Revenue sharing figures (team by team)

[Dust2]

Each team is required to send 30% of its gate receipts to MLS.

http://www.kansascity.com/multimedia...nal_Report.pdf

                          Pre-Contraction               Post-Contraction
Revenues          Investor/Operator       MLS      Investor/Operator     MLS

Gate Receipts            50%               50%               70%         30%
Concessions             100%                0%              100%          0%
Parking                 100%                0%              100%          0%
Local Sponsorships      (1)                (1)              100%          0%
National Sponsorships    0%                100%               0%        100%
Other Stadium Revenue  100%                 0%              100%          0%
National Media           0%                100%               0%        100%
Local TV & Radio       100%                 0%              100%          0%


Expenses

Player Salaries          0%               100%                0%        100%
Front Office Expenses  100%                 0%              100%          0%
Team Travel              0%               100%              100%          0%
Broadcast Expenses       0%               100%              100%          0%
Rent                    50%                50%              100%          0%
Game Day Expenses       50%                50%              100%          0%

http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports...z1s27goal.html

At MLS games, announced figures often include large numbers of free tickets plus inflated totals
By Mark Zeigler

Official attendance in 2005: 15,108
Paid attendance in 2005: 10,746 (29% less)

Assume that the announced attendance is 15% (conservative estimate?) more than paid attendance for all teams except Seattle, LA Galaxy and Toronto. Assume that the average ticket price is $25 for all teams.


Seattle ----------- 30,897
Los Angeles ------- 20,416
Toronto --------- 20,344
Houston --------- 17,047
Salt Lake-------- 16,375
DC United--------- 16,088
Chivas USA ------- 15,092
Chicago--------- 14,689
Columbus-------- 14,447
San Jose-------- 14,114
New England ------ 13,732
New York -------- 12,491
Dallas------ ----- 12,441
Colorado --------- 12,331
Kansas City ------ 10,053

MLS TOTAL ----- 16,037



Paid attendance x $25 average ticket price x 15 games x 30% revenue sharing:

Seattle ----------- $3,475,912.5
Los Angeles ------- 2,296,800
Toronto --------- 2,288,700
Houston --------- 1,630,119.375
Salt Lake-------- 1,565,859.375
DC United--------- 1,538,415
Chivas USA ------- 1,443,172.5
Chicago--------- 1,404,635.625
Columbus-------- 1,381,494.375
San Jose-------- 1,349,651.25
New England ------ 1,313,122.5
New York -------- 1,194,451.875
Dallas------ ----- 1,189,670.625
Colorado --------- 1,179,151.875
Kansas City ------ $961,318.125

Total: $24,212,475
Average per team: = $1,614,165

[Oldtimer]

There are some problem with those "quick and dirty" figures:

(1) Ticket prices vary greatly throughout MLS. People in LA or Toronto pay more for their tickets than say, Columbus.

(2) There are more box seats for Seattle or Toronto than at that ballpark.

(3) The percentage of free tickets varies greatly per team. Now you've taken into account the fact that Toronto, Seayttle, and LA have very few comp tickets (probably only to sponsors, staff plus the ones mandated by the CBA to be given to players). However, Chivas has vastly more comp tickets than any other team, where say, a Houston has comp tickets but no-where even approaching Chivas.

However, let's use your figures, just for fun. If we take the difference between what a team pays and what a team gets, we get something very interesting:

Teams subsidizing other teams:

Seattle -------- $1,861,700
Los Angeles ------- 682,600
Toronto ----------- 674,500
Houston ---------- 16,000

Teams receiving a subsidy:

Salt Lake---------- 48,300
DC United--------- 75,700
Chivas USA ------- 171,000
Chicago----------- 209,500
Columbus---------- 232,700
San Jose---------- 264,500
New England ------ 301,000
New York --------- 419,700
Dallas------------- 424,500
Colorado --------- 435,000
Kansas City ------- 652,800


