By - tomado23
San Diego is a damn good market which confuses me. It's a big metro and easily in the top 20 but both the Clippers and Chargers left. All they have atm is the Padres. Though with the introduction of the NWSL team the wave,loyal being around for abit, the construction of Snap Dragon Stadium it's a great and the that new district in construction it's a strong contender depending on the ownership
I grew up there, and sports teams always fight to hold fans attention. If they’re winning, they’ll sell tickets, but if they aren’t, you’ll see a lot of empty seats. There are so many options for people out there. That said, MLS ticket prices are much more attractive than NFL ticket prices, and the soccer market might be bigger there.
The culture of entire teams moving to different cities baffles me.
It's no wonder there's no consistent fanbase. How can a city at large get invested in an essentially new team with zero history?
Two teams in my city have been around since 1888/1872. Generations have followed these teams and they're so embedded in the culture of the city that the idea of them moving is insanity.
100%, I completely agree. And once the chargers left San Diego, I completely stopped watching the NFL. Just had no desire to watch teams I didn’t care for. Now, as an Austin fan, it’s for sure in the back of our minds that our owner first tried to move a team to the city. Doesn’t bode well for us if we stop selling tickets down the road.
Is San Diego like Orlando or Vegas where there is a transient population? I just ask because of all the military facilities in the area and people who come and go.
There's a lot of people from other places.
It's not longer really a Navy town. The facilities have shrunk there, and the rest of the town has grown up. But I think people don't realize that San Diego didn't really explode until the 80s forward.
That said, the teams are supported actually very well for teams that have historically sucked constantly. That's something I think people miss -- the Chargers basically didn't everything they could to say F you to San Diego. The Pads sucked for decades (and people still went).
The Padres are third in MLB attendance last I checked.
TV rights and luxury suite sales are a far bigger issue that regular person attendance.
Despite its size (8th largest city), it's a small TV market (28th)
How does that happen?
Size of suburbs + rural area
The metropolitan area is only the 17th-largest in the country, which is more representative of the size of the market than just the city population would be. I guess on top of that, San Diegans watch less TV than the average person does, which seems plausible.
City vs. metro populations are weird in some places. St. Louis isn't in the top 60 cities in the US by population, but we're the 21st-largest metro area and the #23 TV market. Only 11% of our metro area's population actually lives in the city (for a few different reasons)
Go out and enjoy the unparalleled year round weather, world class beaches, outdoors, and craft brew capital of the world or sit inside and watch Clippers/Chargers have yet another losing record season
Or incorporate those allures into the game day experience and market the hell out of it.
Lol, every town in America acting like having craft beer is still unique
Even in a renowned craft beer region like Seattle San Diego is usually recognized as the best
Well considering NYC loves to think the world revolves around it, I can't see how you're not used to stuff like this. That said, San Diego objectively has one of the better craft beer scenes. This coming from a Portlander.
I definitely rate San Diego beer scene highly.
That said MLS would have an outdoor stadium, so you would still enjoy the year round weather while watching a game
No the Imperial county is not included. Only San Diego county. Imperial County is considered part of the Yuma tv market
There's actually a lot of tv markets that have 30 or more counties.
I don't know why people still even talk about the Clippers when talking about San Diego as a market. They were here for like six years forty years ago. Things have changed dramatically since then.
We only have the Padres sure, but we also have amazing beaches and great weather all year long
Reminds me of that old Lewis Black gag about how being a weatherman in San Diego is easiest job in the country.
"Now, time for the weather. What's it like out there today, Lou?"
"Nice! Back to you."
>clippers and chargers
Just too close to LA. Like living next door to a homewrecking model. Lusty owners can’t pass up taking their shot, even though history says it will end badly.
Clippers and Chargers are and have been playing second fiddle in LA for years. They should have stayed. Even with the Intuit dome I doubt it will change.
Also San Diego is 2 hours away.
