Expansion Rumors Megathread

Not a rendering anymore in Minnesota. And this one is living up to the hype. What the hell have we done in 5 years?

C1DEABE7-6574-4E01-9F65-96D874EB6680.jpeg
 
Haven't posted any detailed but wild speculation lately. Let's do it. Spent some time thinking about the most plausible Liga MX / MLS merger scenario post-2026, here's what I came up with. Overall, I think they would follow a keep-it-simple model, keeping both leagues still at arms length to protect rivalries and reduce travel. Therefore, I think it would look a lot like the AL / NL merger in baseball, with two leagues not overly concerned with symmetry in their structures, as long as the seasons like up to allow some meaningful interleague play (the entire point of a potential merger). I think they'll also force a Liga MX / MLS cup final each year, but I'll get to that in a bit.

1. First, we have eight years to finish up MLS expansion. It's more difficult for a bid to actually reach the finish line that it seems, as we've seen, but I definitely think they'll be able to push beyond 28 teams in the near future. But as more large markets are taken, the expansion fee rises and smaller markets get priced out, leading to an equilibrium around 30-32 teams (e.g. every other US sports league.) Let's say we get to 32 by the World Cup: St. Louis, Phoenix, Detroit, Charlotte and San Diego. It feels like Charlotte is gearing up to produce a massive bid in the next round, and I think the league finds a way to get the San Diego group in eventually even if the Soccer City vote fails, due to Juan Carlos Rodriguez's involvement. Las Vegas and Sacramento are also options for #32 if they have the right investment groups.

2. Next, the merger. Let's call it Liga NA. We have 32 teams from MLS in two conferences and 18 from Liga MX. To open up interleague play opportunities in a 34-game schedule, we need to introduce divisions:

Liga NA East
Atlantic (8):
Toronto, Montreal, New England, New York City, NY Red Bulls, Philadelphia, DC United, Detroit
Central (8): Chicago, Columbus, Cincinnati, Nashville, Atlanta, Charlotte, Orlando, Miami

Liga NA West
Frontier (8):
Real Salt Lake, Colorado, Minnesota, St. Louis, Kansas City, Dallas, Austin, Houston
Pacific (8): Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, San Jose, Los Angeles, LA Galaxy, San Diego, Phoenix

I hate that the Midwest is so fractured (Minnesota/St. Louis, Chicago/Columbus, and Detroit all in different divisions), but tough to split it up another way. There's a natural North/South split in the middle of the country and only Detroit would have to be moved East, but I feel they'll want to keep two East/West conferences rather than stretch things across time zones and group cold weather teams together.

Liga NA South
North (9):
Tijuana, Santos Laguna, UANL, Monterrey, Guadalajara, Atlas, Necaxa, Leon, Queretaro
South (9): Morelia, Cruz Azul, Club America, UNAM, Toluca, Puebla, BUAP, Veracruz

I don't know that much about Liga MX, but the above seems like a reasonably natural division. Not entirely sure these are the 18 teams that would make the cut either though.

DXe2kCx.png


3. Third, scheduling. Each division in the Eastern and Western conferences plays their own division twice (14), the other division in their conference once (8), and 12 interconference games. In the Southern Conference, it is the same (16+9) but with 9 interconference games. For the Southern Conference, all 9 of those interleague games are against Eastern and Western conference teams in the US and Canada. For Eastern/Western conference teams, they play about 5 games each year against Southern Conference teams, and 7 games against the other former-MLS conference. The numbers clearly don't line up perfectly, but on a managed rotation, each team would play every other team in Liga NA at least once per four years. In total, this schedule produces 162 games between former MLS and former Liga MX teams, a massive media boom despite modest amount of crossover scheduling.

4. Lastly, postseason. I'm tempted to project a mixed conference postseason, maybe even group stages, but most likely two factors will come into play: length and competitiveness. It is best for both leagues to force a Mexican-American/Canadian final, and due to the already difficult calendar adjustments required to merge the leagues, there's probably not much time to squeeze in a postseason tournament.

As stated in the into, I don't think they'll concern themselves with symmetry too much. They'll have a Southern Conference bracket, probably of 8 teams (four from each division or a wildcard system) in a single-elimination knockout spanning three weeks. Above the border, they'll probably need four weeks to run a single-elimination knockout of 16 teams (or 12 if you give the division winners byes) that would see the Western Conference winner face the Eastern Conference winner in the overall semifinals. The winner advances to face the Southern Conference winner for the Campeones Cup (or a new trophy), preferably at a neutral site (Jerry World?).

Reactions?

EDIT: Honestly imagine going from nationally televised games of the week between Atlanta United and Chicago Fire, or LA Galaxy and Minnesota United, to nationally televised, meaningful regular season games between LAFC and Chivas or NYCFC and Club America. Or San Diego v Tiujana annual border rivalry. I'm excited about the potential.

