State of MLS facilities: where things stand on stadium development
Bonus: Click through for a team-by-team rating on how each club stacks up
People who regularly read my work – both of them – probably grow weary of me harping and hounding on stadium development. But I harp and hound for a reason. Nothing is more important for development of the domestic game. These physical structures greatly enhance financial footing and do wonders in establishing a sense of community permanence, something pro soccer has always lacked.
(It also says to the soccer haters: "Screw you, we’re here to stay. So go hide in the forest with the rest of the xenophobic jackholes and douchey ding dongs who always want to know ‘Why can’t things just be the way they used to be?’ ")
Whoa! I guess I’m feeling a bit aggressive today.
Any-who, ground has been broken on a new stadium in
Meanwhile, the Portland Timbers organization is moving forward with needed renovations to
As I’ve noted before,
So, it seems like a good time to review the state of MLS facility development. After all, even some of the best soccer fans aren’t all stadium geeks like me. I know it’s hard to keep up. So click forth for a chart-type thingy on where MLS stands in this critical development initiative.
Chivas
D.C. United – Where things stand: Good grief, what a mess. Pressure point: The effort to find a stadium solution is a years-long tale of fits and stops. RFK continues to be a good place for atmosphere, but that’s about it. The inability to make money there is a serious drag on MLS and, certainly, pro soccer in the nation’s capital. At some point, this thing has to get solved, or United will have to pack up and go elsewhere. And wouldn’t that be sad? Rating: 3 Stadium-stars out of 5.
FC Dallas – Where things stand:
Red Bull
0 recs |
43 comments
Comments
I would give the Rapids DSG a lower rating
The stadium is pretty cool and pitch is great, but it’s simply too far from civilization. Not only is it super weak that there is zero public transportation to it, but you have to drive through the worst part of the Denver metro area to get there. I don’t know about you guys, but driving past oil refineries and dog food factories to a place so vacant they used to make nerve gas at with the threat of being robbed by a meth head doesn’t exactly get you stoaked for the match. All that being said, parking is free, and thats awesome. I give you a 3, DSG.
"It's like an owl without a graduation cap; Heartbreaking!!" -Tracy Jordan
by 303buff on Feb 1, 2010 11:18 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
yeah, i hear you, but ...
… it’s still not as far out as others. so, relatively speaking, it could be worse.
by Steve Davis on Feb 1, 2010 11:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm confused
Qwest isn’t ideal due to its size
Bigger is worse? Seattle is going to have more season tickets sold next year than the next two teams combined, and that’s a problem?
Last year we were 50th in the world for soccer attendence and that’s an issue?
In 2010 we will crack the top 40, and pass Tottenham, and this is a negative?
Obviously I strongly disagree, and I bet ownership in places like Toronto, Portland and Philly wish their stadiums were bigger as well. Currently they are going to be forced to have NBA/NHL attendence numbers when they could pass many college football teams if they had the stadium for it.
I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
by Sounder At Heart on Feb 1, 2010 11:45 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
too big is an issue
I would suggest spending a match up in section 307, perhaps then you would understand bigger is worse. The stadium wasn’t built for soccer, it was built for the NFL. I wouldn’t have scored you lower for the size alone, I would have given you a 3 for playing on turf alone.
by denz on Feb 1, 2010 12:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
False
From Day one it was designed with soccer in mind – Day One. Every single design decision was made for it to be able to host top-flight soccer. This includes having a non-regulation crown on the pitch (NFL requires, but Qwest had to get an exception so that it would be better for soccer).
By the way, the only reason you were able to get to the game was because it was that big. Are you saying that you wish the event was at BuckShaw so you couldn’t go?
I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
by Sounder At Heart on Feb 1, 2010 12:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
why is 307 a bad seat?
http://www.seats3d.com/mls/seattle_sounders_fc/
The plan next years is to open the first 4 rows of the 300s (rows A-D). If you enter 307 D, those seats look pretty darn good. I was tempted to move my seats up there when they became available (I’m staying down below because I enjoy standing).
by PeterJH on Feb 1, 2010 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
like watching
From 307 it was like watching the old electronic football game, little figures moving around and even during warm ups it was hard to see numbers on players.