San Diego is more than two hours from Los Angeles, especially considering the roads you have to drive on to get between the two. There is also a very clear distinction between the two metro areas thanks to Camp Pendleton.
Plenty of markets a lot closer than SD and LA have multiple teams. DC and Baltimore is the area that comes to mind that's similar to this. Obviously you have your two team markets too, like NYC.
The Chargers drew well; ownership was just being greedy because Los Angeles is so much bigger. Metro-wise, being second fiddle in LA still allocates more people to you than San Diego.
The Clippers was ages ago, but much the same story.
San Diego will be a good market. There's probably better TV market options still out there, but San Diegans will be extremely loyal to a team that wants to stay.
Just wondering...being so close to Tijuana and Xolos, do you think the Mexican community would support an MLS club?
I think it will take some work and outreach, but I think because they are in different leagues, you will get a decent number of fans who are fans of both leagues.
I'd imagine there's a decent chunk that aren't Xolos fans -- they came from elsewhere and never converted. Those are going to be the easiest -- it's the local team, it doesn't require rooting against America, etc. I think you see this in the LA fanbases a lot.
I still have always like the idea of 33 teams and 3 conferences with 11 teams. This is totally just a wet dream but here….
Play each team in your conference twice - 20 games.
Play 7 teams from the other two conferences. Alternate home/away and unplayed teams every season. - 14 games.
Assuming Las Vegas and San Diego get the go. The future expansion cities would be…
West - San Diego, Las Vegas, and one of Phoenix/Sacramento.
Central - One of either Indianapolis or Detroit if Nashville stays East.
East - One of either Tampa Bay or Raleigh of Nashville stays Central.
Love the idea. Fingers crossed Eleven Park (lol) actually gets built and it’s us. I don’t know if there are any plans in Detroit for a stadium or not, but I guess they could play at the Lions stadium on a temp basis? I assume Ford Field would kinda be like Lucas Oil for us in that it technically works, but the fit is just so bad.
Obviously the Rowdies have been really good in USL, but not sure if there are stadium plans there either. And maybe I’m dead wrong but I kinda feel like Raleigh is overkill with Charlotte FC coming in so recently.
I want Eleven Park to be built but that’s been a concept for like 5 years now 😂
The funding is there, they just have to find a site. Allegedly it's gonna start construction this year, but we'll see.
I dig this concept a lot. Book it!
Don’t give me hope you bastards.
Edit: Also good to see that even almost four years later the UT still loves dancing on SoccerCity’s grave.
Without a NFL team and being a large metro area with a substantial Hispanic population, this could be a big addition to the league
I think people overestimate Club Tijuana's presence north of the border, but when talking about Mexican soccer fan demographics you can't ignore the fact that San Diego de facto has a Liga MX team. And having been to all three I'd argue it's not much harder to get to a Xolos game than it is to get to a Revs or Union game.
I would rather see SD than LV, but I would have rather had Sac.
I think the MLS endgame is 40 teams, split into two leagues of 20.
I doubt it. With how revenue is now, owners won't want to further split it out. Right now it is about getting into markets with potential and around the country.
As we approach the end of expansion, the priority and all resources should be dedicated to improving the original clubs who just happen to be based in the biggest markets in the US.
Also, I know people fantasize a 20 team conference because it would be like the Premier League and maybe pro/rel but we will never get to a point where games between the LA clubs, Seattle, Portland etc will not play Miami, Atlanta, the New York clubs, Chicago, DC etc during the regular season and only meeting at MLS Cup.
Four division (two within each conference)
You play all the teams in your division twice (home and away) = 18 games
You play all the teams in the other division in the same conference once (split 10 teams to 5 home and 5 away games / alternate the following season) = 10 games
You play all the teams in one division in the other conference once (split the 10 teams 5 home 5 away games) (you then play the other division in the other conference the following season using the same method) = 10 games
38 game season with 40 teams.
And you get to play everybody in the league in a two year span.
