By - eddygeeme
It’s pretty insane we are going to turn vegas into a 5 sport city eventually when everything about vegas is unsustainable
It's really crazy the narrative went from LV not being a good market for a pro sports team, to let's get a pro team from every major league there within 10 years
Gambling money, gambling is becoming acceptable everywhere. Leagues are not scared of the stigma anymore
That's got to be a part of it, but also I think the Golden Knights crushed the idea that it's a bad market. After that every other league had their eye on it.
If a hockey team can sell out every game in a desert city, any other major sport can probably do just as well
Yeah that’s probably fallacious thinking though because the Knights were 1) the only pro team in the city and 2) extremely good
They were good but I think things wouldn't have been much different if they were bad. It seemed that a majority of the attendance was driven by visitors and not local fans.
And this year the Raiders are doing just as well if not better, with 95% attendance and by far the highest average ticket price in the league. The Raiders are a decent team this year but not spectacular
That ticket price is being driven by away fans wanting to attend.
No it's not , Las Vegas is perfect for the raiders a lot of former Oakland and LA raiders fans make a trip of it since it's so close and you're in Vegas
Yeah that explains why when the played the bears and Washington FT the opposing fans took over half the stadium. No one ever said there aren’t raiders fans in Vegas. The one of the main reasons they are highest in the league is road teams demand.
I don't think that really matters to the league and owners who want to invest in a team there. As long as they can sell tickets they don't really care who's buying
It doesn’t but I don’t think MLS fans travel as much as NFL Fans. Home support will be very important for a Vegas MLS team.
Yeah that's fair, I do wonder how that dynamic would be different for MLS. MLS teams have lower ticket prices in general too, I do think you could even draw in non-fans for a game at Allegiant for ~$50
Everyone wanted in for years but was worried about gambling. The NBA held an All Star game there. I don't buy that everyone thought it was a bad market.
They're still building all over which is nuts.
actually people are still making that argument that its not a good market..and everything that's happened doesnt count yet
It will be interesting to see which sports thrive and which ones don't over time. To me, the NFL makes perfect sense because there are only 8-9 home games per year, they are all on weekends, and football fans routinely make road trips to see their team. So, Vegas is ideal for ensuring sellouts every game as they don't need to rely only on the locals. It's the road trip that every NFL fan will want to make, their premium seating and luxury suites in particular will be huge profit-generators with all the businesses wanting to entertain clients out there, etc. It's a guaranteed winner.
However, how will other sports really do over the long-term when they have a lot of weeknight games and have to rely on more of a local fan base? The Golden Knights are doing great, but can a city like that really support 5 professional sports when they can't rely on a steady stream of out-of-town attendees for some of them?
Perhaps Las Vegas is just such a huge tourist/entertainment mecca that they can support as many sports as you give them. After all, people are in Vegas on Wednesday nights too and they generally are looking for something to do.
Do away fans make road trips to Orlando, South Florida, LA or NY for tourism purposes? All these places also offer things to do like Vegas, maybe not gambling but they're not boring places,.
Vegas is more of a tourist place than those others (well, maybe not Orlando as you are including Disney). I do think that is a huge part of the success of sports teams in Vegas. Fans of other teams want a reason to go there. As an Islanders/Ravens fan, why wouldn't I use that as an excuse to visit?
MLB isn't talking about expansion are they?
It is rumored the Athletics could relocate there.
Jesus. That's awful.
For just about everyone.
More than a rumor. The A's have been in a standoff with the city of Oakland for the past couple years on stadium sites and plans, and they have recently been actively looking at land in Vegas and are being courted by the city
Nobody should be allowed to live in the desert.
If we have to divert entire rivers and build dams just so you can live there, it should be off limits.
Hell, Chinatown (the movie) was almost 50 years ago and a big part of the plot involves how LA is dealing with its water issues. And the city has only grown a ton since then.
Isn't LA in a desert?
No. Mediterranean climate like southern Europe. The fog and marine layer allows chaparral to get enough water to grow along the hills and side of the mountains that face the ocean.
