That the MLS does things differently from its European counterparts is clear. Whereas in most European leagues, teams at the bottom of the table are relegated, making room for the top teams in lower divisions to be promoted, the MLS has no promotion system, and only accepts new teams through ‘expansion,’ similar to the NFL or the MLB. While European leagues don’t have salary caps—though they are limited by UEFA’s Financial Fair Play regulations—the MLS has a complex system for capping a team’s payroll, including designated player exceptions. And perhaps most importantly, while the English Premier League, Serie A, La Liga etc. all crown their champions based simply on point totals, the MLS has a playoff system to determine who lifts the trophy. But beyond the fact of playoffs themselves, how the MLS culls the cream of the crop for the playoffs also differs from European leagues; the league is divided in two, into Western and Eastern Conferences. All of the other differences have their justifications—the lack of as robust a series of professional soccer divisions in the US, the need to drum up domestic support in a country where playoffs are the norm—but can the same be said for conferences?
As it stands, each team in the MLS plays 34 games a year, 24 of which are against the teams within their own conference, and 10 of which are inter-conference games, with the non-conference opponents rotating yearly. However, if they were to switch to the same format as the English Premier League, in which all of the clubs play one another twice, once on the road and once at home, then it would add a mere 4 fixtures to the season, and make for a much more balanced scheduling format. What’s more, local derby matches would remain intact, and while the three-match per year rivalries would be reduced to two matches, it would ensure that no team would be given a home field advantage in any given season (e.g. two of this year’s three matches between the Timbers and the Sounders being played in Seattle).
Scheduling balance, however, is far from the most compelling reason to eliminate conferences from MLS; the (im)balance of power is the biggest reason why MLS might want to reconsider conferences. At the top of the table, the conferences seem fairly even, with the West only slightly ahead: DC United and the New England Revolution are tied on points in the Eastern Conference with 18, while the Whitecaps and FC Dallas are currently tied at 20. But if we look down the table, things get ugly out East. Bringing up the rear is Montreal, who are the only team still winless this season, the owners of only 2 points. That might, in fact, even seem harsh, as their -5 goal differential is nothing compared to the team above them; Philadelphia Union have managed 6 points, despite a -11 differential, worst in the league.
But here’s the real kicker: if we look at the bottom of the West, it looks similar to the top of the East. Worst in the Western Conference is Colorado, who are sitting on 10 points, with a neutral goal differential. Just above them are Portland and Houston, both of whom have 13 points, with the Timbers one better than Houston’s -1 goal difference. But forget about the Timbers, the Dynamo, and their 13 points; even Colorado Rapids, bottom of the Western Conference, would be good enough for 5th place in the East—which is to say, good enough for playoff qualification.
This phenomenon is not new to American sports fans. The National League vs. the American, the AFC vs. the NFC, East and West in the NBA; over the years, the upper hand between the two conferences in major American sports tends to ebb and flow. Isn’t this just the way of things? If we wait it out, won’t the balance swing back? Why can’t the MLS just wait it out as they do in the NFL, MLB and NBA?
On some level, the answer is, of course they could. The strength of teams will rise and fall, as unsung heroes are acquired and lost, as key players see their stars fall as they age, and new, untried youngsters either take off or fail to pan out. However, there’s a key historical difference between the MLS and the other aforementioned American sports leagues. The NFL in its current form is a merger between the NFL and the AFL, the NBA a merger with the NBL, and in MLB, the AL and the NL also originated as independent leagues. MLS, however, was created as a new league entirely, sui generis, with a conference system, for some reason, set up from the get go—a house divided since its inception.
Further, unlike baseball, basketball, and American football, soccer’s historical precedent has not been for conferences, but rather single, unified leagues, leagues with a holistic schedule, and a likewise unified table for their results. The MLS conference system is not only without historical precedent; the sport’s historical precedent is, in fact, at odds with a conference structure.
The MLS conference structure is, admittedly, unlikely to change, due in large part to the league’s aims at expansion. As more teams come into the fold, and without a promotion/relegation system, it will become more and more difficult to structure play such that every team plays every other team twice. But for the time being, the conferences look set to doom a lot of competitive teams out West. Will the East improve as the season moves on? Perhaps. But they have a lot of ground to make up; to reiterate, at this stage, literally every team in the Western Conference has a better record than the Wild Card teams in the East. Come October, the number of non-playoff teams in the West, that would’ve made it into the postseason were there no conferences, may be whittled down to two or three—but that’s still two or three too many.