Your opinion: has Major League Soccer turned the “Big Four” into the “Big Five”?

[Bruce]

Some new valuations are out from Sportico. In short: the MLS average is far below the NHL, but the top teams in MLS are firmly within the middle of the pack for NHL teams. LAFC and the Vegas Golden Knights, for example, are almost neck in neck and are comparable, both being recent-ish expansion franchises.

https://twitter.com/novy_williams/status/1448642578484584451

Ticket prices are misleading too because the salaries are so much lower in the MLS at the moment.  That will change.

Again, that inevitability.  MLS players make $X.  MAYBE in a generation, they will make what baseball players make.  MAYBE they will still make $X.  Don't know.

But, ticket prices.  Selling 17 dates for under twenty bucks is one thing.  There is no real reason to believe that this translates to the prices the Big Four sports charge.

As I posted earlier, the league minimum (mostly for unproven rookies and league reserves) will be $109K in 2024. The average by then will probably be around double, if it keeps pace. The highest-paid players are also not going to be aging European stars past their expiration date, but promising South American talent who will be looking to use their time in MLS as a stepping stone to reach Europe.

[JayhawkCO]

Some new valuations are out from Sportico. In short: the MLS average is far below the NHL, but the top teams in MLS are firmly within the middle of the pack for NHL teams. LAFC and the Vegas Golden Knights, for example, are almost neck in neck and are comparable, both being recent-ish expansion franchises.

https://twitter.com/novy_williams/status/1448642578484584451

But there isn't as much of a drop off between the NHL and MLS as there is between MLB and NHL.  So I guess we only have a "Big Three" then.

Chris

[NWI_Irish96]

Some new valuations are out from Sportico. In short: the MLS average is far below the NHL, but the top teams in MLS are firmly within the middle of the pack for NHL teams. LAFC and the Vegas Golden Knights, for example, are almost neck in neck and are comparable, both being recent-ish expansion franchises.

https://twitter.com/novy_williams/status/1448642578484584451

But there isn't as much of a drop off between the NHL and MLS as there is between MLB and NHL.  So I guess we only have a "Big Three" then.

Chris

I would classify the sports this way: The NFL, NBA and MLB have widespread national support. NHL has widespread regional support. MLS has localized support.

[JayhawkCO]

I would classify the sports this way: The NFL, NBA and MLB have widespread national support. NHL has widespread regional support. MLS has localized support.

I don't disagree with that.  But I would still lump all 5 together as the "Big Leagues".

Chris

[NWI_Irish96]

I would classify the sports this way: The NFL, NBA and MLB have widespread national support. NHL has widespread regional support. MLS has localized support.

I don't disagree with that.  But I would still lump all 5 together as the "Big Leagues".

Chris

I'm not certain that MLS is all that far ahead of the WNBA.

[JayhawkCO]

I would classify the sports this way: The NFL, NBA and MLB have widespread national support. NHL has widespread regional support. MLS has localized support.

I don't disagree with that.  But I would still lump all 5 together as the "Big Leagues".

Chris

I'm not certain that MLS is all that far ahead of the WNBA.

By every metric, franchise value, attendance, "knowing the name of the team in a given city", etc., MLS is light years ahead of WNBA.

Chris

[Roadgeekteen]

No

The reason: the MLS is not the premier soccer league on earth. The NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL are all the premier leagues for their sports. It's that simple.

[JayhawkCO]

No

The reason: the MLS is not the premier soccer league on earth. The NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL are all the premier leagues for their sports. It's that simple.

So clearly MLS is inferior to Major League Quidditch, since it's the biggest Quidditch league in the world, yeah?

Chris

[Roadgeekteen]

No

The reason: the MLS is not the premier soccer league on earth. The NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL are all the premier leagues for their sports. It's that simple.

So clearly MLS is inferior to Major League Quidditch, since it's the biggest Quidditch league in the world, yeah?