There’s a lot more fresh water in LA than Phoenix.
Have they thought about investing in desalination plants?
desalination is pretty energy-intensive which provides sustainability issues of its own.
Luckily LA never had issues with energy
We need to make some technological leaps on tidal energy. That could potentially unlock desalination in a sustainable way
Nobody should be allowed to live ☠
We did it Patrick, we saved the planet!
Nobody should be allowed to live in an area that is regularly subject to Hurricanes. If we have to divert billions of dollars of US taxpayers money to pay for rebuilding time and time again, it should be off limits.
So, the entire part of the country that has snow should also be off limits. So much investment in snow plows and infrastructure for heating just for people to freeze. At least a hurricane doesn’t happen to cost us billions every single year on a predictable level.
> At least a hurricane doesn’t happen to cost us billions every single year on a predictable level.
But they do, don't they? All you have to do is google the list of hurricane damages and see that every single year hurricanes cause tens of billions, sometimes hundreds of billions of damage each year. Hurricane damage is about as predictable as major winter storms at this point and it is only going to go up.
The point was that it’s a ridiculous idea to just have no one live in Florida because there’s hurricanes. No one should live in snowy states, or in tornado alley, or in the desert because of drought.
Not really an apt comparison since natural disasters happen everywhere, are irregular, and can’t be prevented. Las Vegas and other desert cities are inhospitable year round.
Nobody should live in Florida because of the people and humidity, but living here won’t kill you. If Florida and the gulf coast were subject to hurricane force winds and rainfall year round then I would definitely agree with you.
> but living here won’t kill you.
Florida Man has entered the chat.
it rained yesterday and it's currently 52 degrees here in Vegas
Weather is not the same as climate.
so is this the part of the climate that's inhospitable "year round" or is it just the summer. is this the part of the climate that will "kill you"?
52 degrees and rainy is obviously inhospitable weather. Indecently, this the most common forecast in the PNW, so I advice others not to move here unless they want to die.
> Nobody should be allowed to live in an area that is regularly subject to Hurricanes.
Ok cool the entire Eastern seaboard and Gulf Coast then
Tbf that goes for a lot of places. A lot of area right on the coast also doesn't make a ton of sense to live in when you consider how much effort needs to be put in to constantly protect coastal development, yet that doesn't really stop anyone.
Seawalls and other protective measures don't take away water from other areas.
But also yes with rising oceans we shouldn't be further developing barrier islands.
Some forms of coastal protection do have negative effects on other areas among the coasts by changing flood patterns, sediment deposition, etc. It's noticeable especially when you compare rich vs poor coastal communities in the same area. Long Island is actually a pretty good example, the longshore drift causes sediment to move east to west so it makes the most sense to build groins and erosional protection on the west end first so you don't get as much beach recession and erosion. It also helps to have more dune building instead of just relying on groins. But since the Hamptons are on the east end of the island all the rich homeowners there demanded that they build the protections on their side and thus we've had to spend a lot of money compensating for that poor decision ever since, including having the towns in the Hamptons sue the government for the protections not working well enough despite knowing that would be the case when it started and knowing that a very disproportionate amount of money goes to protecting that side of the island.
Anyway, that's not really that related, I definitely get what you mean with the redistribution of water, especially with how much is used to farm in dry areas.
Already is if you account for minor league as a Triple A team is there and it's very popular
The 51s have one of the greatest logos in sports. The alien head/baseball mash up teeters on that perfect edge of clever and stupid.
they got rid of the 51s for some troop shit
Well now my whole day is ruined.
Consider it sustainable once they get 5 teams. The government will spend whatever they need to to not let it fail.
Utah’s been doing a decent job sustaining it. But it won’t last.
You talking about water? B/c partying, great restaurants, gambling and sports betting are not unsustainable. Plus you only have to have the stadium half filled for things like the NFL and potentially MLS b/c the away trip is awesome. Listen to the crowd at most Raiders games. The away fans are probably 25% of the crowd!
25%? Lower than many of the Chargers games I've attended, count them fortunate!
