Don Garber clarifies MLS expansion policy
by Steve Davis on Sep 19, 2011 12:04 PM EDT
Email
Print
How does a 20-team MLS sound to you as a stopping point? Enough? Too many?
Either way, you might just need to formulate a personal opinion on this matter, because it looks like official MLS policy is leaning in on the big 2-0.
MLS commissioner Don Garber was in Dallas over the weekend for the Red Bulls-FCD contest. It was a prearranged visit, but Garber also used the opportunity to add his condolences to Bobby Rhine and his family on a night of honoring and remembering the highly respected former player and broadcaster.
At halftime, Garber held one of his impromptu, informal meetings with reporters and bloggers. So I asked about Mark Abbott’s comments from earlier in the week, and some agitated reactions that followed. Abbott, the MLS president and someone who has long sat just beneath Garber in the organizational hierarchy, told the Sporting News’ Brian Straus that a 20-team MLS looks just dandy to him and others in the league’s corner offices.
“Our focus right now is the 20th team in New York and we have not yet set a timeline for expansion beyond that, or even (determined) if we’re going to expand beyond that,” Abbott told Straus. “There’s no place we need to be. Even at the size we are, we have a tremendous national footprint and are at the size that soccer leagues typically are. We feel good about the size we’re at. Other markets could be very successful as MLS markets, but (expanding beyond 20) wouldn’t be out of need. We don’t need to grow beyond where we are.”
Major League Soccer is currently an 18-team operation. Montreal joins next year as No. 19. The league is working hard to add a second team in New York. That’s never been a secret. From there …
Garber seemed surprised that fans and media found Abbott’s comments newsworthy. But I certainly did. I always assumed, like so many others, I believe, that MLS would continue to expand at roughly the current pace until it reached 22 or 24 teams at least. After all, it’s a big country. Plenty of untapped markets look ripe for the tapping. Other U.S. leagues are taller trees, by far; The NFL has 32 teams. Major League Baseball, the NBA and the NHL have 30 each. No, MLS isn’t in the same forest just yet with the NFL, baseball or NBA. But it’s not too far behind NHL now, and presumably has ambitions of moving incrementally closer to the Big Three of American team sports. Still …
“I was surprised at some of the social, some of the media reaction to that,” Garber said. “We never said we were aggressively trying to go anywhere, including aggressively trying to pursue a 20th team. We’d like to have a 20thteam. We’d like that team to be in New York and we’re gonna work hard to try to make that happen. At some point after that, we’ll expand at the right time. We have no number in our mind as to how many teams that will be. At the right time, we’ll make those decisions.”
Garber said the league has had “recent discussions” with Las Vegas and Minneapolis, and just a little further back with Miami. They are in “almost daily” discussions with more than one group in New York. (Yes, the Cosmos is one of them … but reading between the lines, it sounds like the Cosmos group isn’t anywhere near ready for prime time.)
So I asked Garber if this was a calculated chess move? At the risk of sounding cynical, I told him, it might seem like MLS is just trying to goose the market a bit here, using some well-placed PR to add pressure on potential new owners. He insisted there was no market manipulation at work.
“Honestly, we’re really not,” he explained. “I made this comment to the staff earlier today: There was a time when expansion was a core, strategic priority. It’s not that now. We’ve got many priorities, but expansion is not one of them.”
What about the economy, I asked? Perhaps this public pronouncement of conservative growth is tied to the fact that so many folks are about two lost paychecks from a bread line. Could it be that MLS will turn more aggressive when expansion prices could reasonably be set higher? Garber says that’s not the case, either.
“We have put a $100 million price tag on a New York team. We haven’t sold it to anybody yet … but I don’t believe the fact that we haven’t closed a deal has anything to do with price.”
So what’s the deal? It’s just about a stadium, the commish says. On this point, I couldn’t agree more. We see it over and over, how the right facility in the right part of town arranges the best chance for success. This ain’t 1996, after all. MLS is past the point where new clubs are content to be renters in the nearest NFL stadium. (And, pretty please, let’s never go back to those intractable days.) As Garber put it, they can’t just put down lines and throw up grandstands in Central Park.
90 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm content with 20 for now.
If you want to put yourself in position for an MLS expansion slot, take over or launch a NASL or USL team, get a proper stadium worked out and nurture it and grow it into something worth promoting to MLS. It’s undoubtedly extremely risky to pump money into the bottomless pit that is one of these lower division teams, especially without some kind of agreement from Garber that in due time you’ll get to buy into expansion. But unless some crazy ownership groups step up none of the currently underrepresented markets are going to get MLS teams…regardless of how much soccer fans in the southeast or minnesota or vegas want one.
NY can't even support 1 team
why should they get a second? There have been hundreds of millions of dollars poured into NY and all they average is 17k per game. They have the nicest stadium in the league and tons of high paid stars. I just don’t get it.
Win or lose, we'll always be there for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Sep 19, 2011 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I have wondered this same thing
Why have a second when the first can’t even fill their beautiful stadium? Even with highly recognizable DP superstars, and rising USMNT stars in the mix? Part of me wonders if the location in NJ and the relative difficulty of getting there is an issue, and if Cosmos/whoever put a stadium right in the middle of downtown, it would work?
by chrisperry1983 on Sep 19, 2011 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions
which brings me to my second point
the cosmos don’t have any money behind them. paul kelmsley is a millionaire, maybe worth 10-20 million dollars by my rough estimate. add in beckham and you have what, 100 million? they don’t have the money necessary to build a SSS. the original idea was to get the Mets owners involved and build a comsos sss next to shea stadium in queens. but the mets owners lost a ton of money in the madoff scandal so they are out. so where is NY2 gonna get the money from? how is this sss gonna get built?
