Cascadian Away Support - Facts and Solutions
This a large look, at a complex issue. It reviews how an issue has gone from simmer to nearly boiling, but ideally will include new data, new opinions, and a way that we in this region of over 10 Million people can continue to move forward in our love of sport.
About a month ago an article was published which claimed that Away fans would be forbidden from attending matches amongst the Cascadian teams in MLS beyond the MLS-mandated 150 tickets. It clearly laid the blame upon the Seattle Sounders FC front office and heavily leveraged statements that Joe Roth and Gary Wright made to myself and other members of the Alliance Council at our last two live face-to-face meetings to create a bit of controversy.
While that original story referenced the abbreviated recap provided by Matt Gaschk on the team's website, Matt's story was about events weeks before the second of two meetings with the Alliance Council and representatives of the Front Office. His statements were condensed, and only a partial view of a discussion that has taken place over multiple meetings and hours of talk.
For four weeks things have simmered. I have received emails, facebook messages, tweets and phone calls from around both countries concerning this issue, an issue that largely exists because of one site's story. It continues to simmer, and has even led to the Southsiders of Vancouver to issue a Press Release regarding their opinion on the upcoming Cascadia Derbies.
Vancouver Southsiders want the doors left wide open for soccer fans travelling from Seattle and Portland
VANCOUVER - Next year, Major League Soccer will be home to the legendary Cascadia rivalry between professional soccer teams in Vancouver, Seattle and Portland. The league will also have to address an issue it has never had to contend with before - hundreds (possibly thousands!) of "away days" supporters travelling up and down the I-5 to watch their teams play on the road.
It's a scenario that seems to have MLS executives mystified. Media reports out of Seattle suggest that Sounders FC owner Joe Roth has been spooked by public safety concerns, and may limit ticket allocations for visiting supporters to just 150 seats per match. League commissioner Don Garber also met with the Timbers Army supporters club in Portland this week, where he admitted that he doesn't really understand supporters culture and the "away days" phenomenon that is so important to soccer fans around the globe.
IN OUR VIEW:
The three-way Cascadia rivalry is an absolutely crucial part of the past, present and future successes of professional football in Vancouver, Seattle and Portland.
The away days experience is vital to building camaraderie and solidarity within supporters groups, and expanding their membership numbers.
Supporters groups are the lifeblood of successful soccer teams, as they increase club exposure, generate an exciting matchday atmosphere and lend credibility to a sport which must compete with the Big Four sports entities (NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL) for fans, dollars and media recognition.
Bearing these points in mind, we feel there are steps that could be taken by Major League Soccer which would benefit the teams, their supporters and the league as a whole:
- All home / away derby matches between Cascadia rivals should be booked for Saturdays, Sundays or long weekends. This will make it much easier for greater numbers of visiting supporters to attend these matches. Midweek fixtures make travel expensive and impractical.
- The three Cascadia clubs should not restrict the number of away tickets available to rival supporters. We believe that the presence of visiting fans on a rival's home turf makes for an exciting atmosphere that strengthens the resolve of all supporters and encourages them to sing and cheer even louder. By welcoming the Cascadia rivalry right onto our doorstep, new Whitecaps supporters can see firsthand that they are a part of something that is truly unique to North American sporting culture. This rivalry is a powerful phenomenon that has the potential to convert casual fans into passionate, lifelong supporters. Major League Soccer should not be shying away from this amazing opportunity.
- Major League Soccer should work with supporters to pre-empt any security concerns well in advance of the 2011 season. This is something which Vancouver Whitecaps FC has done extremely well over the past three years, resulting in a practically flawless safety record, even for matches with a significant presence of visiting supporters.
STADIUM SAFETY:
We believe there are three key principles which should serve as basic guidelines for Major League Soccer clubs who face the prospect of hosting large numbers of away supporters:
- Away supporters should always be seated together in one area of the host stadium. This allows police / security personnel to supervise spectator conduct, and to swiftly identify and respond to any safety issues which may arise. The away supporters seating area should be located at a reasonable distance from the home side's most active supporters groups.
- If possible, away supporters should be instructed to enter and exit the host stadium through one or two predetermined designated gates. These gates should not be anywhere near pre / post match marches, rallies or places of congregation which are known to be frequented by the home club's supporters. If away supporters seek entry at an incorrect gate, stadium staff should immediately redirect them to the appropriate entrance.