I like this
This was my exact layout, thank you
And with 36 teams its a 34 game season. So it works out really well as we build up to 40 teams
Or we could just stop at 36
I don't think 38 games is feasible. You would need to schedule those games around an already tight schedule. The season begins in late-February due to the NFL playoffs/Super Bowl (due to how hard it would be to find any good times for broadcasts with national TV partners and weather considerations... no, the idea of starting in only Southern states will never happen) and would need to end in early October (again, due to the NFL/CFB season and MLS ratings always dropping when those leagues return).
That is 33 weekends available but then you need to factor in other competitions like the Champions League, US Open Cup, and also mid-season competitions that MLS pauses for like the World Cup, Gold Cup, and Leagues Cup (from 2023). That leaves you with less weekend slots and more weekday slots which aren't great on the bodies of the players if you're counting those other tournaments.
Also, we always hear about how the regular season is relatively boring so how would we keep 10 teams in each conference, where no more than 4 can qualify for the playoffs, exciting? You would have the same problem we have with 14 teams where things become a bit stale for more than a few clubs early.
Thoughts on 4, ten team "conferences" that play 18 internal games (H/A), play the other 10 from a paired conference and half of each of the others?
Sounds good for Americans fans, sounds terrible for international fans.
International fans don't mean much to me. In fact there opinion doesn't matter as they have their own leagues they follow.
This is our league at the end of the day. We can learn from other leagues. For example, I do lean pro/rel. But the end focus should always be domestic fans at home. I honestly 1,000% believe that you can have both playoffs and pro/rel within the same league structure.
If international people abroad becomes fans, then cool.
It's the same dynamic with all the major North American professional leagues. It would be no different.
There's international MLS fans?
How's that? The only other option is to play everyone once or to play a weird spring and fall schedule with the top half being in one group at the end of the season and the other in the bottom.
The MLS is gonna have a playoff regardless, so I'd rather see teams compete with their local opponents more and all of the marquee teams at least every other year than either of those options
38 is nice. But MLS seems to like 34.
38 is what they play over in Europe, but you could also do 18+5+5+5 which is 33 which is fine.
The Bundesliga does 34 games, and that is arguably the second best league in the world. There is also always debate on whether 38 games is good for the players, especially with more international commitments and the cup competitions. Just because the other top 4 have 38, doesn't mean we have to as well, especially when we also have playoffs to schedule.
Right, which is why I said that 33 could be fine...
The problem is the playoffs. In this scenario, the best you can do is 4 teams per group but then people would complain about a few clubs not being able to challenge for anything.
Also, I'm not sure if playing half the teams of the other divisions is the best. For some teams, you might have to wait a few years before playing at their stadium. You could do 10 of a select division and rotate but then you would have 38 games and it's already tough as hell to just get in 34 games without having around 7 midweek games + Champions League, Leagues Cup, US Open Cup, and whatever other international tournaments always happening around that time.
You would play every team H/A over a 4 year period. You would play 9 every year H/A, 10 every 2 years, and the other 20 every 4 years.
Almost every European leagues plays 38 games and they all have tournaments that run concurrent to the league. It is doable.
And for the playoffs, I don't understand your complaint. Teams at the bottom now don't challenge for anything...
I think everyone is fucking crazy if they think mls is going past 32
I don't think they're crazy but I personally don't see the league going past 32 until one of the other big 4 leagues go above as well.
At best, if we do absorb a few Mexican sides, I can see us aim for 36 but that is a big if.
Unified playoffs though.
You say 40 teams and I react with the Kylo Ren MOOORRRE meme.
Unlike other sports, there is a talent pool in soccer to roster more teams.
“Derby” style local matches are better attended than cross-country trips. Make a regular season matchup between RBNY vs LA Galaxy a once-every-few-years event and away fans are more inclined to travel.
More major league games means more highlights means more publicity and attention outside of the broadcast.
