The main problem associated with this is the fact that some clubs have been around thirty years and others few or in one case just one. Points are allocated to reflect success but the difference in the number of years participating makes years of service the main factor rather than the quality of those years.
If points detemined the rankings, then LA Galaxy would head the table. It has produced some quality over those years too. There are others that have been really successful but due to limited years would be well down the chart.
So I thought averages would be a better indicator. Divide the points by years. That isn't perfect either as new clubs are often surprisingly successful from day one. It still is the better way, so that's how it is presented in the chart below.
The yellow columns show combined figures from the League and Finals. They each have an average figure and a total one. The only difference is that the Combined section also has CT, or a count of how many seasons that club has participated.
So all the average figures are based on the number of seasons played. San Diego's excellent one season puts it at the top, but maintaining that over more seasons will be impossible. Below are clubs that have put in many seasons and have shown a high level of consistency.
The Seattle Sounders have been exceptional over 17 seasons to average 18.6 points per season. Several clubs just below Seattle have also done well over a prolonged period.
Some of the names are for clubs no longer part of the scene. Tampa Bay Mutiny and Miami Fusion did well while they lasted. Chivas USA obviously struggled to make an impact.