As I said above, Chivas is actually much worse than the above figures would show. However, this rough and dirty calculation comes to some interesting results:

(1) 3 teams, Seattle, LA, and Toronto carry the league, especially Seattle.
(2) Houston, DC, and Salt Lake basically hold their own
(3) 9 other teams are heavily subsidized by the three well-attended teams.
(4) NY is obviously doing much worse than it should be. There are many well-documented reasons why this is so. I'd give them some hope to turn things around, especially with a new SSS.
(5) While the league should be subsidizing small markets (a 6-team league wouldn't be much fun to have around), it would probably benefit from ditching some of the "basket case" markets. Dallas, Colorado, and KC are obviously costing the league a lot of money.

[Dust2]

There are some problem with those "quick and dirty" figures:

(1) Ticket prices vary greatly throughout MLS. People in LA or Toronto pay more for their tickets than say, Columbus.

I know the $25 figure is not accurate but I don't know the exact #. Luckily, triplet1 has it:

There is a real spread in average general admission ticket prices, which in turn makes some of the disparity in what the teams pay to MLS even greater than your estimates. Here are the numbers from 2007, as reported by the Houston Chronicle and quoted in the HVS Portland Study (page 14):

1. Los Angeles Galaxy ($32.50)
2. Toronto FC ($30.29)
3. D.C. United ($29.00)
4. Chicago Fire ($24.00)
4. New England Revolution ($24.00)

League Average $22.47

6. New York Red Bulls ($21.83)
7. Houston Dynamo ($20.50)
8. Chivas USA ($19.40)
9. FC Dallas ($18.50)
9. Columbus Crew ($18.50)
11. Real Salt Lake ($18.25)
12. Colorado Rapids ($17.90)
13. Kansas City Wizards ($17.50)

Source: Houston Chronicle

Since it's back in 2007, Seattle and San Jose are no show.

[Beach_Red]

There are some problem with those "quick and dirty" figures:

(1) Ticket prices vary greatly throughout MLS. People in LA or Toronto pay more for their tickets than say, Columbus.

(2) There are more box seats for Seattle or Toronto than at that ballpark.

(3) The percentage of free tickets varies greatly per team. Now you've taken into account the fact that Toronto, Seayttle, and LA have very few comp tickets (probably only to sponsors, staff plus the ones mandated by the CBA to be given to players). However, Chivas has vastly more comp tickets than any other team, where say, a Houston has comp tickets but no-where even approaching Chivas.

However, let's use your figures, just for fun. If we take the difference between what a team pays and what a team gets, we get something very interesting:

Teams subsidizing other teams:

Seattle -------- $1,861,700
Los Angeles ------- 682,600
Toronto ----------- 674,500
Houston ---------- 16,000

Teams receiving a subsidy:

Salt Lake---------- 48,300
DC United--------- 75,700
Chivas USA ------- 171,000
Chicago----------- 209,500
Columbus---------- 232,700
San Jose---------- 264,500
New England ------ 301,000
New York --------- 419,700
Dallas------------- 424,500
Colorado --------- 435,000
Kansas City ------- 652,800


As I said above, Chivas is actually much worse than the above figures would show. However, this rough and dirty calculation comes to some interesting results:

(1) 3 teams, Seattle, LA, and Toronto carry the league, especially Seattle.
(2) Houston, DC, and Salt Lake basically hold their own
(3) 9 other teams are heavily subsidized by the three well-attended teams.
(4) NY is obviously doing much worse than it should be. There are many well-documented reasons why this is so. I'd give them some hope to turn things around, especially with a new SSS.
(5) While the league should be subsidizing small markets (a 6-team league wouldn't be much fun to have around), it would probably benefit from ditching some of the "basket case" markets. Dallas, Colorado, and KC are obviously costing the league a lot of money.

It's kind of shocking this league is able to sell expansion franchises for $30-40 million.

Would you invest in a team in this league?

