Traditional MLS power rankings are opinion pieces. A writer watches games, reads box scores, and ranks teams based on vibes and recent results. This ranking is different. It uses expected goal difference (xGD) from American Soccer Analysis to measure how every MLS team actually performed in the 2025 season, stripped of luck, finishing variance, and small-sample noise.
Expected goals (xG) measures the quality of chances a team creates and concedes based on shot location, type, and defensive pressure. Expected goal difference (xGD) is simply xG for minus xG against. A team with a high xGD is consistently creating better chances than it concedes. Over a full season, xGD is more predictive of future performance than actual goal difference or points.
The gap between actual results and expected results reveals which teams are overperforming (and likely to regress) and which are underperforming (and likely to improve).
Tier 1: The Elite (xGD above +15.0)
1. Vancouver Whitecaps — xGD +26.2
Vancouver was the best team in MLS by expected goal difference, and it was not particularly close. Their xGF of 68.0 was elite, but what set them apart was defensive quality: an xGA of 41.8 was the best in the league. The Whitecaps created high-quality chances at volume while making it nearly impossible for opponents to generate dangerous shots. Their actual results (63 points, +27 GD) closely matched their underlying numbers, meaning this was sustainable rather than lucky.
2. LAFC — xGD +24.9
LAFC were the second-best team in MLS by the data, driven by the league's best defensive expected metrics (xGA 39.9). With Dénis Bouanga leading the attack (+15.29 individual Goals Added) and Mark Delgado anchoring midfield, LAFC's 60 points and +27 GD aligned closely with their underlying quality.
3. Nashville SC — xGD +21.1
Nashville's underlying numbers were significantly better than their 54-point return suggests. With xGF of 66.7, they created the third-most expected goals in the league, driven by the Sam Surridge-Hany Mukhtar partnership that placed both strikers in the league's top four. Their actual GD of +13 compared to xGD of +21.1 suggests they were unlucky with finishing or faced an unusual number of low-probability goals against. A team that should have been closer to 60+ points.
4. Philadelphia Union — xGD +17.4
The Union's 66 points were the third-highest in MLS, and the underlying data justified it. Their xGD of +17.4 was built on balanced quality: xGF of 61.5 showed consistent chance creation, while xGA of 44.2 reflected a well-organized defense. Philadelphia's three young players in the top 20 (Damiani, Sullivan, Lukić) show a team building sustainably rather than relying on expensive veterans.
5. Inter Miami — xGD +16.9
Miami's 65 points and +27 GD overstated their dominance slightly relative to the data. Their xGD of +16.9 is still elite, but the gap between actual GD (+27) and xGD (+16.9) suggests Miami benefited from individual brilliance overcoming tactical deficiencies. The individual brilliance, of course, is Lionel Messi at +23.21 Goals Added — a player who converts half-chances into goals and creates something from nothing with regularity that breaks expected models.
6. Orlando City — xGD +16.7
Orlando were better than their 53-point season suggests. Their xGD of +16.7 was the sixth-best in the league, driven by attacking quality (xGF 65.8). With Alex Freeman as the best fullback in MLS and Martín Ojeda providing creative striking, Orlando's underlying performance deserved more points than they collected.
Tier 2: Playoff Contenders (xGD +3.0 to +15.0)
7. Seattle Sounders — xGD +12.7
Seattle's consistent presence in the upper half of MLS was justified by the data. Their xGD of +12.7 was built more on defense (xGA 46.6) than offense (xGF 59.4), reflecting a team that wins by controlling games rather than outscoring opponents.
8. San Jose Earthquakes — xGD +9.8
San Jose's 41 points was one of the most misleading results in MLS. Their xGD of +9.8 was the eighth-best in the league, yet they finished with a -3 actual goal difference. This is a massive performance gap. San Jose created significantly better chances than they conceded but could not convert them into results. Cristian Espinoza's +8.41 Goals Added from fullback and Cristian Arango's +9.13 from striker suggest individual quality that the results did not reflect.
9. San Diego FC — xGD +6.4
The expansion team's 63 points significantly outperformed their xGD of +6.4. The gap between actual GD (+25) and xGD (+6.4) is one of the largest in the league, suggesting San Diego benefited from clinical finishing and some luck. Christopher McVey and Jeppe Tverskov provided defensive stability, while Anders Dreyer contributed +10.94 Goals Added from the wing. Impressive for year one, but the data suggests the points total may regress.
10. Columbus Crew — xGD +5.6
The defending MLS Cup champions had a quieter 2025 by their standards. Their xGD of +5.6 is solid but not elite, and their actual GD of +2 was worse than expected. Columbus had depth across the squad (two players each in the defender and midfielder rankings), but the team's overall expected output declined from their championship level.
11. New York City FC — xGD +3.3
NYCFC's defensive organization (two center backs in the league's top 16: Justin Haak and Thiago Martins) kept their xGA manageable at 49.0. Their 56 points were a fair reflection of their underlying quality.
12. Chicago Fire — xGD +2.2
Chicago placed five players across our position rankings — more than any other club. Hugo Cuypers (ST), Brian Gutiérrez (CM), Jonathan Bamba (W), Andrew Gutman (FB), and Jack Elliott (CB) all appeared in their position's top rankings. Yet the team's xGD of +2.2 was only 12th in the league. Individual quality without system cohesion limits total output.
