[ad_1]
Major League Soccer is ready for change.
For more than two decades, the league has taken a steady and targeted approach to growth. Learning from past failures in American football, the league’s owners understandably didn’t want to get too far ahead of revenue. Focus, said MLS Commissioner Don Garber Athletics lately, it has always been in the first stability.
This strategy has worked – up to a point. MLS has expanded and increased its enterprise value. Its owners invested billions of dollars in infrastructure. Stadiums and training facilities are now part of the North American soccer ecosystem. MLS has a consistency the sport has not seen before in the US and Canada.
Now, it’s time for the league to do something about it.
A possible change in an autumn-spring calendar is a positive change. It could help address the league’s No. 1 need: improving the quality of the field. Just weighing such a drastic move is encouraging.
GO DEEPER
MLS is considering switching to a fall-spring calendar after the 2026 World Cup
It was a sign that the league at large is considering doing more than just tinkering with its current format. Athletics has written and spoken many times about the differing opinions at the league board level about how to move MLS forward. The enthusiasm for change is there, but whether the league would ever make such a move felt questionable.
Lionel Messithe greatest player in the history of the sport, has been playing in MLS for a season and a half now and the changes to the roster rules have been marginal. For a while, it looked like MLS would sit back and watch this unprecedented collection of moments in North American sports history — the arrival of Messi, Copa AmericaThe Club World Cup and, more importantly, the 2026 World Cup – pass without benefit.
Considering something as drastic as a calendar change, however, shows that MLS is weighing the changes and shows that the league is having real conversations about how it can increase its relevance and audience.
MLS has historically been a top-down organization with a small, centralized group of decision makers. Multiple sources — all of whom were consulted for this article on condition of anonymity to protect relationships — say recent discussions have been mixed. The league has involved stakeholders at various levels of different clubs, from owners to football bosses and business leaders. They have been on the same calls together, adding expertise and providing feedback. The league has also been engaging with fans and is working with the MLS Players Association to get player feedback as well. Even the most cynical employees have given credit to the approach.
As one person involved said, “Real conversations are happening in a way that never happened before.”
We’ll see if they make it to the finish line.
Rotating the calendar is no small adjustment. It will have a ripple effect throughout the league. If it’s coupled with more significant roster changes — like liberalizing how teams can spend money and potentially how much they’re allowed to spend — it has the potential to move the needle in a real way.
This means that MLS will be able to engage meaningfully in the global transfer market, both as a buyer and seller. There are more players available in the summer window, especially more out-of-contract players and more foreign teams with money to spend. This means MLS teams will be able to sign more players without spending transfer fees, be in the mix for more fee-demanding players and find more buyers for their players without having to sell on in the middle of the season. All this would have a tangible impact on the quality of the game.
The cost will, of course, be felt more heavily in colder markets. Right now, MLS is analyzing whether the lower attendance in those markets is worth it if the league’s overall product is better. How many weeks of games will be added in February and November? Can cold weather markets play out those few extra weeks down the road? Could a winter League Cup played in warm-weather markets with revenue split in December and January help reduce some of the gate losses? Would a better product drive more revenue in other areas?
But a schedule change would ultimately do more good than bad, in part because MLS needs to do something fundamental to stay competitive in an increasingly busy North American soccer ecosystem. If it wants more people to watch, MLS needs to do something to change the narrative around its product. The main thing is that it should continue to improve the quality of the game.
This is not a new idea. of Boston Consulting Group’s nearly decade-long report commissioned by MLS had some of the same concepts. The report identified “soccer enthusiasts” and “sports fans” as the two largest fan segments that MLS should target. The main priority for those fans was the quality of the game. The report’s recommendations included enhancing “the technical and perceived quality of the game through changes in the level and shape of roster spending.” He recommended a change to the competitive model that included a variation of a “cap and floor” mechanism to allow more flexible spending across the roster and give more leeway to higher-spending teams. His third recommendation: redesign the season schedule.
For many sports executives around the league, it’s not a question of whether the league should do it, it’s why they haven’t done it already.
MLS seems more open to following that playbook now and is seeing what its fans have to say; the comments section of this story is no exception. If you have ideas about how the league should change, now is the time to voice them.
There is no perfect solution. With 30 owners sitting at the table and with different interests in all those markets, it’s hard to find something that pleases everyone. But the league has to find a way to grow.
The 2026 World Cup is no longer a distant date on the calendar. It’s right around the corner.
The league cannot afford to miss the moment.
(Feature photo: Matthew Ashton/Getty Images)
[ad_2]