Talk:Major League Soccer

Player Records

I don't know how to edit (oopsies), but as of 2024, Gyasi Zardes is a top 10 MLS all-time goalscorer. List needs to be updated. SlossEdits (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Teams vs. Clubs

I note that a user changed the heading of a section from Teams to Clubs. Out of the six major professional sports leagues in the United States and Canada, Major League Soccer is the only one that predominantly uses the term Clubs, as many of their team names are preceded or succeeded by 'FC', where FC = Football Club. This is also how they are listed on their website. While I'm not opposed to this change, I wanted to point out that the National Football League page went through a similar discussion. So, if 'club' is the accepted term, then other references to 'teams' should be changed as well. Assadzadeh (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

MLS follows international soccer conventions for some terms; in my view, "club" refers to the organization as the whole while "team" is only the first-team squad. They are interchangeable in most contexts on Wikipedia, similar to how ties/draws are treated in American soccer articles, so making a whole thing out of a change would be pointless busywork. SounderBruce 05:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I think at a minimum it should be changed in the intro section, the infobox, and the tables under the 'Clubs' section. Assadzadeh (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Discrepancies in championship statements

Under League championships, this article states 'As of the 2023 season, 32 different clubs have competed in the league, with 15 having won at least one MLS Cup' with a table below titled MLS Cup titles and Supporters' Shield wins.

List of MLS Cup finals#Results by team states 'As of 2024, 19 of the 32 teams that have played in the league have appeared at an MLS Cup final, and 15 have won a championship' with a table below titled MLS Cup appearances by team.

MLS Cup#MLS Cup titles states the same as above, but with yet a different table below it.

So, to avoid discrepancies and having to update three separate articles, consider using one format for the table, using the latest 'As of' statement, and then linking to it from the other two articles. Assadzadeh (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Alphabetical listing of team names

For a team name such as FC Cincinnati, should it be listed alphabetically under F for FC or C for Cincinnati? The same for any other team whose nickname comes before the city name. I and @Blaixx believe that it should be listed alphabetically under the city name. However, a user keeps reverting our edits. Here is a discussion between the user and myself. Assadzadeh (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I only keep reverting their edits as Wikipedia (the site which we are currently on) counts prefiexes when corting teams into alphabetically order. So my thinking is if the website does it that way, that's the way it should be. Also it's how I was taught and what I mostly see in the area around me on the daily 2607:FEA8:4A5C:7600:5C3B:2C24:11FC:FDFE (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I note that you have made the same changes to MLS Next Pro, USL Championship, USL Super League, and USL League One. The fact that all of these pages follow the same format should be enough to convince you that it's standard practice to alphabetize by city name. So, I would suggest that you stop until consensus has been reached.

The sorting can be fixed by adding, as an example, the code {{sort|Cincinnati|[[FC Cincinnati]]}}, which would then sort under C and not F. Assadzadeh (talk) 02:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Just ordering them how Wikipedia would order them, got a problem with that order, take it up with Wikipedia. I think we 3 need to stop until other's weigh in. Also before coming at me for making edits on those other pages, if you would have clearly looked at the edits I made there, it was actually following the English alphabet and putting teams into a correct order (prefiex or not)

Also it would still be FC (even if you wanna ignore that's what it starts with) as per Wikipedia alphabetical sorting 2607:FEA8:4A5C:7600:5C3B:2C24:11FC:FDFE (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Is your comment about Wikipedia alphabetical sorting based on a WP:MOS or just your opinion? Assadzadeh (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Both in a way 2607:FEA8:4A5C:7600:5C3B:2C24:11FC:FDFE (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, then what is the specific WP:MOS as I did not find one? Assadzadeh (talk) 03:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I am deleting my comments because I'm giving up on this. Y'all win. I'm ignoring the prefiexes going forward and have reverted all the pages I made correct alphabetical re-orders to 2607:FEA8:4A5C:7600:5C3B:2C24:11FC:FDFE (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Prefixes should not be counted, similar to how "The" in titles should not be counted; there are software limitations that prevent Wikipedia lists from automatically sorting this way, so this argument holds very little water. That said, I don't think "Inter", "Sporting", and "Real" should be counted as prefixes, being full words instead of abbreviations. ESPN, Fox, and Britannica do not sort these as "Miami", "Kansas City", and "Salt Lake City". SounderBruce 04:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

