Will the MLS ever take off?

Nani Nana

Full Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2009
Messages
6,289
Supports
Whoever won the game
With a US World Cup looming on the horizon, and Messi the biggest star to join the league since Pele, I wondered whether the MLS will ever reach the level of the top European leagues.

Still it seems there are too many top sports in the US for the public to overly care about football.

Will we witness a competitive MLS within our lifetime, where the top South American talent favour a move to Miami or LA rather than Manchester or Madrid?
 
I enjoyed MLS and it seemingly was getting more popular with multiple games on free TV here as well as serveral on Sky each week. Been supporting Orlando City since they joined the MLS.

The move to Apple TV and going behind a further paid 'season pass' has hampered any progress it made.
 
Last edited:
Salary cap (noble idea), no relegation and drafts mean it's more or less impossible to relate to the league.
 
I don't think so. I think you'd need either the US to have a golden generation team/squad that wins the men's world cup (or goes close) and is a dominant force for a decent period timem

Or you need a few other major US sports to effectively die at the same time.
 
Don't be a bunch of Euro snobs.
Not in our lifetime.
But once robots take over yes, we will have the best robot soccer league.
 
No

It has got better, but miles off being near European or South American football. It is getting close to MX, but that is due to how badly run the Mexican league has become.
 
Samid said:
Salary cap (noble idea), no relegation and drafts mean it's more or less impossible to relate to the league.
Click to expand...
I don't know anything about US football, how does a salary cap work with Messi, he must be on a good bit I'd have thought?
Stack said:
Who said it hasnt already taken off? These look like healthy attendance numbers to me or are people applying impossibly high standards to what take off might mean?
https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2023-mls-attendance/
Click to expand...
Yeah, that would put them the 5th best supported league if in Europe I think, not bad at all.
 
Zaphod2319 said:
No

It has got better, but miles off being near European or South American football. It is getting close to MX, but that is due to how badly run the Mexican league has become.
Click to expand...
Isn’t the Brazilian league the only one that would be considered better than MLS in South America?
 
The problem is that four other league already take up a huge part of the media and sponsorship landscape (NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB), plus there are some big college leagues as well (especially in football, right?), so it's just hard for the MLS to grow. It would have to be at the cost of another sport. MLB seemed set for that, with dwindling everything; but they may have stopped the rot, plus I'm not sure MLS could take MLB's place, given the deep difference between their sports.

But who knows. It should certainly help that the MLS keeps expanding, cause more teams means coverage in more areas and more chances of attracting their local soccer viewership (which might now rather watch the EPL). I don't think the quality of players matters much for that: it's not like the EPL is bigger than the Eredivisie in the Netherlands, despite the gulf in quality. And maybe it will help that soccer is relatively popular among girls and women, cause that's a demography that all the other leagues I listed don't cater to quite as much.

So it all remains to be seen; and in the meantime, at least the MLS continues to be a healthy and growing operation. It's not like it's barely hanging on, like it pretty much was in the old days of the New York Cosmos.
Samid said:
Salary cap (noble idea), no relegation and drafts mean it's more or less impossible to relate to the league.
Click to expand...
That's all standard in North American professional sports, so that won't stop things. Well, maybe outside North America, but then I don't suppose anyone is thinking the MLS will overtake European leagues in global popularity (let alone in Europe).
 
It won't challenge the main US sports anytime soon but it can still be a decent secondary league.

It's cultural as much as anything else.
 
No but not for the reasons given so far.

The main - and major - reason that it won't take off is geographical, plain and simple. In England, you can have a lower level league include promotion and relegation in the main because every single team in the division is CLOSE to each other. For instance, how would you fund a grassroots side playing one day in Seattle then the next in Baltimore, 2770 miles away in a national league in the United States? You simply couldn't. The worst we have in England is maybe Plymoth travelling up to Morecambe or something, and even then that's pretty horrendous an undertaking - but it's still 'only' 330 miles or so.

Realistically having a national league whereby every team plays each other nationwide on such a level is not possible. The only feasible way I can imagine is state-level football with their teams including promotion and relegation, within their own separate jurisdictions. California, Florida for instance could definitely have a decent enough league structure of their own, and then eventually form their own United-States style Champions league. But why bother with all that when you can skip all that and jump STRAIGHT to Champions League style games, with a playoff system instead of bothering with the endless struggle it would take to forge natural pyramids in each state?

I could be wrong and the grassroots game at state level in the United States could be stronger than I think, but (without living there obviously) my assumption is that generally people in the USA have a stronger national identity than state identity and - I suspect - would prefer to rally around one or two 'champions' of their state rather than watch lower level sides from their towns and cities fight it out.
 
GazTheLegend said:
No but not for the reasons given so far.

