MLS isn’t the future of American soccer
In 1999, MLS commissioner Don Garber took over a league on the brink of collapse. MLS suffered catastrophic financial losses in its early years, putting the league’s — and American soccer’s — long-term viability at risk. With Lionel Messi’s arrival at Inter Miami last month, Garber has pulled off arguably the biggest turnaround in American sports history. The league will soon reach 30 teams, it’s signed a massive streaming deal with Apple, and now it has the sport’s greatest player ever. MLS’s growth is deeply impressive and there’s still plenty ahead. But to thrive, American soccer needs to outgrow MLS.
MLS’s future growth now depends on attracting new fans, not entering new markets. Once the San Diego expansion team joins the league in 2024, MLS will match MLB and the NBA at 30 teams. The NFL and NHL, at 32 teams each, are America’s largest sports leagues. Precedent suggests that American sports leagues have almost no remaining room for expansion, and MLS has overtly rejected its one pathway toward continued expansion.
Garber has insisted on maintaining the league’s franchise structure rather than adopting the promotion/relegation system favored by European leagues, where a league’s best teams move up a level and the worst teams drop down. Financially, that’s probably a smart decision — a franchise system ensures that team values are stable, guaranteeing the league’s long-term financial viability. But that choice comes at the expense of bringing soccer to new markets, including markets where other pro sports have thrived.
It’s also fair to question whether MLS is fully developing its existing markets. The Bay Area, long a two-team market for both baseball and football, only has one MLS team: the San Jose Earthquakes. Quakes owner John Fisher consistently underinvests in payroll and, given his ongoing attempt to move the Oakland A’s to Las Vegas, is probably the most hated figure in East Bay sports history. The Bay Area should be a premier MLS market, but it’s an afterthought and will be as long as Fisher owns the team. It’s also far from the only underperforming MLS market — Denver, Houston, Dallas, and Chicago all fail to crack the top 20 for MLS valuations.
Despite MLS’s flaws, the pivotal question for American soccer isn’t whether MLS will succeed; it already has. Instead, it’s whether soccer can develop successful lower divisions like other top-tier American sports, such as baseball, football, and basketball. College football and college basketball are lucrative national industries because they pair developing players with unique cultures and traditions. College soccer, though fun, doesn’t have a comparable talent pipeline. Since most soccer development occurs in lower leagues or through team academies, American soccer’s best chance for long-term success is to develop thriving lower pro divisions like other countries. The United Soccer League (USL) is the strongest contender to drive American soccer forward and make it a legitimate competitor to other major sports.
The USL currently oversees two professional men’s leagues, the second-division USL Championship and the third-division USL League One, and it plans to launch a professional women’s league next fall. In addition to its pro leagues, the USL also has a pair of semi-pro leagues: USL League Two and the USL W League.
The USL already fills significant gaps on MLS’s current map. The league has teams in the following non-MLS pro sports markets: Oakland, Sacramento, Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Antonio, Detroit, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Memphis, and Tampa. Additionally, the USL features markets like Fresno and Omaha that have no realistic path to an MLS franchise but can still support pro soccer.
The USL can offer an alternative model for American soccer, allowing the sport to enter more markets. The league’s board of governors is considering adopting promotion and relegation, which would occur between the second-division USL Championship, the third-division USL League One, and possibly an additional new league. Adopting and fully implementing a pro/rel system would give soccer a presence in strong markets where top-level pro sports are largely absent, solidifying soccer’s status as a top-tier sport in the US.
Beyond serving additional markets, the USL can provide another valuable service to American soccer — competition. First, the USL already fields more teams than MLS across its various leagues and is independent from MLS, so it could theoretically enter the same markets as MLS. That could allow for the emergence of genuine local rivalries in non-league competitions like the US Open Cup, enhancing soccer’s appeal to casual fans.
USL teams can also compete indirectly with their MLS counterparts, offering fans an alternative to owners who refuse to spend. Under MLS’s franchise system, owners can get away with mediocrity and low payrolls since their team’s place in the league is guaranteed. A pro/rel system, by contrast, incentivizes investment and competition since a team’s place in its league is always at risk. The stakes and quality of play may not match MLS, but college football and basketball don’t come close to matching their professional counterparts and both still enjoy robust fan support and strong media coverage. By embracing local fanbases and incentivizing all teams to be competitive, there’s a pathway for the USL to eventually reach similar heights.
The story of American soccer is too often told as MLS’s story. But even with MLS’s recent success and projected future growth, it can only do so much for American soccer. It’s elevated the sport and will continue to do so, but soccer can’t reach the top tier of American sports without the comprehensive ecosystem that rivals like football and basketball have. MLS is and will remain the US’s leading soccer league, but it isn’t the future of American soccer. The USL is.
