Steve Davis quotes MLS commissioner Don Garber on the possibility (or lack thereof) of future league expansion past twenty teams, after MLS president Mark Abbott told SN’s Brian Straus last week the league would stop after Montreal and an as-yet-unnamed New York side join the league:
“There was a time when [league] expansion was a core, strategic priority. It’s not that now. We’ve got many priorities, but expansion is not one of them.”
This is not a bad thing for MLS. A good portion of league coverage surrounds “meta” issues, like its single-entity investment structure, the number of Designated Players permitted per side, as well as bigger existential issues about soccer’s place in the lucrative North American sporting pantheon.
Part of this discussion has always involved expansion—how fast, which markets, and to what end. A twenty-team cut-off offers a number of advantages, first and foremost symmetry, both for the league table and for the playoffs. But stopping expansion for the league here has a number of philosophical benefits.
First, no more rotating conversation about viable American (or Canadian) soccer markets, so that MLS can deal with working with its existing markets, and shoring up some of the weaker ones. It gives a sense of fixed identity to the league—this is it, for better or for worse. A little familiarity goes a long way, and as Lorne Michaels apparently said once: “the longer you’re here, the longer you’re here.” Halting expansion seals off MLS and gives the league a sense of permanence.
Second, it ends comparisons to the elephant that refuses to leave MLS’ room: the old NASL. It’s practically orthodox now to assert the North American Soccer League died due to over-expansion—too much, too soon. Major League Soccer has taken fifteen years to get where it is now, based on a conservative approach that has been, for the most part, a success. Stopping for a while won’t hurt.
Third, by getting out of what is essentially the investment business, expanding into new markets while at the same time adding revenue, it can focus on the real money-maker in American sports: television. It is critical for the league to generate interest in the ever-elusive “casual supporter.”
Not everyone will appreciate a time-out on league expansion, but MLS needs to work with what it has and give both fans and players some much-appreciated continuity for the next little while.
I agree that the league should cut off at 20. Move Chivas USA to Detroit and I’ll be happy. A team in Detroit would make for a great rivalry with Toronto.
Expansion beyond 20 would be suicide unless it spills into an MLS2 and that league would need 8 teams to be viable.
They need to work on actually improving the league before they once again begin collecting bloated expansion fees.
@DR
Exactly how have MLS expansion fees been ‘bloated’?
RSL, Seattle, Toronto, Portland, Philly and Vancouver would sell for more than they paid in expansion. Seattle and Toronto are at least 5 times more valuable. Sounds like discounted expansion fees to me.
Stopping at 20 would be prudent.
The number of quality players in this league has gone up a lot in the past 5 years, but so has the number of teams, so the net effect gets reduced.
And it comes to a point where there become too many mouths to feed – the 21st, 22nd, etc teams are going to do little to enhance future TV deals (unless they start doubling up the number of teams in major markets).
Keep the 2 conference system if they must (would prefer only 6 playoff teams, not 10).
i cringe at the thought of The Don outsmarting himself and going NFL style with 4 x 5 team divisions :|
You guys hit the nail on the head, quality of players has to catch up
You can’t go higher than 20 teams. The league is constantly improving but capping at 20 teams is wise. Developing and bringing in talent within the 20 will only make the league stronger and more appealing for tv. I do think that the league has outgrown Columbus as a market and the Chivas USA experiment has been a flop. Relocating those franchises would be best, as growth would still be achieved through strengthening from within. I do still worry what a New York Cosmos team would do to the Red Bulls. I believe the overall support for that club is disappointing, and a return of the Cosmos would further erode their support, as opposed to creating a rivalry.
Moving a team that has a strong history in MLS is not a solution. Columbus was the first to top the league in attendance, the first,to have its own stadium, Greats played their (Freidel, McBride, Schelotto, Hejduk, Marshall, Gaven, Cunningham, Warzycha, John, among others.
The issue with TV for the league is that the markets that they’re the weakest are, outside of LA, the most important TV markets.
Let’s face it: nothing will kill the league’s credibility regarding TV deals faster than Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver all making the playoffs in the same season. Seattle and Portland aren’t much better, frankly, but at least they both can claim they have / had NBA franchises at one point so there’s something of a legacy.
The biggest thing, though, is that they have to continue to resist switching to the international calendar. Do that and the league’s dead within the decade.
I agree stopping at 20 makes some sense for now. Stabilize the league, build talent level amongst the 20, and focus on making solid on the NBC deal. However I would love to see a team playing in Detroit in the renovated Silver Dome. A transfer could work, but potentially if the ownership group for the 2nd New York team doesn’t pan out then Detroit would be an ideal candidate.
Guys, the hold is supposed to be TEMPORARY.
MLS should, and probably will, be larger than 20 teams.
They should stop at 20 for a decade to let the quality catch up.
Dont go over 20 in the next decade, allowing further growth of the existing MLS fanbase before making any decisions on expansion, chivas USA are the first ones to bite the dust if their crowds dont improve, and columbus next if they remain stagnant.