Chris

No, not necessarily, revenue also plays a role in it. But you can just tell from media coverage and other things that the MLS is behind the NHL. More people can probably name Crosby or Ovi than any MLS player. I'm a big sports fan but I can't name a single MLS player. Also, the MLS has no big famous team names everyday people would know like the Yankees, Cowboys, or Lakers. I can't name all the MLS teams. 

[Roadgeekteen]

Also, College Football, College Basketball, and maybe NASCAR are all more popular than the MLS. The MLS does beat out the WNBA however.

[JayhawkCO]

No

The reason: the MLS is not the premier soccer league on earth. The NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL are all the premier leagues for their sports. It's that simple.

So clearly MLS is inferior to Major League Quidditch, since it's the biggest Quidditch league in the world, yeah?

Chris

No, not necessarily, revenue also plays a role in it. But you can just tell from media coverage and other things that the MLS is behind the NHL. More people can probably name Crosby or Ovi than any MLS player. I'm a big sports fan but I can't name a single MLS player. Also, the MLS has no big famous team names everyday people would know like the Yankees, Cowboys, or Lakers. I can't name all the MLS teams.

And again, another person from the Northeast saying that the NHL is clearly larger.  Despite being a hockey fan, I disagree with that on a national scale.  Sounders will get just as much coverage in Seattle as the Kraken will once the initial novelty wears off.  I know they don't have a team, but I bet sports fans in KC can name a whole lot more teams in MLS than they can the NHL.  NHL isn't as universally watched as I think those of you in the "traditional markets" think it is.

Chris

[Roadgeekteen]

The NHL is clearly larger than the MLS in the Northeast, true. And hockey isn't all that popular in the south. However, good southern NHL teams can attract a big fanbase. Just look at Nashville and Tampa. Don't know if any of the Northeast MLS teams can do that. The MLS is popular in a few cities nationwide. How many MLS fans are there in rural Kansas or Washington? The fact is, the Northeast has a large chunk of the US's population and nobody gives a shit about the MLS here. Also California, the Kings/Sharks are more popular (I think) than the NHL. Kansas City doesn't even have an NHL team. Also, in rural Southern America, people don't care about either: it's all college football and NFL there.

[JayhawkCO]

The NHL is clearly larger than the MLS in the Northeast, true. And hockey isn't all that popular in the south. However, good southern NHL teams can attract a big fanbase. Just look at Nashville and Tampa. Don't know if any of the Northeast MLS teams can do that. The MLS is popular in a few cities nationwide. How many MLS fans are there in rural Kansas or Washington? The fact is, the Northeast has a large chunk of the US's population and nobody gives a shit about the MLS here. Also California, the Kings/Sharks are more popular (I think) than the NHL. Kansas City doesn't even have an NHL team. Also, in rural Southern America, people don't care about either: it's all college football and NFL there.

My point is more that the NHL is closer to MLS in popularity nationally overall than it is to the MLB, NFL, and NBA.  But people's views are colored by where they live.  I would imagine not more than 1 in 25 people in the Denver metro area (not even using Colorado as whole) know who Alex Ovechkin is, and that's with a popular NHL team in the Avalanche.

Chris

[Roadgeekteen]

The NHL is clearly larger than the MLS in the Northeast, true. And hockey isn't all that popular in the south. However, good southern NHL teams can attract a big fanbase. Just look at Nashville and Tampa. Don't know if any of the Northeast MLS teams can do that. The MLS is popular in a few cities nationwide. How many MLS fans are there in rural Kansas or Washington? The fact is, the Northeast has a large chunk of the US's population and nobody gives a shit about the MLS here. Also California, the Kings/Sharks are more popular (I think) than the NHL. Kansas City doesn't even have an NHL team. Also, in rural Southern America, people don't care about either: it's all college football and NFL there.

My point is more that the NHL is closer to MLS in popularity nationally overall than it is to the MLB, NFL, and NBA.  But people's views are colored by where they live.  I would imagine not more than 1 in 25 people in the Denver metro area (not even using Colorado as whole) know who Alex Ovechkin is, and that's with a popular NHL team in the Avalanche.