[TorCanSoc]

I find it hard to believe that a franchise would pay quadruple yet have an equal say as the lesser club? I mean sure, you each pay your franchise fee (which has been increasing astronomically) but if you pay annually and you recognize an unfair imbalance situation. Then things will change, and not for the good.

Why doesn't Seattle, Toronto, and L.A get together and lobby the league to fold K.C.???? They have a say in it. Look at what's happened in the USL. Better leagues have reorganized, why not MLS? If inequality persists, there will be change.

[boban]

I find it hard to believe that a franchise would pay quadruple yet have an equal say as the lesser club? I mean sure, you each pay your franchise fee (which has been increasing astronomically) but if you pay annually and you recognize an unfair imbalance situation. Then things will change, and not for the good.

Why doesn't Seattle, Toronto, and L.A get together and lobby the league to fold K.C.???? They have a say in it. Look at what's happened in the USL. Better leagues have reorganized, why not MLS? If inequality persists, there will be change.

Because it would be absolutely foolish.
KC is just getting their stadium issue settled. let them move into it and play on a level playing field before anything.
Compare apples to apples first.

[ginkster88]

I find it hard to believe that a franchise would pay quadruple yet have an equal say as the lesser club? I mean sure, you each pay your franchise fee (which has been increasing astronomically) but if you pay annually and you recognize an unfair imbalance situation. Then things will change, and not for the good.

Why doesn't Seattle, Toronto, and L.A get together and lobby the league to fold K.C.???? They have a say in it. Look at what's happened in the USL. Better leagues have reorganized, why not MLS? If inequality persists, there will be change.

Not while it is single-entity. Seattle, Toronto and LA don't own their teams, and they agreed to the terms of the league when they joined.

[Hitcho]

Good grief. Do you lie awake at night worrying about revenue sharing and luxury taxes in MLS Dust? At this rate we'll need a Superthread to mop up all your mini-threads into.

Thank god pre-season is about to start. I think we all need something more substantive to focus on.

[Pookie]

It's kind of shocking this league is able to sell expansion franchises for $30-40 million.

Would you invest in a team in this league?

I think that the evidence is fairly clear that investors like the model of the MLS as there are 3 expansion teams with more on the horizon.

Controlled costs, reduced risk and a strong centrally controlled brand are appealing factors when considering where to park your money.

Compare that with the EPL and the risks inherent in a run-away cost system. A team like Blackburn has been for sale for 2 years and yet a buyer hasn't emerged.

I challenge people who advocate for a free for all to read this review of each EPL team's finances and then argue that the MLS should follow this model:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...er-league-debt

[ag futbol]

I think that the evidence is fairly clear that investors like the model of the MLS as there are 3 expansion teams with more on the horizon.

Agreed.

This is a difficult discussion to have (especially on a message board because of its complexity) but in simple terms: The potential revenue growth and existing track record of successful franchises (such as Toronto, Seattle, and soon Phily) warrant the price.

Sure some of the deadweight teams lose money , but they are based off legacy business models that aren’t being employed anymore.

[rocker]

In a growing sport that's trying to develop roots in a country that traditionally has not supported the sport very well, it's not surprising there would be revenue disparities between teams.

The reason you don't cut KC, for example, is precisely because you'd rather grow the sport than simply go to the biggest cities. And behold: KC is getting a new stadium... finally. If there wasn't revenue sharing, the project probably never would have happened. Indeed, KC might be gone now. If they're selling out that stadium in a few years, we won't even mention them in this kind of a conversation. Circumstances change.

Also, as mentioned, the very reason people pay 35 mil to get an expansion team is because of cost containment. I know these are rich owners, but they don't want to throw away money if they don't have to. Like any burgeoning industry, getting in early is a good idea if you believe it will explode on the scene later. For all we know, MLS team values could be $100 million in ten years, and TV revenues might be significantly higher. Suddenly 35 mil for a team looks like a bargain. In the NFL this is exactly what happened to Ralph Wilson of the Bills.... his team cost him little to start, and then it got merged with the NFL and made him richer than ever.

