What the A's Move Means for Major League Baseball

The first MLB relocation since 2005 signals something about small markets, stadium economics, and the future of baseball geography.

When the Montreal Expos became the Washington Nationals in 2005, it ended a twenty-two-year period during which no major league franchise had relocated. The common assumption after that move was that the modern era of franchise stability was essentially permanent -- that the civic and political complications of moving a franchise, combined with MLB's territorial rules and ownership structures, had effectively eliminated the market for relocation.

That assumption lasted eighteen years, until the Oakland A's announced they were leaving for Las Vegas.

The Precedent

The significance of the A's relocation extends well beyond its specific facts. It demonstrates that MLB franchises can still move in the contemporary era, that the political and economic obstacles are surmountable when ownership and league leadership are aligned, and that mid-market cities without new stadium arrangements should consider themselves at risk.

Commissioner Rob Manfred has been explicit that he views stadium situations as the primary driver of franchise health, and that teams playing in aging facilities without credible paths to new construction are in precarious positions. The Oakland situation -- a team playing in one of baseball's worst venues with no viable public funding path after years of failed negotiations -- was, in Manfred's telling, simply a case where the existing arrangement had become untenable.

The teams currently playing in the most challenging stadium situations are worth examining with this lens. The Oakland Coliseum is gone, but other franchises face analogous problems. The Oakland situation will be studied by city governments that are negotiating with MLB teams about stadium funding, and the lesson they will take is clear: if you cannot get a deal done, the franchise will look elsewhere.

The Small Market Problem

The deeper structural issue is what the A's situation reveals about the viability of baseball in certain markets. Oakland, with a metropolitan population of approximately 2.9 million (or about 7 million in the broader Bay Area), is not a small market by most conventional measures. The problem was not market size; it was market competition.

The Bay Area has two MLB teams -- the A's and the Giants -- serving a single geographic region. The Giants occupy AT&T Park (now Oracle Park), one of the sport's finest and most successful venues, with an ownership group that has consistently invested in the team and developed a sophisticated approach to revenue generation. The A's, playing in a deteriorating facility with ownership that consistently underspent on the roster, were at a severe competitive disadvantage within their own market.

This dynamic -- two teams in a market that effectively functions as one -- is not unique to San Francisco. New York has the Yankees and the Mets. Chicago has the Cubs and the White Sox. Los Angeles has the Dodgers and the Angels. In each of these markets, one franchise has generally found a way to establish dominance in the competition for fan attention and corporate sponsorship, and the other franchise has found itself fighting for relevance.

The Angels in the greater Los Angeles market have faced versions of the A's problem, and there has been periodic speculation about their long-term situation. The White Sox, in Chicago, play in Guaranteed Rate Field, a stadium that is widely seen as insufficient, and have had quiet conversations about stadium alternatives.

The Las Vegas Experiment

What the A's move tests is a different hypothesis: that a franchise can succeed in a market built almost entirely on tourism, entertainment, and hospitality rather than on the traditional demographics of an established regional fan base.

Las Vegas's population is approximately 2.3 million, smaller than the Oakland metropolitan area. But the 40-plus million annual visitors create an attendance model that no other MLB market has ever tried. The theory is that a meaningful portion of those visitors -- people in Las Vegas for conventions, entertainment, or vacations -- will attend a baseball game as part of their trip. The marginal fan is not someone who lives nearby and follows the team; the marginal fan is someone who is already in Las Vegas for other reasons and decides to spend an evening at the ballpark.

Whether this works depends on the specifics of execution -- pricing, experience, scheduling relative to other Las Vegas entertainment options -- and on factors that are genuinely unknowable in advance. The Golden Knights have demonstrated that Las Vegas can sustain a passionate local fan base for hockey. Whether baseball generates similar response is uncertain.

The Future of Baseball Geography

The A's move raises questions about several other markets that will take years to fully resolve. If Las Vegas succeeds as an MLB market, it validates the proposition that entertainment-economy cities can sustain baseball franchises, which opens conversations about other cities -- Nashville, Portland, Charlotte, Montreal (again) -- that have been discussed as expansion or relocation candidates.

If Las Vegas struggles, it may reinforce the instinct toward conservatism that has kept baseball's geographic map relatively stable for two decades.

MLB is simultaneously pursuing expansion, with a stated goal of adding two new franchises to reach thirty-two teams. Nashville and Las Vegas were both considered strong expansion candidates before the A's relocation claim on Las Vegas was exercised. Portland and Charlotte are frequently mentioned. A second team in New York -- either in New Jersey or in Manhattan proper -- comes up periodically.

What the A's move clarifies is that MLB is willing to be geographically flexible in ways that the sport's history since the mid-1970s might have suggested it was not. That flexibility is a lever for cities trying to attract expansion franchises but also a source of anxiety for established franchises in markets where the stadium situation is unresolved.

For fans in those cities, the appropriate reading of the Oakland story is uncomfortable: if a fifty-seven-year franchise with a dynasty history and a genuinely passionate fan base can leave, so can yours. The conditions that protect a franchise are financial investment, stadium quality, and ownership alignment with the community -- not history, not fan passion, not decades of civic identity.

Oakland had the fan passion. It did not have the other things. The lesson, if there is one for other cities, is to pay attention to the other things before it is too late.

Support LV Athletics Nation by shopping through our affiliate links. Every purchase helps fund independent coverage of the A's relocation story.

Affiliate links. We may earn a commission at no additional cost to you.