Chris

How many MLS players can they name?

[JayhawkCO]

The NHL is clearly larger than the MLS in the Northeast, true. And hockey isn't all that popular in the south. However, good southern NHL teams can attract a big fanbase. Just look at Nashville and Tampa. Don't know if any of the Northeast MLS teams can do that. The MLS is popular in a few cities nationwide. How many MLS fans are there in rural Kansas or Washington? The fact is, the Northeast has a large chunk of the US's population and nobody gives a shit about the MLS here. Also California, the Kings/Sharks are more popular (I think) than the NHL. Kansas City doesn't even have an NHL team. Also, in rural Southern America, people don't care about either: it's all college football and NFL there.

My point is more that the NHL is closer to MLS in popularity nationally overall than it is to the MLB, NFL, and NBA.  But people's views are colored by where they live.  I would imagine not more than 1 in 25 people in the Denver metro area (not even using Colorado as whole) know who Alex Ovechkin is, and that's with a popular NHL team in the Avalanche.

Chris

How many MLS players can they name?

Probably none.  I think the Rapids are among the least supported clubs in MLS.  I only go to the games when my club (Sporting KC) plays.  But my point is that Ovechkin isn't as ubiquitously known as you might think.  I never claimed people nationally knew a lot of MLS stars.

Chris

[Roadgeekteen]

The NHL is clearly larger than the MLS in the Northeast, true. And hockey isn't all that popular in the south. However, good southern NHL teams can attract a big fanbase. Just look at Nashville and Tampa. Don't know if any of the Northeast MLS teams can do that. The MLS is popular in a few cities nationwide. How many MLS fans are there in rural Kansas or Washington? The fact is, the Northeast has a large chunk of the US's population and nobody gives a shit about the MLS here. Also California, the Kings/Sharks are more popular (I think) than the NHL. Kansas City doesn't even have an NHL team. Also, in rural Southern America, people don't care about either: it's all college football and NFL there.

My point is more that the NHL is closer to MLS in popularity nationally overall than it is to the MLB, NFL, and NBA.  But people's views are colored by where they live.  I would imagine not more than 1 in 25 people in the Denver metro area (not even using Colorado as whole) know who Alex Ovechkin is, and that's with a popular NHL team in the Avalanche.

Chris

How many MLS players can they name?

Probably none.  I think the Rapids are among the least supported clubs in MLS.  I only go to the games when my club (Sporting KC) plays.  But my point is that Ovechkin isn't as ubiquitously known as you might think.  I never claimed people nationally knew a lot of MLS stars.

Chris

But do people in Denver know about Nathan MacKinnon? Probably.

[JayhawkCO]

The NHL is clearly larger than the MLS in the Northeast, true. And hockey isn't all that popular in the south. However, good southern NHL teams can attract a big fanbase. Just look at Nashville and Tampa. Don't know if any of the Northeast MLS teams can do that. The MLS is popular in a few cities nationwide. How many MLS fans are there in rural Kansas or Washington? The fact is, the Northeast has a large chunk of the US's population and nobody gives a shit about the MLS here. Also California, the Kings/Sharks are more popular (I think) than the NHL. Kansas City doesn't even have an NHL team. Also, in rural Southern America, people don't care about either: it's all college football and NFL there.

My point is more that the NHL is closer to MLS in popularity nationally overall than it is to the MLB, NFL, and NBA.  But people's views are colored by where they live.  I would imagine not more than 1 in 25 people in the Denver metro area (not even using Colorado as whole) know who Alex Ovechkin is, and that's with a popular NHL team in the Avalanche.

Chris

How many MLS players can they name?

Probably none.  I think the Rapids are among the least supported clubs in MLS.  I only go to the games when my club (Sporting KC) plays.  But my point is that Ovechkin isn't as ubiquitously known as you might think.  I never claimed people nationally knew a lot of MLS stars.

