A couple years ago my daughter bought me this wall art at a flea market. It’s a map of MLB as it existed in 1987. It hangs in my basement across from my treadmill, so I stare at it every day as my iFit workout is trying to kill me.
I find it remarkable how relatively little has changed for MLB geographically in the 36 years since this map was made. The Expos moved to DC and four new teams were added. The most recent expansion happened 25 years ago. MLB hasn’t had this kind of franchise stasis since before WWII.
By all population and demographic metrics, MLB is long past the point of warranting expansion. Perhaps dramatic expansion.
Looking at the total population of the U.S. going back to 1950, MLB has averaged 1 franchise for every 9.7 million people. That average reached 11.0 million per the 16 teams of 1960, and then MLB expanded to 18 in 1961, and 20 in 1962. That knocked the per-team average down to 9.1 million.
The league expanded to 24 teams in 1969, sending the average from 9.8 million to 8.2 million.
When the league last expanded, reaching 30 teams in 1998, the per-franchise population average was 9.2 million. 25 years later that number now sits at 11.3 million, an all-time high. In fact, the past 17 years have seen the per team average exceed 10 million. The only other time that occurred was for six years (1955-1960) which preceded the 4 team expansion of 1961-62.
Of course, this analysis is only taking into account US population trends, as it relates to potential fan base size per team. The other element is the size of the player pool. Needless to say, the amount of non-U.S. born players has grown considerably in the past few decades.
28% of 2023 opening day rostered players were born outside the U.S. While that rate has been relatively stable for the past 10 years, it’s up roughly 10 points from baseball’s last expansion in 1998. I know we talk a lot here about a dearth of MLB pitchers, but the reality is that there has likely never been a larger global player pool from which MLB teams can source talent.
Given that worldwide player availability, and the current rate of population growth, MLB would need to expand to 36 teams if it were to match the 9.7 million/franchise average of the past 73 years.
So, where to place new MLB teams? The league uses Nielsen’s Designated Market Area data to determine regional TV territories. Those DMAs dictate protected areas for regional cable sports networks, direct-to-consumer streaming services, blackouts, etc.
MLB has teams in each of the top 16 U.S. DMAs:
However, MLB’s coverage of markets 17-40 is scattershot. Some historic markets -- such as St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, San Diego, Kansas City, Cincinnati and Milwaukee – are smaller, sometimes much smaller, than markets without franchises. Sacramento, Charlotte, Portland, Raleigh-Durham, Indianapolis, Nashville and Salt Lake City, among others, are all larger markets than ones with existing teams. And I didn’t include non-U.S. markets such as Montreal and Mexico City.
Last but not least, over the years MLB has morphed into largely being a regional sport. Not that it doesn’t have a national fan base – that exists right here on SoSH, of course. But all the fan data I’ve seen for quite some time now suggests that people are most-driven by their fandom of their favorite team, and there is far less cross-team interest than there is for the NFL and NBA.
This dynamic strikes me as yet another reason why MLB needs expansion. Attracting more people by offering a local team to follow would seem beneficial to the long-term health of the league.
What say you? Agree? Disagree? In favor adding 2 teams? Six? Counter the data and advocate contraction?
I find it remarkable how relatively little has changed for MLB geographically in the 36 years since this map was made. The Expos moved to DC and four new teams were added. The most recent expansion happened 25 years ago. MLB hasn’t had this kind of franchise stasis since before WWII.
By all population and demographic metrics, MLB is long past the point of warranting expansion. Perhaps dramatic expansion.
Looking at the total population of the U.S. going back to 1950, MLB has averaged 1 franchise for every 9.7 million people. That average reached 11.0 million per the 16 teams of 1960, and then MLB expanded to 18 in 1961, and 20 in 1962. That knocked the per-team average down to 9.1 million.
The league expanded to 24 teams in 1969, sending the average from 9.8 million to 8.2 million.
When the league last expanded, reaching 30 teams in 1998, the per-franchise population average was 9.2 million. 25 years later that number now sits at 11.3 million, an all-time high. In fact, the past 17 years have seen the per team average exceed 10 million. The only other time that occurred was for six years (1955-1960) which preceded the 4 team expansion of 1961-62.
Of course, this analysis is only taking into account US population trends, as it relates to potential fan base size per team. The other element is the size of the player pool. Needless to say, the amount of non-U.S. born players has grown considerably in the past few decades.
28% of 2023 opening day rostered players were born outside the U.S. While that rate has been relatively stable for the past 10 years, it’s up roughly 10 points from baseball’s last expansion in 1998. I know we talk a lot here about a dearth of MLB pitchers, but the reality is that there has likely never been a larger global player pool from which MLB teams can source talent.
Given that worldwide player availability, and the current rate of population growth, MLB would need to expand to 36 teams if it were to match the 9.7 million/franchise average of the past 73 years.
So, where to place new MLB teams? The league uses Nielsen’s Designated Market Area data to determine regional TV territories. Those DMAs dictate protected areas for regional cable sports networks, direct-to-consumer streaming services, blackouts, etc.
MLB has teams in each of the top 16 U.S. DMAs:
However, MLB’s coverage of markets 17-40 is scattershot. Some historic markets -- such as St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, San Diego, Kansas City, Cincinnati and Milwaukee – are smaller, sometimes much smaller, than markets without franchises. Sacramento, Charlotte, Portland, Raleigh-Durham, Indianapolis, Nashville and Salt Lake City, among others, are all larger markets than ones with existing teams. And I didn’t include non-U.S. markets such as Montreal and Mexico City.
Last but not least, over the years MLB has morphed into largely being a regional sport. Not that it doesn’t have a national fan base – that exists right here on SoSH, of course. But all the fan data I’ve seen for quite some time now suggests that people are most-driven by their fandom of their favorite team, and there is far less cross-team interest than there is for the NFL and NBA.
This dynamic strikes me as yet another reason why MLB needs expansion. Attracting more people by offering a local team to follow would seem beneficial to the long-term health of the league.
What say you? Agree? Disagree? In favor adding 2 teams? Six? Counter the data and advocate contraction?