Win or lose, we'll always be there for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Sep 19, 2011 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Interesting
I did not know that the issue of money was there. No wonder they’ve been masquerading around for so long without any progress. Sounds like they should just sell the name to a real contender if MLS is absolutely set on NY2.
by chrisperry1983 on Sep 19, 2011 1:47 PM EDT up reply actions
downtown stadium
is a longshot. The Jets tried to build a manhattan stadium and the city council killed it (with some help from Cablevision.) It would take tons of cash and a lot more political goodwill than any soccer owner is likely to have.
The best place for a stadium inside the city limits is next to Citi field, where you also have the US Tennis center. I think one could also fit somewhere in Southern Westchester, there are three train lines that run right through there and it close enough to drive from the city and most suburbs.
Um...
NYRB are 5th in attendance for the league. Not ideal for the money they’ve paid, but I wouldn’t call that a terrible lack of support.
I think a team in Queens or Brooklyn could draw well without diluting NYRB fanbase (When I lived in Queens, Harrison, NJ might as well have been Hawthorne, NV), and the rivalry would drive attendance for both clubs.
that's not good considering
the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been sunk into that team and that the city’s population is 8 million and metro area is 18 million.
Win or lose, we'll always be there for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Sep 19, 2011 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions
I wonder
how much say Red Bulls have on a 2nd NY team. They bring a lot of money to the table. I’m sure MLS wants to keep them happy, and Red Bulls won’t be too quick to want another team in their market.
You can't say a team in NJ is catering to a market of 8 million
Fans in Queens or the Bronx would have to take a 3 hour round trip through subway-train transfers to get to and from a NYRB match. Most areas areas in Brooklyn would be a 2 hour round trip. You’d be lucky to get anyone from those areas to make that trek once a year.
With Red Bull Arena in Harrison, there’s a pretty much untapped market of at least 3 million in the outer boroughs. A stadium within the boroughs would have a commute, that took half or less the travel time and would cost half as much.
not to mention North of the City and Long Island
I used to live in Fairfield County, CT, and it was 20 minutes to Yankee stadium, 25 to Shea, barring traffic. I never drove to Harrison, but it about and hour and 20 to get to the Meadowlands, so I imagine not much shorter to Red Bull Arena. 3 hours round trip by train and subway sounds about right, maybe longer than that. A stadium out in Queens or the Bronx, or even in Yonkers would draw all those fans who might like to see soccer but dont want to schlep out to Jersey.
The fact that the team has been shit for all these years hasnt helped the NJ team.
Hmmm
funny because people have no problem making it to Jersey for 20+ NFL games…
by musamonster on Sep 20, 2011 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions
Completely different animal
The NFL is undisputed king of American sports. MLS is gaining ground, but clearly 2nd or 3rd class in popularity. When MLS is drawing 60k for every game, and their weekly games are a cultural institution, the comparison will be valid.
Even given that, it would be interesting to see how many Giants-Jets fans that attend games are coming from Queens, Bronx, Yonkers, or Long Island.
True, but the fans show up.
Nobody complains that it is on the wrong side of the river.
different animal indeed
as fennsk1 pointed out, the NFL is a cultural institution. Its games are events. There’s waiting list for season tickets that could fill a book. I don’t know if I could even get tickets to a Giants game if I wanted to. I know there’s stubhub and whatnot, but until that came around you had to know someone to get decent seats.
NFL games are the type of thing you plan with your buddies months in advance, and its only 8 games for each team. Im sure there are a lucky few who go to a lot of games, but that is far from the majority. Unless you’re a sports columnist or a millionaire playboy who doesn’t really root for either team but really likes football, nobody goes to 20+ games.
The Jets were based on the island for almost 20 years. In the Joe Namath days they played at Shea, and the Giants played in the Polo Grounds and at that Dump in the Bronx. They established their fan bases before they moved to Jersey and im sure in the beginning the fact that it was an easy trip made a big difference in attracting the casual fan.
any soccer team is going to rely on walk-up traffic, curiosity, incidental fans, etc, especially since there are at least 18 home games in MLS alone. The handegg teams don’t have that problem. The Red Bulls will still get their committed fans, all Im saying is that a new team on the other side of the city could cater to a whole different set of supporters, those that have an interest in the game, but not the time or inclination to make that trek out to Jersey.
Any MLS team that relies on walk up rather than season tickets has already failed
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
good point
and I thought of that as I was writing it. Obviously they will have to sell enough season seats to be profitable, as any sports team does. Not all season tickets go to die-hards. From what I understand a great many come from people or entities with only a casual interest in the game.
Perhaps the word I should not have used was ‘rely.’ Certainly they would expect a larger percentage of ticket sales to come from non-season ticket holders than is the case for the football teams.
The real point was that if a soccer team had the kind of ticket demand that the NFL teams have, MLS would be talking about how to put 3 or 4 teams in NYC.
by ianua ditis on Sep 21, 2011 10:24 PM EDT up reply actions
New Jersey is not New York City,,,,no matter how close or convienent.
Its been true in hockey, and its been true in basketball. And its why neither New York baseball team, nor any other baseball team from another area have moved to play in New Jersey….