Tier 3: Mid-Table (xGD -5.0 to +3.0)
13. Minnesota United — xGD +0.8
Minnesota's 58 points and +16 GD massively overstated their underlying quality. Their xGD of +0.8 is essentially neutral. The gap (+16 actual vs +0.8 expected) is one of the largest overperformances in the league, suggesting a team that benefited from finishing quality and favorable variance. Regression risk is significant.
14. Houston Dynamo — xGD -3.3
Houston's 37 points was a disappointing season, and the data suggests it was earned. Their xGA of 49.5 was mediocre, and xGF of 46.2 was among the weakest in the league for creating quality chances.
15. Colorado Rapids — xGD -3.6
Colorado's 41 points were fair. Their xGF of 59.7 showed they could create chances, but xGA of 63.3 meant they conceded even more quality. A team that entertained but could not defend.
16. New York Red Bulls — xGD -4.9
The Red Bulls' actual GD of +1 overstated their quality. With xGD of -4.9, they were a below-average team that benefited from some favorable results. Noah Eile at center back was a bright spot, but the team's overall expected output was negative.
17. Atlanta United — xGD -5.2
Atlanta's 28 points was one of the worst seasons in recent MLS history, and the data supports it. A -29 actual GD was even worse than their -5.2 xGD, suggesting things went wrong at every level: underlying quality was poor, and execution made it worse.
Tier 4: Underperformers (xGD -6.0 to -15.0)
18. St. Louis City — xGD -5.7
The sophomore slump was real. St. Louis's xGD of -5.7 and 32 points were a sharp decline from their expansion year. Marcel Hartel (+8.51 g+) and João Klauss (+9.45 g+) carried the attacking burden, but the defense could not hold up.
19. FC Dallas — xGD -6.1
Dallas's 44 points overstated a team with -6.1 xGD. They were conceding higher-quality chances than they created, and the results eventually caught up.
20. Charlotte FC — xGD -6.8
Charlotte's 59 points and +8 GD was the single most surprising overperformance in MLS. Their xGD of -6.8 paints a picture of a below-average team that somehow accumulated playoff-caliber points. The gap of +14.8 between actual GD and xGD is the largest in the league. Adilson Malanda was the league's best center back by interrupting g+, and Pep Biel contributed creative quality, but the team-level data suggests significant regression ahead.
21. Austin FC — xGD -7.8
Austin's -7.8 xGD reflected a team in transition. Their 47 points kept them in mid-table conversations, but the underlying quality suggests they were outplayed more often than the standings indicated.
22. FC Cincinnati — xGD -7.8
Cincinnati's season was the most confusing in MLS. They accumulated 65 points and a +14 GD while posting a -7.8 xGD. The gap of +21.8 between actual and expected goal difference is historically extreme. Evander was the best midfielder in the league (+11.28 g+), but the team around him created and conceded chances that should have produced a negative goal difference. Regression is not just likely, it is almost certain.
23-30: The Bottom Eight
| Rank | Team | Points | GD | xGD | Key Gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 | LA Galaxy | 30 | -17 | -10.7 | Actual worse than expected |
| 24 | CF Montréal | 28 | -26 | -10.7 | Both metrics poor |
| 25 | D.C. United | 26 | -34 | -10.8 | Worst actual GD in MLS |
| 26 | Real Salt Lake | 41 | -12 | -11.9 | Conceding too many quality chances |
| 27 | Portland Timbers | 44 | -10 | -12.1 | Despite strong individual midfielders |
| 28 | New England Revolution | 36 | -10 | -14.0 | Despite Carles Gil's elite passing |
| 29 | Toronto FC | 32 | -11 | -14.6 | Worst xGF in MLS (35.8) |
| 30 | Sporting Kansas City | 28 | -26 | -28.1 | Historically bad xGA (70.7) |
Biggest Overperformers (Regression Candidates)
| Team | Actual GD | xGD | Gap | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FC Cincinnati | +14 | -7.8 | +21.8 | Extreme |
| Minnesota United | +16 | +0.8 | +15.2 | High |
| Charlotte FC | +8 | -6.8 | +14.8 | Extreme |
| San Diego FC | +25 | +6.4 | +18.6 | High |
Biggest Underperformers (Improvement Candidates)
| Team | Actual GD | xGD | Gap | Upside |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| San Jose | -3 | +9.8 | -12.8 | High |
| Nashville SC | +13 | +21.1 | -8.1 | Moderate |
| Orlando City | +13 | +16.7 | -3.7 | Moderate |
| New England | -10 | -14.0 | +4.0 | Low (still poor) |
How to Read These Rankings
Expected goal difference is not a prediction. It is a description of the quality of chances created and conceded over a full season. When a team's actual results diverge significantly from their expected results, history says the actual results tend to move toward the expected numbers over time. This is not guaranteed, but it is the base rate.
These rankings use data from American Soccer Analysis, covering the full 2025 MLS regular season. All 30 teams are included.
See also: MLS Standings Explained | MLS Season Standings | MLS Table