Sam Stejskal talks with MLS Commish on expansion. Sam says MLS currently make $105myr from TV rights TVA/TSN pay $15my yr. Sam talks how TV insiders are believing the new Media rights will be structured and more.
Very good piece by Sam here lots of good info on Expansion/ Leagues Cup found this blurb very interesting.
"Some industry insiders outlining scenarios in which MLS sells a set of games for a network like ESPN or FOX to broadcast on linear TV, another set that a streamer like Amazon or Paramount+ gives “national TV” treatment and the remainder to a streamer that produces games from a central location."
I thought Garber was clear that Leagues Cup rights were separate at one point, but at another he included "international games" as part of the whole. How did you understand it?
Have heard that League Cup will be included MLS will have rights to sell the media rights for it in the US/Canada and Liga MX will hold the rights in Mexico
Yeah, just wasn't clear to me if it is to be packaged separately.
MLS already has a game of the week on twitter I believe
I don’t see attendances being very good in the long run. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re are using the gold cup and leagues cup final as deciding factors.
It'll be interesting to see how Vegas teams perform over the long run.
I think the Raiders will do well long run due to the popularity of the NFL and the fact that it will be an away fan destination. Also at this point I think the NFL could put a team anywhere and it would work.
The Golden Knights are good, T-Mobile is new and so far the FO has done an excellent job at making games a show so the GK are working out great. This added to the many snow birds that winter or vacation in Vegas means away fans will consistently buy tickets in addition to home fans. What will happen once the GK are less shiny and they have a couple down seasons?
The AAA baseball team has the highest attendance in MiLB and by most accounts is a mostly local crowd.
Are Vegas pro-sports topped out? Or just getting started?
Personally I think it's just getting started. Vegas is filled with people who aren't sensitive to price and are just looking to go to an event. I think there's room for all the major sports leagues to do well.
I do think being close to the strip is important though. If you build a stadium a mile away I'm not sure how well that would do.
You definitely need to tap into the tourism dollars for it to be as successful as possible. Which means staying close to the strip.
The minor league baseball stadium is up in Summerlin, and they are always packed with locals. I think the huge soccer community in Las Vegas will keep any off strip venue filled with locals.
This right here. My historically sports-ambivalent parents bought season tickets for the Silver Knights (VGK AHL affiliate in nearby Henderson). Vegas wants entertainment outside of the tourism industry, and sports are a great vein for that.
Good point... eventually there will be a sports team that won't benefit as well as the others.
Their MiLB had the highest attendance because of a brand new stadium, an increase of 96% from the previous year. So the Aviators might be an even better case to see what locals do when the shine wears off of something.
Charlotte crushed attendance with their awesome new stadium around ‘14 and are only down to 8th 5+ years later. If LV Aviators follow a similar path then there’s probably no red flags for sustained local interest in non-big 4 leagues.
I live in Vegas, and soccer is extremely popular here. We have dozens of youth and adult leagues going year round, and the Lights games get great attendance. We just opened a new 20+ field complex in the southwest, and it’s always packed.
One thing we’ve learned from the Knights is that people here don’t care as much about the specific sport and care more about supporting the city teams. I never heard anyone talk about hockey before the Knights came, and now everyone is a hockey fanatic. Vegas would embrace the fun fan culture soccer clubs can offer.
My only concern would be playing at allegiant. That place is so expensive, it would price out a lot of potential fans.
If the Vegas, team wants to call itself Villains, I'm all for it. Tired of all these expansion teams with cookie cutter branding.
Jokers, Lights, Dust Devils, anything would be more refreshing than Vegas City FC or something lame like that.
That’s true, but Vegas City FC is what we will get
No you won’t. It’s going to be called Las Vegas Villains. It’s a small nod to Aston Villa’s nickname that is the Villans
Still hoping Sacramento is #30. Not expecting, though, just hoping.
I'm pulling for Louisville.
Louisville is never joining MLS. The city is way too small and inconsequential and the league has moved far beyond "big stadium crowds" as a driver for expansion.