If you are a team that calls yourself “New York” you must play in NEW YORK. The NFL teams are exception to the rule due to popularity of that sport in the US. The Prudential Center is a wonderful building that is 4 blocks from one of the best connected public transit sites in the US (other than New York CIty and Boston) yet the Devils don’t draw as well as they did when they were at the Meadowlands. The Nets would prefer to be in Brooklyn instead of Newark and are hoping the whole season is canceled so they can open the 2012-12 season at Barclay’s Center
If the New York Cosmos ever come online and play in one of the 4 boroughs not named Staten Island, they will do well and pack the house for most games and the Red Bulls might as well change their name to Red Bull New Jersey because New Yorkers who do come to watch them play will dry up.
I've always figured the league would expand to 24
Bigger than the top leagues in Europe due to a greater geographic reach, but smaller than the big leagues here, due to not enough markets. The Championship is 24, and they have a balanced schedule. Seems like we’d be able to do the same thing here, and maybe just cut down on friendlies? Maybe give concessions to teams in CCL to ease the burden? I dunno.
When I look at the MLS map of the US and see big gaping holes in the Southeast and everything north of Colorado, it feels like there’s gotta be some untapped markets ready to be taken advantage of. Even somewhere like Arizona, Nevada in the SW seems like they could be an option. Atlanta maybe? Florida 2.0? Who knows.
You know that there are no major league sports teams in that big gaping hole north of Colorado for the simple reason there are not very many people there.
(And I am not counting the NHL teams because I can’t see MLS adding a fourth Canadian team any time soon with so many large US markets untapped).
not really comparable to Championship, unfortunately
I follow Hull City very closely, although I am a Rapids STH and big MLS fan. The problem comparing the two is twofold: 1) travel isn’t nearly as much of a pain for many Championship teams. Hull City goes a much shorter and easier distance to most of their matches than the Rapids. Our closest flight is to SLC and what with the hassle of TSA and the drives, that’s far worse than most UK train rides. 2) when you add in the additional CCL games and international call ups that most MLS teams experience, it takes away your top players a lot more than most NPower Championship teams experience.
I agree on the gaping geographical holes but I think the long-term answer is to beef up the NASL or whatever it will be called next year and again the year after, and work promotion/relegation. I know it would be a hard sell to the current MLS owners who have ponied up large, but surely if the EPL could figure out a way to make it work for the 4 teams relegated in 92, then we can. This obviously couldn’t happen for YEARS, but at least it’s a way to keep a reasonable schedule and also expand the footprint.
Expansion and NYC and Others
First, I think ultimately MLS is going to be bigger than 20 teams. Just from a TV standpoint, you need to have more of a presence in the SE.
Second, I look at London with a couple of Premier teams every year and see the value of a rivalry within a City (even if some of the London teams go up or down b/c of promo/rel). Granted, that’s England. But NYC could support 2 (or more) professional teams in the same sport.
I think the real challenge for NYC is this: the City and most of it’s soccer fans need to get over themselves. They need to be content with a blue-collar, hard-working team with a DP that has no cache’. Instead, they’re always wanting and lusting after Henry or Mattheus or Weah or someone who played with a big club and won a lot of stuff (but may be over the hill now and not great for MLS). NY fans demand that glitz and money and rep and the problem with MLS is the best we can do in those areas is to buy aging stars (rather than Messi). So NY clubs have trouble drawing in soccer b/c they’re not “big time”. That said, there’s more than enough fans who follow soccer in NY and NYC is the best place to see if a 2-team city rivalry would work (and if that’s something to look at down the road). If you wouldn’t try it in NYC, what other city would you look at….Toronto? Seattle? The map for success of soccer in the US is still be charted. And the possibility of rivalry within a city may be something with real possibilities…but we don’t really know at this point. NYC could be a good place to find out.
by JoeWillmore on Sep 19, 2011 1:26 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
“I think the real challenge for NYC is this: the City and most of it’s soccer fans need to get over themselves.”
From my standpoint, those Easterners don’t realize what a bore and how troublesome it is to stay on top of watching Euro football from a West Coast viewpoint. 4am, 7am matches? No way. I want my sleep on Saturdays.
Jag kom, jag såg, erövrade jag.
That could be the basis of an interesting argument for more Western expansion
MLS may be doing so much better in the West partially because MLS is the best place for those folks to get their fill of soccer. A Eurosnob on the East coast can feel pretty sated after taking in 2 or 3 EPL matches by the early afternoon.
We just get up early
There’s an Arsenal blog called 7AMKickoff based in Seattle. The Aston Villa blog is called 7500 to Holte because that’s how far away they are. Soccer fans with a Euro bent out here on the Pacific Coast on Saturday wake up early to watch EPL, then watch La Liga, then go play, then watch local.
East coasters just ignore their local team
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
by Dave Clark on Sep 19, 2011 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
LA????
“That said, there’s more than enough fans who follow soccer in NY and NYC is the best place to see if a 2-team city rivalry would work (and if that’s something to look at down the road). If you wouldn’t try it in NYC, what other city would you look at….Toronto? Seattle?….”
Isn’t this already being tried in LA. Galaxy/Chivas rivalry. Galaxy are doing fine not so sure about Chivas though. It would be nice to see Chivas have their own stadium and see if it worked there.
Gal-Goats Rivalry
There is a rivalry of sorts there. But there’s never been any doubt that the Chivas side is the red-headed stepchild living in the basement.
