Do Expansion Teams Help or Hurt Leagues?

The major sports of America have their fair share of differences. Different fan dynamics. Different viewing numbers. Entirely different sporting cultures. However, each one has seemed to be gripped by the same phenomenon in the commercial age of sports: expansion teams. Adding teams to a competition, whether to give a new city a sporting identity or to pump more revenue into the league, has a variety of motivations. But it all begs one question: Do these teams serve a mutual benefit to both the league’s existing teams and the governing bodies, or are they simply a one-way money grab?

The history of expansion in sports goes all the way back to the very beginning. The APFC, which served as a predecessor to the NFL, started with just 14 teams in 1920. The NBA had only 11 teams when the first tip-off occurred in 1946, and professional baseball in America began with just six teams in 1882. The reasons for early expansion were fairly simple: more people began to populate more parts of the country. Arizona wasn’t even a state when pro baseball started; the Diamondbacks appeared in the World Series just a few years ago. Back then, expansion was straightforward. But now, it isn’t as simple.

The main concern about expansion teams is that more teams mean the overall talent of the league becomes too spread out, making each team weaker. It’s the same argument you’ll hear from any 1970s NBA enthusiast explaining why “the league was better back then.” And in fairness to the oldheads, eight new NBA teams have been added since 1980. Let’s take a look at the three newest teams in America’s top four leagues (all of which happen to be in the NHL) and the impact they’ve made so far.

We’ll start with the Utah Mammoth. Formerly the Arizona Coyotes, the franchise moved north and rebranded in 2024 due to a lack of overall fan interest in Arizona. Who would’ve thought that hockey in the desert wouldn’t work? The Mammoth’s inaugural season resulted in a sixth-place divisional finish, and as of writing this, they sit fourth in the Central Division. One of the main concerns about moving the team to Utah was that it wasn’t a large enough market to attract star players. However, the Mammoth brought in one of the NHL’s brightest young stars, JJ Peterka, who joined from the Buffalo Sabres this offseason.

In 2021, the Seattle Kraken were added to the league. They managed to qualify for the playoffs in just their second season after finishing fourth in the Pacific Division in 2023, but they haven’t been able to finish above sixth place since. The next team tells a completely different story. The Vegas Golden Knights joined the NHL’s Pacific Division for the 2020–21 season. Since then, they’ve missed the playoffs only once and were crowned Stanley Cup Champions in 2023. They’ve managed to bring in significant star power, with former Buffalo Sabre Jack Eichel serving as the face of the franchise. (Writing this as a Sabres fan is quite painful, to be honest.) This brings me to my next point: with expansion teams, it’s all about the market. Why did hockey in the desert work in Las Vegas and not Phoenix? I’m sure Phoenix is a lovely city, but it isn’t exactly a premier global tourist destination.

It’s no coincidence that the Golden Knights have been the most successful of the three newest expansion teams and are also located in the biggest market. Earlier this year, Buffalo Sabres GM Kevyn Adams stated, “Yeah, we don’t have palm trees, we have high taxes,” when asked why Buffalo isn’t seen as a landing spot for top players. Although Sabres fans attended games with inflatable palm trees in the following weeks to mock him, Adams does have a point: the bigger the market, the more potential a franchise has.

So, what does this all mean? Are expansion teams a net positive? Let’s break it down.

Do they have a positive impact on the other teams in the league? No. The talent is spread more thinly and potentially suffocated. With more teams, it becomes more likely that generational talents won’t fully blossom. It has a direct negative impact on both the individual players and the teams as a whole.

Do expansion teams have a positive impact on the league itself? An argument can be made that expansion creates more competition, which could be beneficial. However, we need to remember why these teams are being added in the first place. It’s primarily for increased commercial revenue and anything else is a byproduct.

So expansion teams are more often a net negative for sports as a whole. They may bring in commercial revenue, but watching players be sent to new teams without established fanbases at the expense of fanbases that are established is purely for financial reasons. And it leaves a bad taste in the mouth of any sports fan with an ounce of soul. Or maybe I’m just still not over the Eichel trade.

Either way, I don’t think expansion teams have no place in sports, but I do think we need to question the intent behind adding them at such a rapid rate.