MLS May Not Ever Expand Above 20 Teams and Why That's a Good Thing
by Geoff Gibson on Sep 14, 2011 12:46 PM PDT
Email
Print
Great news! In an article printed on Monday by Sporting News, MLS president Mark Abbott stated that there are currently no plans to expand beyond 20 MLS teams. Here's the exact quote:
"Our focus right now is the 20th team in New York and we have not yet set a timeline for expansion beyond that, or even (determined) if we’re going to expand beyond that."
At first glance, some might think that this is terrible news, especially those fans who are not currently anywhere near an MLS city (hello South East!). I mean, more MLS teams means more fans, more fans means more money, more money means a better product right? It seems like a fairly simple equation to follow, but it's not always that easy.
International Standards
Soccer leagues the world over have set the standard league table as being either 18 teams or 20 teams. The Bundesliga, La Liga, English Premier League, Russian Premier League, Mexican Primera Division, Brasileirão, etc. all have 18-20 teams. Even the Chinese Super League only has 16. That's 16 teams for over one billion people...
The point of this is that the standards have been set not by some arbitrary FIFA rule, or because of population size or area mass. As you can plainly see nations with hundreds of millions of people (Russia, Brazil, China) follow the same league size as small countries like Germany, England and France. The reason for it is that 20 teams is the maximum number of clubs you can have while maintaining a balanced schedule, everybody plays the other teams twice, home and away.
This is an admittedly foreign concept to American sports fans, but it's integral to the way soccer works, especially considering that with an unbalanced schedule the Supporter's Shield trophy will essentially become meaningless as other teams will naturally be better suited to win the trophy.
So to maintain a balanced schedule and ensure that the Supporter's Shield trophy actually means something MLS would be wise to not expand beyond 20 teams.
MLS 2... and maybe 3
But just because MLS 1 won't expand beyond 20 teams (hopefully!) doesn't mean that MLS doesn't have plans to expand to other territories. While the near dreams of a South East team in MLS might be looking a little bleak at the moment, what with MLS so focused on getting a second New York City franchise, I'd be surprised if they didn't at least have some cursory idea of establishing their own second division league.
Let's face it. The NASL and USL Pro aren't brand names in the USA or Canada. They just don't carry the kind of recognition and notoriety that MLS does these days. They also don't have the marketing power, media contacts, promotional abilities, or major star players to make any sort of big publicity splash. In a sense, you have two leagues which don't really amount to much on the global scale or public awareness.
Enter MLS with MLS 2 and 3, however, and things start to get a little more interesting.
With an MLS second division, teams would be able to have a certain amount of marketing and promotional muscle that the second and third division teams currently lack. Even as a 2 or 3-level team, they could use the MLS brand to at the very least get some local coverage and possible media deals. With more coverage teams will hopefully get more fans and more fans will hopefully bring in more money... you see where I'm getting at now?
Better yet, with MLS 2 and 3 we could see a sort of promotion and relegation. Now, I won't go so far as to say we'll get the traditional promotion/relegation system in MLS. I think the entire business structure would need to be reworked for that to ever happen, but that's not to say we couldn't see it in some form or another. Don Garber mentioned that they were looking into "simulated" promotion and relegation in the past, so something very well would be in the works now.
And then, with the promotion/relegation system, we could very well see those South East teams crop up from time to time.
Final Thoughts
Of course, all this speculation on my part is dependent on MLS actually sticking to their current plan of "no plans." At any moment they could feel like increasing the amount of teams to normal American-league sized levels. If that happens, it's my hope that MLS will actually fracture into multiple leagues ala MLB. I'd rather have a completely separate Western and Eastern leagues that compete against each other only in the play offs than a horrendously unbalanced schedule.
35 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
"balanced schedule" is somewhat of a misnomer
it’s important to remember that in Europe, what Americans call a “regular season” is in fact a tournament, like the Champions League or the Copa Del Rey or any other tournament. Thus each team plays each other team once at home and once away. The only difference between a Champions League-type tournament and a “regular season” is of course that no team is eliminated until the very end of the “regular season”.
Given that, a league could in fact have any number of teams; most leagues stick to 20 not because of the ‘balanced schedule’ so much as 20 teams produces a 38 week tournament, which fits in with the endless amounts of other competitions on the calendar.