The only reason fans from Salt Lake and LA had to sit in the upper deck is because the Cup was included in the season ticket package. Listen I love what you guys have going on and as much as I hate Buck Shaw, I would have liked to see the Championship played on grass but I had a great time in Seattle both for the first RSL match of 2009 and the final RSL match of 2009.
If it had been at Buck Shaw the 3,000 RSL fans who showed up would almost all have had better seats, same for the 1,000 LA fans, since they have half their stadium available after you count all their season ticket holders.
by denz on Feb 1, 2010 10:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
But I doubt comparable seats at, say, Emirates would be any better.
by PeterJH on Feb 2, 2010 1:57 AM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
A little sensitive
“Ideal” is just that. It means that conditions are exactly as they need to be to generate the optimum results. If the stadium were “ideal” they wouldn’t need to artificially cap sales, would they? If they could fill all the seats, I assume they would move in that direction. Therefore, for the here and now, yes, bigger is less than ideal.
by Steve Davis on Feb 1, 2010 12:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sellout Myth is roundly critiqued in these parts
They have only sold out two matches (Barca, Chelsea), the rest are just great gate days.
But last season they moved from a planned 22,000 seats sold to end the season with 35,500. This year they are starting with a plan for 35,500 and already have contingencies to expand well beyond that.
But I’m still confused why selling out 20k is better than selling a concentrated 35k (ignoring the old Arrowhead issue where the seats were scattered all over the place).
I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
by Sounder At Heart on Feb 1, 2010 12:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Have to agree
It seems like the turf is going to be the only thing worth worrying about at Qwest. The size of the stadium should be a bonus since it allows the team to expand capacity on its own schedule. There’s no reason to believe that in a few years if the team’s fanbase continues to grow that the team won’t eventually be opening up every seat in the house.
I’m a little more worried about the turf and its potential to scare off international matches. Seattle would seem like an obvious location for big matches featuring the national team, but is there any precedent for those kinds of games being played on turf?
by BayAreaRefugee on Feb 1, 2010 1:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Artificial turf
Has been OK’d by FIFA since the U-17 tournamnet was played in Finland in 2003.
I’ve been to games in big stadiums and no stadium is too big if it is full. That atomsphere in the Rose Bowl was fantastic this past year when Chelsea and Barcelona played there. Of course it was dismal when the LA Galaxy were there all the time. The issue is the fit between the size of the crowd and the size of the stadium.
oc phil
by oc phil on Feb 1, 2010 5:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
For what it's worth
I kinda answered my own question here.
by BayAreaRefugee on Feb 1, 2010 7:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Once again, go back to the word ideal
It’s not that the size isn’t good or that it’s not better than 20k sold out. Nobody said they should go to 20k sold out if they could. The current situation is better than that, but if you could have a 40,000 seat stadium, wouldn’t it be better. It would definitely. That doesn’t mean the current size is a bad thing, it’s just not ideal.
For everything UCLA baseball, visit my UCLA baseball twitter.
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Feb 1, 2010 6:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
40k seats wouldn't be better
because they couldn’t sell 67,000 for the 3 friendlies ;)
I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
by Sounder At Heart on Feb 1, 2010 7:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't disagree
But if we’re aiming for ideal size, than BMO should be at least 30k. And with that I think they would still have a large waiting list.
by PeterJH on Feb 1, 2010 7:17 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Earthquakes
They just broke ground on a training facility that is adjacent to the “future” stadium, which is a few minutes out of downtown and near the airport. Do you know what’s holding the project up, because I read that they had bought the land, but that apparently isn’t so.
Insanity is just a state of mind.
by giants9107 on Feb 1, 2010 12:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
As far as I know
The hangup is in the funding mechanism. Originally, Lew Wolff was planning to do some sort of landswap where he would get some industrial land in South San Jose rezoned to residential and he’d use the profits from that to pay for the stadium’s construction. I think that all fell apart in part because it was shaping up as very controversial, but mainly because the market fell out. Best as I can tell, they know exactly where the stadium will be, what it will look like and about how much it will cost. The land is currently owned by the city. Paying for the construction is a whole other issue, though.
by BayAreaRefugee on Feb 1, 2010 2:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Last I heard, Lew Needs More Cash
The real estate market crash hurt Lew (as did the failed investment in the A’s stadium in Fremont – he put 20 million dollars into that land in sunk cost and hasn’t resold it yet).