Yea, you're likely right that they are never joining but I don't care, still want them. Regarding the rest of your statement, I'm not sure how much I buy that. The city being small makes sense, but you can't tell me that big stadium crowds don't matter to MLS. If the only that thing that mattered was city size or whatever, Detroit, Phoenix, and San Diego would have teams. FCC's crowds without a doubt influenced their decision to add them, same with Sac Republic.
But just to step on a soap box a bit, I don't think Louisville's size is nearly as big of mountain as people make it out to be. All you have to do is look at MLS to see that city MSA size has barely any influence on how successful teams are. MLS has a presence in all of the top 10 largest city MSA's in the country and they struggle in the majority of them. And by struggle I mean the teams don't do very well compared to their city size. Louisville wouldn't even be the smallest market in MLS. Plenty of cities near Louisville in MSA size have professional teams in other sports and are successful. Memphis, Buffalo, Tulsa, Milwaukee, Jacksonville, New Orleans. Louisville would do fine in the MLS, but I guess it's probably hard to convince executives when they see other markets like Las Vegas and Phoenix open.
MLS was always going to push into Cincy one way or the other eventually - it's the 30th largest MSA and 36th largest media market in the country. Same with Sacremento (26th and 20th respectively), though that bid is completely dead now. It's why we're getting expansion in places like Charlotte (23/22) and St. Louis (21/23) and why Garber keeps talking up Phoenix (11/11) and San Diego (17/27).
Louisville is the 45th largest MSA and the 49th largest media market in the US. They're tiny.
Having big crowds helps, but it's basically a given for all expansion teams now that they're going to pull in 18k+ averages. That's not unique anymore. What's far more important to MLS is MSA and media market size, along with other business metrics (number of major corporations headquartered there, etc.). We've left the days of gate being the important driver for league revenues, it's all about media contracts and sponsorships now.
Louisville would be the second-smallest metro area in MLS (45th in the US), above only Salt Lake City (47th). Sacramento is 26th, ahead of Austin, Vegas, Cincinnati, Columbus, Nashville - and Pittsburgh.
Man Louisville would be the biggest small market team in MLS. Intense rivalry with Cincy and would sell out their stadium ever game.
I think MLS missed it's chance to be a big deal in Vegas, too much noise with Golden Knights and Raiders now. They need to focus on Phoenix, Tampa, San Diego and Detroit. Also why no chat at all about Baltimore, Cleveland, Pittsburgh or Milwaukee?
> They need to focus on Phoenix, Tampa, San Diego and Detroit. Also why no chat at all about Baltimore, Cleveland, Pittsburgh or Milwaukee?
At some point they may want to consider putting a team in Miami. MLS announced one in 1997, and then again in 2014, but it's almost 2022 and they still haven't gotten a team down there.
>Also why no chat at all about Baltimore, Cleveland, Pittsburgh or Milwaukee?
Because none of these cities are sexy gets these days
I was hoping the bucks winning the NBA championship would have changed that, but you're right :(
Sun Belt’s the name of the game these days. It’d be a very tough sell to get a market from there that isn’t Detroit at this point.
I wish Baltimore was in that conversation. Get UA involved. They are probably more of a USL market though.
I still question the decision not to use Allegiant Stadium and instead build a new SSS. Yes, I know the new owners will want to control the revenue and I know most MLS teams can't sell 60K+ tickets per game and fill an NFL venue. Even so, consider the following...
* **Allegiant cost $1.9 billion:** $750 of that came from local taxpayers, yet they only host 8-9 regular season NFL games per year. They need as many other events as possible and a 2nd tenant with 17 home games per year, plus playoffs, tournaments, etc. would certainly help. You'd think local government officials would be trying to steer them in that direction rather than agreeing to an entirely new stadium plan and you'd think the stadium authority would be highly motivated to offer favorable lease terms.
* **Allegiant is climate-controlled:** I'm not aware of any SSS that is closed and air conditioned, which could be a rather big deal in a scorching-hot desert city with a sport that plays through the summer months. Allegiant also has a translucent roof, a grass field, digital signage for team-specific branding, state-of-the-art amenities, a prime location, transportation from downtown and the strip, and they've already hosted international soccer matches.
