I’ve now spent two full seasons deep in MFL – building squads, figuring out tactics and winning (and losing) a few games I probably shouldn’t have – and I’ve loved it.

But, like any game in early development, there are things that aren’t quite right yet – stuff that risks turning casuals away or limiting how far the game can grow.

So here’s my list of minor gripes. I’m writing this in the hope it’s taken in the spirit it’s meant: constructive, not critical. I love MFL and I want the game to succeed.

1. Packs – exciting but also frustrating

Let’s be honest – opening packs is one of the most exciting parts of the game. Or at least, it should be. There are two issues I think they need to address.

Firstly, the current ‘fastest finger first’ pack drop system. Yes, it can be fun but also it can be incredibly frustrating if you’re trying to get a pack and you can’t do it in the required 20 seconds or so that it takes before they sell out. It’s even more annoying if you then see those packs being sold on Flowty for a quick profit.

Pack drops are one of the most engaging things about MFL but the current mechanism feels unfair, vulnerable to bots or scripts, and unfriendly to users in different timezones. It also doesn’t feel particularly scalable. I’m not sure on the best solution but some kind of pre-registration for packs might help, alongside a tougher limit on packs (per season perhaps) and some kind of ‘loyalty’ checks to ensure they are going to genuinely engaged users.

Even if you do manage to grab a pack, there is a second potential frustration to deal with. Pulling a 27-year-old bench-warmer feels like a kick in the teeth. I get that packs need some variance but when the game is so focused on progression and getting the most out of players before they retire, it doesn’t sit right with me that you can pull a 27 or 28 year old.

When MFL was first spinning up, having the ability to mint players across a range of ages was vital to creating a meaningful and realistic ecosystem. Now we’re a few seasons in, I wonder if that’s still as important. I’d be much happier if they capped the age of pack players at, say, 23 – even if that meant fewer packs or higher costs to keep the economy balanced.

Or better still, split the model. One pack type for general players, and one that acts like a ‘Youth Academy’ – a higher cost and limited availability, but with greater longevity. The Youth Academy Pack could be reserved for active clubs only, rewarding engagement with the game, and could be tied into something like maintaining a the Development Centre as an actual infrastructure asset in the game, perhaps with an $MFL cost per season.

2. The season break kills momentum

This one will divide opinion but hear me out. The season length is fine – 29 days of competitive matches feels solid – but then there’s a 13-day break (10 if you have playoff matches). And that just feels… too long.

I know this is the time that people are meant to be preparing for the new season, sorting out loans and getting excited about pack drops etc. But momentum drops and, for a live service game like MFL, momentum is absolutely crucial to reducing churn. They need to keep the fun going.

We’ve just entered that period now and I’m already feeling frustrated. I’ve got my $MFL winnings but the store is closed. The pack drop is a few days away so there are very few new listings on the market – and everyone is about to age a year anyway. Pre-contracts haven’t become permanent yet and the game engine changes each season so running friendlies doesn’t seem worth it.

I’d rather see a shorter off-season (7 days?) or a pre-season phase with certain tasks to accomplish. Giving us a reason to keep logging in – even something simple like players doing pre-season training would help maintain that rhythm and sense of purpose.

3. FeatureS – what’s next?

Yes, MFL is a work-in-progress. But at the moment, it still feels a bit bare-bones. I know they are developing stuff behind the scenes (and the team ship fast) but most of the recent dev updates have centred around engine improvements and the photo-realism project. That’s great but I’d like to hear about the next big feature release that they’re actively working on.

The most glaring omission, for me, is substitutes. Not just for realism, but because they unlock tactical flexibility and progression opportunities for fringe players. Like others, I don’t want the time commitment of live substitutions but the ability to pre-set some subs would make a big difference to the way we play the game. Perhaps that could be linked into something like hiring a manager for your team, developing the narrative a little further.

This would then lead into the ability to pre-plan tactical changes — like ‘if leading at half-time, switch to 433 (def),’ or ‘if red card, sub off a striker for a defender.’ Not live, real-time tinkering – just smart, pre-set logic.

Ultimately, the more we can do with our clubs and the more immersed we are in the club narrative, the more we’ll care about them.

4. $80 entry point – a barrier?

I know this one might be controversial, but I think the cost of a club license ($80) is too steep.

I get that early backers paid more and that there is a healthy secondary market with established Spark clubs going for $70 – I don’t want to devalue either of those things. But if MFL wants to attract the next wave of players, they need to think carefully about how much people are prepared to pay for a game. Football Manager 24 was $60 at release, and that’s a well established, feature rich game.

The cheapest current route into the game is as an Agent, where users own and manage a bunch of players, rather than run a club. That’s potentially as little as $10-$20 to get started but it means playing only a small part of the actual game and doesn’t feel the right way to get thousands more users hooked on MFL.

Spark licenses have just sold out and we now know that ‘Flint’, the tenth division in the pyramid, is priced the same. This surprised me a little as a thought MFL might position the next batch of club licenses differently – perhaps like a ‘non-league’ division – with a lower entry price and a separate path into the main pyramid as I’d suggested here.

Maybe it was too soon to do that but I’m sure there is a way to reduce the entry cost if they want to – a smart way that respects both early adopters and future growth. I hope they can figure it out.

---

A final point – MFL is still young and there is lots to admire in what’s been built already – a competitive, community-driven game that many of us check into multiple times a day. None of the stuff I’ve written above it intended to tear the game down – these are not game-breakers – and I’ve no doubt that the team are working on all of this.

If you’ve got your own thoughts on where things should go next, I’d love to hear them.