The main - and major - reason that it won't take off is geographical, plain and simple. In England, you can have a lower level league include promotion and relegation in the main because every single team in the division is CLOSE to each other. For instance, how would you fund a grassroots side playing one day in Seattle then the next in Baltimore, 2770 miles away in a national league in the United States? You simply couldn't. The worst we have in England is maybe Plymoth travelling up to Morecambe or something, and even then that's pretty horrendous an undertaking - but it's still 'only' 330 miles or so.

Realistically having a national league whereby every team plays each other nationwide on such a level is not possible. The only feasible way I can imagine is state-level football with their teams including promotion and relegation, within their own separate jurisdictions. California, Florida for instance could definitely have a decent enough league structure of their own, and then eventually form their own United-States style Champions league. But why bother with all that when you can skip all that and jump STRAIGHT to Champions League style games, with a playoff system instead of bothering with the endless struggle it would take to forge natural pyramids in each state?

I could be wrong and the grassroots game at state level in the United States could be stronger than I think, but (without living there obviously) my assumption is that generally people in the USA have a stronger national identity than state identity and - I suspect - would prefer to rally around one or two 'champions' of their state rather than watch lower level sides from their towns and cities fight it out.
Click to expand...

What prevented other sports from developing world-class leagues?

Can't you have the best of both worlds, state-level development league with a nationwide pro league?
 
It's a fine league with very decent attendance, a couple of foreign to the Europeans ideas like the salary cap and draft and one of the biggest non-European leagues since decades. Levels above Gulf and China, they'll never reach England or Spain echelons, but the MLS has it's fair spot in the history of the sport.
 
Nani Nana said:
What prevented other sports from developing world-class leagues?

Can't you have the best of both worlds, state-level development league with a nationwide pro league?
Click to expand...
I'm really sorry, but can you elaborate on what you're asking a bit better here? What other sports, what world class league?
 
Stack said:
Who said it hasnt already taken off? These look like healthy attendance numbers to me or are people applying impossibly high standards to what take off might mean?
https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2023-mls-attendance/
Click to expand...
Yeah, in terms of average attendance among major leagues in the US, MLS has pretty much caught up with the NBA and NHL (although those are indoor sports, obviously) and even compares pretty well with MLB. The NFL is way way ahead, clearly. So strictly in terms of average attendance, MLS should be included among the traditional major leagues.

But whether the MLS will ever be able to compete with the top European leagues, the answer is probably not, but then you could say the same about any league outside Europe or S America. The only reason why people are even talking about the Saudi league is because of the billions being thrown at it. I personally take the MLS far more seriously than some sportswashing project. It’s a weak league, sure, but at least it’s a genuine sporting competition.
 
Even with Beckham when he came and now Messi the MLS still cannot garner any attention in the U.S. amongst the majority of sports fans.
 
Not any time soon.

The Apple TV deal as mentioned above was a serious momentum killer for the league. It is not simply a case of it moving to a streaming service but moving to a service where it is behind a further paywall that few will be willing cough up for.

The bigger issue is youth soccer over here. The schools are very invested in sports which at first seems great until you learn that it is all geared towards obtaining athletic scholarships for college and most colleges still don't even field a mens team and most of those that do have miniscule budgets. The schools therefore focus on the traditional big sports and the parents do too. If you are a decent athlete you can try out for any of the sports teams but if playing american football, baseball, basketball or even tennis can bag you a free ride at a 4 year college whereas soccer might get you an offer that will cover 10% of those costs if you are lucky, then you are not going to play soccer.

Club soccer is even worse. Like almost everything in America it is all geared around a for profit model which means if your kid wants to play you have to pay. Firstly, this creates a situation where a lot of kids simply cannot afford to play as the fees for coaching, kit etc. run into the thousands every year making it more of a rich kids sport. Secondly, ability is simply not a factor in making the team, if your parents can pay then you are in and that leads to a dismal standard of competition that does not help the few talented kids to improve.

There are some well intentioned fans of the sport who are trying to change the situation at youth level but it will take decades to move the needle significantly and for as long as most kids are either shut out or simply encouraged to go in a more financially beneficial direction it will struggle to grow domestically.
 
GazTheLegend said:
No but not for the reasons given so far.

The main - and major - reason that it won't take off is geographical, plain and simple. In England, you can have a lower level league include promotion and relegation in the main because every single team in the division is CLOSE to each other. For instance, how would you fund a grassroots side playing one day in Seattle then the next in Baltimore, 2770 miles away in a national league in the United States? You simply couldn't. The worst we have in England is maybe Plymoth travelling up to Morecambe or something, and even then that's pretty horrendous an undertaking - but it's still 'only' 330 miles or so.