Advances in tech make games easier to broadcast and easier for audiences to access. Beyond the talent pool mentioned above, soccer can expand more nimbly than any other major sport.
I doubt MLS goes to 40. The NFL is a league with 32 teams that people would pay billions for a expansion team and it hasn't gone past 32. NHL which is over a 100 years old just hit 32 teams. Also with the MLB and NBA going to 32 within the decade I doubt MLS will be the one league to have that has as many.
32 MLS teams plus 30ish USLC and USL1 teams is perfect
The reason the NFL hasn't gone past 32 is because the player pool can't support more than 32 teams (and I believe this is the same to some extent for MLB and NBA but I can't say for sure).
The player pool that MLS has access to is one of the few advantages it has over these other sports leagues in the US.
So with that in mind, expanding past 32 teams should be considered to help compete against these other US sports leagues by expanding to cities that may not have a significant professional sports presence (like San Diego as mentioned by this article).
40-teams is theoretically plausible given the size of the American market. The big question is, can we do 40 teams and keep fans interested in a world where such a giant like the NFL exists.
There is a large player pool for MLS but because of spending caps ...it results in many mediocre teams.
I agree MLS probably gets to 32 and no more. However all "32's" are not equal. NFL has 32 in the US; NHL has 25 (which makes sense that Canada's number 1 sport would have plenty teams); MLB and NBA have 29 of 30 in the US; MLS has 26, looking to go 27 (and perhaps 28, 29) in the US. We know MLS is not going to be able to grow further in Canada, so there are enough markets to take it beyond 29 in the US.
Save those markets for USL. Talent dilution at the top becomes a thing after a while and the NFL is seeing that at 32. Cap at 32 let the lower leagues have the rest and focus on homegrown talent and strengthing the league. Also I'm not sure how having teams in Canada changes how many teams the us should get when it's all the same league. People get moved to teams all the time.
>Talent dilution at the top becomes a thing after a while and the NFL is seeing that at 32.
Not in soccer, not while money is being spent, there is just too much talent globally. The NFL is dealing with a very limited talent pool in comparison.
>Also I'm not sure how having teams in Canada changes how many teams the us should get when it's all the same league.
The point here is that there are more big US markets available to MLS still, so again, not all 32-team leagues in the US/Canada are equal in makeup.
>Save those markets for USL.
I'm all-in with you here. I have spent some time writing about that on reddit. I think it is inevitable that USL with all the big markets it is already in- and the one's still available, e.g. Cleveland, Baltimore, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Milwaukee, SF, Boise, Buffalo etc- gets even stronger (I predict a USL Premier by '26).
>Not in soccer, not while money is being spent, there is just too much talent globally. The NFL is dealing with a very limited talent pool in comparison.
I get that soccer is a more international market but MLS is supposed to
develop and focus on American/Canadian Talent. I wanna see more kids from let's say El Paso who looked up to Messi in the league versus more importa from South America.
>The point here is that there are more big US markets available to MLS still, so again, not all 32-team leagues in the US/Canada are equal in makeup.
Yeah they all not equal but at some point you have to make a call on what are your markets.
There are over 70 major league sports markets but that doesn't mean all of them should get a MLS team.
>....but MLS is supposed to develop and focus on American/Canadian Talent. I wanna see more kids from let's say El Paso who looked up to Messi in the league versus more importa from South America.
I think it can be both, in fact, I would argue it is on its way to being both.
>There are over 70 major league sports markets but that doesn't mean all of them should get a MLS team.
Yes, agree with the whole of the point you have made about markets, and thought you put it well:
"....at some point you have to make a call on what are your markets"
MLS wanted to go all-in on a coast-to-coast-to coast geographical footprint and has it now, now it is just a little filling-in, picking and choosing.
Pretty sure (s)he meant beyond 32.
Meant to say past 32 not 32
And Phoenix to complete the set. I think that would be an amazing quad to add and some actual western representation.
The east can get Nashville and Minnesota. I don't even care about imbalance to be honest.
