Cities Most Likely To Gain A Pro Sports Team Via Relocation Or Expansion By 2028

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

some stats re: MLS stadia...

"of 29 teams, including St. Louis and Sacramento, only 9 have (or will have) a stadium located downtown and near rail transit.

Chicago, Atlanta, NYC, Toronto, Houston, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, St. Louis."

Apparently a lot of earlier teams went with badly sited/non-urban stadiums...obviously if a region doesn't have rail transit then there's not much that can be done. the kc location is just plain horrific, though...obviously something big is being done about chicago. cincy will have a central city stadium, nashvilles situation is...not great.


photoshelter.com

They forgot LAFC in that group. 3 expo line stops near the stadium and 1.5 miles from downtown LA in expo Park next to USC and the Coliseum

[202_Cyclist]

Audi Field in DC is 3/4 of a mile from two metro stations. Not immediately next to the stations but close by, especially when everyone rides a scooter these days.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

some stats re: MLS stadia...

"of 29 teams, including St. Louis and Sacramento, only 9 have (or will have) a stadium located downtown and near rail transit.

Chicago, Atlanta, NYC, Toronto, Houston, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver, St. Louis."

Montreal is not downtown but is definitely inner city and on a métro line 5-6 stops away from downtown. There are actually two métro stations that allow access to the stadium.

[xzmattzx]

Just how many teams does MLS plan on having, exactly? They are expanding very rapidly and will now have almost as many teams as MLB, which has existed for 150 years and has been expanding for more than 50 years, and the NBA, which was the merger of two leagues about 60 years ago. All this growth in the last 10 years seems too aggressive.

[JAYNYC]

I think the NBA would be better off as follows:

WESTERN CONFERENCE ADDITIONS
Seattle
Austin
St. Louis

WESTERN CONFERENCE SUBTRACTIONS
Sacramento
Oklahoma City
Memphis

EASTERN CONFERENCE ADDITIONS
Nashville
Cincinatti
Pittsburgh

EASTERN CONFERENCE SUBTRACTIONS
Milwaukee
Orlando
Toronto (cool city, no players want to live/play there)

[Jawnadelphia]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

I think the NBA would be better off as follows:

WESTERN CONFERENCE ADDITIONS
Seattle
Austin
St. Louis

WESTERN CONFERENCE SUBTRACTIONS
Sacramento
Oklahoma City
Memphis

EASTERN CONFERENCE ADDITIONS
Nashville
Cincinatti
Pittsburgh

EASTERN CONFERENCE SUBTRACTIONS
Milwaukee
Orlando
Toronto (cool city, no players want to live/play there)

Bro, you might need to turn in your posting privileges.

Toronto just won the NBA title, and the TV ratings in all of Canada during their playoff run was insane. Did you see the parade? Toronto is a giant city, with deep pockets--corporations, the NBA absolutely wants to be there and loves having a team in a metropolis and sports crazed city like Toronto -- despite any currency or tax issues, or TV rating accounting issues. The NBA in Toronto has been a smashing success.

Milwaukee -- just opened a brand new futuristic sports arena for primarily basketball - the NBA! the Bucks! The Bucks have a long, rich basketball history--have you ever heard of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Sidney Moncrief, !Oscar Robertson!

[osmo]

Toronto is a key into the larger global market for the NBA. Simple minds view the NBA as just an American based league when it is the best current major league to position itself as a real global league. Aside from Seattle and maybe Las Vegas in the future, the NBA does not need to expand into any more USA markets as it already has its reach into all sections of the USA.

- The Bucks are a heritage franchise and won't go anywhere. The new arena has cemented the team in that market for another generation at least.

---

In regards to MLS Stadia... People need to remember that in early MLS days Soccer in the USA was mainly a local staple with soccer moms and subdivisions. Likely, the teams thought that being centred in the suburbs near their soccer laying fans would be the best choice.

[MonkeyRonin]

Relocate the Raptors, Bucks, and Magic to...Nashville, Pittsburgh, and Cincinnati? Are you dumb?

The only real questionable franchise in the east are the Hornets - but even then I'm not sure that moving them to Pittsburgh or Nashville would really add much value.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by osmo

Toronto is a key into the larger global market for the NBA. Simple minds view the NBA as just an American based league when it is the best current major league to position itself as a real global league. Aside from Seattle and maybe Las Vegas in the future, the NBA does not need to expand into any more USA markets as it already has its reach into all sections of the USA.

-.

