Talk:Expansion of Major League Soccer
Page contents not supported in other languages.
United States Low‑importance | |||||||
|
Canada: Sport Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
I've held off commenting whether a MLS expansion article was a good idea or not, but now that it's out there, it seems my concerns were well founded. Generally stated, this article reiterates what is already included in the main Major League Soccer article. This is either done by taking sentences from the main article and rewording them (For example, the first sentence of MLS: Resurgence becomes "The surprise performance of the United States Men's National Soccer Team at the 2002 World Cup, where they reached the quarter final, sparked a recovery in the league’s fortunes, and attendances once again began to rise.") or reconfiguring the same information in a new order ("The players and the coach were moved to Houston, Texas where they became the Houston Dynamo, playing out of the Robertson Stadium."). Much of the same information spread out across this 38 paragraph article that is more neatly and concisely stated in 4 paragraphs in the MLS: Teams section. If info is included here is not in the main article, IMO, it seems highly insignificant and irrelevant ("There are no current plans to expand outside of the United States and Canada.").
Additionally, there are many sections that have nothing whatsoever to do with expansion. The history lesson on NASL, the rise and fall of the Canadian Soccer League, the '94 World Cup deal, the foundation of MLS (expansion and foundation are different concepts), what cities didn't receive an initial team (why is this relevant?), soccer-specific stadium background, the Canadian Championship, etc. all are not directly related to the specific subject of MLS expansion.
Despite my opinions on all this, I still believe whoever created this article had their heart in the right place. I can see the logic of separating a specialized facet (expansion) of a general subject (MLS) into its own space. However, I'd argue the underlying problem with "Expansion of Major League Soccer" is - overall - the information presented is no different than what we can find in "Major League Soccer." It doesn't offer anything new that can't be said in fewer words in the main article. I'd propose it be deleted. --Blackbox77 (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on the main MLS talk page, I was hoping to be blunt and dispassionate and not seem like a bully throwing my opinion around. You are correct, if "one editor doesn't like it," it doesn't mean it should be deleted. That would take a consensus. It is only my opinion it should be removed. Anyway, after a few days since I made my observation, I unfortunately still hold it. The truth is that any number of subjects could be taken from Major League Soccer in general and be given their own page. But there is a reason we don't see a page on the Clubs of Major League Soccer, Player Development in Major League Soccer, Stadiums of Major League Soccer, History of Major League Soccer, etc. There just isn't enough unique and in-depth background to say it needs to be set aside from the main page. These subjects, like expansion, are just too specialized to devote an entire article to without repeating (in more words) the exact same information the general article already explained.
I would also argue trivial information including but not limited to possible ownership groups, potential stadium locations, and projected seating capacity are all boarderline crystal ball issues. That in and of itself would be justification for deleting - if not the article - major portions of it. Just keep in mind that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (specifically "News Reports") and is not a directory of everything that exists (see Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations). Major edits other than fixing typos have to be done if this article is to be justified. My belief that the article should be deleted is an opinion; observing it repeats the same information as the main MLS page (redundant) is a fact.--Blackbox77 (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've highlighted Portland as they've been announced by the MLS as the second 2011 expansion team. The press conference is now going on and their site is up http://portlandmls2011.com/ Tsurettejr (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the article;
Is there any talk in the MLS regarding relegation? This would nullify the Expansion Article, I know that if it happens (big if) there would be no more expansion. --Ceezmad (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's going on in Milwaukee? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.84.182.7 (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe San Antonio should be added as a possible city for further expansion. While not much news has come from the city, it was at one point basically awarded a team (plan never was finalized and bid was "revoked"), recently Don Garber said in an interview the city is a possibility, the owners of the San Antonio Spurs have expressed interest in a soccer team, and I believe new San Antonio mayor, Julian Castro, has expressed interest in MLS coming to the city.
