MLS needs relocation, not expansion

-Would owners of teams performing poorly financially be given the chance/nudge to move, or would they lose their teams to owners in another city? I’m not sure if MLS would agree to either.
-Do teams like Dallas and Denver have lease agreements that would keep them in their stadiums?

As a Sonics fan, the whole notion of relocation stings a bit, but I could see the MLS not wanting to throw profits down the drain or water down the product too much more.

from Guadalajara fans who see it for the U.S kids to play in. As an L.A native, the franchise targets the Hispanic community. if they do relocate it has to be to a place where a large population has Hispanic futbol fans, which no other city has.

DC should stay. As painful as those numbers are, and as ugly as the stadium is, the league would not be the same without DCU.

Colorado could potentially move a bit East and start up in STL. Would probably have to change the name, but seems like it could work.

Columbus might be good with a short hop. Many Cincy or Cleveland? Expansion in Detroit would also likely help Columbus out, unless Columbus becomes Detroit.

New England is another that would make the league seem weird without it. I would advocate for a FO which cares about putting together a quality on-field experience. Moving out of Gillette is priority, and a short move might be good. Maybe this team becomes the Cosmos.

Chivas will probably be sold before it moves, though if its goal of attracting a primarily Latino fanbase holds, there are some places it could go. Texas might work, perhaps Austin or San Antonio? And I am guessing that if they go beyond just Mexicans, they could go after the wider Latino community in Florida.

This all being said, my guess is that for the image of the league, and its long-term health, it will be better to ease off revenue sharing to a point where the owners of the have-nots are forced by normal market forces to fix their issues. That would mean moving, selling, or focusing on running a professional and successful soccer franchise.

When Seattle announced a refund for the LA game, the league FO responded very clearly. MLS president Mark Abbott stated that this was a one-time occurance and that neither the Sounders nor any other team would do this again. That definitely lends credibility to the 30% revenue sharing with the league. If the total cost was over $1 million (as estimated), then the decision to refund could have cost the league over $300,000. That’s enough to get the league president to address it directly (as he did).

1st, I’m not a fan of the MLS to Canada train. It was never the goal of MLS to promote Canadian soccer. Toronto was a sweetheart deal when the league needed a shot in the arm. But Montreal and Vancouver grate on me. We should be looking for potential US markets, not making the Canadian National Team stronger with our infrastructure.

2nd, on the list itself. I think the problem with the Rapids is they’ve never had a consistently good and attractive product. Denver has a lot of alternatives, you have to make a serious commitment to competing. The Rapids haven’t, really. They’ve made a commitment to being good enough to scam the system. But close or far from the town center, they have a brand new facility. I don’t think relocation is an option for them. And Denver is a large enough market to support them. The problem is competitiveness and the dual football they played for so long.

Kansas City: I don’t see how this is in the “help coming” list. KC has been a disaster since it began. It enjoys no civic support—it’s not even listed in the city’s Chamber of Commerce for sporting attractions, while the Jayhawks are! The stadium is honestly good money after bad. And if there’s ONE team that ought to have been relocated all along, it was them.

Chivas: Down to San Diego

San Jose: Putting a 2nd team there was a debacle waiting to happen. Not one of the Don’s better decisions.

I honestly don’t see the Red Bulls ever being ‘profitable.’ They’re too heavily subsidized and willing to spend. That said, there’s more to success as a sporting franchise than making money.

New England’s attendance tends to fluctuate with team performance. And the league wouldn’t exist without Lamar Hunt and Robert Kraft. Hunt’s gone and his family doesn’t show the same passion for the sport. Kraft is still in, and he’s smart enough to figure out what he needs to do. Unless/until he’s out, relocation shouldn’t be discussed with them.

Because that only 2 teams number is based on ignoring certain income streams.

Here is what I posted a while ago about 2009’s recession nearly killing the League.

Now, let’s remember that this year while still stumbling away from recession the League is in a much stronger position. I’d wager that 10 teams are in the black this season, particularly when we take into account non-soccer revenues for teams that own/operate their own stadiums – everyone but DC United and Chivas USA by end of 2012.

As for talent dillution, let’s recall that there are a near infinite number of players of MLS quality available to the league. More than 200 Americans “play” abroad and only a few dozen are in teams/leagues that matter. That number for Canadians is about 50 or so. Also, MLS has traditionally only used about 60% of its international slots. How many other Sanna Nyassi’s are out there? Until MLS has a national footprint it will not get a real national tv deal worth money.

While relocation may make sense (DC to Baltimore), expansion makes a lot more. This is especially true due to the nature of TV contracts and the 40M$ that goes into the pool to the current owners/operators in MLS. And when we include SUM money, Expansion money and a stronger economy of 2010 MLS probably only has 3 teams that aren’t profittable, and one of those is Red Bull, which is essentially an advertisement.

…that the expansion dollars are going a LONG way towards covering any losses that some franchises are sustaining.

Also, I have to wonder- when you talk about relocation, how much is lost in terms of startup costs? Sure a new team in town can be exciting and draw well for a year or two, but there’s a ton of infrastructure costs that a team needs to establish.

SSFC had a huge advantage on this in that they already had an existing infrastructure of ticket agents, PR people, marketing people, security, operations, etc all sitting there ready to go. They just used the Seahawks’ staff. Most new teams aren’t going to have that- and since local operations are a cost that comes out of the local franchisee’s pockets, you know it’s going to be an area where those owners are going to tend towards being skimpy on.