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has been having discussions iabout a team n Montreal, and somewhat recently one thing that has emerged from some in the know here is that apparently Silver sees a potential expansion team in Montreal as a driver or figurehead for a greater NBA presence in the French-speaking world (Europe/Middle East/Africa). I don't know if they'd want to brand a Montreal club "the Francophonie's Team" or even if it would work, but it's apparently an idea that's on the table.

If that's the direction of their thinking I guess a team in Mexico City might serve the same purpose for at least part of Latin America.

[Crawford]

Memphis and New Orleans are probably the weakest NBA franchises. Small, poor metros, mediocre facilities and little free agent appeal.

I don't think Milwaukee is that much better, though, but with a new arena they aren't going anywhere. If Giannis leaves will anyone care about the Bucks? Toronto probably isn't appealing to free agents but huge metro and strong fan support. Orlando is a decent sized, booming metro with newer arena and good ownership though weak fan support.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Memphis and New Orleans are probably the weakest NBA franchises. Small, poor metros, mediocre facilities and little free agent appeal.

I .

I know the big money isn't there due to the small market but wouldn't New Orleans be a fun city to play in for a pro basketball player?

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I know the big money isn't there due to the small market but wouldn't New Orleans be a fun city to play in for a pro basketball player?

if i were a pro athlete new orleans would be my downfall...it's like an old flame i always fall in the worst way for. i would want the most bland and/or puritanical (or outdoors oriented) metro area possible to play in. salt lake city would be perfect.

[BrandonJXN]

I wouldn't mind seeing a NBA team in Montreal. In an ideal world, I'd move the Pelicans to Montreal and the Grizzlies to either Kansas City or St. Louis.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by BrandonJXN

I wouldn't mind seeing a NBA team in Montreal. In an ideal world, I'd move the Pelicans to Montreal and the Grizzlies to either Kansas City or St. Louis.

neither the NBA nor the NFL are probably very welcome back in st. louis, after each abandoned it (certainly the NFL, anyway, after screwing over st. louis twice within recent memory).

[DCReid]

For the NBA, the most obvious city to expand or relocate is Seattle. I think they have enough areas in the USA covered but maybe some franchises may shift cities in the area - such as Nashville for Memphis - or maybe some will strike deals to play a few games in other cities, like San Antonio playing a few games in Austin. I know they say that NY and LA can support their two teams given the size of their markets, but I don't see how the Clippers and Nets ever having more of a following in their metros than the Lakers and Knicks.


I am surprised the NBA is not following the NFL lead in playing a few games overseas, especially in Europe and South America where interest in basketball is very high. Maybe the logistics are more difficult for the NBA to do this...

[urbanadvocate]

IF Sacramento gets a MLS bid the new stadium would be downtown. With St. Louis getting the next nod though who knows what the next expansion brings.

Agree, Seattle def deserves a NBA team. See it more as a relocation than an addition. But from where? New Orleans? They already played that game with Sac and lost.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Memphis and New Orleans are probably the weakest NBA franchises. Small, poor metros, mediocre facilities and little free agent appeal.

I don't think Milwaukee is that much better, though, but with a new arena they aren't going anywhere. If Giannis leaves will anyone care about the Bucks? Toronto probably isn't appealing to free agents but huge metro and strong fan support. Orlando is a decent sized, booming metro with newer arena and good ownership though weak fan support.

The Pelicans are in trouble. Lonzo Ball is already on record saying he won't stay there, and I doubt Ingram will either. They can't hold onto solid/great players.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I know the big money isn't there due to the small market but wouldn't New Orleans be a fun city to play in for a pro basketball player?

They don't have a good track record of retaining players.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by DCReid

I know they say that NY and LA can support their two teams given the size of their markets, but I don't see how the Clippers and Nets ever having more of a following in their metros than the Lakers and Knicks.

I don't understand how the first half of your statement is related to the second half. Yes, if there are two teams, one will always be more popular. No, that doesn't mean the less popular team isn't viable. The Knicks and Lakers will always be more popular than the Nets and Clippers, but the Nets and Clippers are very valuable, successful franchises.

The Nets were just sold for the highest price in the history of American professional sports. The Clippers just added two of the ten best NBA players, including probably the best overall. Both teams have one of the richest, most prominent men on the planet, from one of the most prominent companies (Microsoft for Clips and Alibaba for Nets) as owners. These two teams were the biggest recent winners in free agency, and no one would be surprised if either won a championship or two in the coming years.

[Crawford]

What about OKC for relocation? Small, reactionary, not particularly prosperous metro, very unappealing for FAs, and team is basically torn to shreds. But good ownership, passionate, forgiving fans, and some history of success.

I cannot imagine they're worth more in OKC than in rich, booming, 4x as big Seattle.