Why MLS’s reported playoff proposal might actually work

First, the format. Deep breaths, stick with us. We promise it makes sense.

MLS plans to replace its two conferences with five geographically aligned divisions, while combining every club into a single table for playoff qualification. Teams 13-20 would contest a play-in round, with the four winners advancing to face teams 9-12. The top eight, meanwhile, would enter the double-chance portion of the bracket. They would be paired one against eight, two against seven, and so on. The winners would advance directly to the quarterfinals, while the losers would receive a second opportunity against the teams that survived the lower portion of the bracket.

Tired yet? So are we. The system is a mishmash of previously tested MLS formats, Australian rules football and a traditional American postseason. But the upshot is relatively simple: 20 teams would qualify, while the top eight would receive a meaningful reward for finishing higher in the table. Win the opening game and advance directly to the quarterfinals. Lose it, and there is still another path forward.

There is a sense, though, that this is a moment of multiple threads being woven together at once. The reported playoff format would debut in spring 2028, at the end of the 2027-28 campaign, when MLS is also targeting significant changes to its roster rules. Incoming commissioner Larry Berg, the former LAFC co-owner and co-chair of MLS’s Sporting and Competition Committee, will inherit both projects when he replaces Garber in January 2027. The specifics remain admittedly vague, but MLS has shown clear intent to give clubs more freedom to spend. The gravity of that suggestion simply cannot be understated for a league that has, at least in terms of financial ambition, been running in place for some time.

A restrictive salary cap, coupled with complex regulations around Designated Players, means that MLS clubs are often financially hamstrung. It is something of a double-edged sword. Everyone playing by the same rules ensures that there is, in theory, a sense of parity. If every club can only spend a certain amount - albeit with some caveats - then opportunities are open for teams to move either up or down the standings in any given year. Put more simply, teams have to spend wisely.

Yet that has its drawbacks in terms of the quality of the product. MLS clubs are kneecapped in their ambition to go after talent further down the roster. Cut-rate deals are necessary, meaning that teams simply have to target, well, worse players to ensure that they meet the rules. Owners reportedly heard specifics of a plan at the end of July that would simplify the salary cap structure, and also free up more room to spend - should teams choose. The option to spend is the common gripe among clubs and fans. It is not, for example, that MLS needs more stars.

Robert Lewandowski’s summer arrival at Chicago Fire is the latest proof that the Designated Player system can still accommodate marquee talent. The more pressing issue is whether clubs can surround stars of that caliber with enough quality. The average MLS roster should be deeper and laden with more talent. It is a question of raising the floor, not necessarily the ceiling.

In that light, then, making the playoffs more accessible is a smart move. The best teams in MLS - the ones who spend regularly - will remain competitive. Yet those on the edge, with ownership with tighter purse strings, will perhaps feel that they need to be only slightly more financially ambitious - not break the bank - to give their team a fighting chance.

And then there's the question of the regular season.

One of MLS's struggles in recent years is figuring out how to place value on any given regular season game. Without the threat of a promotion-relegation system, teams can coast through a campaign, pick up points where necessary, and only "try" when it counts. That is perhaps a slightly unfair characterization of the general state of the league. But it is true regular season MLS fixtures sometimes feel as though they are lacking in intensity, with teams trying to stay afloat until the playoffs.

There is nothing wrong with that from a team perspective. Inter Miami, for example, does not care if they stroll to a 1-0 win over Montreal or batter them 4-1. They just need to get the points and stay healthy. But it is certainly hard to get fans invested if there is an inevitability about not only the result but also where the team will finish at the end of the season. As of right now, there is little distinction - outside of home-field advantage or the Supporters' Shield - between finishing first or eighth in either conference.

Under this format, though, there is a real impetus to, well, try. The simple reason here is that there is specific value attached to where within the playoffs your team finishes. Those who occupy the valuable top eight slots will get a second chance in the playoffs. If they lose their first round games, they are dropped into a "losers bracket" of sorts, where they will then play the winners of the play-in format that teams 9-20 are subject to. In effect, the difference between finishing eighth and ninth matters significantly more than it used to. How's that for jeopardy?

Take the Supporters' Shield standings of the last few years as a compelling example. As of the time of writing, the eighth and ninth-placed teams are level on points. In 2024 and 2025, the gap was two points. In 2023, LAFC and Houston Dynamo were separated by a single point. In 2022, LA Galaxy pipped Nashville by winning one more game. 2018 brought the largest gap in recent memory, and even that was a mere three points.

In effect, one regular season win can now be the difference between an extra shot at survival in the playoffs and being sent home early. This is the jeopardy that MLS has always craved.

There are, of course, some drawbacks here. The first is that teams that always make the playoffs are now all but guaranteed a spot. If 66.6 percent of sides will be in the postseason, then there is now little scope for one-off bad seasons to lead to all that much of a punishment. A disastrous campaign for a wealthy team will still lead to some sort of postseason appearance. Similar to the new Champions League format, there might also be some teams that are so good that they don't care where exactly they finish in the playoffs - as long as they're in good form by the time the postseason arrives.

A good example is Luis Enrique’s PSG, the competition’s back-to-back winners. The French side finished 15th in the league phase in 2024-25 and 11th the following season. On both occasions, PSG had to navigate an additional two-legged knockout round before ultimately lifting the trophy. Yet that was an exceptional team, and MLS has no real dynasties of that nature. No club has won MLS Cup in consecutive seasons since LA Galaxy in 2011 and 2012.

Here, things are a little more open. A new format gives hope to the outsiders. D.C. United and Toronto FC are currently in the middle of five-plus-year playoff droughts. They will feel that this system gives them a shot, which will no doubt invigorate frustrated fan bases - and lead to some more intelligent roster construction.

There are still some issues here.

For one, the system is immensely complicated, and adding extra wrinkles of losers' brackets and play-in games will put more pressure on MLS to educate its fans. The casuals, too, will undoubtedly just be confused. There is also the fundamental fact that soccer is a sport of scarcity. Goals are difficult to score. Leagues are hard to win. It should be challenging to qualify for a playoff spot, or win something at the end of the year. There is beauty in a 1-0 victory, or even a scrappy draw that achieves something.

However, MLS has never played by traditional rules. This is a league that once ended every draw in a penalty shootout, in which players had to dribble from 35 yards away to finish past a goalkeeper. It still has a college draft and a midseason All-Star game. It is so uniquely placed in the soccer world that another league in the USL, from the same country, believes it can be a serious rival by playing in a more familiar European format complete with promotion and relegation. The league has, of late, taken a 'never say never' approach to promotion and relegation. But it would seem to be immensely difficult, if not impossible, to implement. Games are streamed on Apple TV and, in some cases, shot on iPhones. The best team in the league, the one that wins the Supporters' Shield, has only won the MLS Cup eight times.

Moreover, is this new format more complicated than Argentina's system, which uses points-per-game averages over a number of years to determine relegation? Is it more puzzling than MLB, in which teams that finish third in a regional division could have a better record than a another division winner yet be forced into a more difficult playoff game?

This league has never been simple. Ending a regular season format with playoffs never is. So, yes, there are weaknesses here. But MLS has always had to work with its quirks. This change might just be the one to get the best out of a broken product.