Let me put it this way: MLS stumbled across the impact of urban stadiums (vs. far out suburbs like FCD). MLS that identified the power of regional rivalries (Seattle-Portland is a great one, nothing artificial about it and actually quite a lot of soccer history there). So I think MLS is intrigued with the idea of a city rivalry (like so many great classico/derby’s around the world) as a way of building on some of the great supporters groups, regional rivalries and just goose that atmosphere even more. Not enough to be the league on. But enough to try it with one city. And NYC is so big you can demand a big expansion fee and have a decent chance of pulling it off. Maybe some day we’ll see 2 MLS teams in KC and 4 teams in Dallas. But right now, if you had to pick one city to try a second team, you’d either try a do-over in LA (which means you’d have to move the Goats) or you’d try NYC (which technically speaking, has a team about as much as Fort Worth has a team or Oakland has a team).
I don't think
intracity rivalries are that big of a deal here in the US. Mets-Yankees might be a good story, but Red Sox-Yankees is a much bigger rivalry. More often than not you will find fans of one team supporting the other team in the city when they aren’t competing head to head.. Cities seem to stay united when it comes to sports. Intercity rivalries are much bigger. NY vs Boston. LA vs San Fran Bay Area. Philly vs NY. Everyone vs NY….
The reason why Red Sox/Yankees is so much bigger than Yankees/Mets is cause the former are in the same division and play each other in the regular season and playoffs so much.
True
but you think Mets-Yankees would mean that much more when they do play. But what of other intracity matchups? Devils-Rangers-Islanders? They’re in the same metro area, but I think Flyers vs NY/NJ means more. Is Nets vs Knicks that big of a rivalry? Or how about (ha ha…) Lakers vs Clippers?
counter-examples to your argument
Rangers-Islanders: to this day, Rangers fans chant “Potvin Sucks” and “Beat Your Wife, Potvin” in reference to Denis Potvin, who was an Islanders thug in the 70s and 80s.
Cubs-White Sox: these two fanbases hate each other, and are divided geographically in the city.
Those two pairings have been similarly competitive/non-competitive for large parts of their history. Mets-Yankees, Lakers-Clippers are naturally lopsided, and the cross-conference/league ones are unlikely to get very heated when they don’t play each other (kind of amazing that Cubs-Sox got so tense even so).
If MLS is so intrigued with the idea of regional rivalries
an easy way for them to grow that without gambling on NY2 would be to have regional rivalry games played on Saturdays instead of Wednesdays. SJ @ Portland is on freaking Wednesday this week which kills any ability to have traveling support.
Win or lose, we'll always be there for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Sep 19, 2011 5:58 PM EDT up reply actions
San Jose - Portland isn't a rivalry
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
no it's not
but it’s a regional game that MLS could foster a rivalry by making it easier to travel
Win or lose, we'll always be there for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Sep 20, 2011 2:27 AM EDT up reply actions
The real shame was that one of the RSL-Colorado games was midweek
Actual rivalries should never be midweek (except maybe Chivas/Galaxy)
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
From a fan's perspective, I agree
but you’ll notice the 3 Wednesday Timbers games this season were against regional rivals and that’s likely to make it more amenable for the teams to play those midweek games without having to do too much traveling. So I find it hard to begrudge the league on that.
throw in
scheduling LA-SJ on the same day as the gold cup final
the scheduling office has some serious problems
Win or lose, we'll always be there for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Sep 20, 2011 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions
That's an actual rivalry and a mistake
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
The Timberes didn't play the Whitecaps and Seattle on weekdays
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Number of teams
At this point I think the viability of the league has to be the major factor, and the number of teams secondary.
It would be great to have profitable teams in Atlanta, Miami, St Louis, Phoenix/Tuscon, San Antonio, Cincinatti, Memphis, Minneapolis, and/or other metro areas that could/would support them. The more the merrier, as long as they are viable.
I wouldn’t have a problem with two 15 to 20 team conferences.
“As long as they are viable” is the key phrase. I think The Don recognizes that the markets you mention don’t have worthwhile proposals right now. As far as I’ve heard, none of them have the stadium, supporters, and cash to be a no-brainer.
The NHL over-expanded when things looked nice in the 80s and 90s and is still paying for it. Sitting at 20 and waiting for proper, viable expansion opportunities seems like the smart course right now.
If MLS can groom a 20-team league into a thriving group of clubs, then other markets will be begging to join with a proper bid and larger franchise fees. Sounds much better to me than pushing over-expansion now.
Intra city rivalries not needed here...
Sure, it works in England, Spain, and Italy, but it’s not necessary here. Why? Because as much as we want to think differently, there isn’t enough market share in a city to merit 2 teams. And I mean anywhere. Want proof? Let’s look at LA. Galaxy and Chivas USA. LA had a decent following before Chivas came along, but didn’t regularly sell out. Then Sir Becksalot came and LA could sell out often, but not all the time. And what about Chivas? I don’t look at the stadium at every home game, but all that I have seen, they don’t open the 2nd level, and there may be 4-5k tops in the lower bowl. Paultry to say the least. And I know paultry being in Dallas!
So here’s what needs to happen in my estimation. Move Chivas USA to San Diego and change the name to something that doesn’t alienate a large portion of the Hispanic market before the team kicks a ball. Get MLS to 22 teams, none in the same city. That’s right NY, you have to live with the team you’ve got. Wait 4 years, then assess.
Another reason the Cosmos won’t be in MLS? Shirt sponsorships. Cosmos supplied by Umbro. MLS has exclusive deal with Adidas that if MLS has any sense, they will renew when it comes due. The only way Cosmos make it if Red Bull pulls sponsorship from NY and leaves it hanging in the balance for Cosmos to swoop in and take over team on the cheap.