While I certainly think other cities have a better chance at becoming the 20th team in MLS (NY2), San Antonio definitely deserves to be in the article. FireBird1138 (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I see that New York Times and Grant Wahl independently confirmed some information, it's still very unofficial and based on unnamed sources and therefore WP:CRYSTAL-y. With so little information out there, it makes sense to keep it in the main Expansion of Major League Soccer until an official announcement is made. Mosmof (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering about the last sentence in the intro, Commissioner Don Garber noted during a press conference on February 14, 2011 that he sees 22 teams in MLS by 2020, but is not in a hurry to expand beyond the 22. Now, it's based on the following quote from the source:
I interpreted that as, Garber saw 22 teams in 2020 as the long-term goal, but wasn't in a hurry to get to that point, but I can totally see that he could be talking about going beyond 22. The paraphrasing is unclear, so it would be helpful if we could find the original quote. Anyone have a transcript or a direct quote? Thanks. --Mosmof (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also have to agree with the 22 team number. League has talked of going to the southeast by adding two teams but nothing further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smj91791 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"FIFA is in favour of smaller leagues" See, this is another case of people outside the US not really understanding American sports culture. With MLB, the NFL, the NHL, and the NBA all having at least 30 teams, MLS is seen as distinctly "secondary". The upcoming expansion to 26 teams and plans to reach 28 will basically JUST BARELY put them into the same class as the others. --Khajidha (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a frequent editor on this page "Smj91791" (user name is red, so no real user page) who seems to be the same editor as "12.192.111.170." This user seems to be acting in good faith, and sometimes makes useful contributions, but there are two recurring problems. First, this user often deletes massive chunks of text, sometimes blanking an entire section, based on this user's subjective views as to how likely the city is to get an expansion franchise. In other words, this user has decided who he thinks the next expansion team(s) will be, and deletes significant amount of cited text that does not support his prediction. The worst of his behavior is that he has twice deleted selected portions of recent quotes from Garber that include Atlanta in the list of cities that MLS is considering, and so we end up with a misquote of Garber. Second, many of this user's contributions are nothing more that a straight copy and paste job. Any thoughts on how to deal with this situation? I don't know if there is a way to communicate with this user to help him be more constructive in his edits. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the information presently being added is purely speculation. I some respects of late it has been getting worst, especially when it come to future sites. Just because a city announces plans to look into builting a stadium instantly they go on the list as a future team. This has to stop. Recently a lot of speculation has put Atlanta and Minnesota on the possible list, yet these are NFL stadiums with NFL owner just wanting to fill dates in a new stadium without true regards to buying an expansion team. Current expansion requires a soccer specific stadium. Yet they keep getting added to the list. Currently the MLS is only exploring two sites in Florida. This is fact not speculation which can be documented by different sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smj91791 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why would undo the additional of Minneapolis to the expansion list for MLS. It is know and citied to be under consideration with the opening with the Vikings stadium. This is no different than the situation with Atlanta. Minnesota has been talked about several times by MLS Commissioner Garber as a personal favorite. Remember he becomes from NFL roots. They are currently in talks with league to be added before 2020. So, stop removing them from the consideration list. It has been cited several times by reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smj91791 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lest this turn into another edit war, let's nip this one in the bud. “I don’t care whether it’s in Orlando or it’s in Austin or it’s in Minneapolis or it’s in Atlanta, Major League Soccer will succeed in any market that has that formula that we need to connect.” is not the same thing as "Austin (is) a possible expansion location" nor is it a confirmation "that Austin or San Antonio are possible". It's Garber making a general point about the viability of any expansion city. I suppose it's interesting that Austin was listed alongside other cities that are thought of as (but not officially recognized as) expansion candidates, but to read any more into it would be WP:SYNTH and not verifiable. Mosmof (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm moving the user talk conversation with Clematis1378 (talk · contribs) here:
Not sure why you feel the need to remove the content wholesale. The Wilpons (along with the Cosmos brand) were integral to the 2010 NYC expansion discussions, though there was always the possibility that the expansion might have happened without the Cosmos, hence the edited section header. And most of the speculation about the future is coming from the Cosmos ownership, and there's no apparent discussion between MLS and the Cosmos, so it's almost entirely idle chatter, if not boosterism. Also, we're not going to include content because of unattributed speculation. Mosmof (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose any change to the passage as-is, feeling it's an accurate summation of the only other specific bid involved in the New York 2 process, meeting the 'failed/stalled bid' criteria. The section also points out that a still-existing entity that shows, given all the money involved and the Cosmos' status as having (relatively) wealthy investment compared to other bids (particularly the non-existent St. Louis one) and their seeking an MLS-level stadium, that the New York 3 potentiality is not off the table (which is why it's in the 'speculated' section -- meeting that criteria -- along with Detroit and Pittsburgh, rather than the Commissioner's 'cited' section). -- Clematis1378 (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping into the debate here. I added back in the material in question. The material is relevant and is backed by reliable sources. A statement by MLS and a New York Times article trump the personal opinions of anyone on this talk page.