Realistically having a national league whereby every team plays each other nationwide on such a level is not possible. The only feasible way I can imagine is state-level football with their teams including promotion and relegation, within their own separate jurisdictions. California, Florida for instance could definitely have a decent enough league structure of their own, and then eventually form their own United-States style Champions league. But why bother with all that when you can skip all that and jump STRAIGHT to Champions League style games, with a playoff system instead of bothering with the endless struggle it would take to forge natural pyramids in each state?

I could be wrong and the grassroots game at state level in the United States could be stronger than I think, but (without living there obviously) my assumption is that generally people in the USA have a stronger national identity than state identity and - I suspect - would prefer to rally around one or two 'champions' of their state rather than watch lower level sides from their towns and cities fight it out.
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you're saying here. All American pro leagues face the exact same challenges, yet NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB have never had trouble with the things you're describing above. There is also no interest in North America for a promotion/relegation system. And yes, there are local leagues in US states and Canadian provinces for those sports (and soccer) as well.

It sounds to me like you're imagining starting up soccer as a sport in North America in the way it's organized in the UK with the sports expectations of the UK audience. But that has just no bearing on the North American situation.
 
Zaphod2319 said:
No

It has got better, but miles off being near European or South American football. It is getting close to MX, but that is due to how badly run the Mexican league has become.
Click to expand...
I dont think its that far off at all. the thing is that the difference between the top leagues in Europe is pretty small but also applying that as the standard of whether or not its taken off is unreasonable.
Its not miles off being near many of the leagues in Europe, I would argue its easily as good as Scotland, Netherlands, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Norway etc etc. It lags behind the big 4 but thats frankly an impossible standard to apply.
It will always be behind the big sports in the US but its now well established, has really good attendances and the game itself is now well entrenched in US grassroots sport.
 
Eric_the_Red99 said:
Yeah, in terms of average attendance among major leagues in the US, MLS has pretty much caught up with the NBA and NHL (although those are indoor sports, obviously) and even compares pretty well with MLB. The NFL is way way ahead, clearly. So strictly in terms of average attendance, MLS should be included among the traditional major leagues.

But whether the MLS will ever be able to compete with the top European leagues, the answer is probably not, but then you could say the same about any league outside Europe or S America. The only reason why people are even talking about the Saudi league is because of the billions being thrown at it. I personally take the MLS far more seriously than some sportswashing project. It’s a weak league, sure, but at least it’s a genuine sporting competition.
Click to expand...
Applying the standard of being able to compete with the top leagues in Europe (im assuming you mean the top 4) is an unrealistic standard to apply.
 
Samid said:
Salary cap (noble idea), no relegation and drafts mean it's more or less impossible to relate to the league.
Click to expand...

Yeah this.

American sports are a domestic "Super League" where there is no consequence. If you fail and end up last on the table you get to pick the best talents, if you win you get to attempt to not fall back to the bottom once you have to let your stars go due to salary caps. European fans went into massive protests over being forced into a competition like that, they wont start appealing to a foreign audience anytime soon.

Also winnning the league is completely meaningless to them, US is all about the playoffs.
 
Nani Nana said:
With a US World Cup looming on the horizon, and Messi the biggest star to join the league since Pele, I wondered whether the MLS will ever reach the level of the top European leagues.

Still it seems there are too many top sports in the US for the public to overly care about football.

Will we witness a competitive MLS within our lifetime, where the top South American talent favour a move to Miami or LA rather than Manchester or Madrid?
Click to expand...
No. There are to many sports that are more important there. NFL, MLB, NHL and NBA are always going to be bigger.
 
Stack said:
Applying the standard of being able to compete with the top leagues in Europe (im assuming you mean the top 4) is an unrealistic standard to apply.
Click to expand...
That’s the question the OP asked, so that’s why I answered it.
 
GazTheLegend said:
I'm really sorry, but can you elaborate on what you're asking a bit better here? What other sports, what world class league?
Click to expand...

How did NFL, NBA etc get over the geographic constraints?
 
I think the Americans have done a really good job with the MLS. Its well established, has good attendances and produces some good football to watch. Its got some pretty significant challenges to overcome, one major one being the geographical challenges involved. Its also had to make a space for itself among a number of well established and very popular sports in the US.
 
Nani Nana said:
How did NFL, NBA etc get over the geographic constraints?
Click to expand...
Ah I see. I won't pretend to know a great deal about either sport, but from the looks of the structure, by mainly focusing on one or two state sides they get a massive pool of fans. This is sort of true I think of MLS teams as well - their attendances are actually fantastic and there's clearly a hunger for top level football. So that negates a lot of the geographical constraints by having large funding from spectators and a whole state of people to draw on. Then the league structure itself - basketball playoffs are played "the team with home-court advantage hosts games 1, 2, 5, and 7, while their opponent hosts games 3, 4, and 6" to allow two games at a time to be played at each others stadium. So that presumably lowers certain costs too, and limits the insane travelling they might otherwise need. But in terms of true success it's sort of dependent on what you are asking - the structure means that the MLS never quite feels as elite because there's never a real threat should teams fail.

