chivas were heading. That they added something “different” to the league.

    Well, they’re certainly accomplishing that. Perhaps you and the league should be more careful about who you accept as ownership groups if you believe the situation “is not positive”.

    Speaking of not positive and borrowing from a journalist on another website, the association (or lack thereof) of Sheikh Mansour and the human rights and ethics issues with the LGBT community in the UAE, where’s Deputy Prime Minister, is a bit puzzling when your latest league-wide campaign is “Don’t Cross the Line”. Especially with MLS alum, Robbie Rogers, recently coming out..and may eventually rejoin the league.

    Now, I’m not trying to stir up a non-story but at some point that issue needs to be asked (by responsible journalists) and needs to be addressed by the league and The Don.

    • Back to Chivas, though, for the love of Baby Jesus, rebrand and relocate that club. For the league, for the fans and for the club itself. San Diego would be nice.

      Having to call them “Chivas”, seeing their embarrassing attendance and being appalled at their general direction…I wouldn’t be opposed to dissolving the team either.

      At least we wouldn’t have to hear about that ridiculous league titled “Super Clasico” anymore.

      • I’m with you. I could understand why Garber would want to play nice, Chivas USA bought into the league when it was young to go off the popularity of the 2002 World Cup. not many other owners were willing to buy in…so I do understand his loyalty to an extent.

        having said that, that was in 2004. it’s now 2013 and we’re talking strategy for 2014+. in other words, 10 years later and Chivas USA is not any better off than it was back then. at some point, Garber needs to set aside his loyalty and put pressure on Chivas USA…give them an ultimatum even. And maybe he is behind closed doors, but it’s plain as day that something has to be done with Chivas USA.

        i’m also not convinced of San Diego. it could honestly go either way. if the owners aren’t ready to spend money, people in San Diego won’t be interested (look at the Chargers and Padres). for people who already love soccer, Xolos is a quick and easy trip. and given the Hispanic population here, Xolos are very popular down here.

        it’s tough, but as a San Diego resident, i would welcome it.

      • especially when this A-hole is sitting there telling DC United he will move them to Baltimore if they don’t get an SSS.

        where is his loyalty to an original, and the most decorated, MLS club? he’s never said anything like that about the Revs either.

      • Exactly there needs to be more going on with the “Keep United in D.C.”. Also with the Revs not only do they need a better home, but they are one of the last in desperate need of a new logo. The YMCA Crew wouldn’t be bad either, but it seriously looks a kid drew the Rev’s logo the day before it went to print.

      • It is only recently that the Chargers haven’t sold out every game. When the Padres do well, so does atte4ndance. If given a decent product, San Diego will turn out for a sports franchise. But fans need to feel like ownership is committed to producing a winner.

      • chivas’ new ownership is brand new. what they are trying to do could be good for the league, but they have to be given time to make it work. if it goes to plan, they will add diversity to the league (the league desperately needs diversity in therms of style so that fans will distinguish between different organizations based on more than just geography) and it could attract a new set of eyeballs (which is what the league needs more than anything else in order to really prosper).

        so far, they have had time to deconstruct the roster. of course they are not going to be any good or marketable right now. lets see where they are at this time next year before completely condemning them.

      • So a racist selection policy is good for the league? Well, it is different, I’ll give you that.

    • it has been, Don Garber addressed it, in the same article you referenced:

      “We are the league for a new America and our stand against any kind of discrimination has really almost been second to none,” said Garber. “So clearly, any owner that comes into MLS, whether it’s an existing owner or a new owner, is going to be living to those standards. And we’re not just comfortable with Manchester City and their ownership.

      “When we looked at what they did in Manchester and looked at the support they have, when we look at the stances that they’ve taken as it relates to any types of discrimination, they’ve been a leader in the Premier League for some of the anti-racism programs that have been going on there. We were not [only] not concerned about it, but we were proud about them coming into MLS.”

  13. This is the same Don Garber who blessed the birth of Chivas USA, right? From the way he and those eager to please him in the media talk, he totally had nothing to do with that.

  14. I do not think that Chivas will be around much longer, but the franchise will. It will be bought, either by the MLS or by another party, then moved and re branded or rebranded and then moved.

    I do hope the franchise stays in So. Cal, which is what I think the MLS wants. LA and even So. Cal is a hotbed of soccer. relocating and rebranding Chivas to move to Orange County or San Diego would be a good move.

    But if Chivas wants to stay as Chivas, they need to change their whole strategy,, And that strategy, I’m afraid is to hold tight until they can sell out a reasonable price.