Went to Sacs open cup game against Phoenix while i was in town for work… maybe 2,000 people there. As soon as the investors backed out, that whole area lost its momentum for pro soccer.
They are 2nd in attendance, same attemdance as pre-COVID, your sample size was too small. The Derby vs the Quakes will be packed.
Typically teams only get good USOC attendance if they are playing higher division teams. Otherwise you are working with weekday games with little advance notice to sell tickets. I agree that it appears a little bit of the enthusiasm has worn off Sacramento after the back out of investors, but using a USOC game to be the judge of that isn’t going to give you a meaningful indicator.
Though attendance has jumped back up to near-capacity. Also Nagle is keeping alive a Railyards stadium possibility. As the MLS frustration and COVID were at the same time it may be hard to measure accurately.
They closed half the stadium off too. It was weird. But yeah that seems to have hit morale. People really wanted the new stadium. Now we get a new stadium that looks the same and feels no different probably.
Open Cup is a very hard barometer. Midweek fixture, scheduled last minute versus the rest of league schedule, often not your first-choice team…
Or expand to 36, and play a 35 game schedule vs every opponent.
I kinda like this. Would hurt the rivalries a touch since it is one game per season and not a home/away. But it would give value back to the shield. This idea is better than a 40 team league that has no pro/rel and 2 giant divisions.
If MLS goes 40+ I want like a 20/20 or 25/15 split of pro/rel. Which I doubt ever happens.
Why your comment is at -4, i'll never know. MLS fans are the fucking worst.
I’m assuming it’s pro/rel people scoffing at a league that big. Normally they just have a problem that you don’t play every team but 🤷♂️
i'm a pro/rel person, and I also want a 40+ team league.
I more just believe that any market that can support a team at a major league level should have a team. Going in person to support a team is the best way to experience soccer. Scheduling, pro/rel, travel, etc are all secondary concerns for me.
That said, USL and lower-tier soccer is a good option in a lot of markets for the time being, but I don’t think “minor” league soccer creates a lot of new fans, apart from those who are actively seeking a local team.
Minor league appears to be giving an outlet for local soccer fans, but I'd wager you're right that it isn't creating many new fans.
minor leagues are perpetually crippled by how the population sees it as 2nd-tier entertainment. The NFL has an unofficial minor league (D1 NCAA Football) but that "minor league" is really the NFL of its age group.
There's a reason AAA baseball doesn't have a national TV deal despite baseball being in existence for almost as long as soccer has. There aren't any notable **local** TV deals for AAA baseball. The gatekeeping done by MLS is crippling itself, and provides for endless hours of debate from MLS Gatekeeper fans whining about Eurosnobs.
The fucking irony.
MLS needs to do something different than the other major North American leagues to chip away market share, but instead we get gatekeeping and protectionism. 2026 isn't gonna boost MLS like most people in this sub think it will. MLS fans don't even watch other MLS games beyond their own team.
Yeah 2026 I think will boost soccer fandom, but not MLS as a whole. There may be some that tune it, but it won't be some great awakening. More will turn to Euro stuff rather than here at home.
>MLS fans don't even watch other MLS games beyond their own team.
This is definitely a TV deal issue for me. I have ESPN+ so I'll put games on while I am at my computer etc. but otherwise it is hard to find the matches that aren't broadcast on ESPN+
I am also a NFL fan and I know once I'm done watching my team I can just stay on the broadcast on my antenna or tune into NBC or Fox for more. MLS needs to figure out their ease of access shit real quick.
Would absolutely hate a 2 top league, baseball style approach.
God forbid a west coast team signed someone like Messi, I would want to see my team play him.
I absolutely agree.
We are approaching the NFL model where teams may not play each other for like 2 years, and that sucks. I don't like that at all.
Could be an opportunity for mini Pro/Rel 20 team MLS A, 20 team MLS B
You aren’t wrong, but I doubt we see pro/rel in the next 15 years.