[Beach_Red]

Agreed.

This is a difficult discussion to have (especially on a message board because of its complexity) but in simple terms: The potential revenue growth and existing track record of successful franchises (such as Toronto, Seattle, and soon Phily) warrant the price.

Sure some of the deadweight teams lose money , but they are based off legacy business models that aren’t being employed anymore.

Yes, it's true, it's a tough discussion for a message board.

I think what we see come out of these discussions, though, is that at least for now in North America, this is the best model for a soccer league to move forward.

Taking stock of each team individually doesn't really say anything in this cirumstance. In order to get things like sponsorship deals and TV deals the league needs to be strong - not just have a few strong teams. So for now anyway, the league is going to have to support some weaker markets.

It's essentially the same thing the NHL is doing - propping up some teams to have a greater national presence and get a TV deal - but MLS is upfront about it and going about it much better.

In truth, if I had the money I would invest in MLS - certainly over investing in the NHL.

[SoccMan]

Your overhead for a soccer team is so much less then say buying into a hockey team or an American football team. Less players, less equipment for soccer etc. Even when you travel for away games it's cheaper compared to other sports because your roster in soccer is so much smaller. In terms of weak teams finacialy speaking in the MLS,well yes there are a few as we have seen,however, look at hockey, in the NHL there are more than a few teams that are barely surving. The upside to the MLS compared to these other sports is that is costs so much less to operate a team in the MLS than it is in some of these other sports.

[TFCRegina]

It's kind of shocking this league is able to sell expansion franchises for $30-40 million.

Would you invest in a team in this league?

Tax sheltering.

[BakaGaijin]

Tax sheltering.

And also for profit when the club is re-sold. It doesn't really matter if a team loses $1 million a year for five straight years if the club is sold for a profit of $20 million.

MLSE paid something like $10 million in expansion fee's. Now expansion teams are selling for $30 million. MLSE could sell the team today and realize at least $20 million in profit.

[Pookie]

And also for profit when the club is re-sold. It doesn't really matter if a team loses $1 million a year for five straight years if the club is sold for a profit of $20 million.

MLSE paid something like $10 million in expansion fee's. Now expansion teams are selling for $30 million. MLSE could sell the team today and realize at least $20 million in profit.

True.

The profit sharing and controlled cost nature of the MLS mean that the risk of losing money is minimized AND the "investment" becomes more attractive for potential buyers. That is why folks are lining up to buy into the concept.

There is a reason that an EPL team like Blackburn has been for sale for over 2 years. There is the debt issue. There is the rising, uncontained cost issue. There are the odds that they won't be able to finish high in the table to secure or boost revenues. It's an unattractive investment.

Many of the reasons that the author of these (countless) threads professes would be good for the league are actually bad for business. Considering sports is a business... well, I like having circumstances that keeps that business running. That means league games will be played. That's what we all enjoy, isn't it?

[ensco]

I think what we see come out of these discussions, though, is that at least for now in North America, this is the best model for a soccer league to move forward.

Do we really see that? These attendance figures, and the league's TV ratings, may suggest that this model, even if it's working in Toronto and Seattle, isn't really working overall.

Toronto and Seattle are pretty special cases. Toronto is unique in MLS in that it plays in a true 100% downtown, 100% SSS facility. Seattle had a huge hole in the market, with the departure of the Sonics, and has pretty unusual ownership in terms of its willingness to spend.

I would not assume that Philly picks up where Seattle left off.

[Beach_Red]

Do we really see that? These attendance figures, and the league's TV ratings, may suggest that this model, even if it's working in Toronto and Seattle, isn't really working overall.

Toronto and Seattle are pretty special cases. Toronto is unique in MLS in that it plays in a true 100% downtown, 100% SSS facility. Seattle had a huge hole in the market, with the departure of the Sonics, and has pretty unusual ownership in terms of its willingness to spend.

I would not assume that Philly picks up where Seattle left off.