      • The “too much competition from Tijuana” angle is a myth propagated by one excitable journalist.

        I’m sure there are other reasons though–possible the “too small a media market” one included–that MLS has passed on SD since the Clash folded.

      • I think those two things are related to be honest. Because of the small market of SD, Xolos give it too much competition to be considered a safe bet.

        Of course, San Diego is the 2nd largest city in California and the 8th largest US city. it’s hard to say it’s really a small market. but when you look at the Chargers and Padres, you can see why people think that.

        Maybe because a lot of people in San Diego aren’t even from San Diego and have allegiances to other teams? Or maybe because there hasn’t been solid owners? I think for an MLS team to be successful here, it would have to spend some serious money.

        I will say…Roman Abramovich has his yacht in our harbor for like 6 months out of the year. He essentially lives here. The thing is massive and you can see it anytime you are down there. He has to move it for the cruise ships when they come in. haha

      • I think those two things are related to be honest. Because of the small market of SD, Xolos give it too much competition to be considered a safe bet.

        Of course, San Diego is the 2nd largest city in California and the 8th largest US city. it’s hard to say it’s really a small market. but when you look at the Chargers and Padres, you can see why people think that.

        Maybe because a lot of people in San Diego aren’t even from San Diego and have allegiances to other teams? Or maybe because there hasn’t been solid owners? I think for an MLS team to be successful here, it would have to spend some serious money.

        I will say…Roman Abramovich has his yacht in our harbor for like 6 months out of the year. He essentially lives here. The thing is ma$$ive and you can see it anytime you are down there. He has to move it for the cruise ships when they come in. haha

      • The small market argument doesn’t hold water, especially when Chivas USA hasn’t worked in one of the biggest in the country, and the Timbers have possibly the most loyal and energetic group of fans attached to it and has a population of like a half a million people.

        The problem with both existing San Diego sports franchises is that the city’s sports fans haven’t been given a ton of reason to believe either ownership group is committed to winning and to the future of the respective franchise. The one rep that has been concentrated on progression and development is Aztecs basketball which sells out a their games in a city that was long ago deemed not a basketball city. Chargers ownership actually told their fans on their website last year that they were overreacting to the team’s subpar play.

        San Diego has a rich soccer history that’s still building itself (longest pro American sports winning streak: San Diego sockers). I don’t think you can count any city in or out for an MLS franchise based on the successes or failures of their “major sport” franchises. What I do think is that MLS won’t move Chivas USA away from the west coast, I haven’t heard a word about them relocating to somewhere else in LA (not sure what that would accomplish at this point anyway), they’ve already pretty well taken care of everything from the bay up, so the only place to go is south.

        One of the few things Garber has publicly said this year that I fully agree with is that the players aren’t the stars of the league anymore, it’s the fans. I think the successes in the league have been based around affordability, fan involvement and outreach, and proper facilities more than iit has been about geographical location. I certainly don’t think they should adopt a policy of “if you build it, they will come,” I just think they need to concentrate on potential ownership replacements first and the benefits that they bring to the table. If people feel like the owners are accessible and listen to the fans, they’ll line up at the door, regardless of where the stadium is.

      • I think it’s quite relevant whether the market is sufficient for a team, considering MLS’ Florida history.

        I also think it’s self-serving to say LA2 hasn’t worked, that was once a 18K fans team that was in the playoffs. What has happened is the owners were not content with being a good MLS team with loose branding, they tried to implement a true Chivas ethos here, and they kneecapped their own success and attendance.

      • I’d agree that Chivas ownership shot themselves in the foot, but I think responsibility also falls on MLS for bringing in an organization that, though its fundamental ethos may work in some ways in Mexico, was always doomed to fail here. Chivas USA was always going to be a stepchild, and for them to expect CD Gualdalajara’s fans to get behind a product that’s subpar just because they’re wearing the colors was a bit foolish. They really thought they were going to walk through this league the first couple years, and it seems like its only recently hat youve started hearing their coaching staffs admitting that they arent being given the resources to succeed in MLS. I think the league has made huge strides in vetting out potential ownership groups since Chivas USAs inception though.

        There’s a lot that’s gone wrong with Chivas. Though I’d love to see an MLS team down here in San Diego, I really think that Orlando, Atlanta, and St. Louis deserve teams, I just don’t see the league moving the franchise that far. Only time will tell. Being from San Diego means Ill always hope for a team to move down here, but I’m content with the league growing, being successful, and developing talent to feed the USMNT.