I still like the idea of
A 24 team league 2 conferences. you play home and away in conference and home orr away versus out of conference altenating location by year. Give the top five from each conference playoff berths. That would be pretty fun.
Promotion/Relegation
I would love to have NASL/USL become a lower league for MLS and get the traditional promotion/relegation structure used all over the world. It actually provides incentives for teams trying to compete. Wouldn’t it be great to have the NBA, where there are way too many teams, have to actually play hard at the end of the year to avoid dropping to the NBDL? Relegation battles are sometime more exciting than playoff runs anyway.
While the thought of the Idaho Stampede playing against the bigs sounds interesting
I just don’t see owners going along with it.
Jag kom, jag såg, erövrade jag.
It'll never happen
USL/NASL teams don’t have money to improve their stadia – or to pay their players – to MLS standards.
Could you imagine talking risk/reward with potential investors?
Yes, sir. If we don’t win enough games that means we’ll filling up jet engine tanks for trips to places like Wilmington, NC. Huge beach soccer market down there…
Community Manager for Stumptown Footy
by William Duke on Sep 14, 2011 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions
Or even just talking to taxpayers
“Thanks for the $200 million stadium, Kansas City tax payers, but due to the failure of this organization from top to bottom it is now home to the NASL Wiz., and a Jonas Brothers concert.”
I really don’t see promotion/relegation ever working in this country.
volatilelyle.com
by almost awesome on Sep 14, 2011 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
MLS owners that paid the franchise fee
will never go for promotion/relegation. It’s not happening here anytime soon, if ever, and I’m fine with that. Also, you’ve got to love guys who talk up relegation playoffs… just as long as it’s not his team.
by yepyou'reright on Sep 14, 2011 8:21 PM PDT via iPhone app up reply actions
I do take some issue with calling Germany, England and France small
Those three nations are the populous nations of Europe. Better example would be the Netherlands [17m, 11th], Poland [38m, 9th], and Romania [22m, 10th]. Countries more in the middle of population size. Those three have respectively 18 [Eredivisie], 16 [The Ekstraklasa], and 18 [Liga I]. Nations not in the top 5 in population or so tend not to have 20 teams, but 18 or less.
Jag kom, jag såg, erövrade jag.
The smaller the nation, the lesser the quantity of quality teams
I think his comparison was based purely on population size, though, and by that measure England, France, and Germany are smaller than China, Brazil, and Russia. But your comparison is more apt.
Yup
I refrained from using the Netherlands, Romania or Poland because the soccer leagues of England, France and Germany are far more well known. It simply made for an easier comparison.
RCTID - Stumptown Footy
Moderator of /r/MLS
by Geoff Gibson on Sep 14, 2011 4:14 PM PDT up reply actions
True, but showing that Poland has the same number of teams as China is a greater argument
for your point than talking about Germany and Russia.
Jag kom, jag såg, erövrade jag.
Well the point was simply that...
Russia has 142-ish million and yet has less teams than a relatively smaller nation like Germany with their 18 teams and 81-ish million people.
Ergo more population doesn’t mean more teams in the first division.
Just because the US has 300-ish million people doesn’t mean they need to expand expand expand.
But I understand what you are saying. I actually didn’t know Poland had 16 teams as well. Probably would have driven a better parallel.
RCTID - Stumptown Footy
Moderator of /r/MLS
by Geoff Gibson on Sep 14, 2011 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions
About your balanced schedule argument
I just read an article on MLSsoccer.com saying that they are considering an unbalanced schedule in the near future. He was quoted in the article saying that it would be “impossible to balanced with 20 or 22 teams.” Personally, I do not think MLS can stop expanding now, especially if they are going to put the 20th team in New York. If MLS wants to be a major American league they need to have exposure throughout the country and that means at least one club in the South and another attempt in Florida. Right now the league feels incomplete without those teams. Really MLS can never become a traditional soccer league. Name me one league that expands through two countries. The thought that MLS wants to quit expanding with three teams in Canada kind of makes me bitter because I want a strong nationwide league in America and I feel like more American cities need the opportunity to have soccer in their market.