I think it's better than any alternative model for the league at this stage. What we see here is that without this structure a lot of these teams would simply fold. How few teams can you have and still call it a league?

The only way to increase ticket sales and TV ratings, at this stage, is to strengthen the whole league so it looks like a national league, like a major league across the country.

We'll see in a few years when there are 20 teams with good stadiums if soccer will work in North America.

[jloome]

Do we really see that? These attendance figures, and the league's TV ratings, may suggest that this model, even if it's working in Toronto and Seattle, isn't really working overall.

By what measure? Any professional soccer team anywhere that routinely gets more than 10,000 per game is in the top 20% in the world.

It's very easy to get caught up in the attendances bases of other North American sports and forget that MLS attendances are, by foreign standards, very healty.

It's not the absence of attendance that indicates an issue, it's the asbence of relative television coverage and associated revenue. MLS's salary caps are only half that of the CFL, so the margins either way are very small.

[Roogsy]

By what measure? Any professional soccer team anywhere that routinely gets more than 10,000 per game is in the top 20% in the world.

It's very easy to get caught up in the attendances bases of other North American sports and forget that MLS attendances are, by foreign standards, very healty.

It's not the absence of attendance that indicates an issue, it's the asbence of relative television coverage and associated revenue. MLS's salary caps are only half that of the CFL, so the margins either way are very small.

This is very true.

We're just used to seeing Premiership or Liga level attendance numbers. The plain fact is that the sport is thriving around the world where average attendance of 10,000 is sufficient to create successful developing leagues.

[ag futbol]

Do we really see that? These attendance figures, and the league's TV ratings, may suggest that this model, even if it's working in Toronto and Seattle, isn't really working overall.

As much as I don't completely agree with this, i see where you are coming from. There's a ton of factors in play with regards to the leagues business success so to pin it on one element of the business model it may or may not be the factor. There's also the fact people often miss that by forcing parity you can leave the big markets under-served.

But my balanced opinion would be that this league has a lot of dead-weight it's going to take time to purge. For some (extremely odd) reason Toronto re-invented the wheel by not marketing to soccer moms and actually putting a stadium in a place that wasn't completely in the middle of nowhere. There are franchises that have been run ass-backwards for years. It's going to take some time to get them into the right position and a lot more investment from the thrifty.

[Pookie]

^ I'm curious how you figure that Toronto's marketing didn't (or still doesn't) target "soccer moms?"

They didn't hand out free crowbars and line kegs up at the gates. They have:

- a family section
- their 2 partner charities are Kidzsport and The Right to Play
- they are big on supporting the fight against Breast Cancer
- they participate in hospital visits
- they run Youth Camps and Programs year round

... what exactly is a marketing strategy NOT geared to soccer moms?

The majority of the tickets for sale are not $25 a pop. IMO, they very much do have a marketing program aimed at corporations, "soccer moms" and more financially stable fans.

None of that implies that those target markets would be any less passionate. I'm just confused by your statement as I'm not sure where you were intending to go with it.

[ensco]

By what measure? Any professional soccer team anywhere that routinely gets more than 10,000 per game is in the top 20% in the world.

It's very easy to get caught up in the attendances bases of other North American sports and forget that MLS attendances are, by foreign standards, very healty.

It's not the absence of attendance that indicates an issue, it's the asbence of relative television coverage and associated revenue. MLS's salary caps are only half that of the CFL, so the margins either way are very small.

MLS attendance is wildly overstated, the factor you need to adjust by is more than 29%, anyone who has been to TFC road games knows this.

Sorry but I refuse to see MLS attendance figures as OK when compared with attendance in foreign leagues. The foreign leagues you'd use as comparables have the vast majority of teams in cities with populations of 200,000 or less.

It is what it is. It is incredibly difficult to start a new league. But I don't like being held hostage to MLS' cheapskate business model and smart people that I otherwise respect telling me I should be grateful!