This is just my opinion of course. The pyramid of football allowing for potentially say Forest Green rovers to become champions of Europe is what makes it so special and unique and why the money and glory stay there, which is why my posts in this thread have been about geography and league structure in the main. It works for American sports that were DESIGNED around those constraints, maybe not for soccer.
 
Acrobat7 said:
Isn’t the Brazilian league the only one that would be considered better than MLS in South America?
Click to expand...

It depends if you are judging by profit or attendance and overall fan involvement. MLS is growing but not near NFL, NBA, and MLB. I think football is the number one sport in every country in South America.
 
Zaphod2319 said:
No

It has got better, but miles off being near European or South American football. It is getting close to MX, but that is due to how badly run the Mexican league has become.
Click to expand...

I think I'd still take Mexico's top 2/3 sides over the MLS counterparts TBF but yeah they're getting closer.
 
By 2050, more than half of Americans will be of Latin American background, so I suppose there's still a lot of room for growth. American Football, basketball and especially hockey don't really seem to attract too many young latinos, it seems.
 
I think i misread the post.

If "taken off" refers to popularity, i think it has. Some teams have really excellent attendance and followings. Some markets less so. And it's not a race thing really. It's like Nascar. It has a huge following in the South and midwest but outside that it's a bit more spotty.

It won't be euro-competitive because it's hard to climb that huge hill of talent, history/glory, and money.
 
Botim said:
By 2050, more than half of Americans will be of Latin American background, so I suppose there's still a lot of room for growth. American Football, basketball and especially hockey don't really seem to attract too many young latinos, it seems.
Click to expand...

Mainly due to physical limitations, although Jaime Jaquez is currently one of the top 3 rookies in the NBA and there have been a few NFL players like Tony Gonzalez 20 years ago or Tony Romo but yes it seems its either the MLS or MLB for most young Latinos in America.

Still most young latinos who follow soccer will follow the Liga MX or Premier League over MLS, at least those of Mexican descent.

Found this article and particular bit very interesting.

The average Liga MX viewer is 35 years old—the youngest of any major American sports league—and also skews younger than other Hispanic sports fans, with 76% identifying as Gen Z or millennial. No other sports leagues attract millennial and Gen Z fans more than Liga MX
Click to expand...

https://adage.com/article/marketing...-capturing-americas-heart-and-wallets/2533776
 
Last edited:
Botim said:
By 2050, more than half of Americans will be of Latin American background, so I suppose there's still a lot of room for growth. American Football, basketball and especially hockey don't really seem to attract too many young latinos, it seems.
Click to expand...
American born latinos follow basketball and football pretty commonly. American born latinos follow soccer about as much as other Americans.

The soccer following is very sporadic, urban professionals that are open minded (yuppies), rural americans that grew up playing grassroot soccer, first gen americans with parents that watched soccer outside the us (which includes american born latinos).
 
jasT1981 said:
The move to Apple TV and going behind a further paid 'season pass' has hampered any progress it made.
Click to expand...
It’s amazing to me how this has happened across the board over here.

The EPL went mostly behind the Peacock paywall. La Liga & BuLi behind ESPN+. MLS behind Apple. Serie A and the UCL / UEL behind Paramount+.

I’m able to watch about 1/10th of the footy that I was able to watch 10 years ago.
 
USREDEVIL said:
American born latinos follow basketball and football pretty commonly. American born latinos follow soccer about as much as other Americans.

The soccer following is very sporadic, urban professionals that are open minded (yuppies), rural americans that grew up playing grassroot soccer, first gen americans with parents that watched soccer outside the us (which includes american born latinos).
Click to expand...

That surprises me a little. People usually look up to sports stars that they can relate to, and the MLS clearly has a hell of a lot more latino players than the NFL and NBA.

I did find this stat (weird how literally everything in the US is measured by race at some point): link
So there's more of a preference amongst latinos for MLS as compared to others.
 
Zaphod2319 said:
It depends if you are judging by profit or attendance and overall fan involvement. MLS is growing but not near NFL, NBA, and MLB. I think football is the number one sport in every country in South America.
Click to expand...
The post I referred to compared the quality of the MLS to other leagues and stated, that it is far behind the leagues in South America (At least that is how I understood it). I don’t think that is correct since only the Brazilian league is IMO clearly better.

And I completely agree with you, that football is #1 in probably every South American country but it will not be #1 in the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.