They are wrong
Sure are that pro reg shit is so stupid. Leave it for the ones that can fries "chips"
Please tell me you're not ignorant enough to think only the EPL/Championship do this. I'm massively in favor of it. Watching Hoffenheim go from the Verbandsliga (5th division) all the way to 1. Bundesliga (1st division, obviously) in 8 seasons was awesome. Would love that to be a part of our league too.
No. Pre/rel will not work here. We don't need it. This don't Europe. MLs model is perfectly fine. I'm all for teams and the surrounding infrastructure being able to maintain high level product.
It works overseas due to the complexity and support. I'm aware of it elsewhere. I personally think it's shit .
You tell em ...or the ones who call derbies, darbies.
Fire your editor.
I agree with his points but that spelling is atrocious
Why would any team agree to that lmao
“Hey you know how you were in D1? wWell now you’re in the second division and only three of the 20 move to the top. Good luck”
If the TV revenue sharing is the same for MLS A and MLS B, I think they could potentially get it done
Why would the top league ever agree to that, especially when MLS2 games would be rating nightmares and probably stuck on espn3 or mls specific streaming
MLS endgame is a merger with Liga MX. A hundred MLS teams are not going to bring the eyeballs to TV that Liga MX already has.
I’m not sure if that’s the endgame but I think that’s a big possibility if tv revenue doesn’t get much better
Yes, so now when I ask boyhood Cruz Azul fans in New York about supporting the Red Bulls, they can now say that they do follow a "local" team.
Because of scheduling imbalance, it probably irritates me more than it should whenever the league plays a season with an odd number of teams like it will in 2023. But adding San Diego would fix that issue since, in terms of having an MLS-friendly venue to play in, they’re more ready than Las Vegas or Phoenix to slot in at #30 for 2024. This would allow MLS to debut teams 31 and 32 together and maintain an even number of teams, whenever they expand beyond 30.
Could they expand to 36 or 40? I know is not common in american leagues, but around the globe an 18 or 20 teams table is the norm. So maybe the conferences can simulate two different leagues?
I would assume the league is not interested in killing off inter-conference travel/east-west conferences acting as two different leagues.
what about separate 20-teams leagues with inter-conference playoffs?
Continuous expansion would essentially force that unless the season expands from 34 to 38 games. In a 15 team conference, 28 games would be home and away with conference opponents. That leaves 6 east vs west games. Another 2 teams brings east-west games down to 4 per team.
Even at 32 teams it still leaves some room, as you said 4 games if they do home and away with everyone else. But beyond that, in terms of 36 or 40 teams, it’s entirely gone.
Our country isn't like the norm. IMO, people need to get over that.
I would be okay with a 40-team MLS simulating as two different 20-team leagues.
Baseball did it for years.
The Euros only do it for the Champions League. It has its advantages.
It magnifies a match between Juventus and Newcastle. Because it induces scarcity and makes it feel special.
That's one of the biggest arguments people had against the Super League. It would have made Liverpool vs AC Milan feel unspecial.
>Baseball did it for years.
There's a reason they don't do it anymore.
We can't even get people to recognize that we should stop trying to force a single striker based strategy into our national team without actually having one who can do it.
So it would be a new team. Honestly I would like to see the Loyal up, since from what I've seen they have been pretty enjoyable to watch
Plus there's brand recognition in the area (kinda). It would be like Minnesota or Seattle. Plus it'd be nice to get a new team whose name isn't "City FC"
Inb4 San Diego city united FC
*Real San Diego Sporting United CF
At least Real San Diego would make sense with how big the Hispanic population is in SD
The Loyal started in 2020. They are a brand new team themselves. You cannot compare them to the Sounders, whose current club goes back to 1994, and Minnesota who started as the NSC Minnesota Stars in 2010 in the NASL and basically replaced the Minnesota Thunder.
There is no real brand recognition or long standing established fanbase where you have to push up the USL club.