Also, this is the second time in the past week that Clematis1378 (talk) has been edit warring on this page. That's two times too many. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How, exactly, could I be "edit warring" if I'm the one following the BRD process? -- Clematis1378 (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodelandrada: The Oklahoma City section should be removed. This article is about Major League Soccer. If people want to write about expansion for the NASL or USL, those articles belong on the NASL or USL pages, not the MLS expansion page.
Also, it is not good practice to revert another editor's changes without any explanation. Barryjjoyce (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on statements from the Don himself and in light of Beckham et al's difficulty in securing a stadium deal, it seems like we jumped the gun in treating Miami as a confirmed team (though the league and the media certainly treated the stadium deal as a formality that they'd simply iron out in a couple of months). Would everyone be okay with moving the Miami section down, and editing the following sentence in the Atlanta section: Atlanta became the third franchise awarded in the southeastern United States in five months, following Orlando City announced in late 2013 and Miami announced earlier in 2014? Mosmof (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is Minneapolis really confirmed? because here in mpls the media reports that without a stadium the team won't happen. There is no current approved stadium plan in place. Skippypeanuts (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The recent addition of a timeline was, in my opinion, unnecessary. It was too large, and too early in the article. if a way could be found to make it smaller, it might be appropriate. Also, if it were later in the article, after the prose explained the content, of if it were sufficiently small, 350 pixels or smaller, and floating on the right, it would be appropriate at the top. Using the old template format might not be the best option either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Expansion of Major League Soccer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Editor Walter Gorlitz keeps inserting inaccurate information into the article. MLS plans to expand to 26 teams by 2020, which isn't really in doubt. Any other editors care to weigh in? CUA 27 (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As FCC (Cincinnati) https://www.si.com/soccer/2018/05/24/fc-cincinnati-mls-expansion-berth-announcement-2019-start is going to join the MLS in 2019, this entire section is certainly strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiehead (talk • contribs) 23:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy folks,
Considering that Sacramento expansion has been put on indefinite hold due to the prospective owner pulling out, should it perhaps be shifted to the next section as a stalled expansion?
The Kip (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The city of Miami was successful in getting a team, and Marcelo Claure the guy would led the previous bid went on to become owner in the successful bid. If the intent is to keep track of cities and their expansions it would make sense to remove Miami as a failed bid, idk if it makes sense to track individual bids of people in the bid that failed, b/c there are plenty of people that aren't listed that failed to be the ones chosen. Marcelo Claure was successful regardless in becoming owner, its just that his buisness partner Barcelona pulled out, and he joined different partners. Midgetman433 (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After the announcement yesterday from the Indianapolis Mayor that he is preparing a bid for MLS, should Indianapolis be moved up to the candidate section? The Mayor said that he met with the MLS commissioner and is planning a stadium site and ownership group, so it certainly sounds serious. https://fox59.com/indiana-news/we-want-major-league-soccer-hogsett-talks-mls-announcement/GingerLines (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]