Local soccer fans should not count on a Major League Soccer expansion coming to San Antonio any time soon. That’s the message that came from MLS commissioner Don Garber during a Q&A with The Associated Press’ sports editors Thursday afternoon.
In that meeting, Garber was asked to list the potential expansion cities, and placed San Antonio fifth on the list behind Sacramento, St. Louis, Detroit and San Diego. That would give California five teams in a 28 team league, leaving Texas with two teams.
That would put San Antonio in a difficult spot, as Garber starts to talk about expanding the league to 28 teams, but there hasn’t been much discussion beyond that. During the meeting, Garber said that after the most recent round of expansion– the jump from 24 to 28 teams– that there would be at least a 10 year wait for any further expansion.
Garber’s statement hinted that the next expansion will happen in 2020, which would leave San Antonio without any possible access to MLS until at least 2030. It was always clear that San Antonio had to be among the next four selected teams to have a shot at MLS, but sitting in the 29th spot in Garber’s list highlights how much work has to be done.
Only two of the cities ahead of San Antonio in that list currently have a professional soccer team, Sacramento and St. Louis, while Detroit has a side in the elite amateur National Premier Soccer League. Both Sacramento and St. Louis play at soccer specific venues, however only Sacramento’s was built with MLS in mind. If MLS came to St. Louis, they would likely need a whole new stadium to be built.
Sacramento has long been considered a great candidate for MLS expansion, with a stadium ready for expansion and packed crowds, they have ticked all the boxes, including support from the city. St. Louis FC is only in their second season, but their venue is under 6,000 seats, with the average match attendance below 5,000, and there has been little indication of the city’s support for it, something the league considers of vital importance.
Detroit, also ahead of San Antonio on Garber’s list, has a fervent supporter base for their NPSL side, Detroit City, and has invested heavily in a stadium. But the costs at NPSL level are much lower than for professional soccer and no owner has yet come forward for an MLS bid.
The city on the list that leaves most fans puzzled is San Diego, who currently has no professional soccer team in their city. It seems clear that Garber is trying to jump on the departure of the NFL from the city despite there being no ownership group, no soccer specific stadium, and no proof that supporters would come out for American soccer teams, despite the Mexican National Team drawing big crowds when they play in the city.
All these factors have left San Antonio soccer fans puzzled. San Antonio FC seemingly checks all the boxes, they have a stadium ready for expansion, they have fan support, the support of the city, and in Spurs Sports and Entertainment they have a strong ownership group. Garber’s reasoning for looking at St. Louis because of “its proximity to Kansas City,” would seem to speak more to San Antonio, close to two MLS cities.
Spurs Sports and Entertainment given a 2022 deadline by the city and the county to secure an MLS team or be faced with paying back the investment in the stadium, it is imperative for the owners that they be one of the next four teams in to the league.
So why is it that Garber seems so reluctant to talk of San Antonio as a major contender for league expansion? The answer to that may be found way back in 2005, when the City of San Antonio gave Major League Soccer a major black eye.
Former City Mayor Ed Garza, a soccer fan, pushed for an MLS team, and looked to place the team in the Alamodome. That decision became fatal for Garza, as the deal was widely criticized and became an election issue, bringing Phil Hardberger in to office.
At the time Garber was promoting the benefits of having team play out of an Alamodome, which was bleeding red ink.
“What are the alternatives?”said then-Mayor Garza in a 2005 interview with AP. “To continue to lose money or to try to find a major league sports tenant that creates opportunities to make money.” Hardberger’s alternative for the Alamodome was clear, he wanted an NFL team to play there, another pipe dream that has yet to materialize.
The fact that it became an election issue stung MLS and Garber who said “(the deal) has been changed at the 12th hour due to politics, and it is appalling.”
While 2005’s deal would have been a bad one for the city at the time, it’s hard not to look back and think what could have been. The costs of entering MLS now are significantly higher, perhaps over 10 times what would have been needed in 2005, and those costs will only continue to rise.
While many San Antonio fans do not remember 2005 and what could have been, it seems clear that Garber does. So while San Antonio does check all of the boxes, apart from stadium location, for MLS expansion, they may need to check them doubly so to convince Garber and MLS to take a chance on a city that has fooled them once before.
Top Image: A man overlooks the newly opened Toyota Field. Photo by Scott Ball.
Related Stories:
A Conversation With USL President Jake Edwards
San Antonio FC Suffers First Loss
‘Anti-Gay’ Chant Mars San Antonio FC Home Opener
San Antonio FC Ties in Home Opener
Wow garber way to bring up old crap this city is strong and growing mls will be here soon
No. Way.
Unfortunately our city leaders have a 2nd class mentality. No MLB, no NFL, and no MLS. We’ll be stuck with 2nd rate leagues forever.
Phillip Isom
COSA, please stop trying to buy teams. This is not field of dreams. If there’s a bunch of people out there with the disposable income and desire to buy jerseys, tickets and other memorabilia, the teams will come. It’s a business. Focus on the essentials.
Besides this article connecting the dots between now and 2005, is there any other basis for the connection? Has anyone with MLS hinted at a connection between 2005 and 2016/2020?