Chad the Ref
by Chad the Ref on Sep 19, 2011 2:05 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Sharing a stadium is dumb, but that isn't completely damning to intra-city clubs
I think intra-city clubs in any sport need some level of geographic distinction (outside of markets that are so mad for that sport that it doesn’t matter.
If Chivas had been based in Anaheim (and marketed/named in a much smarter way) they would have been much better off.
Likewise, in NYC, a club based in Queens or Brooklyn would be marketing to a huge clientele that wouldn’t dream of going to Harrison for a NYRB game.
that's one of the reason i said:
“outside of markets that are so mad for that sport that it doesn’t matter.” Please at least read a post before trying to argue against it
by fennsk1 on Sep 19, 2011 5:11 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Agree.
I watched the DCU v. Chivas USA game last week (on MatchdayLive). It was weird, sad, creepy even to see so few in the stands. I didn’t even recognize the Home Depot Center. Granted, just a sample of one, but…
I think the priority should be to identify markets that would support their club. Portland and Vancouver seem to be doing OK, and Seattle is impressive. More like that, please.
One more point. If we insist on a single table, as most European leagues operate, then 18-20 is the most we should have in the league. If on the other hand we keep our conference system, then we can easily support 24 teams without overloading the schedule. One more point for the conference system.
About Atlanta and Florida
As far as expansion to Atlanta and Florida, I have to say only maybe to Atlanta, and HELL NO to Florida. Atlanta only has a so-so record when it comes to sports other than NFL. If you don’t believe me, try finding an Atlanta Thrashers hockey game this year. Can’t? Because the franchise was moved back to Canada. Braves do okay as long as they are winning. Everybody else? After thought. And the Atlanta ________ (fill in blank MLS nickname) will flounder in the after thought catagory.
Florida gets the Heismann. Been there, failed at that. Look at their teams. If it’s not NFL or college football, it’s shit. No fans, tenious ownerships, and always a chance of them leaving. Orlando may be in the running if they can support USL team, but 11k for a championship doesn’t impress me. Get that in there every nite, and more for playoffs, and now you have a shot.
Chad the Ref
RE: About Atlanta and Florida
Orlando may be in the running if they can support USL team, but 11k for a championship doesn’t impress me. Get that in there every nite, and more for playoffs, and now you have a shot.
Please name one current MLS team, that used to be a Division 2 or 3 club, who averaged more than 6021 in attendance. Please enlighten us all as to why the attendance is a determining factor as to whether Orlando has “a shot” at an MLS franchise, but you give Atlanta a better chance.
Money, stadium situation, money, leadership team, money, and potential market penetration will be the top reasons whether a city is blessed with a franchise. Oh, unless of course you’re in New York City, then forget everything but the money aspect.
Past events have me believing that Minneapolis (I think MLS is being used as a bargaining chip for stadium situation) and Las Vegas (there has been the appearance of truth-stretching about bringing in other professional sports) will be non-starters, but who really knows. Orlando is trying emulate the path most recently favored by the league of ‘promoting’ lower division teams who demonstrate a tradition of fan support . They are at a disadvantage because they are new, but are trying to make up for it by building a larger fan-base in a lower league than those who blazed that trail alread (Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, Montreal).
by knightgrad02 on Sep 20, 2011 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions
And honestly 11,000 for a D3 championship is a HUGE number
So is the 7k they averaged during the regular season.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Atlanta only better by a hair
I don’t want Atlanta in either because of the reasons I put above. Atlanta is a terrible sports town. The only place that’s worse is Florida. Look at the 4 major sports teams and their support. It barely exists in Florida. And Florida has already been tried and it failed 2×.
Orlando did well for the 1st year. Now let’s see them stustain it for 5 years. Once the novelty is gone, will the support continue? That will tell all of us if Orlando is close to getting into the league. If they succeed and get in, I’m behind it. But Florida doesn’t have a good track record in MLS or with most other sports as well.
Chad the Ref
by Chad the Ref on Sep 23, 2011 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions
Interesting backtrack
He can say all he wants about being surprised at the blogger and media coverage, but in the midst of the MLS expansion rush over the past few years, there were plenty of times where Garber and others were talking bigger.
But now that all the interested parties have been ‘promoted’ from the USL1/NASL, there’s no-one else out there knocking at the door. They’re going to have to work hard to land #20, and I see the logic of working hard to make it happen in NY.
Those that complain about RBNY’s attendance overlook a couple things:
1. The team and former owners did a crap job for 15 years, and were playing in a cavernous stadium. Now, they’re in something more appropriate, and have managed to increase their attendance over last year, which was a big jump over the previous year. You’re not going to get instant sellouts just because they opened a more convenient stadium.
2. Synergy. A second team in NYC (especially if they can somehow manage to shoehorn it in one of the actual five boroughs) would pump just that much more energy into the East Coast rivalries. And, as much as I hate to admit it, if it were the Cosmos name, it would get attention. Yeah, that’s basically a marketing and fashion line now with insufficient funds to step up to MLS. But that name has such a strong history that it’s virtually impossible to ignore.
What may happen is MLS working hard and eventually landing that 20th NY team (though at this very moment, it looks like Orlando may make a late hard run at it). And then sit back and wait for either the NASL or USLPRO to grow a couple more good markets.
Do we have the player talent for more than 20?
