Talk:Expansion of Major League Soccer

Redundant

I've held off commenting whether a MLS expansion article was a good idea or not, but now that it's out there, it seems my concerns were well founded. Generally stated, this article reiterates what is already included in the main Major League Soccer article. This is either done by taking sentences from the main article and rewording them (For example, the first sentence of MLS: Resurgence becomes "The surprise performance of the United States Men's National Soccer Team at the 2002 World Cup, where they reached the quarter final, sparked a recovery in the league’s fortunes, and attendances once again began to rise.") or reconfiguring the same information in a new order ("The players and the coach were moved to Houston, Texas where they became the Houston Dynamo, playing out of the Robertson Stadium."). Much of the same information spread out across this 38 paragraph article that is more neatly and concisely stated in 4 paragraphs in the MLS: Teams section. If info is included here is not in the main article, IMO, it seems highly insignificant and irrelevant ("There are no current plans to expand outside of the United States and Canada.").

Additionally, there are many sections that have nothing whatsoever to do with expansion. The history lesson on NASL, the rise and fall of the Canadian Soccer League, the '94 World Cup deal, the foundation of MLS (expansion and foundation are different concepts), what cities didn't receive an initial team (why is this relevant?), soccer-specific stadium background, the Canadian Championship, etc. all are not directly related to the specific subject of MLS expansion.

Despite my opinions on all this, I still believe whoever created this article had their heart in the right place. I can see the logic of separating a specialized facet (expansion) of a general subject (MLS) into its own space. However, I'd argue the underlying problem with "Expansion of Major League Soccer" is - overall - the information presented is no different than what we can find in "Major League Soccer." It doesn't offer anything new that can't be said in fewer words in the main article. I'd propose it be deleted. --Blackbox77 (talk) 06:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, te article is useful but it just needs new information to be added and some of the old information to be deleted what it is right now is a starter article stating the obvious. I think it needs more depth into the expansion and more explination of some of the useful history.--NightShadow7 (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd give it a few more days for it to get more hashed out, but I generally support the point that the article is redundant. The simple fact that WP is not a newspaper means that we're not obligated to aggregate all the rumors about MLS expanding, and the history of expansion is all a rehashing of the history of MLS. Still I'd give it a few more days. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Blackbox. The article is not redundant in my opinion. It's very useful. And as NightShadow stated above, all the article needs is new information and that will happen. So far I think Cornwallis has done a good job with it. This article should not be deleted just because one editor doesn't like it. Caden S (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said on the main MLS talk page, I was hoping to be blunt and dispassionate and not seem like a bully throwing my opinion around. You are correct, if "one editor doesn't like it," it doesn't mean it should be deleted. That would take a consensus. It is only my opinion it should be removed. Anyway, after a few days since I made my observation, I unfortunately still hold it. The truth is that any number of subjects could be taken from Major League Soccer in general and be given their own page. But there is a reason we don't see a page on the Clubs of Major League Soccer, Player Development in Major League Soccer, Stadiums of Major League Soccer, History of Major League Soccer, etc. There just isn't enough unique and in-depth background to say it needs to be set aside from the main page. These subjects, like expansion, are just too specialized to devote an entire article to without repeating (in more words) the exact same information the general article already explained.

I would also argue trivial information including but not limited to possible ownership groups, potential stadium locations, and projected seating capacity are all boarderline crystal ball issues. That in and of itself would be justification for deleting - if not the article - major portions of it. Just keep in mind that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (specifically "News Reports") and is not a directory of everything that exists (see Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations). Major edits other than fixing typos have to be done if this article is to be justified. My belief that the article should be deleted is an opinion; observing it repeats the same information as the main MLS page (redundant) is a fact.--Blackbox77 (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree as well. In addition to the fact that the article is written by a 9 years old girl (which can be fixed, of course), the content just isn't fleshing out without pulling out the golden shovel. I would support deleting this article because WP isn't a news aggregator. Go to SI.com/soccer and look at the Truth & Rumors section if you want the up to date news about expansion. The thing is that the people who are working on this article already know all of this information, and just want to see it on WP. That's not a good enough justification for an article. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Gotta agree taht this article really doesn't give too much valuable info here, and really is about the same info I could find on Bigsoccer. Deletion seems like a viable option here Nlsanand (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Portland

