Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan
just wanted to chime in. i dont think the MLS is going to follow the same path as the other major sports. i wouldn't doubt 4 or 5 teams in LA for example, with a new team in the valley, another in the inland empire and one in Anaheim and i think that New York will probably be the same way. Philly will get a team , but it makes more sense for a new league to go where the fans area.
I don't understand what crawford is talking about
: he contradicts himself when he says that on one hand new york should get a second team before philly gets its first because ny is so much larger than philly, and then says that the league should be able to put more than one team in a market regardless of population. is population the determinant or not?
as far as LA getting 4 or 5 teams, and the same in new york, I suppose anything is possible but I doubt we'll see anything like that soon. what will probably happen is that a darwinian process will occur, where teams in markets such as salt lake city and kansas city will probably not survive very long, and those teams will be sold to owners in those cities. it probably won't happen strictly through expansion. but if it does happen that way, the top 10 markets will be the benficiaries and multiple teams will happen in LA (well you already have 2 teams), ny, chicago, and probably philly also. the stadium we have proposed is not in the city but in the city of Chester, which is about 10 miles outside Philadelphia. I would not be surprised to see, at some point, at least one other team take up residence in the city itself. but that's skipping ahead, let's get one team before we start coveting a second. Hey, where have I heard that before?
This will all take place at an accelerated rate when television starts to be the mack daddy of the sport, the way it is with all other major sports. teams will gravitate not to where there is better transit but where there are televisions.
crawford, I'm not being the entitled one, you are. philly is a major market, we have been strung along about getting a team since the league began, and they keep moving the goal line on us as to what we need to do to get a team. first, they didn't want to give us a team because we didn't have a stadium with natural grass. then we built lincoln financial filed, and the league said we needed a soccer specific stadium, not an nfl stadium.
it makes sense for the league to expand to different markets, not put all its eggs in the same few baskets. especially in philadelphia, where we are right in the middle of the northeast corridor, where we form natural rivalries with new york and washington. that is the type of synergy the league needs to create before it starts doubling up teams in markets, with the exception in LA because there was no natural rival for LA after the original quakes left san jose.
no, it's definitely the new york entitlement mentality at work here, not Philadelphia. we just want what we have been promised, which is a win-win for the league. I am not saying that new york will never and should never get another team, it's just that the league and the sport need to establish a critical mass throughout the country before it can really take off and really be a major league.
this is all academic anyway, because garber said at the draft yesterday that the next expansion team is either going to Philly or St Louis, if you read the article I originally posted. so no, the league does not necessarily agree that a second new york team is more important than a first team in philly right now. their opinion is what matters, not yours or mine. of course it is possible that they will grant the team to st louis and then move philly farther down the list, which they have threatened to do if we can't get this stadium deal done, which would put new york in a better position, but the league would rather put the team here, where it will be in a major market, one with a huge soccer fan base already, right in the middle of the ne corridor than in st louis and a second ny team right now.