Chris

But do people in Denver know about Nathan MacKinnon? Probably.

Yeah, they do.  But your average citizen that doesn't watch the nightly news doesn't know any others.  Not even Makar who is a future hall of famer.  But "everyone" knows Bridgewater, Drew Lock, Courtland Sutton, Von Miller, Nikola Jokic, Jamal Murray, and Charlie Blackmon.  Probably no other Rockies and no other Avs.

Chris

[thspfc]

Some new valuations are out from Sportico. In short: the MLS average is far below the NHL, but the top teams in MLS are firmly within the middle of the pack for NHL teams. LAFC and the Vegas Golden Knights, for example, are almost neck in neck and are comparable, both being recent-ish expansion franchises.

https://twitter.com/novy_williams/status/1448642578484584451

But there isn't as much of a drop off between the NHL and MLS as there is between MLB and NHL.  So I guess we only have a "Big Three" then.

Chris

It's a Big 1. NBA and MLB do not compare to NFL.

[thspfc]

The NHL is clearly larger than the MLS in the Northeast, true. And hockey isn't all that popular in the south. However, good southern NHL teams can attract a big fanbase. Just look at Nashville and Tampa. Don't know if any of the Northeast MLS teams can do that. The MLS is popular in a few cities nationwide. How many MLS fans are there in rural Kansas or Washington? The fact is, the Northeast has a large chunk of the US's population and nobody gives a shit about the MLS here. Also California, the Kings/Sharks are more popular (I think) than the NHL. Kansas City doesn't even have an NHL team. Also, in rural Southern America, people don't care about either: it's all college football and NFL there.

My point is more that the NHL is closer to MLS in popularity nationally overall than it is to the MLB, NFL, and NBA.  But people's views are colored by where they live.  I would imagine not more than 1 in 25 people in the Denver metro area (not even using Colorado as whole) know who Alex Ovechkin is, and that's with a popular NHL team in the Avalanche.

Chris

How many MLS players can they name?

I am a soccer fan - it's my second favorite sport to watch after football - and I couldn't name more than 10 MLS players.

[SP Cook]

Also, College Football, College Basketball, and maybe NASCAR are all more popular than the MLS.

If you are going to go into college sports and non-team sports, not only college football and basketball and NASCAR, but men's, women's and arguably men's senior (over 50) pro golf; men's and women's pro tennis; boxing; and MMA are more popular than MLS.  Indy Car racing and NHRA (drag racing) are probably close.

[Alps]

MLS isn't even the most popular soccer league in the US. More people watch Premier League games than MLS games.

I don't disagree, but put it this way.  When you ask about a city and which professional sports teams it has, you're going to get answers from the "Big Five".  You were never going to get answers from Arena Football, XFL, CBA, etc.  Those of us that are arguing that MLS is in the "pantheon" aren't saying it's the best soccer out there.  We are saying that it's in the conversation.  NFL is obviously king.  Then NBA.  Then MLB, although it's fading.  Then NHL and MLS are the next tier.

I think this is a lot like politics and social media.  We all surround ourselves who think the same way we do so we find it impossible for those to think otherwise.  I've been trying to present data as far as attendance and whatnot to mitigate my own bias.  But I have a hunch that everyone who is saying that MLS isn't "Big Five" has probably never been to a match and tend to stick to the teams they supported growing up.  And that's all fine.  But as we all age, there are plenty of people paying money for sports that have grown up soccer fans and the MLS will only grow in popularity because of it.