I've highlighted Portland as they've been announced by the MLS as the second 2011 expansion team. The press conference is now going on and their site is up http://portlandmls2011.com/ Tsurettejr (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Relegation

I like the article;

Is there any talk in the MLS regarding relegation? This would nullify the Expansion Article, I know that if it happens (big if) there would be no more expansion. --Ceezmad (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I mean, It would be weird if we had USL teams participating in MLS. 209.122.128.147 (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Milwaukee

What's going on in Milwaukee? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.84.182.7 (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

San Antonio Possible Expansion City

I believe San Antonio should be added as a possible city for further expansion. While not much news has come from the city, it was at one point basically awarded a team (plan never was finalized and bid was "revoked"), recently Don Garber said in an interview the city is a possibility, the owners of the San Antonio Spurs have expressed interest in a soccer team, and I believe new San Antonio mayor, Julian Castro, has expressed interest in MLS coming to the city.

While I certainly think other cities have a better chance at becoming the 20th team in MLS (NY2), San Antonio definitely deserves to be in the article. FireBird1138 (talk) 06:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge with New York City FC

While I see that New York Times and Grant Wahl independently confirmed some information, it's still very unofficial and based on unnamed sources and therefore WP:CRYSTAL-y. With so little information out there, it makes sense to keep it in the main Expansion of Major League Soccer until an official announcement is made. Mosmof (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. If there should be an independent article at all at this stage, if anything it should be named something like "MLS 20th expansion team", because even the location, let alone the name, is yet to be confirmed. But yes, my preference is for no independent article to exist while this has not been announced officially. Hopefully by the 25th there will have been an official announcement which can put this to bed, one way or another. Falastur2 ^Talk 16:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

AgreeJim.henderson (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

"Not in a hurry to expand" in intro

I'm wondering about the last sentence in the intro, Commissioner Don Garber noted during a press conference on February 14, 2011 that he sees 22 teams in MLS by 2020, but is not in a hurry to expand beyond the 22. Now, it's based on the following quote from the source:

Garber wants to see a 20th team, probably in New York, added by the 2013 or 2014 season. He sees 22 teams by the end of the decade, but isn't in a hurry to expand.

I interpreted that as, Garber saw 22 teams in 2020 as the long-term goal, but wasn't in a hurry to get to that point, but I can totally see that he could be talking about going beyond 22. The paraphrasing is unclear, so it would be helpful if we could find the original quote. Anyone have a transcript or a direct quote? Thanks. --Mosmof (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. With that said, FIFA is in favour of smaller leagues. They essentially convinced the Premier League to drop from 22 to 20 teams. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That's why it didn't make sense to me - I couldn't see MLS going over 22. My reading was that MLS wasn't going to add 3 teams in close succession, but gradually working towards 22 in 2020, and then stop there. --Mosmof (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

And I think I found a [quote that makes it really clear. From September 2011 (which postdates the February 2011 quote from Don Garber):

“Our focus right now is the 20th team in New York and we have not yet set a timeline for expansion beyond that, or even (determined) if we’re going to expand beyond that,” Abbott said. “There’s no place we need to be. Even at the size we are, we have a tremendous national footprint and are at the size that soccer leagues typically are. We feel good about the size we’re at. Other markets could be very successful as MLS markets, but (expanding beyond 20) wouldn’t be out of need. We don’t need to grow beyond where we are.”

This makes it clear to me that the league was focused on getting to 20, could get to 22 by 2020, but didn't see it as a priority. I've changed the text accordingly. Mosmof (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Great work! Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I also have to agree with the 22 team number. League has talked of going to the southeast by adding two teams but nothing further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smj91791 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

"FIFA is in favour of smaller leagues" See, this is another case of people outside the US not really understanding American sports culture. With MLB, the NFL, the NHL, and the NBA all having at least 30 teams, MLS is seen as distinctly "secondary". The upcoming expansion to 26 teams and plans to reach 28 will basically JUST BARELY put them into the same class as the others. --Khajidha (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Your commentary is not an attempt to improve the article and has no place on the talk page of this article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Issues with a frequent editor of this page