As I noted above our conference system would allow us to easily support 24 teams without congesting the schedule. But do we have enough good players to stock that many teams without significantly degrading the quality of play? Presumably as more money enters the league we could import more players, but perhaps a better priority would be to expand MLS player development.
by DrWeevil on Sep 19, 2011 2:35 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Maybe not immediately, but soon
With most MLS teams creating youth academies, it won’t be long before there are a lot of players that are good enough to stock more teams. As long as we can keep them in the US.
So you wait until the player base develops before further expansion.
You don’t want the league to expand on the hope that everything keeps progressing at the pace you’d like. That’s how other leagues have ended up with the Nashville Predators and Vancouver Grizzlies.
Hey!
Don’t be knocking my Preds! We are currently more viable than your Stars! :)
But seriously, there is a fine balance with expansion teams in the MLS and NHL. They both represent non-traditional sports in most places in the US. While commercial viability is a must, the leagues also have to consider that teams in non-traditional markets (the south for the NHL, pretty much everywhere for the MLS) are also ambassadors for the sports. Hockey was almost non-existant and unheard of in the Nashville area 15 years ago. Now the Predators have a hardcore fanbase that is growing by the day. Youth hockey is everywhere. Stanley Cup finals ratings were much higher than average in the Nashville area. In many ways, the MLS has done the same thing for soccer.
Very complex issue
So you’re saying that the NHL ended up with a couple terminally crappy teams that no-one went to see because they didn’t have enough good players?
I haven’t followed the NHL close enough to know exactly what you’re saying.
But let me at least attempt to follow up. I’m not suggesting that MLS should expand right now. There are, as we all know, several things that drive expansion, and first and foremost is whether there’s an owner that’s interested and a viable stadium.
DrWeevil wondered whether we’d have enough talent for more than 20. I replied ‘not now, but soon’. Meaning that with nearly all the MLS teams fielding youth teams (and a few NASL and USL teams as well), by the time there are any additional investors seriously interested in MLS, the talent will be there.
Let me throw some numbers out there. The FC Dallas U17/U18 team has 21 players on it. Let’s assume that half of them are 17 years old. That means that next year, the US Soccer Development Academy has 780 player ready to move on to college. Yes, most of them will go there, but let’s assume that the theory is that in general these are the top players.
Watching how things have gone the past year or two, we can get a general idea of how things have worked so far with this. It seems to me that generally we’re seeing about one player a year graduating from these youth teams up to the senior team. Which means that from the MLS teams, there are 9 other players that go somewhere else (college, overseas), PLUS all the other players from the other DA teams.
It’s true that in the long run, most of these players probably won’t work out. It’s one of the sad things about soccer in the US currently — there’s not much of a D2 or D3 to give these players a place to go, especially after college. But it seems to me that if the Development League is cranking out 780 players a year, there are probably enough players to support a couple more teams 3-4 years from now. The only question is, where will they go to improve their game between now and then?
You're right, it's complex and i over-simplified my answer.
I was trying to go a little broader than just player development when using the example of the NHL. Hockey in the 80s and 90s looked to be the sport on the rise in North America. The NHL had some good fortune in expanding to LA and Dallas, arrogantly that they could expand anywhere and the game would just catch on because of a team’s presence. They raised salaries (and ticket prices) at the same time. All of this was done on the assumption that ratings, attendance, and talent would continue rising as they had been.
In the end it turned out that there wasn’t enough hockey talent to go around, few southern cities developed diehard fanbases, and many blue-collar got priced out by the rising cost of tickets.
I was trying to say that over-aggressive expansion from MLS carries similar risks. I agree that 20 should not be the final number, but it seems like a good place to stop while the league steadily improves.
I’m confused by your math above. How did you go from ten 18 year old FCD Academy players to 780 graduating academy players in the US overall? I agree that the US talent base is improving, but you may be a little optimistic in your timeline.
I just think MLS is smart to develop players, cashflows, and stadiums before expanding further. Going about such things backwards can lead to trouble.
by fennsk1 on Sep 20, 2011 7:44 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Talent for Expansion?
Yes. Just raise the salary cap. The problem with expansion in MLS is a tendency to view it like the NFL or MLB where there is a limited number of good players. The reality in MLS is that the world is our oyster. If you raise the salary cap by $1 million per team, you could expand by 2 teams AND raise the level of play and depth in the league as well.
I remember when Sasho Cirvoski at Maryland bitterly attacked MLS for the P-40 program (signing players out of HS or Bradenton), saying it would reduce the quality of college soccer. Now, while I wouldn’t argue for college soccer as a great place to grow NT strikers, the quality of college ball is much improved. What P-40 (and it’s successors) have done is expand and improve the pool. Some kids skip college, others leave early. But there is even more talent flowing into college ball. The more MLS academies there are, the more talent will grow, the more competitive academy play will be, the better the players will become. Kevin Payne of DCU said his objective in the near future is to be able to field an adult/pro side on a regular basis that consists of 8-9 academy products with 2-3 players who’ve been drafted or purchased from overseas clubs. MLS ain’t there yet but it’s not unforeseeable either.
There are
only so many players available for the US/Canadian roster spots. More teams means more spots available means more US/Canadian players needed.
And money doesn’t grow on trees. The easy answer is “raise the cap” but the money has to be there to do that. I don’t know what the MLS’s books look like, but I’m sure there isn’t that much money available. Even if the new NBC tv deal is for $10 mil a year, that’s only $500k per team in a 20 team league.
There is plenty of money to raise the cap
the claim that MLS clubs “lose” money is based on paper losses that all sports teams use to mask their profits. The two biggest paper losses are expensing the purchase price of the team and the roster depreciation deduction.