* **Allegiant is already built:** No need to find a new plot of land, get city or county approval, build the infrastructure to support the stadium, spend hundreds of millions of dollars in construction costs, identify a temporary venue while the SSS is being built, etc. All those headaches have already been endured by the Raiders. Why start from scratch and do it all over again?
Allegiant wasn't built by local taxpayers (as in residents), its being paid for by tourist via the room tax. I could assure you that it wouldn't exist if the casinos didn't think they were getting something out of the deal. Unless locals are renting rooms here, which sometimes happens, not much has changed for us.
Allegiant would be awful for MLS. That is not an area you put a MLS club if you want to build local support. Hopefully someone in this process realizes that or else this won't go well. Las Vegas is different than other cities and strip adjacent isn't prime location for a sport like soccer. Especially in an area so hemmed in like Allegiant.
If they intend to redevelop an area like with the Cashman/Lights proposal pre-pandemic I don't think local government will care and the likes of Goodman will actively support it. Which I think would be the best option but I'm not sure that's on the cards.
Allegiant won't struggle to find non-football events, it's Vegas. Without the NFL the need for a state-of-the-art venue like Allegiant was apparent. Las Vegas lost out on a lot of revenue because our best stadium was Sam Boyd which was a dump. That place will stay booked without MLS. It's fine.
(That's even with the new sphere venue on the strip)
Also, the city has bent over backward for any lame ass proposal to build a stadium that used a significant portion of private money. As long as that's the case they won't have an issue finding land unless their dead set on being strip adjacent which is a horrible idea anyway.
On one hand, although tourists are ultimately paying the $750 million via room tax, it’s still a public investment that would make sense to maximize.
That said, if the tourist district location isn’t good for building local support, that’s a very good point as I doubt MLS will benefit from nearly as much visiting fan support as the Raiders do.
Ultimately, the new owners and MLS are gonna want 100% control over the revenue so unless the Raiders are part of the ownership group, they’re gonna want their own building.
I updated my post to clarify that bit.
When the room tax was approved people were talking about how that money could be used for much better purposes. The fact is though it wouldn't exist if the casinos weren't getting something out of the deal.
For example, setting up a room tax to help fund education which was suggested would never happen. They get nothing out of that. The increased foot traffic Allegiant represents is why the room tax was sell-able.
I don't think they get the same benefit from MLS. Some but not much and I don't think the level would be sufficient for a successful club. I get why Mark Davis wanted it because why not. He doesn't own the stadium but he makes money on non-football events and concessions. I'm not sure it makes much sense for anyone else.
If you look at what the Las Vegas Aviators have done, they moved to Summerlin one of the main neighborhoods in the city and built a stadium around an actual lived in community and that resulted in the best attendance in Triple-A.
That should be the model for a MLS club but the need to be strip adjacent (for overhead shots I guess) will make this riskier than it needs to be. Locals would always prefer to avoid the strip if they could.
I live in Lone Mountain which is next to Summerlin and I would go to matches in Henderson which is clear across town (technically another city) than go to matches at Allegiant. I'm not the only one.
Without a strong partnership for revenue sharing and scheduling with the Raiders, it's non-starter.
I strongly dislike ground sharing with the NFL generally but would have zero issue with MLS using Allegiant.
I’ve always thought Vegas or Phoenix made more sense than another California team.
On a completely selfish note, does this mean they are going to take some of RSL's territory in Arizona?
Territories are rumored to be disappearing soon so it likely won’t matter you lose or share it.
Phoenix would be better IMO. two times the size of vegas so it's much Larger! and also they have shown their support for futbol already with USL
Man, things were so good in early expansion when it was clearly laid out by MLS that teams needed a soccer specific stadium to join the league. Now they have relented and let Atlanta play in that Black hole of theirs, looks so dark on tv, and potentially Las Vegas now also could be sharing a stadium with the Raiders, ugh, can you imagine in a stadium that size after the initial novelty wears out what things will look like there ? The Whitecaps were another example, I preferred when Vancouver played at Empire for that first year or 2 actually. Soon the new Charlotte team also will be sharing the stadium with an NFL team, I think? Seattle is great with the big crowds, but it is still an American football stadium.
