You’ll hear it more and more these days:
“The MSP market is up for grabs.”
It’s a provocative phrase. It suggests volatility and implies the market is undefined, chaotic, or open to whoever wants to claim it.
But it’s also fundamentally wrong.
The managed services profession is not a blank canvas. It’s a structured, evolving discipline built on more than two decades of operational experience, standards, and real-world accountability.
Where the “Up for Grabs” Narrative Comes From
To be fair, the perception isn’t coming out of nowhere.
There are real forces reshaping the market:
- Rapid cybersecurity escalation
- Expansion of cloud and AI-driven services
- Blurring lines between MSPs, MSSPs, consultants, and vendors
- Increased competition from hyperscalers and adjacent providers
Even the definition of “MSP” has broadened enough that some in the industry now question what the term actually means.
From the outside, it can look fragmented. Tool sprawl, inconsistent service models, and wide differences in provider maturity can all reinforce the idea that the industry lacks cohesion.
But that surface-level complexity is being mistaken for a lack of structure.
Those are not the same thing.
The MSP Profession Has Always Had Structure
The managed services model didn’t emerge by accident. It developed out of necessity, and from the beginning, it demanded discipline.
Its origins trace back to the late 1990s and early 2000s, when businesses needed predictable, proactive IT support instead of reactive break/fix services.
From that point forward, the model evolved in clear, identifiable phases:
- Reactive service delivery (break/fix origins)
- Proactive monitoring and management
- Security-centric and compliance-driven operations
- Strategic advisory roles aligned to business outcomes
This wasn’t chaos. It was a sign of maturation.
And as the model matured, so did the expectations:
- Recurring revenue models replaced ad hoc billing
- Service delivery became standardized
- Operational processes became documented and repeatable
- Accountability shifted from individual technicians to organizational systems
In other words, the profession developed guardrails.
The Role of Standards: Defining What “Good” Looks Like
One of the biggest misconceptions today is that MSPs operate without a shared definition of quality or maturity.
That hasn’t been true for a long time.
Formal standards, most notably the Unified Certification Standard, were introduced in direct response to that challenge.
Created in 2004, the Unified Certification Standard (UCS) established what the industry lacked:
- A vendor-neutral framework
- A consistent way to evaluate MSP operations
- A blueprint for both security and business performance
It didn’t just address technical controls. It defined the full structure of a credible MSP, including:
- Governance and leadership
- Service operations
- Change management
- Billing and reporting
- Corporate health
These aren’t optional components. They are the foundational building blocks of a scalable, trustworthy managed services business.
Just as important, the framework has not remained static. It has been continuously refined to align with (and influence) global standards such as NIST, ISO, SOC 2, and CMMC, ensuring MSPs operate within a broader ecosystem of compliance and accountability.
That is not a market “up for grabs.”
That is a market with defined expectations.
Why the Confusion Persists
So if the structure exists, why does the “up for grabs” narrative keep showing up?
The answer is simple: the barrier to entry is still relatively low, while the barrier to maturity remains very high.
Anyone can call themselves an MSP.
Not everyone operates like one.
That creates a wide spectrum:
- At the low end: loosely organized providers with inconsistent processes
- At the high end: structured organizations with audited controls, defined service lines, and measurable outcomes
To an outsider, that spectrum can look like fragmentation. In reality, it reflects different levels of maturity within the same profession.
The same phenomenon exists in every established industry:
- Healthcare
- Legal services
- Financial advisory
Structure exists, but not everyone meets it.
Cybersecurity Has Reinforced (Not Disrupted) the Structure
If anything, cybersecurity has made the MSP framework more rigid, not less.
Modern MSPs are now expected to:
- Manage security across endpoints, networks, cloud environments, and identities
- Navigate complex regulatory requirements
- Act as operational and advisory partners on risk
Cybersecurity is now one of the primary drivers of MSP growth and client retention.
This has forced providers to adopt:
- Formal governance models
- Documented security controls
- Continuous compliance processes
You cannot operate effectively in this environment without structure.
And increasingly, the market is rewarding those who can prove it.
The Real Dynamic: Not “Up for Grabs,” But “Up for Maturation”
What’s actually happening is not a free-for-all.
It’s a sorting process.
The market is separating:
- Structured MSPs from unstructured providers
- Verified operators from self-declared ones
- Organizations that can demonstrate trust from those that cannot
Customers are becoming more sophisticated, regulators more involved, and insurance carriers more selective.
All of these forces push the industry toward greater standardization, not less.
Final Thought
The idea that the MSP landscape is “up for grabs” confuses visibility with ownership.
Yes, there are new entrants. Yes, there is innovation. And yes, service definitions continue to evolve.
But the underlying profession is not undefined.
It is built on over 20 years of operational discipline, standards development, and real-world execution.
The question is not who will claim the MSP market.
The real question is:
Who is willing to operate within the structure that already defines it, and do the work required to meet it?