You can see them in action here in the NBA:
If your MLS club has a jersey sponsor that is $3-5 million / year.
Win or lose, we'll always be there for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Sep 19, 2011 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Based on stadium funding filings for KC it is known that annual expenses per club are about 12-15 Million
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
link?
and do you see their actual books or do you just see them claiming a bottom line number? b/c the bottom line number likely includes the above paper losses.
Win or lose, we'll always be there for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Sep 20, 2011 2:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Because taking on millions in salary easy?
I’m tired of “raise the salary” as a lazy fix-all argument. If MLS could safely afford to pay millions more for players, they’d do so. Despite the success of a couple markets, the league is not making big profits. Why take the risk of going NASL when it’s unnecessary?
by fennsk1 on Sep 19, 2011 5:17 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
There is no danger of talent dillution due to expansion
Currently there are almost 300 Americans and Canadians playing overseas in places like Austria, Norway, Belgium, Russia, etc.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
and most of them are there because Euroteams pay better.
Expansion won’t make a return of those players very likely.
by fennsk1 on Sep 19, 2011 11:54 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Are you certain that Finland pays better?
Or Austria 2? Or Isreal? Or Tom Tomsk in Russia?
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
If they've exiled themselves to the far reaches for less than MLS...
They probably did so in part for money.
The guy at Tom Tomsk is on loan from one of the big-money clubs, Zenit St Petersberg. Who else are you thinking of?
And if I’m wrong and they did agree to play that far away for less than MLS offers, why do you think they’d come back during expansion?
Nate jaqua went to Austria 2
Norway and Scandanavia are flooded with MLSers.
Josh Wicks, Lamar Neagle and others played in Finland.
the salary model has changed significantly
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
My apologies.
I’m pleasantly surprised by the Preds attendance numbers from last year. Should have used the Phoenix Coyotes or the former Atlanta Thrashers as an example.
You make good points about non-traditional markets. All the more reason for MLS to be certain they’ve got good ownership, a stadium, and strong core of support (in that order) sewn up before considering expansion to a new market.
On that point
The Thrashers had plenty of fan support. What they didn’t have was good ownership support. So the fans eventually went away. In traditional markets, the NHL has also had problems with attendance when there were ownership problems. The Blackhawks and Islanders are both good examples of this. The MLS has to make sure that expansion markets have all of what you mentioned.
I do like how the NASL has been the gateway to the MLS in the last few years. If the Cosmos and their “millions of fans” want in the MLS, they should have to get in through the NASL. “Cosmos for life”? Prove it.
For a 2nd MLS team to make sense, they’ll need a stadium in or near the East side of Manhattan. A USL/NASL side won’t/shouldn’t get that kind of real estate.
by fennsk1 on Sep 19, 2011 5:22 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I hate to tell you...
but MLS probably won’t get that real estate either. There’s a reason Red Bulls built in Harrison.
I meant "near the East side" very loosely.
Sorry I wasn’t clear. If the 2nd NY club doesn’t better serve Queens, Bronx and the N and E suburbs, there’s no point. I think it’s realistic and necessary that they secure real estate near Citi, Yankee Stadium, or any space near public transit that’s aging or under-developed.
Clothing company
Ohh what a joke these Fake Cosmos are. Did you hear that they cancelled games that were supposed to happen in NYC? They are not a soccer enterprise….they don’t have a stadium, don’t have a pro team, don’t have fans, don’t have money. Watching this thing going down in flames is going to be fun. And all this talk about building in Manhattan…too funny, and I lived there for a few years. Do you people know how close RBA is to Manhattan? And do you know how many millions of people in the NYC-area would have a harder time getting to Flushing or something instead of RBA? Give RBNY time to build up, which they’re doing.
Go Philly Union.
by Andrea on Sep 19, 2011 6:05 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
totally agree
I went to the Quakes playoff game in NY last year and taking the path to the game was so freaking easy I was jealous. RBA is only 10-11 miles from Manhattan and has super easy public transit access. I live 25 miles from the Quakes stadium and it has terrible public transit access the only option is caltrain which only runs once/hour and is super slow.
Win or lose, we'll always be there for you.
by johnjahafanclub on Sep 19, 2011 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions
right
The new team needs to serve the NE of the city, where it does take a long time to get to Harrison (and where there’s an even larger aversion than usual to the garden state). Another New Jersey team would make no sense, and a downtown team wouldn’t be much better.
yeah
although ill concede that taking a train to flushing from CT probably takes only slightly less time than taking a train to RBA, if you want to drive there is no comparison. it takes about 5 times as long to get to jersey.
Its not really an argument worth having, but there are at least as many millions in the metro area who would have a much easier time getting to Flushing, including the entire bouroughs of Queens, Brooklyn, and most of the Bronx, as well as Fairfield County in CT and most of Westchester.
Plus those who don’t live there dont realize that putting a team anywhere within the city limits (except possibly Staten Island) would give that team a cachet that Red Bulls will probably never have, no matter how close or great their stadium is.
If the Red Bulls can stop sucking and choking every season, they will probably still have some die-hard fans left when the new team debuts. Honestly the area is big enough for more than two teams. They have at least two in all of the other sports. There are plenty of fans to go around.
by ianua ditis on Sep 21, 2011 10:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Now here's a problem for the 24 team + league
If there are any more than 22 teams, scheduling is going to be a huge headache. As an FCD fan, I want to see them play every other team in the league at home. That means that we would have to play every team away. If there are 22 teams, that’s 42 league games, plus US Open Cup, plus Champions League, plus friendlies with Real Madrid et.al. over the summer preseason for them. Am I leaving anything out? Oh yes, international dates, which should not be played on league wise. Now we are talking about starting the schedule in Febuary (spelling) and ending in early December.