If you want to start a sports leagues in cities with population bases of 5 million, in a sport where there is already a deep base of knowledgeable fans, you have to have better players than MLS currently has.

(Spare me the "this is the mistake the NASL made" speech. I was there for it, and that's not what killed it. The NASL overexpanded, it had owners who had no money, and it wound up with teams in Tulsa, Edmonton and Jacksonville. etc MLS can avoid these mistakes, and invest in better players. If they want to.)

In a New York, Chicago, Los Angeles...it's one thing to have players a rung below the best. But I think we know now that we're far below that standard. The vast majority of MLS players couldn't get a sniff in the the CCC or Serie B. US (and Canadian) football fans know it. The large majority of them can't be bothered to care about a league so inferior to what they know.

MLS says they're on some kind of gradual course to break out, but I have no idea, none at all, what the catalyst would be. I think they have no idea either. What's really "breaking out" in N America is interest in world class soccer - this is indispuable. MLS is not being carried along by the surge of interest in WC2010, the big euro leagues, etc. I found this in 10 seconds of searching....
http://www.majorleaguesoccertalk.com...s-worrying/505

We are going to spend 10 more years just like the previous 10, and be in the exact same place we currently are. Don't confuse the success of TFC with any broader phenomenom. NE still gets 5,000 people to playoff games.

It would probably be good for us in the long run if MLS went under. TFC would survive. MLSE would find some new partners who get the joke.

Right now, pro soccer in N America is going nowhere.

[Pookie]

If you want to start a sports leagues in cities with population bases of 5 million, in a sport where there is already a deep base of knowledgeable
MLS says they're on some kind of gradual course to break out, but I have no idea, none at all, what the catalyst would be. I think they have no idea either. What's really "breaking out" in N America is interest in world class soccer - this is indispuable. MLS is not being carried along by the surge of interest in WC2010, the big euro leagues, etc. I found this in 10 seconds of searching....
http://www.majorleaguesoccertalk.com...s-worrying/505

And yet some people can look at the numbers with a different spin (Oct 29, 2009). The article you referenced was from 2008:

Soccer Business Bits: MLS TV Ratings Climbing

TV contracts are the financial life blood of professional sports leagues, and MLS is no different. While the League relies on multiple sources of revenue, the ultimate goal is to generate substantial rights fees from television partners. The amount MLS can earn from those rights fees are largely determined by ratings (and the packaging of FIFA properties owned by SUM). MLS fans are keenly interested in the League’s ratings, and The Sports Business Daily has provided some interesting information regarding 2009 ratings,

According to Austin Karp’s article, MLS ratings on ESPN2 were up almost 15%. Most dramatic, were the ratings of Beckham’s Galaxy, who drew almost 420,00 viewers per match. After Los Angeles, Seattle was the next biggest national television draw on ESPN2 broadcasts. From July 25 until the end of the year, MLS averaged 319,00 viewers per game. MLS also saw an increase on FSC, with an additional 13k tuning into MLS matches compared to 2008. The actual number went from 51k to 64k. The article is here.

These numbers are a great sign for MLS. By way of comparison, MLS numbers fall right in the middle of ESPN2 numbers for EPL broadcasts. Overall, the numbers are actually more favorable for MLS if you average them out. These numbers somewhat vindicate the ESPN decision to move the MLS game of the week around (something we opposed). By way of comparison, these numbers are comparable to those of the NHL on versus, which averaged about 310,000 viewers per game last year.

As we have noted previously, ESPN has landed some outstanding matchups for the playoffs, including both Seattle and Los Angeles. If the League and ESPN promote the games actively, there is a chance for an outanding rating on Thursday and Sunday.

Link to the site

Even the midweek broadcast games on TSN/Sportsnet average between 300,000 and 400,000 viewers.

All I can say is that people with more brains and money than I have are lining up to buy into this league. For a fan of the game, that investment is a good thing.