      • I also don’t think it’s necessary for two franchises to share a stadium. LA is a city full of sports fans that demand winning and want big names. The Galaxy have more or less taken care of both of those, and Chivas USA have done neither. I know they had decent attendance at one point, but I think having them share a market with one of the original darlings of the league is hindering their ability to develop a fan base by way of a captive audience.

        I think there will be a lot of valid arguments for cities that could take this franchise, I’m just saying the only one that doesn’t sound reasonable involves keeping it in LA. Sucks for the Chivas USA fans, but the team needs its own home. Just my opinion.

  15. last i heard, Orlando (the actual city) was going to approve land for the stadium, but it needed to pa$$ another hurdle. did it pa$$ it? what’s the status with it? i’ll google if no one knows, but i figure i will ask first.

    if everything IS in order for Orlando, and they are able to break ground on the stadium by the end of 2013, i think MLS should seriously consider them. if they have the right ownership in place (which it appears they do) and they have an SSS approved, why ignore them?

    it’s almost as if MLS really doesn’t want two teams in Florida and are holding out for the possibility of Beckham having a team in Miami. completely unsubstantiated, but that’s what it feels like.

    • The bill died on the last day of session, it wasn’t voted on. So the options now are wait another year and have the legislature vote on it, or secure additional funding through other sources. The owner expressed that they were pursuing the latter so they can aim for being part of the MLS in 2015.

      • Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the amount of public funding they were trying for pretty small compared to the cost of 1) building a stadium and, 2) joining MLS.

        I’m pretty sure I read somewhere (though I’m not sure how reputable the source was) that they were trying to get single-digit millions of public dollars, while both the stadium and joining MLS will cost >$100 million apiece.

      • Short story in Orlando is this…

        1. Bill (that Miami Dolphins, Daytona, etc…) was looking to get approved was not discussed in FL state senate for partial, state funded contribution. This doesn’t mean no state money in the future, it means no state money today. That share was rumored to be 1m per year for 30 years.

        2. City of Orlando very supportive and in fact purchased a stadium-ready tract of land downtown near Amway Arena (Orlando Magic home) over the last month.

        3. Orange County is supportive, but reserved with their support. They seem to want to exhaust everyone else’s funding possibilities before they will make a commitment. In particular, the mayor wants Orlando City to increase their share of the building costs.

        4. Orlando City has handled this magnificently. They present well and are always making the right moves behind the scenes. This week, the new Brazilian majority owner committed to increase Orlando City’s share of the building costs; this development was seen quite favorably by the county mayor and she expressed positive feelings that a deal could be reached with that increase in funding.

        In addition, Orlando City have downsized the stadium from the published 110m cost to something closer to 95m. In addition, rumored stadium naming rights fees could help the initiative to raise more money.

        I hope that the MLS gets things together and accepts Orlando City by the end of the year. Everyone interested in the club from the club themselves, to the fans and the government want this to happen. People are going out of their way to support the team and are really invested in the process. The biggest thing that would push the efforts into gear would be a firm yes from Garber and things would really roll from there.

      • Except we’re ignoring the role of the whole Marlins fiasco in all of this. There is a reason why part of the electorate is balking at stadium funding. It reminds me of a period of time in Houston when the fans were fed up with Bud Adams’ antics and voted down stadium funding for a second round of Dome renovations. The Oilers were soon the Tennessee Titans. Harris County eventually reversed itself and voted for a football stadium — Reliant — and got a new football team — the Texans. But it took a few years for the bad blood to pass, and whether all this stadium funding is wise, is still a debatable issue in town. The Dynamo had to beg and plead for roughly $20-25 million in public money of their stadium costs.

  16. last i heard, Orlando (the actual city) was going to approve land for the stadium, but it needed to pass another hurdle. did it pass it? what’s the status with it? i’ll google if no one knows, but i figure i will ask first.

    if everything IS in order for Orlando, and they are able to break ground on the stadium by the end of 2013, i think MLS should seriously consider them. if they have the right ownership in place (which it appears they do) and they have an SSS approved, why ignore them?

    it’s almost as if MLS really doesn’t want two teams in Florida and are holding out for the possibility of Beckham having a team in Miami. completely unsubstantiated, but that’s what it feels like.

    • Orlando is going to have to rework their stadium deal. The city has been very supportive but both the county and state gave them the 1 finger salute. 2015 is not going to happen for them.

      • yeah, i’m seeing this now. that is too bad, they had something cool going. hopefully next year they can figure it out.

      • Florida always seems to be great at putting together deals to attract professional teams. Florida always seems to fall apart when the population is asked to support the team.