And yet the official MLS site, which I would say has more merit than the other ones, lists them alphabetically by city. Assadzadeh (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Secondary sources have more merit due to their impartiality; this logic is also used for policies on common names over official ones, or capitalization. SounderBruce 05:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

So, are you saying that these secondary sources know more about how team names should be listed than the official MLS page? Fox doesn't even bother to list a team's full name if the nickname comes after the city name or doesn't include FC or SC (is it too much to ask to list Seattle Sounders FC instead of just Seattle?), not to mention that they're not abbreviating in some cases (Saint Louis City SC instead of St. Louis City SC), but abbviating in others (NYCFC, Sporting KC). ESPN is better, but also not always accurate (LAFC). Assadzadeh (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I am not using them as a reference for the team names themselves, but rather how they're sorted. The same sorting system is also used by USA Today, one of the few truly national newspapers in the U.S. Wikipedia does not normally follow corporate styleguides or revere the "officialness" of their publications as sources; it is preferred to look at how independent outlets cover them. SounderBruce 06:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't have more merit than the 3 sites Bruce listed (Fox, sure). But having a laugh if you think it's got more merit than the other two. Also MLS and their streaming site (Apple TV+) also display Los Angeles FC as LAFC. Don't believe me, go view the LAFC schedule on the MLS website, heck even their own website displays LAFC.

But if you wanna only have the view of MLS, who are we to stop you. Just know that their view will not be impartial and why this is even an issue in the first place 2607:FEA8:4A5C:7600:5C3B:2C24:11FC:FDFE (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I thought you were giving up. ;-)

The reason why I believe this is an issue is because Wikipedia articles need to be accurate, consistent, and easily convey info.

So, why would the MLS not be impartial; what do they have to gain by not accurately listing a team's official name?

As for consistency, Major professional sports teams in the United States and Canada lists teams alphabetically without the prefix. Listing them with their prefix just makes it harder to see the grouping of teams that a city has. So, if we're going to change it here, then we should change it there too.

As for easily conveying info, if I'm a casual fan of MLS and looking at the table to see if Kansas City has a team or perhaps remember the name Kansas City Wizards, I would be inclined to look under K and not S.

To reach a comprise, I can live with listing Inter Miami under I, Real Salt Lake under R, and Sporting Kansas City under S, but as for the other teams, I would not alphabetize them by prefix. Assadzadeh (talk) 08:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd just alphabetize them all by city for the reason that you mention: it's easier for people who know that a city has a team but don't know the name of the team to find the team. I see no reason not to follow MOS's practice here. We need to avoid hyper correcting trying to avoid mimicking first party sources. Sometimes there's nothing wrong with them at all. oknazevad (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Small vs large version of Clubs map

900km
559miles

Vancouver

Toronto

St. Louis

Kansas City

Seattle

San Jose

San Diego

Salt Lake

Portland

Philadelphia

Orlando

NYRB

NYCFC

New England

Nashville

Minnesota

LAFC

LA Galaxy

Miami

Houston

Dallas

Cincinnati

D.C.

Columbus

Colorado

Chicago

Charlotte

Montréal

Austin

Atlanta

Eastern Conference

Western Conference

   