[ensco]

^Sorry but that link seemed juvenile to me. The games with ratings gains had Beckham, which is a separate phenomenom that probably supports my point more than any other. Fox had games overall go from 51K to 64K - that's rounding error even in a local market, let alone a national one - more to the point, those are both 0.0 ratings!

Did TSN/Sportsnet do those kinds of numbers? That would be meaningful, but I would like to see a link to that. It's not at all my recollection. The only time I ever recall MLS getting big numbers up here is when they have a Saturday game on CBC right after playoff hockey - they draw 200K or some such in those circumstances.

I agree, an MLS team is an interesting investment. You have ways of winning even if MLS fails. As I pointed out, MLSE will do very well with TFC, imho with or without MLS.

[SoccMan]

It's incredible that the NHL which is the best hockey league in the world, the NHL where players make millions, at times does not seem to do that much better than the MLS, a soccer league that is comparable to the East Coast Hockey League in hockey, when it comes to TV ratings in the US.

[SoccMan]

I think the link shows that the MLS is growing,maybe not dramaticaly but still growing, even if you take away TV games without Beckham ratings showed an increase which is positive. Remember, anytime ratings show an increase however minimal is a positive for any TV network.

[Pookie]

^Sorry but that link seemed juvenile to me. The games with ratings gains had Beckham, which is a separate phenomenom that probably supports my point more than any other. Fox had games overall go from 51K to 64K - that's rounding error even in a local market, let alone a national one - more to the point, those are both 0.0 ratings!

Did TSN/Sportsnet do those kinds of numbers? That would be meaningful, but I would like to see a link to that. It's not at all my recollection. The only time I ever recall MLS getting big numbers up here is when they have a Saturday game on CBC right after playoff hockey - they draw 200K or some such in those circumstances.

I agree, an MLS team is an interesting investment. You have ways of winning even if MLS fails. As I pointed out, MLSE will do very well with TFC, imho with or without MLS.

I think the Sportsnet/TSN equation isn't a fair comparison in Canada. For the most part, TFC is a regional team whereas Wednesday/Friday Night Hockey is targeted at a national audience.

As for the credibility of the link, the author of the site is a lawyer... so insert lawyer joke here

[Beach_Red]

It is what it is. It is incredibly difficult to start a new league. But I don't like being held hostage to MLS' cheapskate business model and smart people that I otherwise respect telling me I should be grateful!

If you want to start a sports leagues in cities with population bases of 5 million, in a sport where there is already a deep base of knowledgeable fans, you have to have better players than MLS currently has.

MLS says they're on some kind of gradual course to break out, but I have no idea, none at all, what the catalyst would be. I think they have no idea either. What's really "breaking out" in N America is interest in world class soccer - this is indispuable. MLS is not being carried along by the surge of interest in WC2010, the big euro leagues, etc. I found this in 10 seconds of searching....
http://www.majorleaguesoccertalk.com...s-worrying/505

We are going to spend 10 more years just like the previous 10, and be in the exact same place we currently are. Don't confuse the success of TFC with any broader phenomenom. NE still gets 5,000 people to playoff games.

It would probably be good for us in the long run if MLS went under. TFC would survive. MLSE would find some new partners who get the joke.

Right now, pro soccer in N America is going nowhere.

It may not be going fast enough, but it's ovestating it to say it's going "nowhere." The league needs to have 20 teams and 20 soccer stadiums. That's when the break-out will happen.

ALthough sometimes I agree with you, it would be better if MLS folded and a fully Canadian league were to start. With a good TV contract I think it could be the CFL in five years - $4.5 million salary cap looks pretty good right now.

[jabbronies]

Because it would be absolutely foolish.
KC is just getting their stadium issue settled. let them move into it and play on a level playing field before anything.
Compare apples to apples first.

Agreed. If you wanna ditch a club, ditch Columbus. Thier attendance is horrible and they have a SSS
And then Ditch San Jose, they never should've come back. They were never the great soccer market mls claims they were.
and then Ditch Chivas. They have no business being in the MLS when the LA Galaxy are right there.