He said they need a naming right sponsor to get some more cash together to finance the deal.
You can change your job, you can change your wife, you can even change your gender, but you can never change your club.
Win or lose, we will always be here for you.
Fear no foe, wherever we go.
by johnjahafanclub on Feb 4, 2010 9:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
One strike against size
The size of Qwest has created this interminable debate about how many sections to open and how often. You have a dilemma: on the one hand, you could open up the whole place, have the upper deck be sparse at least on some gamedays, and not be able to declare a sellout or motivate ticket buyers to buy ahead of time, or on the other, you can close those sections down and have the customers complain about it.
If the stadium had been built to about the number of fans the franchise can draw, this wouldn’t be an issue, because fans would know and accept buying ahead.
'Gentlemen' he said,
'I don't need your organization,
I've shined your shoes,
moved your mountains and marked your cards,
but Eden is burning.
Either get ready for elimination,
or else your heart must have the courage,
for the changing of the guards.'
by Sgc on Feb 1, 2010 1:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
not much of a strike
I think this is an “issue” or “problem” that all other MLS clubs would love to have.
by PeterJH on Feb 1, 2010 2:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
The ability to easily expand seating is a great benefit to the Sounders at this early stage in their development. Yes, ideally, they would be in their own grass-pitched, non-tarped stadium sitting right across the street from Qwest.
At this point though, the benefit of being able to adjust to the demand is a greater positive than the empty 300 section is a negative. If they had built a new stadium, do you think they would have built it to seat 35K+? Probably not. They would have built it and it would have been immediately in need of expansion.
As the Sounders mature, perhaps they can look into building a stadium in town that is more suited to their needs. For now, playing at Qwest is pretty dang good. And, when the time comes to build a new stadium, there’s this nice piece of land that’s not in use… Some NBA team used to play there…
by kopp on Feb 1, 2010 4:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Key Arena...
…is not an ideal site for a soccer stadium. Located north of downtown, it sits on a corner of a local art/community space known as Seattle Center in a carved out bowl. In the event the Sounders fanbase grows (which it probably will; as they were selling out to 35k fans at the end of the ‘09 season and were home to, percentage-wise, the best media base in MLS based on Nielsen data), it wouldn’t be able to have the space to seat those fans. Key Arena doesn’t have its own parking, so there’s nowhere to expand the stadium. You’d pretty much be limited to occupying the footprint the arena already takes up, and a basketball court is significantly smaller than a soccer pitch. Seattle Center, for what its worth, already has a sports field that is used by the local high school teams, and is in the midst of being thoroughly revitalized.
Qwest really is ideal for the Sounders situation, minus the FieldTurf pitch, especailly given the buffer between the NFL and MLS seasons. If the Sounders wanted to build a dedicated stadium, they probably wouldn’t move far from south downtown (where Qwest is; Seattle Center is just north of downtown). The area is on the rise, with lots of trendy bars and arthouses, an international district less than a mile away and major transit lines to the east—local light rail, a bus transit corridor, train station and the end of Interstate 90, not to mention a primary exit off of Interstate 5. Parking is perfect, with Safeco Field (the Mariners baseball stadium) parking available most days, and a garage integrated into Qwest Field itself, not to mention the large parking lot on the north end of the stadium. Safeco Field and Qwest are literally right across the street from each other.
SoDo has a lot of old warehouse and commercial space that has shriveled up as the town has become less industrial, so redevelopment and shuffling some local businesses probably wouldn’t be a large hassle. I did have a thought once, as Seattle was fighting to keep the Sonics, that that entire area could be redeveloped with Qwest and Safeco as cornerstones of a “sports district” with a new basketball arena, plenty of bars, et cetera.
by harkening on Feb 2, 2010 10:04 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Aaahh, my little FCD...