Big city, small minds… Seems unfair that a city (San Antonio) that is suppose to be on the rise with a larger population than most cities that have at least 2 major teams, something needs to change… So many smaller cities have multiple pro teams and we only have one. 🙁
You have to quit listening the the hype of the “7th largest city in the US.” Metropolitan area population is what is important. In that respect, San Antonio is the 25th largest city in the country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas
Another factor that has to be considered is that San Antonio is in a bad location for bringing in audiences either physically or through TV (and its accompanying revenue) with Austin just north of us with its own TV outlets and the areas south, west, and east of us having little population density.
My guess is that Austin, if it can bring together funding, will get MLS. Then maybe a decade or so down the line, it will get an NFL team if it tries for one. (Look at those same metro listings linked above: Austin is 33rd and moving up FAST with a higher percentage of growth than San Antonio and a higher growth rate in numbers of people than San Antonio.
Chris Hockman was the list that Graber named off in order of importance or preference? The entire article is based off of the idea that it was.
Hi Daniel,
Yes, the way Garber phrased it was an order. I don’t 100% believe him, I think this piece makes it clear why San Antonio is a better candidate than most of the cities ahead of it, but yes Garber was stating in order.
(Sorry, originally sent this to the wrong person!)
If I’m not mistaken Garza had already served 2 terms and wasn’t running for any office; so not fatal politically in any way. The deal was in place and Hardberger reneged on the deal at the urging of some of his supporters because they believed they could still get an NFL team. He eventually tried to persuade Benson to move the Saints to San Antonio (which was the real black-eye, but for the city since it looked like they were trying to take advantage of the bad situation in New Orleans).
I doubt the backing out of the deal is the reason San Antonio is listed that far down the list. That team would move to Houston and plays in a Soccer specific stadium. It was really more of lost opportunity for San Antonio where they had a chance to get another major league franchise and grow into it’s popularity (as they did with the NBA).
I think the real issues are what was mentioned in the last sentence and what was not mentioned at all: the stadium location and that Austin was listed next.
The location of Toyota field is terrible for so many reasons. It works well for ownership since an isolated location means all dollars are spent only there, but for a fan experience not so much. It would be much better if you could do things before and after the game without driving (so near other businesses).
I believe they want another Texas franchise, and the listing of San Antonio and Austin just outside expansion preferences essentially forces each one to step up and compete with each other to get in. If Austin is willing to build a stadium centrally then they would get a franchise. It’s a 6-million dollar gamble the Spurs are apparently willing to take.
My issue with stadium location being an issue, is that it doesn’t seem to be for all the other cities ahead of San Antonio, who have the same issue (St. Louis don’t even play in St. Louis).
Austin, I don’t see as much of a threat, they’re struggling to even get a stadium for USL, let alone MLS (see our chat with USL President Jake Edwards for more on that). I DO think San Antonio has to come in first though, if Austin gets MLS before San Antonio, it’s over. And the hint from Garber was that he meant San Antonio/Austin, not San Antonio, Austin, but that wasn’t really clear. I agree with your thoughts on Toyota Field’s location, of course that was because Gordon Hartman wanted people to see Morgan’s (which you can at all times from the upper level of the stadium).
Seems obvious, at least to those of us in TX, that MLS would greatly benefit from a third TX team, just need the fans of San Antonio to keep proving it!
Glad the author finally noted in the last paragraph that there is ANOTHER bubble besides the ones that San Antonio checks. It’s a BIG one. MLS has noted now for years that it wants DOWNTOWN stadiums. And related to the old Astrodome discussion, it has also noted that it wants stadiums specifically built for soccer–ones with seating around 20,000 which the Astrodome does not fit.
One other important fact was left out of this article. In 6th place (right after San Antonio) in Garber’s list is Austin. If anyone in Austin comes up with a proposal that includes a downtown stadium built specifically for soccer, San Antonio will be left in the dust for decades if not forever as far as MLS is concerned.
My guess is that Garber kindly placed San Antonio before Austin in his list only because of the efforts San Antonio has made so far and because the city/county have already spent (probably wasted) money on a soccer-specific stadium that happens to be in the wrong location for him to ever seriously consider it for MLS. But he placed them both far down the line because neither meets his most important criteria at the moment. Furthermore, San Antonio might have been higher up in the list if the city/county had not invested in Toyota Field which greatly decreases the chance of a plan for building a downtown stadium to meet that most important criteria.
Maybe it’s all those SA FC fans yelling “puto” that’s squelching any chance of getting out of the minor leagues. But we’ve already discussed that.
What is meant by the term soccer-specific stadium? Is it a venue owned by the MLS team, a venue where MLS is the primary tenant, or seating a capacity that is around 30,000 regardless of ownership etc. I think the Alamodome makes the most sense since it is located downtown and already paid for. Perhaps the city can turn over Alamodome ownership to the Spurs’ parent group and in exchange for a capable venue that is currently undergoing millions of dollars in renovations, Spurs Sports & Entertainment group will cover all other costs associated with SA FC’s rise to MLS, namely the $100 million dollar entry fee. Does it matter that the Alamodome’s capacity far surpases the desired 30,000/35,000 seating capacity and if so, why can’t seating capacity exceed that mark?