It ' s still 2016 almost 2017 though . We don ' t have to change things from an entrenched 40 team MLS , we can change things from a still very much burgeoning soccer landscape . This whole section relies on a false premise , and it ' s really tough to respond to because I don ' t know where you stop talking about the 2030 hypothetical and start talking about the current landscape . I use the 2030 hypothetical because the most viable path to prorel suggested by its advocates is the MLS 1 MLS 2 model basically splitting the league , and they usually suggest that this model be implemented when the league gets larger so each tier can have a decent number of teams . I just selected 2030 as a hypothetical date at which such expansion might be plausible . Of course , I don ' t have to do that . I could select 2022 and suggest that the prorel advocates are calling for MLS 1 and MLS 2 to be implemented then with 12 teams in each tier . It wouldn ' t matter , though , because all of the points I made in my posts above would still apply . You spend so much time talking about existing MLS ownership , and none talking about potential investorsThey were mentioned when I noted the bit about large , establishment investors showing interest in MLS because of the stability and sustained profitability it offers both of which would be destroyed by prorel . and we absolutely need more investment at all levels of the pyramid if we want to become a global soccer powerhouse . Don ' t need prorel for that . The USL and PDL are drawing plenty of investment and support , from both within and outside the country . And then what about the awful TV numbers that the current system draws for MLS ? If the numbers stay at the current level , MLS will not survive . First , MLS ' ratings have improved over the course of the league ' s establishment and there is no reason to believe that there isn ' t room for growth . Second , there is no substantiation for the claim that prorel would increase viewership . I hear this claim from prorel advocates on a regular basis , but it is always unsubstantiated . There is no evidence that prorel leads to levels of excitement among the casual mass North American fandom that are any greater than what we get from the current system with playoffs . I have yet to see any evidence that the chance to watch several struggling teams fight to determine who is less competent is more compelling to TV and stadiumgoing audiences in this country than a playoff race . I have yet to see any evidence that a wider casual sports fandom in this country that is already quite apathetic about first tier soccer nevermind second tier soccer is going to somehow get hype about first , second , third and fourth tier soccer because we ' ve told them that the teams in said tiers can occasionally switch places . You also talk about the success of MLS , with no mention of how it has come at the direct expense of every other level of the soccer pyramid . I don ' t mention that because it is false . Both the USL and PDL have benefited from the rise of MLS and risen along with it . It is only the NASL that has really suffered , and that suffering is due in large part to its having been dead set on being more of a headtohead competitor with MLS and failing to successfully mount such competition . I ' m here to tell you your attitude is responsible for holding the game back in every nonMLS community in the US . I ' m here to tell you that this is hyperbolic and factually incorrect . That you as a consumer are spending your energy defending hyperwealthy investors is really tough to understand for me . What other product do you consume where you are so deeply concerned about the profit margins for the people selling you that product ? This is not about a deep concern or love for owners and product manufacturers . It is about a common sense attempt to see things from the perspective of said owners and product manufacturers in order to understand the broader implications of the changes suggested in the article regarding prorel . When you make an effort to examine things from that point of view , you see that this move would be particularly damaging to that group . I can ' t really ignore that fact because this group is absolutely essential to making any vision of prorel happen their point of view must be taken into account on that basis alone . In addition to this , I don ' t see why the concerns of wealthy investors are irrelevant merely because they are wealthy . If an investor makes an investment in good faith in accordance with a legally binding agreement and someone suggests that said agreement be completely subverted in such a way as to cause serious financial losses to said investor who didn ' t agree to said changes and has a legally binding right not to have them forced upon him , I ' m going to oppose it on principle because it is immoral and unfair and I ' ll also oppose it because it ' s just plain illegal . The fact that the investor is wealthy doesn ' t make it less immoral , unfair , or illegal . You don ' t get to abrogate legal , binding agreements to the detriment of a given party simply because that party is rich . That ' s not how things go in our society . Finally , I ' m not spending my energy defending hyperwealthy investors . They may be among the groups whose interests I ' m attempting to outline here for the sake of the discussion because their consent is essentially to the implementation of prorel , but they are not alone in that . Taxpayers , who are generally not hyperwealthy investors , are in the same boat the investors are , since their money goes into the clubs whose devaluation via prorel you are encouraging . There are also investors who are not wealthy that are involved here these are retirees with portoflios in mutual or pension funds that have a stake in MLS sides usually via the companies that own said sides . They are also losing money when you tank franchise values and profitability with prorel . You mention how investors would laugh at us for demanding they allow for risk in their investment with competition like most markets haveYou are suggesting that they ' ve not taken on any risk , which is patently false . They already embraced significant risk when they made substantial 8 figure investments in an unestablished league with an unestablished pedigree in a country where the sport is , at best , 5 th or 6 th in the national conscience with no guarantee only the hope of rising well above that level of visibility . Investors in MLS are putting large sums of money into this league in the hope that it grows , remains sustainable , and keeps profitability , but there was no guarantee that MLS didn ' t tank and lose money , no guarantee that viewership would rise from pre 2010 levels , and there remains no guarantee that the American sporting consumer will more fully embrace the league and increase its standing in the North American pro sports hierarchy . When Sounders FC ownership decided to throw $ 30 Million for a chance to join MLS all those years back , there was absolutely no guarantee that they ' d see that money returned to them . So far , they ' ve been rewarded for taking on that risk . Their money has grown and the league has become stronger with good prospects for growth and future profitability . They and other ownersinvestorscities made a bet , and they ' re getting a good return so far . What you ask them to do is not merely embrace any risk at all as I just said , they ' ve done this , but to embrace MORE risk than they ' ve currently bargained for . This is the problem wih your argument you don ' t get to dictate to investors how much risk they must take and forcefully expose them to a level of risk they didn ' t bargain for . It is illegal and immoral to play games with people ' s money in such a fashion and , by people ' s , I mean not just super wealthy investors but small portfolio holders , states , cities , small businesses who work as sponsors , and taxpayers as well . I ' d argue they ' re more likely laughing at you for fighting for their right to increase profits by putting out an inferior product on the field . First , there is no evidence that their product is inferior . Second , I guarantee you that were said individuals to view this exchange and elect to laugh at one of the two participants , I would not be the source of their amusement .