      • This is nothing new. Nationwide, the citizens are tired of having to pay taxes for stadiums and arenas (NFL and NBA). So when a soccer team (the step child) wants a stadium the locals do not want it to be subsidized by taxes or the Govt (state adn local). The ONLY way BBVA, here in houston, was going to be built was with private funds. Sure, the city and county put up about 10 Mil in infrastructure but that will be paid back and then some (in the form of jobs and improving the immediate areas around the stadium). It will be tough for any city (even if they dont have NFL or NBA) to convince the voter to approve funds for any stadium. I still hope Orlando can make it happen somehow.

  17. I would love to see two teams in southern California. It’s a great place for soccer in this country. My advice would be to just strip the name Chivas off the team. You could call it Club Deportivo Los Angeles. Change team colors as well. Just stop screaming Chivas at everyone. Also, the team needs its own stadium, even if it’s a small pre-existing stadium somewhere in southern California.

    • I’m a fan of re-branding but staying in the LA area and I think this is the best idea I’ve heard for the name. CD Los Angeles.

      • Brng back them LA Aztecs, awesome crest and kits back in the NASL days. That plus another stadium somewhere far away from the HDC would be fine… I hope MLS learned their lesson that a MLS version of the LA Clippers wont fly

      • Two things:
        – LA Aztecs re-brand is probably the best suggestion I have read for dealing with Chivas USA.
        – Are you unaware that the LA Clippers were better than the LA Lakers this year?

      • alright, I believe the Clippers have only had 2 years in the history that have been better than the Lakers out of how many. Besides what the heck is a clipper.

      • I live in the U.K and have been following MLS for some time. I’ve thought about the deportivo L.A name before but the spanish acronym of the club name does not go well with the english ( C.D Los Angeles sounds like seedy Los Angeles). What do you reckon about the name “Deportivo SoCal” or the “SoCal Goats” ?

    • Having an American sports league with a team named Chivas USA inherently draws racial/ethnic lines. Why do we need a Mexican or Latino focused team? How about just another team, that all races and backgrounds can welcome and feel comfortable being a part of.

      Isn’t that what our country is about?

    • Thank you for the millionth suggestion on C-USA. We all want “something” to happen because its not working out for them -after 8 years.

    • The LA2 concept is not fundamentally flawed, under Bradley it was a well-attended team that made the playoffs. LA can support 2 well run teams quite well.

      The problem is that since he left to coach the US, the ownership has tried to implement some sort of Chivas-type purity in a US team, which has not worked in practical terms, and as the team’s quality has suffered the fan support has dropped.

      I don’t think the name even has to change, or any of the aesthetics. That’s not the issue except to the extent it reflects the overall concept of a solely “hispanic,” “Mexican,” or whatever team. “Chivas” was doing just fine when it didn’t aspire to that sort of purity. Now, what I think they need is new owners, and new owners might want their own name. But what will fix it is regime change, not the branding itself, which is tangential. They could call it Club America and as long as it fixed the purity obsession, problem solved.

      But the basic problem I detect in Garber’s statements is they have no intent to pull the franchise, and Chivas sounds like it was asked if it was interested in a sale, but they declined. Which leaves all this talk as just that, talk.

      • Here’s an intriguing Chivas branding option. Chivas De Guadalajara maintains their Mexican only policy as they are a team in Mexico. Chivas USA institutes a USA only policy as they are a team in USA.

        I think that would generate a lot more interest in the MLS side, and presents the opportunity for an interesting rivalry match between the two Chivas teams.

  18. Awesome. So when NYCFC want the salary cap dropped and it isn’t will they take their toy and go back to Dubai?

    Or they can get all creative like LA with the salary cap.

    • One thing I thought might be possible…

      Sign 3 DPs. Then, loan Man City reserve or U21/U23 players to NYCFC for 75-100k while Man City has the rest of the salary on their books.

      • It would be an interesting Germany/Spain approach to send reservists in bulk to another team. Literally have a separate side, in a separate country. Some of the Asian teams do something like that, they have a similarly branded team in country B.

        The issues I’d see are the reservists would probably be signed by City to contracts well in excess of what they’d want to “book” here; and you’d still have the international player rules if you somehow worked out salary. This has been a fundamental flaw in the Chivas concept here, is our rules make it impossible to establish a purely Mexican team in the US. FWIW, the concept strikes me as contradictory from the start, how can the equivalent of Bilbao ever exist on the wrong side of the border…..

Leave a Comment