The fact is that a balanced schedule with 20 teams makes a lot of aspects of MLS meaningless. What is the point of playoffs when we already know the winner of the supporters shield is the best in the league. More importantly why do we have conferences? Even if we kept the playoffs why does Columbus get a better chance at getting to the MLS cup then Seattle when Seattle has soundly beaten them in the season and has 8 more points then they do? They only reason I accept this situation right now is that the system is in place for the inevitable 24 team league with an unbalanced schedule.
If they do want to even some things up, I do think it is a good idea to make the conferences basically two leagues. Certainly cuts back on travel times and makes the US Open Cup and Playoffs more interesting because of the unusual matchups. Starting with 12 teams in each league they could easily balance the schedule with 4 games playing each of the teams in their conference/ league. Give a CCL spot to the highest point total in both conferences and compete for the auto group stage spots in the Open Cup and MLS Cup winners.
This goes back to the "playoffs v. points" debate
American sports, and American sports fans, are used to having playoffs, so MLS instituted a playoff system. Soccer fans are used to points alone deciding the league winner, so MLS instituted the Supporters Shield. They tried to have it both ways and it’s not really satisfying to anybody. I would have vastly preferred MLS adopt the no-playoff, season-as-tournament format, but that ship has sailed – MLS will always have playoffs at this point.
I hate the tendency of American sports fans to overthink things. With 20 teams, you play 38 games, two against each team. What could be more balanced or a better way to judge the best team in the league? You don’t need divisions, you don’t need wild card playoff spots, you don’t need crazy scheduling. Easy.
MLS adopted the fan-started Supporter's Shield
But the fact still stands that they gave it some heft by awarding a automatic CCL spot for it.
Jag kom, jag såg, erövrade jag.
MLS playoffs are useful
National TV ratings go up for playoffs. They’re not astronomical, but the national ratings are far better than regular season matches. Another reason to want Cascadia in the playoffs every year.
Also, since CCL is still kind of off-the-radar and we have no good second tier like Europa League, the MLS Cup playoffs gives teams incentive to continue playing hard rather than phone it in for half the season.
American sports generally have it right. The incentive of the playoffs is a much better and healthier motivator than the doomsday relegation system or what would be a dull single table no playoff for MLS (at least until CCL gets bigger and better).
American soccer can’t be like Europe now and likely never will be. We have a different place with different logistics and a different history. If it ever resembles anything like Europe it will be decades in the making, maybe a century. Ignore the Eurosnobs who lack understanding and the Anglophiles who lazily look to England for everything.
by yepyou'reright on Sep 15, 2011 12:27 AM PDT via iPhone app up reply actions
Where we differ is that I don't think a single table, no playoff is dull
and I’m not a Eurosnob or an Anglophile. I just love the simplicity of it.
It's not dull in Europe because they have UEFA CL
and Europa League as an incentive. Despite the gradual growth of CCL recently, we really don’t have anything like that.
If MLS had a single table no playoff season most teams would have packed it in a month or two ago (especially since there isn’t relegation) and that would really suck for fans and not help a young league at all.
I wasn’t saying that you’re a Eurosnob, but some people talk about a MLS single table no playoff season like it’s a magic pill for MLS and American soccer. Imo that’s just not the case here.
by yepyou'reright on Sep 15, 2011 11:05 AM PDT via iPhone app up reply actions
Between the US Open Cup and the CCL we do have that covered though
if MLS did a better job of promoting the USOC, and once MLS teams start making regular progress into the later rounds of the CCL like they are this year, then there’s plenty of things to keep MLS fans happy which would allow for the no playoff format to work. But as I said above, that ship has already sailed – MLS isn’t about to remove the playoffs now since they’ve always been a thing here. I don’t hate the playoffs, but it seems like if there’s playoffs, you don’t need a balanced schedule – and then we get into the overthinking thing again.
USSF
Really needs to revamp the USOC. It is such a joke. Seattle has to play 6 games to win it 2 years in a row, if the Timbers were in the final this year they would have played 7 elimination games. 4 or more would have been against MLS Competition.
Also buying a home game is just cheap, why not have a true open cup where the MLS teams come in later than the lower teams but it is a true “open” cup.
Contributing editor to Stumptown Footy the Portland Timbers SBN blog.
Watching Timbers play SJ four times per year
would be extremely dull and the Cascadia rivalry would be watered down if they played each other that often.