My Atlanta fan friends seem to really like the Benz?
Yeah I don't get his point there. It's not like Atlanta are struggling to sell tickets either and that stadium is designed for both Football and Soccer. Would he rather they had a stadium like FC Dallas'?
>stadium is designed for both Football and Soccer
Tbf, you can't see the near sideline from the lower levels, but I'd much rather take that than a SSS out in the suburbs and not close to a train line.
Just purely for watching the game, our stadium is great.
For everything else, not so much.
Paul Brown Stadium was built for soccer and football. That doesn't make it a soccer stadium.
I live in Atl and the Benz is popular af for soccer.
Yeah the Benz is an awesome gameday experience for both United and Falcons games.
Lol the Benz is incredible. I’ve been to some SSS in MLS and elsewhere, also NFL and college stadiums and the Benz blows it all out of the water. It also makes any sort of weather related delay practically nil. A late may-early September 3pm kickoff is brutal but in the Benz it’s comfy as hell. I imagine the same would be true in Vegas.
Yeah, imagine playing in a football stadium, what a joke.
In seriousness, idk what's so wrong about using football stadiums besides turf and I guess attendance relative to the size? It's nice to have a dedicated place, but playing with the NFL team seems like a fine use of existing infrastructure and space that doesn't trade off too much.
And I’m pretty sure their stadium was built to accommodate a regulation size pitch like ours.
I'll admit our (CLTFC) stadium situation is not ideal and Atlanta looks bad on TV, but it's hard to argue with the success they've had and the actual game day experience is excellent. They've quickly become one of the top brands and can continue to spend big on DP's solely because they average triple the league average attendance and more than double the capacity of most stadiums in the league. Garber would do that deal again every single time.
OCSC fan here, so I cant believe I am saying this...but I don't think Atlanta games look bad on TV. The stands are usually full (to what ever level they have opened it up for that game), and the field is in good shape...at least from a fake grass standpoint. Now you want to talk about terrible..that would have to be the Seattle field. Whether its the Seahawks or Sounders, they have the worse looking field I have every seen. It pains me to try and watch any game on that field.
I’m really only referring to how dark it is and how matted/fake the turf looks in that dark atmosphere from a high camera angle. Everything else is honestly top tier.
I come to Charlotte monthly for my job and i am looking forward to the first time OCSC comes to Charlotte. I will certainly have to arrange my monthly trip to coincide with that. Starting noticing ads up at CLT when I arrived this month :)
The ads are everywhere now and l think they'll explode later this month when we have a kit and twice as many players signed.
Orlando is definitely on my list. Hoping I get lucky and we have an away day there on one of the two trips I have to Orlando this year.
>I don't think Atlanta games look bad on TV. The stands are usually full (to what ever level they have opened it up for that game), and the field is in good shape...at least from a fake grass standpoint.
I think the issue is Dome lights. The field looks MUCH different on TV than it does on person - it's a lot more dull looking on TV. It's actually quite a bit striking, tbh.
Nothing wrong with a football stadium if it's getting good attendance or the crowd seating is alligned properly. Atlanta's stadium is anything but a Black Hole. I'm sure a top European team would gladly play a friendly there.
>Seattle is great with the big crowds, but it is still an American football stadium.
The Seahawks are the primary tenant, sure, but the only reason the stadium was built at all was because they agreed to build it as dual soccer/football, so it's not totally fair to call it just a football stadium.
On the other hand, it's fieldturf.
Las Vegas plans to build a soccer specific stadium.
Also, nothing wrong with football stadiums, they look great on tv. I guess some people just love to find something to complain about, though
Football stadiums are mainly lousy when they play on low-quality turf, but Allegiant actually can install a natural grass surface when needed. It's pretty good, the only downside is that's it slightly too narrow.
It already has real turf. Raiders play on Bermuda grass.