Probably one of the prettier stadiums around, with facilities outside that could serve to funnel thousands into the stadium after they finish playing their own games (For those that don’t know, there are 17 soccer fields outside of PHP). But HSG has managed to alienate most of its fans, drive away Hispanic support completely, and raise the prices high enough to piss off even it’s hardcore support, i.e. me.
Stadium, other than location, not a problem. HSG, big problem. Steve, if they took that stadium without fields and put it where Reunion Arena was, don’t you think they would sell out every week? I certainly do!
Chad the Ref
by Chad the Ref on Feb 1, 2010 4:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
sold out every week?
maybe not — especially given the front office bungling over the last few years. but there is absolutely no question that crowds would be bigger downtown and that going forward, building the audience would be more easily accomplished.
by Steve Davis on Feb 1, 2010 6:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
totally agree with the pissing off hardcore supporters
they have absolutely the coolest digs (I like the underground level field…) but HSG has jerked me around with the prices so much I take my kid maybe 2-3 times per season instead of buying seasons which I did for the first 3 years of Pizza Hut Park, .all because they wanted to suck $9.00 (seriously) for a large beer…they don’t listen to their fans. the completion of the tollroad is no longer an excuse for Dallas’ soccer fans though…but management needs to get this ship righted…
by rindworld on Feb 16, 2010 12:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Robertson Stadium Houston
You forgot the lure of the neighborhood crack houses right across Scott St. from Robertston Stadium. Been to 90% of the games since the Dynamo moved here and it is a great place with a good atmosphere and 1940’s era concessions and bathrooms. Not the final answer
by Gorilla Monsoon on Feb 1, 2010 11:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
i agree with all that
it’s a really good place to sit and watch a game. the atmosphere rocks. it’s just everything else that lacks. so, it really is a prime example of a stop-gap solution. but as you said, something better simply must be in the plan.
by Steve Davis on Feb 2, 2010 11:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And by "sell out" I mean...
15-22k in the house every home game. It’s downtown, it’s on the rail line, and the parking infrastructure is already in place. And I think I read the land is owned by someone by the last name of Hunt. I’m assuming he’s either a brother or half-brother. Why can’t a deal like that be done? They could donate PHP to Frisco ISD (or sell it to them on the cheap) and build a 22,500 seater right there at Reunion site. Success with Hispanic market would reappear, suburbanites wouldn’t be afraid to go because they could take the train, and it could be a party atmosphere at the games and afterwards at West End.
Okay, here’s my evil plan. We talk Mark Cuban into buying FCD. Get him to build (with city help) that stadium n that location. Tell him that he could wrestle control of the areas between AAC and new stadium from Perot and others. Money would flow like wine, area rejuvinated, and Cuban can own north end of downtown. It’s a win-win!
Chad the Ref
by Chad the Ref on Feb 2, 2010 11:51 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
as long as you're dreaming ...
… let’s also ask for free beer and Swedish messages once inside the gates of this palatial new estate!
by Steve Davis on Feb 2, 2010 12:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Can someone please explain to me why artificial turf is so hated?
Throughout my childhood, highschool, and post highschool “career” in rec leagues, we played on dirt, grass, and various turfs. By far, we all preferred Field Turf that has been installed all over the place these days. Almost zero maintenance, consistency between fields, etc. I know that nothing beats a finely kept grass surface, but the maintenance on that can be a nightmare depending on the climate. Now I’m not making excuses for Qwest and others to not have grass due to climate, but really I’m just wondering what all the fuss is about.
Toronto “finally” installed grass. Qwest’s only drawback is the artificial turf. Can someone provide insight on it? Is it just because it’s not the traditional surface or just not what FIFA prefers?
by chrisperry1983 on Feb 2, 2010 12:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
FieldTurf...
…at Qwest Field is not based on climate. Literally straight across the street from Qwest Field is an open-air baseball stadium featuring natural grass surface. Qwest’s drainage system is amazing, so huged puddles aren’t a problem. FIFA allows regulation games on FieldTurf, so I think the issue is the first of your suggestions: it’s not a traditional surface.