Another thought, if MLS stops at 30 (no Charlotte and San Diego) and LigaNA has 48 total teams, could be to have 8 divisons of 6:

East: TOR, MON, NER, NYC, NYRB, PHI
Southeast: CIN, DCU, NAS, ATL, ORL, MIA
Central: SKC, STL, MIN, CHI, DET, COL
Southwest: RSL, COL, PHX, DAL, AUS, HOU
West: VAN, SEA, POR, SJ, LAFC, LAG
MX North: etc.
MX Central: etc.
MX South: etc.

If the goal is to have interleague play, each division plays itself twice (10 games) plus four other divisions (24 games), with MX divisions always playing the other two MX divisions and rotating through the USA/CAN divisions as their third. USA/CAN divisions play 3 other USA/CAN divisions and 1 MX division per year, except once every five years they play 2 MX divisions.

Without interleague play, MX can just play a full round robin with all other teams (34 games) and USA/CAN can stick to the above plan but just play the other 4 USA/CAN divisions each year instead of rotating thru 1 MX division per year.

For postseason, could do a lot of different things from here due to all the even numbers. Take 8 teams from MX divisions and 8 from USA/CAN divisions and play a single round robin. Or mix clubs across borders. Or even play group stages.

A really aggressive proposal would be to cut interdivisional play during the regular season down by one division, and split the table after 28 games like the Scottish Premier League does. Take the top 2 from each division and throw them in groups of 4 in a double round robin (6 games for 34 total), with the top two advancing to an 8-team finals bracket. The bottom four in each division could form their own final groupings and then have some teams advance to separate USA/CAN and MX postseason knockouts for minor trophies. Keeps every club involved all year long.

Just more spitballin. Please wipe your screen.
 
Another thought, if MLS stops at 30 (no Charlotte and San Diego) and LigaNA has 48 total teams, could be to have 8 divisons of 6:

East: TOR, MON, NER, NYC, NYRB, PHI
Southeast: CIN, DCU, NAS, ATL, ORL, MIA
Central: SKC, STL, MIN, CHI, DET, COL
Southwest: RSL, COL, PHX, DAL, AUS, HOU
West: VAN, SEA, POR, SJ, LAFC, LAG
MX North: etc.
MX Central: etc.
MX South: etc.

If the goal is to have interleague play, each division plays itself twice (10 games) plus four other divisions (24 games), with MX divisions always playing the other two MX divisions and rotating through the USA/CAN divisions as their third. USA/CAN divisions play 3 other USA/CAN divisions and 1 MX division per year, except once every five years they play 2 MX divisions.

Without interleague play, MX can just play a full round robin with all other teams (34 games) and USA/CAN can stick to the above plan but just play the other 4 USA/CAN divisions each year instead of rotating thru 1 MX division per year.

For postseason, could do a lot of different things from here due to all the even numbers. Take 8 teams from MX divisions and 8 from USA/CAN divisions and play a single round robin. Or mix clubs across borders. Or even play group stages.

A really aggressive proposal would be to cut interdivisional play during the regular season down by one division, and split the table after 28 games like the Scottish Premier League does. Take the top 2 from each division and throw them in groups of 4 in a double round robin (6 games for 34 total), with the top two advancing to an 8-team finals bracket. The bottom four in each division could form their own final groupings and then have some teams advance to separate USA/CAN and MX postseason knockouts for minor trophies. Keeps every club involved all year long.

Just more spitballin. Please wipe your screen.

to me i think it was just Bonilla (liga mx president) speaking about idea as backup if they dont get into the libertadores in 2020 ( with MLS).
 
to me i think it was just Bonilla (liga mx president) speaking about idea as backup if they dont get into the libertadores in 2020 ( with MLS).

I'm not so sure. Copa Libertadores doesn't really help LigaMX as a whole tap into the US media markets. The quotes indicate they are thinking beyond that:

“It’s a possibility, a North American league. We have to determine how and see the pros and cons but I think that’s a way to grow and to compete again,” Bonilla said. “If we can make a World Cup then we can make a North American league or a North American cup. The main idea is that we have to grow together to compete. If not, there is only going to be the rich guys in Europe and the rest of the world.”

I'm obviously massively extrapolating as an amusing exercise, but it's on the table.
 
I'm not so sure. Copa Libertadores doesn't really help LigaMX as a whole tap into the US media markets. The quotes indicate they are thinking beyond that:

“It’s a possibility, a North American league. We have to determine how and see the pros and cons but I think that’s a way to grow and to compete again,” Bonilla said. “If we can make a World Cup then we can make a North American league or a North American cup. The main idea is that we have to grow together to compete. If not, there is only going to be the rich guys in Europe and the rest of the world.”