Regarding the map under the Clubs section, I would like to discuss which version should be transcluded from the template, which currently shows what I'll refer to as the large version, whereas a small version is also shown in its sandbox. While the large version may seem too spread out, the small version, in my opinion, is too crammed with labels. Please provide your opinions as well. Assadzadeh (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The previous {{Image label}} version of the map could also be described as "crammed with labels", but I don't think people minded, seeing as it stayed largely the same for years. Readers can still generally see where everything is on the map. If there's improvements that need to be made, then we can easily work through those here instead of completely scrapping it for a larger version that eats up the majority of the page width to illustrate a lot of empty space across the country. I've drafted another version of the smaller map (right), if you or any others want to make any suggestions for improvement! — AFC Vixen 🦊 16:18, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The previous version of the map didn't include outlines of labels, which cover-up a significant portion of the country on the small version. As for the larger version, yes, it does show a lot of empty space across the country, but this shouldn't be the argument for making the map small and trying to fit a bunch of labels within a confined space. I also don't see a problem with a map that eats up the majority of the page width, as long as it accurately illustrates the teams' locations. As for the version that you created, I only noticed a few labels whose location had slightly changed. So, would you please provide a brief description of what the differences are? In the meantime, I have copied your version to the sandbox as well, labeled Version 2. Assadzadeh (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I did move around a few labels, as I was making a guess that you'd and others would appreciate the labels being spread out further and more of the map underneath being visible. As I said earlier, I was hoping you or others would suggest further improvements to make it better. I genuinely believe that this is a readable map, and can't understand the wholesale dismissal of it. — AFC Vixen 🦊 21:36, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not a wholesale dismissal. As a matter of fact, {{OSM Location map}} is a better implementation than the previous version, which relied on an SVG file as its basis and was more difficult to update. That's why I created similar maps for MLB, NBA, NFL, and NHL. As for improvements, one suggestion would be to move the labels for coastal cities into the adjacent bodies of water, so that more of the landmass is visible, similar to what you have done for New England, the two New York teams, Philadelphia, and D.C. However, before fine-tuning further, I would suggest waiting for other editors to comment as well and then decide whether to proceed with the small or large version. My preference is to have the other maps I mentioned above be consistent with this one. So, if the decision is to go with the small version, then I'll adjust the others accordingly, Assadzadeh (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@Blaixx, @Oknazevad, @Spesh531, you may be interested in this discussion as well. Assadzadeh (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer the larger map. Not only are the opaque labels not crammed in the larger map, I also just prefer that aesthetic over the smaller map. Spesh531^{(talk, contrib., ext.)} 21:26, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the larger map that I referenced is the current version located here, not the previous version that you had created. Assadzadeh (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I prefer the larger map. Less crowded looking, more of the underlying map visible.

Though honestly, I'm not too keen on the opaque pill-shaped labels in general. Plain text was fine and I question how much of an improvement the opaque labels are. oknazevad (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I have created Version 3, without the label outline. Is it preferred over the large version or not? Assadzadeh (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

The plain text often intersects with state lines, bodies of water, and other pins on the map; making legibility poorer. Opaque labels prevent any interference with the text, and physical connections between the outlines of the labels and the pins make it clear which labels belongs to which pins. — AFC Vixen 🦊 16:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, makes sense to me. oknazevad (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I find that on mobile devices, the small version works much better since you don't have to pan around as much. BLAIXX 02:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you prefer versions 1 & 2 with the label outline, or version 3 without? Assadzadeh (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

No strong preference either way. BLAIXX 22:16, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The larger version doesn't have labels covering entire states, so it has my !vote. The smaller options are just too crowded and doesn't really help most readers, even on mobile (where they could instead scroll horizontally if needed). SounderBruce 04:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

One option is to create a map similar to this, which doesn't require scrolling left and right on a mobile device, but once clicked on does allow one to zoom in as needed. Assadzadeh (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Assadzadeh, Oknazevad, SounderBruce, and Spesh531: I've updated the example to make more liberal use of lines to free up space for the underlying map, per your comments and critiques. How does it look now? Any further tweaks you'd like to suggest? — AFC Vixen 🦊 16:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

It definitely looks better to me and is acceptable. If not acceptable to others, then perhaps consider removing the outlines, which would make the underlying map even more visible. Assadzadeh (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Refer to my reply to oknazevad re: opaque labels. — AFC Vixen 🦊 16:44, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, our comments crossed paths. Assadzadeh (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Better, but I still prefer the larger map. oknazevad (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Ownership model / Updates needed

The article still references the idea that the teams are all owned by the league. U193581 (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

That's because they are, legally. A team "owner" in MLS is property called a "investor/operator" because they are an investor in Major League Soccer, LLC, and in turn receive operating rights to one of the clubs, which are officially and legally subsidiary companies of MLS, LLC. Now these investor/operators can themselves be corporate entities, and the line between the investor/operator company and the team-as-subsidiary-company-of-the-league is often very blurred, but it remains a fact about the league structure and plays out in some elements, such as paychecks for players coming from the league office, or that the league formally has a salary budget, not a salary cap, for instance. oknazevad (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)