I remember talking to some Englishmen when I was traveling abroad about why the U.S. National Team isn't that good compared to their European counterparts.  I basically told them that people my age didn't grow up seeing soccer highlights on SportsCenter.  We saw Jordan, Montana, Kirby Puckett (Minnesota homer here), Gretzky, whatever.  We had heard of Pele, but we didn't see Cosmos highlights.  I had never even heard of Eusebio, Cruyff, Maradona, etc. as a kid.  So when we played soccer (which I did from age 5 to age 15), we didn't have those guys to emulate.  When I played basketball (which I did for a similar time frame), OF COURSE I emulated Jordan.  When I played baseball, I jumped into the fence pretending I was Kirby robbing a home run away from people.  We didn't know what good soccer looked like.  Now kids are seeing Messi, Ronaldo, Mbappe, etc. as well as seeing good (not great) soccer locally with their MLS club.  They're going to be more driven to be on that level.  We might have a golden generation on our hands with Pulisic, McKennie, Dest, Reyna, etc. all playing for big European clubs.  I get that they're not in the MLS, but soccer is only going to keep steamrolling in popularity if the U.S. National Team has success in the next couple of World Cups.

MLS attendance has already made leaps and bounds compared to when it first was created and was played in non-soccer specific stadia.  It was a bad product then, and as the owners have become more savvy, and as soccer in general has become more of a spectator sport as opposed to something you just played as a kid, MLS has grown a ton, and hence expanded.

If there are no stats I can convince you naysayers with, let me try one more.  LAFC, the highest valued MLS franchise, is valued at $860 Million.  Even the Colorado Rapids, the lowest valued MLS franchise is valued at $370 Million.  The Arizona Coyotes are valued at $285 Million.   If you're counting the NHL in the "Big X", then the MLS has to be there too. Money talks.

Chris

You're not convincing me. When you ask what teams a city has, I name the big four sports. Maybe WNBA. That's it.

[thspfc]

So one of the common threads I'm noticing here is that just about everyone who has sad something to the effect of "no, MLS doesn't even come close to NHL" is from the northern or northeastern US. That's the only part of this country where hockey is really relevant. I've lived in Utah and Georgia and nobody in either of those places cares one bit about hockey of any sort. In Utah you might run into a few Vegas Golden Knights fans, but I'm entirely blaming that on novelty factor and the fact that they're actually good. I will be shocked if those people don't move on once the Knights aren't a top-tier team anymore.

MLS on the other hand has a far better following outside the north and northeast. Atlanta United is one of the best supported MLS teams in the country. Real Salt Lake hasn't even been good for a while but still has a decent following. And yeah, soccer is still more of an urban following for the most part, but give it time. Soccer was irrelevant in this country 20 years ago unless you were one of a few people who followed the European leagues. The US soccer fanbase has gone from a small niche in city cores to a decent following across metropolitan areas - especially ones with an MLS team. It takes time for this kind of thing to spread to more rural regions.

I maintain the rural region argument doesn't hold up, anyway. College football is the real king in rural parts of this country except for maybe in the northeast, where there aren't all that many schools with nationally recognized athletics programs. And among the big professional leagues, I think people here are giving the NBA too much credit. In my experience NBA fanbases are very urban-focused and also skewed towards the western part of the country (in no small part due to the dominance of West Coast teams and the very late game schedules that occur as a result).

This really has nothing to do with how big the sport is, but, really I know of few soccer fans who follow any other sport.  That's fine, a group of people who really didn't like sports found something to watch.  Fine for them, and because everybody's money folds the same, fine for the owners, but its really not the same as the fanbases in the major sports, where people work their way around a the calendar with sports.

This is not my experience at all. I have multiple friends who are die-hard Atlanta United fans but also would be more than happy to talk to you about the Braves or the Falcons or college football or whatever else.

Could not agree more with this post.  Since I've brought up Atlanta multiple times, is there a reason the Thrashers couldn't make it in Atlanta but Atlanta United can? Seems if the NHL was by far and away stronger of a product than MLS, then that shouldn't have happened.

Chris

Atlanta is a perfect city for an MLS team. Atlanta is definitely not a perfect city for an NHL team. Though it has been shown that allNHL teams can get support in any city whenever they are good (case in point, Lighting, Stars, Kings 8-10 years ago).

[Roadgeekteen]

MLS isn't even the most popular soccer league in the US. More people watch Premier League games than MLS games.