There is a frequent editor on this page "Smj91791" (user name is red, so no real user page) who seems to be the same editor as "12.192.111.170." This user seems to be acting in good faith, and sometimes makes useful contributions, but there are two recurring problems. First, this user often deletes massive chunks of text, sometimes blanking an entire section, based on this user's subjective views as to how likely the city is to get an expansion franchise. In other words, this user has decided who he thinks the next expansion team(s) will be, and deletes significant amount of cited text that does not support his prediction. The worst of his behavior is that he has twice deleted selected portions of recent quotes from Garber that include Atlanta in the list of cities that MLS is considering, and so we end up with a misquote of Garber. Second, many of this user's contributions are nothing more that a straight copy and paste job. Any thoughts on how to deal with this situation? I don't know if there is a way to communicate with this user to help him be more constructive in his edits. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the copy-paste is annoying. I deleted text that was clearly plagiarized from their sources:

• http://www.scoringthird.com/2013/06/orlando-and-miami-in-mls-for-2016.html
• http://prosoccertalk.nbcsports.com/2013/06/21/orlando-mayor-predicts-new-stadium-mls-franchise-by-this-summer/,
• http://sports.yahoo.com/news/orlando-city-sc-want-stadium-133642645--mls.html Mosmof (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Smj91791 (talk · contribs), again, please stop copy-pasting from articles like you did here. I know you're editing from your IP address, but it's clearly you. --Mosmof (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Speculation

Much of the information presently being added is purely speculation. I some respects of late it has been getting worst, especially when it come to future sites. Just because a city announces plans to look into builting a stadium instantly they go on the list as a future team. This has to stop. Recently a lot of speculation has put Atlanta and Minnesota on the possible list, yet these are NFL stadiums with NFL owner just wanting to fill dates in a new stadium without true regards to buying an expansion team. Current expansion requires a soccer specific stadium. Yet they keep getting added to the list. Currently the MLS is only exploring two sites in Florida. This is fact not speculation which can be documented by different sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smj91791 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What the H*ll..

Why would undo the additional of Minneapolis to the expansion list for MLS. It is know and citied to be under consideration with the opening with the Vikings stadium. This is no different than the situation with Atlanta. Minnesota has been talked about several times by MLS Commissioner Garber as a personal favorite. Remember he becomes from NFL roots. They are currently in talks with league to be added before 2020. So, stop removing them from the consideration list. It has been cited several times by reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smj91791 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Because the bid is still stalled. The fact that they are about to break ground on the stadium does not mean that they're any closer to having a team in MLS. Minnesota may have been talked about several times, but unless you have something more current than what's listed there (a delayed stadium and discussions from more than two years ago) we can all safely say that the progress is stalled. If we have to move Atlanta and other "current" bids to stalled, we can. It might be time to revisit the list anyhow. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources have behind the scene discussions with the league with Minnesota. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smj91791 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow! A sports blog, http://wvhooligan.com/2013/09/12/17437/garber-three-four-mls-expansion-cities-spoken/, is suddenly a reliable source. This is a joke, right? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

How is adding another sports blog, http://www.total-mls.com/2013-articles/mls2020/mls2020-minnesota.html, making the first source any more reliable? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to get into an edit war. I believe in and stand behind the information I wish to add to this page. I wish to temporary protect my edit, while I look for additional more reliable sources are located. I just need some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smj91791 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

But you're already in an edit war and have now violated WP:3RR with two edits. Editors complained about you above and now this. I tried to warn you to discuss but you decided to edit war instead. While it needs time, this material is bad and it needs to be noted as such. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

"I don’t care whether it’s in Orlando or it’s in Austin or it’s in Minneapolis or it’s in Atlanta"

Lest this turn into another edit war, let's nip this one in the bud. “I don’t care whether it’s in Orlando or it’s in Austin or it’s in Minneapolis or it’s in Atlanta, Major League Soccer will succeed in any market that has that formula that we need to connect.” is not the same thing as "Austin (is) a possible expansion location" nor is it a confirmation "that Austin or San Antonio are possible". It's Garber making a general point about the viability of any expansion city. I suppose it's interesting that Austin was listed alongside other cities that are thought of as (but not officially recognized as) expansion candidates, but to read any more into it would be WP:SYNTH and not verifiable. Mosmof (talk) 20:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

NYC 2010/Cosmos discussion

I'm moving the user talk conversation with Clematis1378 (talk · contribs) here:

Not sure why you feel the need to remove the content wholesale. The Wilpons (along with the Cosmos brand) were integral to the 2010 NYC expansion discussions, though there was always the possibility that the expansion might have happened without the Cosmos, hence the edited section header. And most of the speculation about the future is coming from the Cosmos ownership, and there's no apparent discussion between MLS and the Cosmos, so it's almost entirely idle chatter, if not boosterism. Also, we're not going to include content because of unattributed speculation. Mosmof (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

What is your sourcing for the Wilpons being "integral" to expansion in New York beyond Garber having acknowledged he'd had discussions with them? Also, the Cosmos section is appropriate as it stands given the fact that it's both a failed/stalled bid and a potentiality (at minimum one of more substantive value than at least three other markets listed -- including those not cited by Garber but listed anyway -- given the Cosmos bid's level of investment and attempts at a stadium). -- Clematis1378 (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a source for it, but they were certainly in the picture as much as the Cosmos were. Given that MLS requires a substantial expansion fee and a deep-pocketed ownership group, it stands to reason that the Wilpons were the money guys. Plus, the Cosmos aren't actively pursuing expansion, so anything happening now is unrelated to the main topic. And given that the Cosmos were just one player in the expansion discussion, not sure why we're using the Cosmos as the section header. Mosmof (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If we're being anecdotal, I've been following this since 2009 and the Wilpons were never involved beyond discussions about Queens property and/or their own potential bid, and certainly not with the Cosmos according to anything that can be properly attributed. As for the future of the Cosmos themselves, their owners have stated that they feel the market can "support four teams," seeks to be "at the top of US soccer," and is seeking an MLS-sized stadium, just a couple of years after stating it was their "unequivocal goal" to be in MLS. And, to be anecdotal again, national and NY-area soccer writers have openly speculated that remaining in the second division as the pyramid is currently constituted is not their "endgame." See no need to change the passage. -- Clematis1378 (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I oppose any change to the passage as-is, feeling it's an accurate summation of the only other specific bid involved in the New York 2 process, meeting the 'failed/stalled bid' criteria. The section also points out that a still-existing entity that shows, given all the money involved and the Cosmos' status as having (relatively) wealthy investment compared to other bids (particularly the non-existent St. Louis one) and their seeking an MLS-level stadium, that the New York 3 potentiality is not off the table (which is why it's in the 'speculated' section -- meeting that criteria -- along with Detroit and Pittsburgh, rather than the Commissioner's 'cited' section). -- Clematis1378 (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Jumping into the debate here. I added back in the material in question. The material is relevant and is backed by reliable sources. A statement by MLS and a New York Times article trump the personal opinions of anyone on this talk page.
Also, this is the second time in the past week that Clematis1378 (talk) has been edit warring on this page. That's two times too many. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

How, exactly, could I be "edit warring" if I'm the one following the BRD process? -- Clematis1378 (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Oklahoma City (2014–)

@Rodelandrada: The Oklahoma City section should be removed. This article is about Major League Soccer. If people want to write about expansion for the NASL or USL, those articles belong on the NASL or USL pages, not the MLS expansion page.
Also, it is not good practice to revert another editor's changes without any explanation. Barryjjoyce (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no hint that MLS is moving to Oklahoma and the section doesn't discuss it at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Downgrade Miami to "under consideration" status?

Based on statements from the Don himself and in light of Beckham et al's difficulty in securing a stadium deal, it seems like we jumped the gun in treating Miami as a confirmed team (though the league and the media certainly treated the stadium deal as a formality that they'd simply iron out in a couple of months). Would everyone be okay with moving the Miami section down, and editing the following sentence in the Atlanta section: Atlanta became the third franchise awarded in the southeastern United States in five months, following Orlando City announced in late 2013 and Miami announced earlier in 2014? Mosmof (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Mixed feelings about this one. On one hand, that seems correct. If you look at the MLS wesbite under the "more" tab, MLS lists only three expansion teams — New York, Orlando, and Atlanta. Not Miami. On the other hand, if we change Miami's status on this page (and on the main Major League Soccer page), then every few weeks some well-intentioned but uninformed editor will come along and "correct" Miami's status. I can't be bothered fighting those battles for the next few months. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Miami needs to be a section of its own, something like "Awaiting stadium approval", so we acknowledge that it's a step above simply being considered, but it's not quite an official expansion team yet? Mosmof (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Is Minneapolis really confirmed? because here in mpls the media reports that without a stadium the team won't happen. There is no current approved stadium plan in place. Skippypeanuts (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