Yeah, that's what I am saying. The stadium has artificial turf but can use retractable trays to install grass.
> Also, nothing wrong with football stadiums
There's a ton wrong with football stadiums, unless the team can draw 40,000+
Yes we play in a "black hole" while a team like FC Dallas with their soccer specific stadium is such a shining beacon for the league right?
Why are we catching strays like this lmao
I mean it is a fair point, building in the suburbs is probably not the way forward with where the league is today.
Then again Houston, so I don’t know 🤷🏻♂️.
Sorry but I had to defend my city 😂
Is the expansion ever going to stop? How many teams is to many?
I would imagine 32 teams would be the stopping point once they hit it for a long time.
32 makes the schedule easier if you do 8 team divisions. Play everyone in your division home and away, play everyone once in the other division for your conference (East/West), play everyone once from one division of the other conference (alternate years).
Playoffs are top 3 teams from each division with the 4th place teams playing a one off wildcard. To fill a playoff field of 7 for each conference. Or you just take all top 4 teams and no one gets the first round buy.
I think the number 32 comes because that is the NFL stopping point. To be honest, as long as a city checks certain boxes on a MLS list, no reason to stop there. Things like city population, TV market, ownership wealth...ect should be taken into account, but with at least 6 to 8 top flight cities out there without a team (the usually list...Tampa, PHX, Las Vegas, Detroit, Indy, San Diego) I think they should continue until all viable cities are covered.
That would make sense but that’s just a lot of teams
A lot of teams is exactly what MLS wants. more markets, more money
Until the can’t get the expansion fees anymore when they run out of markets and then they have an oversaturated market
Clearly they aren't there yet.
I can see that limit being 40 teams. I say there are a few must have markets MLS needs to be in before it gets redundant (Detroit, Arizona, Las Vegas) there maybe a few markets that could work for MLS but that number should be less than 10 teams.
Yeah, i agree with that. For some reason I cant see them extending past 36 without some adding a couple conferences
Until every last potentially profitable market has a MLS team.
> potentially profitable market
My comment is slightly tongue in cheek but I’m not sure this is the correct metric for when MLS will stop expanding.
Good news for those of us still trying to push for a MLS expansion team in Bozeman, MT.
So we might end up with 40+ teams 🤬 they should have capped it before the league gets over saturated
As long as someone is willing to pay the ever-increasing expansion fees, the league will keep expanding.
There will always be a "never say never" attitude from the league, even if they hit 32, 34 teams. Particularly because they now have a new 3rd division league to push investors towards as "the exclusive way to be considered for a MLS expansion spot".
Don't be surprised when a good amount of the promised MLS Next Pro independent teams pop up in places jockeying for a MLS spot. And that definitely potentially includes dropping new teams in places like Vegas, San Diego, Phoenix, Indy, Tampa Bay, Detroit etc. that already have professional teams in another league. Taking the faux-promotion MLS has enjoyed over the last decade (1/3 of MLS's current teams have come up from either USL or NASL) and now controlling it directly.
Seems like they are trying to stick to 34 regular season games. You could do two 18 team conferences (36 total teams) where you only play H/H vs the teams in your conference. Then play cross conference in Leagues Cup.
Essentially each conference is a separate league. I’d also award a SS to the winner of each conference.
Did anyone else notice this bit (or maybe most didn't actually get to read the article)
*"... on Tuesday Garber said that the next expansion will not begin play in the league until after the 2023 season. That timeline will present some complications for the new Leagues Cup between MLS and Liga MX, the first edition of which is set to be held in the summer of 2023. The two leagues announced earlier this year that the 2023 tournament would include 48 teams. With the 30th MLS team not set to begin play until 2024 at the absolute earliest and Liga MX only including 18 teams, it’s not clear if or how the revamped Leagues Cup will get to that number of clubs."*
Please don't tell me Rochester NY from MLS Next Pro is going to get to play in the expanded Leagues Cup before the 30th team begins play.
I don't see how it's possible for there be a frontrunners and those lagging behind. Either there are protective investors tendering expansion fee offers or there aren't