It will likely be a 20 team league, at least for awhile. It’s why MLS 2011 for Timbers was a now or never deal.
MLS 2 & 3 with promotion/relegation (or without) seems unlikey imo. If MLS teams will have youth academies, U23, and reserves then MLS 2 or 3 will eventually be unnecessary from a developmental point-of-view.
But MLS does not have a anti-trust exemption for soccer like MLB does for baseball. So…
If fans and ownership groups in other markets want top-flight U.S. or pro/rel soccer they’ll have to start a competing league.
by yepyou'reright on Sep 14, 2011 9:02 PM PDT via iPhone app up reply actions
Name me one league that expands through two countries.
A-League. Australia and New Zealand. Wikied.
And, if I want to get really technical: UEFA Champions League, UEFA Cup, Concacaf CL, Copa Libertadores, AFC CL [Asia], CAF CL [Africa].
Jag kom, jag såg, erövrade jag.
Looking at the CAF CL, I'm sensing that North African nations are very good clubs.
Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, and Moroccan clubs have it. Some with relative frequency.
Fun read.
Jag kom, jag såg, erövrade jag.
A-League
I guess you are right about the A-League being in two countries. Then again, it is structured in a similar way to MLS with playoffs, salary caps, and no pro/rel. The schedule is not necessarily balanced either with 3 games againist each team meaning some have an advantage over others by playing a good team at home twice a year while the other has to play it away. Not too blatant but still. I guess another thing that annoys me about the arguments that we need to adapt the Major European model (i.e. what England, Spain, and Germany use). Is that it assumes that soccer leagues are played the same way everywhere when that is not really true. For example, the Mexican system. I do not want to the US to adapt that system, I barely understand it, but it is not the same simple system they use in England.
Also I don’t really count the champions leagues. They are leagues in a sense but they feel more like post-season esque adventures to me. But that viewpoint is coming from an American sports fan.
They're not really leagues, you're right
They’re rewards for prior good play. And they draw from entire geographical regions.
There is pro/rel now in A-League.
I think we should go after the German model! No one person/entity owns 50+1 of any club. This means many are owned in shares by hundreds of people. It makes spenders accountable and the league is profitable and not in debt.
I included the champions leagues on the technicality that they are called leagues.
Jag kom, jag såg, erövrade jag.
You don't need to water it down with more teams.
The SE sucks as a whole for anything other than collegiate sports anyways.
if we only go to twenty teams,
I don’t think we really need to have two teams in New York. there are better places to put a team than just repeating in new york where they have two teams of every sport. rather move that team to a place that will care about it.
The thinking might be to get a team actually in NYC
by yepyou'reright on Sep 14, 2011 11:48 PM PDT via iPhone app up reply actions
This is why America should have leagues competing
with MLS in the future. Imagine teams in each NYC borough or east side & west side clubs in Portland. It’s all SciFi fantasy stuff of course and I doubt the talent pool could provide enough good players for something like that, but imagine what American soccer would be like.
by yepyou'reright on Sep 15, 2011 10:49 AM PDT via iPhone app up reply actions
Oooooh...
I would totally be a Portland Cascade Rangers fan. We could replace the PPS building with a new soccer stadium. Derbies would be epic.
When I write, I write for the Timbers. Contributing Editor of Stumptown Footy
by Andrew Wheeler on Sep 15, 2011 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions
NYC really needs to be seen to be believed
The scope of the city and metro area are just enormous compared to every other city in America. Population-wise and economically. Think Portland + Seattle + SF Bay Area. Could probably support 3 teams in each major sport easily.
Grant Wahl at SI chimes in
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/grant_wahl/09/15/mls.structure/index.html
Playoffs: Two groups [Group 1:W1, E2, E3, WC of W4vW5, group 2 the inverse]
Season: [based on 20 teams in two conferences and four divisions]
Each team would play a 39-game regular-season league schedule (up from the current 34) comprised of:
• one game against each team from the other conference (10 total)
• two games (one home, one away) against each team from its own conference outside its own geographic “rivalry group” (10 total)
• four games (two home, two away) against each team from its own geographic “rivalry group” (16 total)
• three neutral-site games against teams from outside its own geographic “rivalry group” (3 total)
Jag kom, jag såg, erövrade jag.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanShots on Stumptown Footy
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