I don't disagree, but put it this way.  When you ask about a city and which professional sports teams it has, you're going to get answers from the "Big Five".  You were never going to get answers from Arena Football, XFL, CBA, etc.  Those of us that are arguing that MLS is in the "pantheon" aren't saying it's the best soccer out there.  We are saying that it's in the conversation.  NFL is obviously king.  Then NBA.  Then MLB, although it's fading.  Then NHL and MLS are the next tier.

I think this is a lot like politics and social media.  We all surround ourselves who think the same way we do so we find it impossible for those to think otherwise.  I've been trying to present data as far as attendance and whatnot to mitigate my own bias.  But I have a hunch that everyone who is saying that MLS isn't "Big Five" has probably never been to a match and tend to stick to the teams they supported growing up.  And that's all fine.  But as we all age, there are plenty of people paying money for sports that have grown up soccer fans and the MLS will only grow in popularity because of it.

I remember talking to some Englishmen when I was traveling abroad about why the U.S. National Team isn't that good compared to their European counterparts.  I basically told them that people my age didn't grow up seeing soccer highlights on SportsCenter.  We saw Jordan, Montana, Kirby Puckett (Minnesota homer here), Gretzky, whatever.  We had heard of Pele, but we didn't see Cosmos highlights.  I had never even heard of Eusebio, Cruyff, Maradona, etc. as a kid.  So when we played soccer (which I did from age 5 to age 15), we didn't have those guys to emulate.  When I played basketball (which I did for a similar time frame), OF COURSE I emulated Jordan.  When I played baseball, I jumped into the fence pretending I was Kirby robbing a home run away from people.  We didn't know what good soccer looked like.  Now kids are seeing Messi, Ronaldo, Mbappe, etc. as well as seeing good (not great) soccer locally with their MLS club.  They're going to be more driven to be on that level.  We might have a golden generation on our hands with Pulisic, McKennie, Dest, Reyna, etc. all playing for big European clubs.  I get that they're not in the MLS, but soccer is only going to keep steamrolling in popularity if the U.S. National Team has success in the next couple of World Cups.

MLS attendance has already made leaps and bounds compared to when it first was created and was played in non-soccer specific stadia.  It was a bad product then, and as the owners have become more savvy, and as soccer in general has become more of a spectator sport as opposed to something you just played as a kid, MLS has grown a ton, and hence expanded.

If there are no stats I can convince you naysayers with, let me try one more.  LAFC, the highest valued MLS franchise, is valued at $860 Million.  Even the Colorado Rapids, the lowest valued MLS franchise is valued at $370 Million.  The Arizona Coyotes are valued at $285 Million.   If you're counting the NHL in the "Big X", then the MLS has to be there too. Money talks.

Chris

You're not convincing me. When you ask what teams a city has, I name the big four sports. Maybe WNBA. That's it.

For me it depends. WNBA never. MLS only in certain cities like Seattle and Portland. Will never name MLS teams for NYC or Chicago.

[DTComposer]

Regardless of level of professionalism, revenue, attendance, media coverage, etc., I don't think it's a fair question to ask: the league has only been around for 25 years. The "newest" of the Big Four is the NBA, founded in 1946. Further, I would argue that those leagues all have reached their "maturity" (in terms of number of teams, national relevance and popularity, etc.) between 1956 and 1976 (NFL/AFL merger/Super Bowl era, expansion beyond the "original six," NBA/ABA merger, westward expansion of MLB). MLS may only just now be reaching its "mature" era as it grows beyond 30 teams.

So my opinion would be "not yet," but let's check back in another 20 years.

[Stephane Dumas]

Regardless of level of professionalism, revenue, attendance, media coverage, etc., I don't think it's a fair question to ask: the league has only been around for 25 years. The "newest" of the Big Four is the NBA, founded in 1946.

By checking the NBA "family tree", it was born in 1949 from the merger of the BAA (Basket-ball Association of America) founded in 1946 and the NBL (National Basketball league) founded in 1937. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Basketball_League_(United_States)