Now some of you will say that you shouldn’t play every team at home and away. Look at it from the present. Would any team that doesnt routinely sell out already want to not be on LA Galaxy’s schedule? And pass up a huge gate with Sir Becks? It won’t be long before most teams have a star player that could be a draw. Do you want to be like the NHL in that respect and miss that player for 2 years or more before he plays in your stadium? I don’t think so.
Chad the Ref
The NFL has a hugely unbalanced schedule
and nobody complains that Tom Brady doesn’t come to their stadium. That just the nature of the league. If the MLS goes to 30 of so teams eventually, no one will complain that LA didn’t come to them that year. They’ll still have NY to hate on. And when LA does come it will mean that much more.
MLS doesn't need to try
to emulate the NFL on this. A majority of the clubs can’t rely on their own fans to fill the stadium every week to watch their own team play. Many need the marquee name on the other club to help fill seats. And I think that will stay the same for quite awhile. Teams need to visit every year, not once every 3.
Chad the Ref
by Chad the Ref on Sep 23, 2011 11:21 AM EDT up reply actions
The balanced schedule is gone at 19 teams next year
Say goodbye to it and look to the future.
Ideally playing every team at least once is doable.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Relocation, not Expansion
It sure feels like Abbot and Garber are getting ready to flex their relocation muscles again. The last time they did this, Steve Davis wrote this article.
At a price tag of $100M it sure looks like it would be cheaper for a perspective owner to buy an underperforming team like Columbus or Chivas and relocate them to wherever they want. Obviously the league’s owners would have to “approve” sales and moves, but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be cheaper.
My complete thoughts on this are over at S@H.
I doubt they'll go there unless they absolutely have to.
As Davis says in the article you linked to, “nothing stirs the stink of league failure like contraction and relocation. Garber knows as much.” Are Columbus and Chivas the strongest franchises in the league? Obviously not, but we don’t know the full story of their finances. Heck, Chivas has never had attendance below 14k. This is easily the worst year for attendance in Columbus, and if they keep going down, they’ll be at risk, but one off year doesn’t seem like justification in and of itself.
Overall, I very much doubt they’ll move franchises who play in league-owned soccer-specific stadiums. Maybe if San Diego or Anaheim built a stadium for Chivas. I think a short-distance would be easier to swallow.
We also don’t have a good accounting of profit-and-loss for these franchise. I only think a club would only be moved after the league gives a concerted effort to fix up their finances, and year after year they continue to be drains on the league coffers.
I'm sure the league
would still be asking for a “relocation fee” if someone bought the Crew and wanted to move then to NY.
Contraction is the only thing that really looks bad, yet MLB and NBA still feel free to waive it about from time to time (though mostly as a labor ploy).
Relocation and bankruptcy can look really bad, but all 4 of the big leagues in the US have done it, and even the big Euro soccer leagues aren’t immune to bankruptcy. The bigger thing is does the league know when to pull the trigger rather than let a team languish for 10 years, and how will they look on the other side? The MLS looks really good years after contraction. A hard pill to swallow, but it was for the best.
by musamonster on Sep 21, 2011 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions
OK...
Which teams do you think are at risk of languishing for 10 years? I don’t see one that is clearly as bad as San Jose or KC were back in 2005.
Oh
I’m not pointing fingers. I really have no idea. But if there is a clear case, then the league shouldn’t be afraid to do it for the sake of looking bad. The NHL might have looked bad for a couple of days when the Thrashers moved, but the excitement of the NHL in Winnipeg has easily outshone whatever bad light was put upon the NHL for the move.
If anything, the bigger question should not be “Will this make us look bad?”, but rather “How much should we fight for this city?”
In the case of Chivas, LA has plenty of other sports teams, including one of the premier MLS teams. (Sad to say) the city won’t miss them too much. Columbus, on the other hand, only has one other pro team (not including OSU.. heh).. and that team has troubles of is own. If Columbus loses the Crew, they won’t be getting another MLS team (or even pro team, for that matter) for a long time.
Columbus needs to stay there
Maybe stadium upgrades, definitely new ownership, and they’ll be right back up to 15k a night I would hope. I think the Hunts need to sell to a local owner, the league could help by taking nothing from the sale (extra fees), and then there would be 1 owner for every team in the league.
Chad the Ref
Built and they will come!
When it comes to MLS adding it’s 20 th franchise it going to come to one important factor above all others. All interested parties have the resources, the fan base and what it takes to be successful But the final ingredient is stadium to call their own. As much as the league wants the 20th team be in New York City, unless their is a stadium you can forget it. So it all comes down to if you built it they will come. Of the cities currently in the sights of the league masters, only two seem to be actively working towards this goal. They are New York City (Being pushed by the league office at city hall.) and Las Vegas (Plans for a stadium complex are now underway in Henderson, NV, with plans for completion by 2014). So, it has been made very clear without a stadium plan their is no chance at MLS expansion. Their will be no temporary stadium situtation, they must play in their own soccer specific stadium. This is what seems has been the down fall for the Cosmos group. Knowing what it takes to built in NYC, it seems the real frontrunner should not be such a surpise. Now you guess, who will be the 20th team?
by Stephen Johnson on Oct 17, 2011 6:36 PM EDT reply actions