I'm obviously massively extrapolating as an amusing exercise, but it's on the table.

i disagree, if liga MX, MLS is involved it means SUM is involved then they can get rights to the libertadores tournament and having games here etc, and they can make them money that way with media exposure as well.

granted I'm just thinking out loud, they want some sort of international tournament and CCL is not doing it for them. i just felt Libertadores was first then this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: adam
i disagree, if liga MX, MLS is involved it means SUM is involved then they can get rights to the libertadores tournament and having games here etc, and they can make them money that way with media exposure as well.

granted I'm just thinking out loud, they want some sort of international tournament and CCL is not doing it for them. i just felt Libertadores was first then this.

Even if true, why not both and make even more money. The quote was about "stronger together," so why stop at Libertadores appearances for a few clubs? If a medicore MLS and a decent Liga MX merger creates a great North American League, in conjunction with Libertadores appearances, why not both?
 
Even if true, why not both and make even more money. The quote was about "stronger together," so why stop at Libertadores appearances for a few clubs? If a medicore MLS and a decent Liga MX merger creates a great North American League, in conjunction with Libertadores appearances, why not both?

i do think a sort cannibalization effect would exist. If there already exists a tournament with the best teams in south american with best MLS/ Liga MX team. I dont think people would want to see Colorado Rapids vs Lobos BUAP, or even Queretaro vs San Jose. so then its less attractive. thats not helping those teams either really and it for sure not making more money.

Since we are not Europe we dont have that many leagues or teams to make a good-ish secondary tournament if top teams join libertadores.
 
i do think a sort cannibalization effect would exist. If there already exists a tournament with the best teams in south american with best MLS/ Liga MX team. I dont think people would want to see Colorado Rapids vs Lobos BUAP, or even Queretaro vs San Jose. so then its less attractive. thats not helping those teams either really and it for sure not making more money.

Since we are not Europe we dont have that many leagues or teams to make a good-ish secondary tournament if top teams join libertadores.

Agree to disagree, I suppose. From an on-field perspective, I definitely think MLS and LigaMX fans would enjoy and turn out for the novelty of the limited but meaningful interleague games, although you're right, some of the less flashy matchups might cut the other way. It would also be better to have the new Campeones Cup played a week after the MLS Final (turned LigaNA semifinal) rather than floating somewhere in the middle of the following season.

Most of the benefits are off-the-field though, which is why I think it'll happen regardless of Copa Libertadores. Cross promotion, revenue sharing, increased sponsorship values, sharing of front office resources, packaging media rights, etc.

If they can pull off the travel and scheduling, and MLS teams accelerate the pace they build up depth at their clubs, I could see this post-2026 World Cup set of competitions per club in North America:

International Competition (~8 Teams Total)
(4) Copa Libertadores
(4) CONCACAF Champions League (if they don't merge with CONMEBOL)

League Play
LigaNA with limited interleague play between USA/CAN and MEX teams

Domestic Competition
US Open Cup
 
  • Like
Reactions: adam
Agree to disagree, I suppose. From an on-field perspective, I definitely think MLS and LigaMX fans would enjoy and turn out for the novelty of the limited but meaningful interleague games, although you're right, some of the less flashy matchups might cut the other way. It would also be better to have the new Campeones Cup played a week after the MLS Final (turned LigaNA semifinal) rather than floating somewhere in the middle of the following season.

Most of the benefits are off-the-field though, which is why I think it'll happen regardless of Copa Libertadores. Cross promotion, revenue sharing, increased sponsorship values, sharing of front office resources, packaging media rights, etc.

If they can pull off the travel and scheduling, and MLS teams accelerate the pace they build up depth at their clubs, I could see this post-2026 World Cup set of competitions per club in North America:

International Competition (~8 Teams Total)
(4) Copa Libertadores
(4) CONCACAF Champions League (if they don't merge with CONMEBOL)

League Play
LigaNA with limited interleague play between USA/CAN and MEX teams

Domestic Competition
US Open Cup

i guess we can agree to disagree. I dont see it for the "novelty" feel of it. superliga showed us that, people in liga mx fans did not like those, and i dont think playing on home soill will change that too. i was not really following MLS so im not sure how the feeling was.
I personally want the campeones cup to die, you have the CCL to determine who is best in region since most of the time its liga mx vs MLS anyway. Even if its after the MLS season ends, that falls right in middle of Liga MX playoffs no way they sending a good team for a friendly cup.


off the field no question there is money that could be made ( though you say revenue sharing.....who is paying that? MLS can barely get a good TV deal, Liga Mx can draw more but not sure if TV here will want it as one whole package, Liga Mx teams handle their rights each team on their own), but travel and logistics is a real issue and problem. you go mid week to brazil then you gotta play San jose on weekend, that shit is rough travel and cant be underestimated. I think there is no need for added travel and logistical issues on this country thats so big. Less is more to me. This is why i see it as a backup if there is no libertadores at that time.


each one on their leagues,
4 or so libertadores
other 4 to CCL ( like you said, if its still alive, which it should but who knows)

domestic cups

EDIT: ok this MLS Libertadores thing seems much more than 50% happening now. i dont know where to discuss details though, not sure it warrants a whole new thread.
 