This....but the MLS marketing gurus and hipsters....
Agreed, would love to see the Loyal move up. You already have Landon Donovan as a big draw, and an already established fan base.
How many teams does the MLS ultimately want?
The year is 2050. The Anchorage Snowballs have just been added as the new expansion team to the growing league, now with over 100 teams with 10 conferences. The game will be played in Manchester, New Hampshire, against the team Manchester United, New Hampshire’s second team. The attendance record will be broken with a total of 300 people.
Lol 🤣 post of the day!
Controversially, Cali should have 5, Texas 4, with a good deal of Midwest a couple of more Eastern cities (primarily Baltimore)
What about Phoenix?
Can’t wait for San Diego F.C to join in along with F.C Sacramento and Puerto Rico United
I doubt they will change the name and logo. The Loyal don't have the biggest fan base or recognition but that would help get team started
They’d have to change the logo if they go to MLS. When you enter the (single-entity) league, you’re then technically an entirely new team.
Prior to Nashville SC joining MLS in their last USLC season, they had to divide everything in their office to not have a conflict of interest - as in, two temporary staffs: one for each “club”. They had to get a new logo, new colours, etc.
Didn't Minnesota keep their same logo from their NASL days, or at least very close to it?
I have my doubts on that one
Gonna end up with 10 cali teams
Ideal. 5 cali teams. 4 texas teams. 3 Florida teams
More west coast teams would be a good thing.
Thats good. More teams in more places.
Oh for god sake add regulation/promotion we can easily grow the game with this by introducing smaller/untapped markets
Would be cool to see this. It will be neat to also see how many teams in MLS will end up being based out of Cali haha.
San Diego is a big market but I don’t see it constantly packing the stadium. As someone else pointed out if they are winning sure but if they lose I guarantee it’ll mostly be military folks who are there because of free tickets. Large military population there
I don’t think they’d have an issue with attendance - Mission Valley is pretty easy to get to and the city has a huge rec soccer presence (something that was big in building FC Cincy’s base). Most current MLS clubs have lower attendance if they suck, but I don’t expect SD to be notably worse than anyone else
I’m mostly annoyed that SnapDragon Stadium is gonna be the host, since SDSU getting the land is what tanked the last bid. But obviously building another stadium is basically impossible
Come to Detroit, you cowards!
That bid failed but atleast you have Detroit city FC
Lol, we have those goons.
I’d love to see a San Diego team. I’m biased here because I live in Arizona but I’m still holding out for a Phoenix team in MLS. Either rising moving up or just a totally different team because it’s great having a USL team as well.
I won't hold my breath
fuck yeah would love this, but hope Sac is still in running too cause ive always loved what they had going on
I love the idea of San Diego joining the league, but I hate the idea of them playing in a football stadium
San Diego could be a good market for Liga MX as well.
The USSF forbids Liga MX from ever expanding into the U.S. They can't. If they could there would be like 10-15 Liga MX clubs in the U.S. and they wouldn't need to constantly dream of a MLS merger. But because Liga MX has no access to the U.S. is why we ended up with Chivas USA. Chivas owner Jorge Vergara was looking to put Liga MX clubs in Los Angeles in the early 00s. The USSF said that ain't happening but how about this. And Chivas USA was born.
Xolos are basically the de facto Liga MX team that part of the region follows.
People always say this but the Xolos are not that popular in San Diego. First, they stink and have for a while. That kills their chances of gaining some foreign interest and has really kept them from breaking into San Diego. No one wants to root for a bad club that is newer and isn't even from your area. The club has only been around since the early 2010s so it doesn't have the cultural pull of the other Liga MX clubs.
If you polled Mexican-Americans in the area the Xolos probably wouldn't rate that high and the most popular clubs would be the usual Liga MX suspects like Chivas, America, Cruz Azul, Pumas, etc.
I don't think a MLS club would have to worry too much about the Xolos.