To be fair, I think if every field was FieldTurf, the consistency would be obnoxious. I love the feel of fresh grass, the spring of soil. I think varying field surfaces—dirt, grass, clay, turf—offer unique properties to the game. One well-maintained lawn isn’t necessarily like another, given different grass and soil mixtures. But as long as FieldTurf is just one of several surfaces, who cares?
by harkening on Feb 2, 2010 10:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sure Chris, I'll do it
I have been a referee since 1990. I have done games on all of the surfaces. Astro Turf was the worst. Field Turf, while much better, is still not nearly as good as a decent grass field, or even a field that is mostly dirt, as long as it is loose and not packed. It is now High School soccer season, the time of year that I dread the most. Shin splints, ankle and knee pain, and general joint discomfort increase exponentially during this time of year. And I don’t run as hard or cut nearly as much as the players. While better than Astroturf, the injuries that occur on Field turf are still higher than grass.
Just ask players what they prefer to play on, and you will get a universal answer: Grass. Toronto FC missed out on many players coming there because of it. Seattle will do the same.
Chad the Ref
by Chad the Ref on Feb 2, 2010 5:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Interesting that your example
isn’t backed up in the data from peer reviewed medical studies
I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
by Sounder At Heart on Feb 2, 2010 8:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think you got it half right
Players prefer grass because the ball is a little easier to control. I would concur with them based on my experience.
I don’t buy the injury part, though…neither from personal experience nor from what I read. I can understand that bad field turf may cause injuries, just like a bad grass field can. But good field turf cause any more injuries than good grass, I really doubt it.
And loose dirt not causing injuries, are you kidding me! That’s the worst! You lose your footing when you push off and it causes all sorts of twisting and pulls your body doesn’t like. It’s horrendous!
by PeterJH on Feb 2, 2010 9:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you think we can get that?
I’ll settle for the free beer!!!
Chad the Ref
by Chad the Ref on Feb 2, 2010 5:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I have personal experience
I’m on Field turf and grass fields all the time. I don’t need medical studies. I know how I feel after leaving both. Grass (and dirt) are much more forgiving on the joints than Field turf. And I’m not busting it at full tilt like the players are doing. If I hurt, then they are doing much more damage to themselves. Injuries don’t have to be instintanious. They can be cumulative. Field Turf causes those types of injuries at a higher rate than grass.
Chad the Ref
by Chad the Ref on Feb 4, 2010 5:21 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
"Injuries don’t have to be instintanious. They can be cumulative. "
Well said. Completely agree.
You can change your job, you can change your wife, you can even change your gender, but you can never change your club.
Win or lose, we will always be here for you.
Fear no foe, wherever we go.
by johnjahafanclub on Feb 4, 2010 9:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not questioning you, but...
How can you say you don’t need studies, then go on to say that they cause injuries at a higher rate?
And I’ve played on both, and good turf doesn’t have any affect. In fact, I prefer Turf over some of the grass fields I’ve been on.
Insanity is just a state of mind.
by giants9107 on Feb 5, 2010 12:59 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Whoops, in re: to Chad.
Insanity is just a state of mind.
by giants9107 on Feb 5, 2010 1:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Because
I can say it because I live it. I’m in the middle of the high school season, and I hurt much worse today sitting in this chair typing this than I do at any other time of the year. And the good news is, the season lasts thru March. My joints, knees, and ankles will be a mess by then. I’ll need 2 weeks of no running at all to get back to normal.
Don’t believe me, figure this out. Steve Ralston just gave up playing for NE Revs to play in St. Louis (hometown, true, but I’ll bet for less money). NE Revs play on Field Turf. He’s coming back from a knee injury. AC St. Louis will play on grass. I know beyond all doubt that was a reason he’s going there. His knees couldn’t handle playing 15 games (more with other teams having it too) on that turf.
Chad the Ref
by Chad the Ref on Feb 5, 2010 12:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
The Red Bull Arena opening will be a glorious day. There is a huge Brazilian and Mexican population in that area so with Santos being the opening game, there will be a pretty awesome crowd.
twitter.com/thisredengine
by thisredengine on Feb 17, 2010 12:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

by 











