The MLS Calendar Debate: Navigating Change in Soccer’s Landscape
On Thursday, Major League Soccer (MLS) owners and executives gathered once again in Chicago to discuss the potential shift of the league’s calendar. This topic has been an ongoing conversation, especially with the women’s and men’s World Cups on the horizon. However, despite the discussions, no major changes were agreed upon in time for the 2026 World Cup, which many believed would be a pivotal moment for the league.
Instead of making immediate adjustments, the league announced they authorized a "second phase of exploration" regarding a possible switch to align more closely with the international soccer calendar. The MLS stated that any proposed changes would unlikely take effect before the 2027 season. This cautious approach reflects a broader trend within the league’s management style—slow, steady, and risk-averse growth.
A Historical Context of Change
The push for calendar reform is not a new endeavor. Executives began studying the feasibility of a calendar flip last winter, reigniting discussions that have circled the league for years. Throughout 2024, they conducted surveys and engaged club leaders in more focused discussions, creating an environment ripe for potential changes. The consensus appeared to lean toward a fall-to-spring season, which is standard in most global leagues.
Many voices within MLS see 2026 as an ideal opportunity for this transition, aiming to leverage the hype and increased visibility surrounding the World Cup. However, club officials were acutely aware that a timeline needed to be established soon. Individuals familiar with the discussions indicated that spring 2025 had been informally identified as a deadline for necessary adjustments to commercial agreements and ticket sales. Ultimately, the decision to delay reflects a lack of consensus among owners and executives.
Varying Opinions Within the League
The perspectives on changing to the international calendar vary significantly within the league, often influenced by geographic location and individual ambitions. Sporting directors, who prioritize the sporting aspect of MLS, generally support the overhaul. Many see aligning transfer windows with those of top leagues around the globe as a pathway to improve the quality of play and attract better talent.
Conversely, team owners and business executives often express more caution. While some recognize the potential benefits of increased national visibility by moving the playoffs out of the fall—when the American football season dominates—others worry about immediate repercussions, especially related to ticket sales during winter months. This concern is particularly evident in northern cities, where winter weather could deter fans from attending matches, making the prospect of playing during harsh conditions a significant hurdle.
The Challenges Ahead
Should MLS decide to move forward with the calendar flip, it would face various logistical challenges. The weather is a paramount concern: eighteen of the league’s thirty clubs are located in regions where winter temperatures are far from conducive to outdoor play. The league would need to navigate these seasonal extremes, and adjusting training schedules would also pose difficulties.
Moreover, breaking the season into a two-month midseason hiatus could disrupt momentum. As noted by a club executive, no major U.S. sports league has ever split its season into two distinct halves. Critics suggest that this could negatively impact not only team performance but also fan engagement.
Conversely, advocates for the change highlight the current calendar’s interruptions, pointing out that playing through international breaks leads to a diluted level of competition. Key players often miss games due to national team duties, creating gaps that disrupt the continuity of the league’s flow. LA Galaxy star Riqui Puig’s observation about the long wait between playoff rounds exemplifies the frustration felt by players and fans alike.
Navigating Forward: The Way Ahead
Despite the ongoing evaluations, clarity remains elusive on how to approach the calendar shift. Commissioner Don Garber acknowledged the lack of a uniform decision among team owners and executives. He articulated that, while there is interest and momentum toward changing the league’s structure, essential details regarding commercial implications, player sentiments, and facility readiness must be resolved.
Garber’s sentiments emphasize a recognized need for extensive consultation with key stakeholders during this "second phase of exploration." The focus will be on gathering insights, analyzing potential impacts, and developing a comprehensive transition plan before any concrete decisions are made.
MLS continues to face a pivotal moment as it considers factors that will shape its future. The long-standing debate surrounding calendar alignment underscores the complexity of managing a league that aspires to grow alongside its global counterparts while navigating the unique cultural and climatic challenges inherent in North America. The dialogue will undoubtedly continue as the league strategically evaluates its path forward.
