The 2024 Major League Soccer playoffs began with grand plans of mainstream resonance. Then, they crashed into reality. A Times Square showcase was spoiled by the World Series. Major moments were buried behind a paywall, and obscured by American football. And now, for two weeks, the playoffs have paused, ceding their already-secondary stage to international soccer.
“Insane… 22 days for the next Play-off game,” LA Galaxy star Riqui Puig wrote on X. “Come on @MLS.”
All of that, multiple sources told Yahoo Sports, represents a primary reason MLS decision-makers are considering an overhaul. As The Athletic reported last month, league officials have engaged with franchise owners and clubs to gauge the feasibility and appeal of flipping the MLS calendar — of starting seasons in August, not February; finishing in the spring, not the fall; and aligning with most of European and global soccer.
The potential changes will be a key agenda item when the league’s sporting and competition committee meets Nov. 20-21 in Los Angeles, sources said. A decision — to flip, or to stick with the current calendar — will likely have to be made by April or May of 2025. That’s because 2026 — when the World Cup would interrupt MLS play for over a month — is seen as the “perfect” opportunity to make the leap.
Among club sporting directors and soccer executives, there is broad support for the overhaul.
“This is a no-brainer,” Columbus Crew coach Wilfried Nancy said.
But among team owners and business execs, opinions are split or still equivocal, sources said. Any change would have to be recommended by the league office, then approved via vote by the board of governors (the owners). At this stage, which is still an exploratory stage, one top club official told Yahoo Sports that the probability of change is 50% “at best.”
And any change, no matter the specifics, would require “compromises” and “trade-offs” among the league’s 30 franchises, sources explained. Some — namely those in cold-weather cities, like Minnesota and Montreal — will need to be convinced that the long-term benefits of flipping the calendar outweigh what they believe would be an immediate revenue dip.
Reason for change No. 1: Uninterrupted playoff exposure
The MLS calendar was built from spring to fall in large part to maximize match attendance. Back in the 1990s, when the league formed, most clubs were low-tier tenants in football stadiums. They had scheduling flexibility only in the spring and summer. And besides, that’s when weather was best; that’s also when there was less competition from major U.S. sports for eyeballs and media exposure.
In subsequent decades — both the 2000s and 2010s — MLS entertained the thought of a change, but never got close to making one. Now the league is conducting research, and discussing the possibility with top execs at each club, for two main reasons:
1. The playoffs, which must attract new audiences and drive broadcast deals for the league to grow, currently get drowned out by the NFL and college football. They also conflict with MLB’s World Series and the NBA.
And, as currently constructed, there is no good way to fit all four rounds between international breaks, the windows in which FIFA requires clubs to release players to their national teams.
There are three such windows, spanning nine days each, in early September, mid-October and mid-November — one every fifth week — on the current FIFA calendar. MLS often (controversially) plays through the FIFA breaks in March, June and September, but (rightly) concludes it can’t force teams to contest playoff games without their stars. So, the playoffs go on hiatus from Nov. 11 until Nov. 23, after Round 1, and lose significant momentum.
Much of that, of course, is a problem of the league’s own making. MLS has repeatedly expanded its playoffs, watered them down, and cannibalized its regular season. But, if the goal is to maximize interest in the playoffs, they are clearly better off in April and May, when, in refreshing weather, they can run uninterrupted up against NBA and NHL playoffs rather than football.
Reason for change No. 2: The ‘least efficient [transfer] market’
2. The MLS offseason — which doubles as the league’s primary transfer window, the optimal time for clubs to sign and sell players — doesn’t align with most top-flight soccer leagues around the world.
This, to casual fans, might seem like a minor concern; but to execs building (or funding) MLS rosters, it’s significant. Globally, most transfer business happens in the summer, when European clubs are planning for their August-to-May seasons. Some come knocking on the doors of MLS clubs, offering lucrative transfer fees that would boost bottom lines or validate business models … just as the MLS club is hitting its stride or pushing for the playoffs.
Multiple club execs told Yahoo Sports that, for this very reason, they’ve turned down profits to keep players who ultimately left for less at a later date, or for free at the end of their contracts. But they’ve also accepted offers, and sold players they regret losing.
“It disrupts your momentum in the middle of the season,” one person stated.
During the winter months, European clubs are hesitant to lose players midseason, leading MLS clubs to pay higher fees to acquire them. Additionally, the standard European contract ending on June 30 means that MLS clubs often have to wait to sign foreign players as free agents or pay a fee to have them for the first half of the season. This makes the winter transfer window the least efficient market, according to LA Galaxy general manager Will Kuntz.
A potential shift in the MLS calendar could allow clubs to bring in better players without increasing budgets, improving the overall quality of play and attracting more fans. This growth cycle could elevate the league, but it is currently progressing at a slow rate.
The resistance to changing the calendar is rooted in the fear that fans will not attend games in the winter, especially in colder cities. While some warm-weather clubs may benefit from more winter games, the majority of MLS clubs are located in cities with cold temperatures in December. Efforts could be made to strategically schedule games in warmer months, but it may not be enough to avoid adverse weather conditions.
Proposals for a new calendar include a winter break to mitigate the impact on attendance. Climate change has led to increased temperatures, making winter games more tolerable in some cities. However, there are concerns that a midseason break could disrupt momentum and no major U.S. sports league has implemented such a drastic change.
One attractive proposal suggests starting the season in early August, pausing in mid-December for Leagues Cup in southern cities, and resuming in February. The regular season would end in April, with playoffs in May to avoid competition with other major sports leagues. Top players would have breaks for national team duties and vacations, aligning with the schedules of European leagues.
Discussions are ongoing to bridge the gap between the current and proposed calendar, potentially introducing a three-month competition in 2026. Overall, MLS executives have been exploring various options and gathering feedback from stakeholders to make an informed decision about the league’s calendar.
After consulting with the MLS Players Association, it is clear that the decision-making process for changing the league’s calendar is a collaborative effort unlike anything seen in the past. This is not a predetermined outcome, as emphasized by a top club official who spoke to Yahoo Sports.
The official also raised the possibility of involving Apple, the current exclusive broadcast partner of the league, in these discussions, indicating the potential for a significant impact on the direction of the project.
In order to gain support from skeptics, the MLS collective must convince individuals to set aside their personal concerns and focus on the long-term success of the league. While some clubs may see a decrease in profits in the short term if the calendar is changed, the key question is whether the potential for increased TV and commercial revenue, which is shared league-wide, in the future outweighs the immediate financial trade-off.
Opinions on this matter vary, with some unsure about the benefits while others are confident in the substantial long-term gains that could be achieved. Nancy summed it up by stating, “If we want to compete with all the leagues in the world — the good leagues, we have to do it.”