Question for California residents, if you're a huge soccer fan how convenient is it to just cross the border and see Club Tijuana? Do a lot of soccer fans do that? If an MLS club was created in San Diego, would these fans just stay Tijuana fans?
There are definitely plenty of Xolos fans in San Diego that would remain Xolos fans despite an MLS club coming to town. I have friends that occasionally go to Xolos games and I would definitely go with them if the timing was right, but I've been in SD for 10 years and haven't gone to one yet if that says anything. I actually went to see a Loyal v Xolos friendly in SD and there was definitely a good mix of fans for both clubs (tbf pretty sure Xolos played their reserves).
I don't think current Xolos fans would switch their loyalty, but if MLS continues to make up competitive ground on LigaMX and SD becomes a solid club then I could definitely see Xolos fans' kids picking an SD team in the future.
It's fairly painless if you cross on foot. I always park on the San Ysidro side and walk to the other side. Once in Tijuana I just get an Uber to the stadium.
If you drive into Tijuana you're gonna have to deal with the long ass waiting times to cross back, unless you and your whole party has SENTRI or one of the other "Trusted Traveller" programs.
The only sport I think that can do decently well in San Diego is hockey. The Gulls are arguably supported better than the Anaheim Duck, and without argument they're supported better than the Coyotes.
Stop putting teams in California they don’t give a fuck. Signed every large city with no sports teams.
The city is amazing. There’s so much to do. Weather is perfect. Some how it’s not the best sports city. People rather go to the beach or go hiking than watch a sporting event. Who can blame them?!?!
Boy i can't imagine why MLS isn't nationally popular when we see MLS fans argue about which cities are more deserving, cutting each other down, and then shitting on USL at the same time.
Really boggles the mind why more American soccer fans don't pack MLS stadiums. Gatekeeping surely wouldn't affect the attractiveness of the TV product in markets that don't currently have MLS.
In two maybe three years when the MLB and NBA expand your gonna a ton of people screaming the same. It's just how it is when the last few expansion slots are left
I think MLS is going to have to search far and wide to find another 300M ~~sucker~~lead investor.
Does California readily need 5 teams? Galaxy, LAFC, Earthquakes, Sacramento, and San Diego.
Yes, California is geographically huge and also has more people than all of Canada
Plus I think the UK is literally smaller and has a billion teams
California is a bit bigger, but has 30m less people. Still, point stands.
California is pretty large as a state.
Ohio has a population of 11.5M, and 2 teams. That’s one team for ever 5.75M people.
California has 39.5M people, so we should have… 6.9 teams.
It has five baseball teams.
Although they will probably lose the A’s
That's true, but it's not like California can't support five teams. There are definitely enough people.
Yes. They’re should honestly be 6 three in nor cal and 3 in so cal Sacramento SF/Oak SJ and 2 LA and one SD. Perfectly balanced.
I'd say why stop at 5, make it 10!
Might as well have California have its own league. 20 teams balanced schedule. From San Diego, to the IE, to the desert, to the valley, and to the Bay Area
It would be 4 MLS teams as Sacramento gave up their spot as the investor moved to NWSL with the wave.
San Diego has soccer mom money and they would sell out. They just have to create a good brand and product on the field. A franchise player would help too.
There is always a lot of talk about an MLS locating to a new Stadium to be occupied by another team. In the MLS, you almost have to be the owner of the stadium or be the primary tenant. You can be a secondary tenant, but only until YOUR MLS stadium is built. No ifs, ands, or buts. To be a financially succesful MLS team you need to have the income from your stadium unshared or shared on a a majority basis that is your majority.
Is there another MLS team that is not looking at their own stadium that permanently plays in another stadium? I think not. The MLS has spoken good words about Vegas now SD, but unless the future owners of the MLS team has a ownership share of any stadium, its all a dream. For SD or Vegas to get an MLS team they can announce they may play several seasons in a Raiders or an Aztecs stadium but only UNTIL their own MSL stadium and permanent home is completed