MLS Expansion: The 20th Frontier

With the MLS season back in full swing after it's World Cup Hiatus, more people are starting to watch. And with it, questions exist as to where the next teams will be located. The Philadelphia Union were the most recent to be created as of this year, and teams will be opening in Vancouver and Portland in 2011, and Montreal in 2012.

This will put the league at 19 teams, and rumors undoubtedly point to the MLS wanting a 20th team. There have been a number of locations considered most desirable. But for the best interest of the league in terms of popularity and filling the stands, some need to be discarded immediately and others need seriously considered. Here are the top three current choices, as spoken by others.

NEW YORK PART 2
The forerunner appears to be a second MLS team in New York City with the stadium located in the physical downtown, as opposed to the kinda near/ sorta close New York Red Bulls. The logic here is the manifestation of a geographical rivalry with the inhabitants of the city supporting this new team, and the outer suburbs a fan of the Red Bulls. I believe this would be an awful mistake for the MLS. If the league continues to expand (which it most likely would), there is no need to further saturate an area that already as the Red Bulls, the Union, D.C. United, and the Revolution. At this stage in the MLS needs to expand into more markets, not divide the ones it already has.



Is the Big Apple ready for a second team?

Atlanta
While there have few concrete signs to this location, it makes sense. Looking at a map of the MLS, the southernmost team east of the Mississippi is D.C. United, completely alienating a region of the country, something MLB does well enough on its own. However, there exist better locations down south. Places like Birmingham, Alabama and Columbia, South Carolina appeal to me more for a couple of reasons. One, they have no sports team at all, and for the MLS, this means no unneeded competition. Secondly, due to the nature of the area they are in, the entire state can get behind the team and give support. The question for these cities, however, is is there really a want for a soccer team? Not to mention, if the MLS is indeed stopping at 20 teams, should they maroon one MLS team hundreds of miles from their next closest competition.


MLS/NBA map. Notice an area missing a team perhaps?

Miami
This is one place I feel adamant the MLS should not go to. First, you are creating the same problems of placing a team in the middle of MLS-less land (like Atlanta), but even worse. Perhaps more ominous is the shadow of an already failed Miami Fusion franchise. It was not the local areas fault that the team was taken away from the city. MLS simply was feeling financial strain and needed to contract. More importantly, however, Florida simply isn't good at helping professional franchises succeed (see Miami Heat, Florida Panthers, Tampa Bay Lightening, Jacksonville Jaguars, etc.) in terms of selling out seats. There simply is too much to do in the Miami area for the citizens to care about another team, let alone an MLS team. If any city in Florida should get a MLS team, in my opinion it should be Orlando. At least they have shown a passion for their NBA Magic.

In closing, I don't think any of these cities are a good idea for the 20th location of MLS soccer. They are too far from the current locations to make the citizens get excited about receiving a team. Instead, slow expansion should prevail. For me, the top choices, in order, are St. Louis, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, and Baton Rouge. They all are near other MLS locations which lead to great rivalry and making the people care. One state and region at a time. Don't leave teams struggling for markets that do not care or are in the middle of the MLS desert.