Article by Matt Lichtenstadter
Orlando City’s new forward Justin Meram had some intriguing comments about certain markets in MLS to ESPN FC recently that raised a few eyebrows.
“I think there are certain markets that are kind of, maybe, holding back MLS,” he said.“Training facilities, stadium, fans, just kind of the whole package. You're seeing in Atlanta, LAFC, Portland, Seattle, here in Orlando, Kansas City, they're doing it right. And I think if you can get all the other clubs to get on board it's going to be a fantastic league the next 10, 20 years.”
Considering the market he came from, and the one he went to, those comments do raise questions. What markets is he referring to, and what can MLS do to address something they’ve tried to prevent for years: have and have not markets?
Meram’s previous club was Columbus Crew, who are embroiled in a nasty relocation controversy hamstringing one of MLS’ foundational clubs, so his comments could easily be pointed towards that club and its controversial owner, Anthony Precourt. He could be referring to a host of other clubs that seem stuck in a different era for the league than the one which has introduced Orlando, LAFC, Atlanta and others to the fold.
MLS may not be the world’s most stratified in terms of financial wherewithal, but it is stratified in terms of “eras”. MLS 1.0 was the initial wave of clubs, emblematic of New England Revolution, who still share a stadium with a NFL team. MLS 2.0 would be clubs that have soccer specific stadiums, but ones out in suburbs or nowhere near downtown cores such as Chicago, Columbus, FC Dallas and Colorado, for instance. Perhaps Meram is referring to them and their financial clout, which has quickly been dwarfed by entrants who wield their monetary power in different ways and are nowhere near as reserved with their cash and spending it.
Even among clubs like San Jose, Philadelphia, Minnesota and likely DC United, who have or will have new stadiums in good areas, they don’t possess the financial muscle that LAFC, NYCFC, Atlanta or even Toronto and Seattle do. Meram’s concern is that some of those markets might be holding the league back as it moves forward at light speed. It’s safe to say that new expansion entrants will aim to be more like the new crop rather than the Chicago’s of the world, for instance.
Is it a problem that the league is growing more stratified like this? After all, most if not all soccer leagues are extremely stratified between haves and have nots based on financial clout and city location. More of the best players would rather play in New York than Columbus or Denver, as they would rather play in Milan, Turn or Rome than say Udine or Palermo. Those are inherent restrictions for sports leagues in any nation for any sport. But MLS has been based on parity and levelling the playing field, which is why the league’s structure is still single entity despite who has joined the league in recent years.
No matter how many artificial restrictions are put on spending, certain teams will have more cash to throw around than others. That has always been true and will always be true. Does it benefit MLS to have this rapidly growing stratification as the league rapidly expands at the same time? Probably not, though not all clubs could ever realistically get on the same playing field. Some clubs are vestiges of a league that was on the verge of extinction and barely were able to survive the league’s lean years. Those clubs are certainly not going away, particularly ones in markets like Boston and Chicago. But could those clubs end up becoming ones that are more like the league’s newest entrants? That will take some doing. The same holds true for “smaller markets” like Columbus. That club could be far more successful than it actually is, but ownership and the inherent limitations of that market (being second fiddle to Ohio State) put a cap on what is possible. That’s likely true in Sacramento, Miami, Nashville, Detroit, Cincinnati and other expansion possibilities too, because not everyone can come into the league with the cadre of owners and cash LAFC and Atlanta did.
Of all sports across the globe, financial gulfs between have and have nots are the most noticeable in soccer, which is an inevitable part of the game. MLS has tried to prevent it from rearing its ugly head for years, but in the end, money talks. Some clubs will not be able to compete on a financial level with others, and that is a sad reality in all leagues.
But MLS has to decide whether it wants straggling clubs like a few that Justin Meram is hinting at to stay that way and fall further behind, or whether they can be given a chance to hit some of the levels their big brothers with financial muscle can.
That is not an easy decision to make, and it is one of the league’s biggest concerns as it grows. Some clubs may sadly get left behind in the shuffle, including one of the league’s foundational clubs, and that’s a shame.
This reality doesn’t have to be inevitable, but with the way the league has changed, it certainly feels that way, and sometimes not for the better.