Last edited:
I personally want the campeones cup to die, you have the CCL to determine who is best in region since most of the time its liga mx vs MLS anyway. Even if its after the MLS season ends, that falls right in middle of Liga MX playoffs no way they sending a good team for a friendly cup

I'll stop taking the contrary position and end by agreeing with this. This initial implementation is garbage. Nobody will care because it mimics the current CCL Final and is at a very weird time of the year. They have to either go all in with this stuff or not do it at all, which is where our opinions diverge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fantazma
Seems like the road to securing a SSS in Miami never ends but Miami is, yet again, one step closer to doing so.

Now it goes to the City Commission (which in my opinion will be an easier victory than yesterday’s public vote which won 60/40).

Only people who reside in the City Of Miami proper were allowed to vote for this yesterday.

http://www.espn.com/soccer/major-le...n-light-for-stadium-negotiations?platform=amp
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile, San Diego has voted down a ballot measure that would have leased land for a soccer stadium for a new MLS franchise. No Footy McFooty Face in MLS. :(
I'm okay with the decision - having 4 teams in CA by adding San Diego which is like 2-3 hours from both LA teams seemed excessive - there are other untapped markets out there
 
I'm okay with the decision - having 4 teams in CA by adding San Diego which is like 2-3 hours from both LA teams seemed excessive - there are other untapped markets out there
I'm sure there may be legit reasons why a San Diego team isn't needed, but I'm not sure that this would particularly be one.

San Jose is a 5+ hour drive from LA. The NY Metro area has two teams, with Philly 2 hours away, New England ~4 hours away, and DC ~4 hours away.

I'm not certain (haven't looked too far into it), if the San Diego market would be a good one, but I don't think it's one that would be considered "tapped".
 
I'm sure there may be legit reasons why a San Diego team isn't needed, but I'm not sure that this would particularly be one.

San Jose is a 5+ hour drive from LA. The NY Metro area has two teams, with Philly 2 hours away, New England ~4 hours away, and DC ~4 hours away.

I'm not certain (haven't looked too far into it), if the San Diego market would be a good one, but I don't think it's one that would be considered "tapped".
fair point! It was just my first thought when I heard about another team in CA, but yeah, it is a massive fucking state
 
  • Like
Reactions: SoupInNYC
fair point! It was just my first thought when I heard about another team in CA, but yeah, it is a massive fucking state
I keep forgetting how massive it is, and how populous it is, until you look at some of the lists. The below cities are in the top 50 in population in the US:
  • #2 - LA @ 3.9m
  • #8 - San Diego @ 1.4m
  • #10 - San Jose @ 1m
  • #13 - San Francisco @ 864k
  • #35 - Sacramento @ 490k
  • #37 - Long Beach @ 474k
  • #45 - Oakland @ 419k
And then I also think (separate point), that if you add up all the above cities, you get to right around the population of NYC
 
I keep forgetting how massive it is, and how populous it is, until you look at some of the lists. The below cities are in the top 50 in population in the US:
  • #2 - LA @ 3.9m
  • #8 - San Diego @ 1.4m
  • #10 - San Jose @ 1m
  • #13 - San Francisco @ 864k
  • #35 - Sacramento @ 490k
  • #37 - Long Beach @ 474k
  • #45 - Oakland @ 419k
And then I also think (separate point), that if you add up all the above cities, you get to right around the population of NYC

Those numbers are a little deceptive because the metro areas are dramatically different in size and San Diego is nowhere near the Bay Area or LA. But in terms of expansion, San Diego has always struggled as a sports town, losing basketball and football to LA. Probably down to it being nice almost all of the time with plenty of other things to do in the area other than attending a sporting event. And Sacramento is a smaller metro, but their bid still likely has more life than the San Diego bid with an existing team and base of support.
 
Those numbers are a little deceptive because the metro areas are dramatically different in size and San Diego is nowhere near the Bay Area or LA. But in terms of expansion, San Diego has always struggled as a sports town, losing basketball and football to LA. Probably down to it being nice almost all of the time with plenty of other things to do in the area other than attending a sporting event. And Sacramento is a smaller metro, but their bid still likely has more life than the San Diego bid with an existing team and base of support.
Yeah, those are definitely good reasons as to why their bid isn't as attractive.

My main point is that I don't think it's proximity to LA should be a reason to discount it.