I’ve dealt with a lot of MLS teams’ operations and ticketing people in doing travel arrangements for ECS, and let me tell you- I’m often surprised that any clubs are still in business. People slag on government workers for being slow, dumb, lazy, or unmotivated, but some of the things that MLS teams do or their employees say/do are simply incredible.

So between the new teams franchise fees and the desire to rein in local costs and the added costs of relocation, you can see why owners are probably resistant to relocation.

Granted, some of those already-invested costs (most of them in fact) in existing cities are sunk costs, the reality is that humans have a really hard time making truly rational decisions that involve sunk costs. They see it as walking away from money they’ve invested/spent, and without any return, and they hate to do that.

and when top tier clubs can’t hack it, they get replaced by lower-tier clubs, and if they can’t hack it, they get replaced. Let the “free market” dictate it, not central planning… what a concept!

32-36 clubs spread over USA and Canada, and the 16-18 that comprise the MLS are the ones who deserve to be there…

I have SERIOUS concerns about the MLS "expanding’ beyond 16 teams…. and in fact, I would consider 18 to be an absolute upper limit…

This is why there are no real soccer “clubs” in America
These teams are all members of a franchise, not a club.

If could mean the end of the MLS. Relocation is a big issue though for some teams.

I can’t comment on his web site, so I’ll do it here. I’m flattered that I received not one, but two responses in the same day. Don Garber hasn’t even accomplished that (as far as I remember)…

The Indulgent Longwinded Criticism – I probably deserved most of this. I recently finished reading Atlas Shrugged, so you can probably recognize where some of this is coming from.

A Real Response – Better.

As I stated, it’s actually very difficult to have a real discussion about this with so few numbers available. Bash the writer of that paper for basing his discussion on the internet soccer community, but I pretty much did the same thing (and so do you for the most part). Beyond attendance numbers, there is precious little else available.

Regardless, I’m impressed that I evoked such a response out of you. You made Dave Clark think about it enough that he pulled it from the main page. I probably deserved that too.

Good day sir.

But I’d have to disagree about putting a franchise in Florida. The last one failed, and even MLB does terrible there.

Besides…….I don’t want Keller putting his hand in a gator’s mouth like in Happy Gilmore.

Far too much of Denver is reliant on Public Transport. At any given Avalanche, Nuggets or Rockies game about 30% of the people there probably took the light-rail, myself included among them. It takes literally 3 hours to get to Dick’s Sporting Goods Park via public transport from Downtown Denver, and until they finish the new light rail line that goes into Commerce City that’s probably going to remain the same. Fortunately such a light rail line is actually being built now so at least the city isn’t sitting on its laurels.

Considering the shoddy team that the Rapids have been putting on the pitch since 2006 and the difficulty getting to The Dick for those of us without cars or who prefer public transport, I’m not surprised at the low attendance, disappointed though I may be.

The Rapids probably won’t move if only for the following reason; Considering the amounts of money, time etc. that Stan put into building DSGP I highly doubt that it will go empty only a few years after it has been built.

By the way, if you’re doing research you’re not doing it very well because DSGP has an even larger soccer complex surrounding it than Pizza Hut Park does. If that’s the only thing keeping a team with 3K fewer fans per game above Colorado, I think you’ve lost the plot.

This article is a pile of crap. OK, I can appreciate that the writer is an enthusiastic newbie, and that he’s done quite a bit of research and assembled his facts to make his case. But in the end, while you can take a pile of crap and sculpt it into an exact replica of Devils Tower, you still have a pile of crap.

First of all, as other posters have pointed out, we’ve tried soccer in Miami and Tampa Bay. Fail. The Heat might actually get some fans for once with their trio, but every sport save for American football has struggled in the Sunshine State. And even at that, Jacksonville always comes up in any discussion of NFL relocation possibilities.

Speaking of other leagues, relocation is no panacea there. In the NFL, the Raiders went to LA and came back. In the NHL, the Winnipeg Jets became the Phoenix Coyotes, and now they’re considering heading back to Winnipeg. The Washington Senators won’t do any better at the gate in a few years than the Montreal Expos if that baseball team doesn’t get its act together. And people in Memphis and New Orleans just don’t care about the Grizzlies and the Hornets.

It’s very easy to sit there and move teams around on paper. It’s not like those other teams’ fans actually exist as far as you’re concerned. But what would really impress me is if you came up with an idea or two to answer this question: “Hey, how do we take this fan success in Seattle and export it to every other franchise in MLS?” That would be a much more intelligent question to examine, especially if you’re concerned about the league’s profitability.

After all, if the Rapids had done as well in Mile High as well as Seattle’s done at Qwest, they’d still be at Invesco. If DCU were doing as great in RFK as Seattle’s done at Qwest, they’d either have RFK refurbished or a new stadium. The story would be the same with every other team around the league.

You can write a term paper about it sourced so well as to make even the most hardened professor weep with joy, but if you’re asking a stupid question, you’re still going to get a stupid answer.

Ask the correct question instead. It’s the same question I’ve had since I went to Sounders’ A-League games in the mid-1990s, when a Seattle MLS team seemed as remote as could be: “How do we get more fans?”