timeline

The recent addition of a timeline was, in my opinion, unnecessary. It was too large, and too early in the article. if a way could be found to make it smaller, it might be appropriate. Also, if it were later in the article, after the prose explained the content, of if it were sufficiently small, 350 pixels or smaller, and floating on the right, it would be appropriate at the top. Using the old template format might not be the best option either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Expansion of Major League Soccer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304090632/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/sports/story.html?id=a0af2cc5-5873-45db-a550-724e0daac136 to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/sports/story.html?id=a0af2cc5-5873-45db-a550-724e0daac136
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140513153145/http://soccer.si.com/2013/09/13/mls-expansion-team-likely-heading-atlantas-way/ to http://soccer.si.com/2013/09/13/mls-expansion-team-likely-heading-atlantas-way/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140417143740/http://soccer.si.com/2014/04/16/mls-awards-2017-expansion-franchise-to-atlanta-owner-arthur-blank/ to http://soccer.si.com/2014/04/16/mls-awards-2017-expansion-franchise-to-atlanta-owner-arthur-blank/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140427210131/http://www.sacbee.com/2014/04/26/6357273/republic-fc-loses-home-opener.html to http://www.sacbee.com/2014/04/26/6357273/republic-fc-loses-home-opener.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Strange behavior

Editor Walter Gorlitz keeps inserting inaccurate information into the article. MLS plans to expand to 26 teams by 2020, which isn't really in doubt. Any other editors care to weigh in? CUA 27 (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You are certainly exhibiting strange behaviour. First, you simply changed the number from 24 to 26, but the reference clearly stated 24 teams: "Garber: MLS to expand to 24 teams by 2020". Strange behaviour indeed.

Then you decided that since I was complaining that your content doesn't match the reference, you'd just remove the reference because "it's accurate". So I tagged you for removal of content. In this case, a reference to a reliable source. Do you have a source for your supposed 26 teams? I've seen that stated as well, but when replacing referenced content, a new source must be provided. I also supplied a reference on your talk page that states they're planning to go to 28 teams: https://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2016/12/15/mls-expansion-don-garber-timeline-28-teams-fees-miami. So perhaps you can find a source or two and stop edit warring. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

As FCC (Cincinnati) https://www.si.com/soccer/2018/05/24/fc-cincinnati-mls-expansion-berth-announcement-2019-start is going to join the MLS in 2019, this entire section is certainly strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookiehead (talk • contribs) 23:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing about it at https://www.mlssoccer.com/news The only two future teams listed are Nashville and Miami. ESPN says the announcement will come next week. The SI article does state 26 teams. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sacramento as a stalled bid?

Howdy folks,

Considering that Sacramento expansion has been put on indefinite hold due to the prospective owner pulling out, should it perhaps be shifted to the next section as a stalled expansion?

The Kip (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

While it is stalled, that does not mean the league does not still plan to expand to 30. The move was fine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Maimi should be removed from the failed bids section

The city of Miami was successful in getting a team, and Marcelo Claure the guy would led the previous bid went on to become owner in the successful bid. If the intent is to keep track of cities and their expansions it would make sense to remove Miami as a failed bid, idk if it makes sense to track individual bids of people in the bid that failed, b/c there are plenty of people that aren't listed that failed to be the ones chosen. Marcelo Claure was successful regardless in becoming owner, its just that his buisness partner Barcelona pulled out, and he joined different partners. Midgetman433 (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Indianapolis as a candidate for expansion?

After the announcement yesterday from the Indianapolis Mayor that he is preparing a bid for MLS, should Indianapolis be moved up to the candidate section? The Mayor said that he met with the MLS commissioner and is planning a stadium site and ownership group, so it certainly sounds serious. https://fox59.com/indiana-news/we-want-major-league-soccer-hogsett-talks-mls-announcement/ GingerLines (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure it is quite necessary to include at this point in time. It's just a mayor saying "we want a team", not MLS saying that it is currently a market under consideration or the announcement of a formal bid. Would like to see more come out of the situation before it gets its own section. For now you could maybe add a sentence in the "other efforts" section but that's about it. Jay eyem (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)