- If absolutely necessary, visiting away supporters can be escorted in / out of the stadium by police / security personnel at predetermined times. Doing so will minimize the potential for verbal / physical altercations between rival fans. For example, away supporters can be escorted directly to their seating area 15 - 30 minutes prior to kickoff, and detained for 15 - 30 minutes after the final whistle before being escorted out (this will allow time for home supporters to disperse from the stadium, and once again reducing the potential for interactions between rival fans
IN CLOSING:
Vancouver, Seattle and Portland bring something to Major League Soccer that it has never had before – a legitimate and historical rivalry spanning three generations.This adds credibility to a league which is trying to establish itself in an increasingly crowded professional sports market.
We are of the belief that the pros of hosting away supporters by far outweigh the cons, as their presence on our home turf will only fuel the passion of the Whitecaps fan base. It would be a shame to allow a few misconceptions and fear of the unknown to get in the way of a truly electric match day atmosphere.
A sport only has relevance if there are fans rallying behind it. It's time for Major League Soccer to support its supporters.
It should be noted that the suggestions given above are the standard practices throughout MLS at this time. While there have been some issues with them in the past, as of the last Supporters Summit these ideas were the ones moving forward.
MLS clearly sees the supporters culture as a key element in what the sport is. Just watch the advertising of the league and its sponsors.
Some of the ideas from the Southsiders are excellent, but in all I figured it would be better to talk to the source, because there are some disagreements between my thoughts and theirs. Ben Massey over at 86 Forever put me in touch with the current Southsiders President John Knox and we had a fairly substantial exchange of ideas.
First off, I asked him about what other "media reports" are out there.
With regards to Seattle "media," no, I am not aware of any sources other than PA. I used this term in the release for the sake of brevity, given that my local media audience wouldn’t have a clue who Steve Clare or PA is, or how the blog fits into the regional football scene. It’s hard enough educating them about the difference between MLS and all the D2 entities.
In the few interviews I’ve done since the release I’ve made a point of saying that I haven’t heard Joe Roth speak on these issues directly, and can’t vouch for the accuracy of the PA remarks. That said, the reports by PA are not my sole source of concern, nor the sole reason for issuing the statement we did.
I watched the recent Garber Q&A videos from Portland, and to say I am concerned about his grasp on the marketing potential of this rivalry (and its importance to the supporters) would be an understatement. He seems believe that a stadium full of unified support will draw better ratings than a derby match with opposing fans giving each other holy hell for 90 straight minutes. Does he really believe that ESPN viewers flip the channel upon realizing that the stadium has opposition supporters in it? That’s ridiculous. It’s stuff like this that really exposes the disconnect between the people who administer football, and the people who live for it as we do.
This is an important distinction. Knox recognizes that there may be issues with the initial reports (like away fans not actually being forbidden from attending matches), but still sees that there may be broader issues throughout MLS. Sometimes MLS ignores both local and international sports analogs in their quest to break into the "Big" sports in America and Canada.
Whether that is the strong traveling support of Europe (with its relatively easy travel schedules), or when MLS ignores that in college sports we already see large sections of traveling support. They are called students and they sit together when they travel. In fact teams that historically travel strongly get LARGER allocations than those that do not. One need only look at the Nebraska-at-Washington game earlier this year when 7,000 seats were set aside for Big Red. For me, this is a key fact to note.
The Southsiders were quite bold in calling for no cap on a large away supporters section, and so I had to ask, is there actually going to be enough room at Empire Fields? BC Place will certainly be able to expand, but could Empire Fields even fit several thousand people from Seattle, considering that the Whitecaps expect sellouts?
Empire Field (the temp stadium) – it seats 27,000 for gridiron football, but the Caps FO have routinely insisted that they are keeping the numbers down to around 20,000 to 22,000 in order to maintain consistency with the lower bowl soccer configuration at BC Place. That said, I think this has a lot more to do with creating a local demand for tickets than they are letting on.
As for how Seattle and Portland fits into that picture... well, that’s a different situation entirely. You aren’t Vancouver fans, so they don’t need to convince you that the Caps are a hot ticket item. I think they’ll expand Empire’s capacity for those first few derby matches because you’re a gravy train of cash that only rolls through town once or twice each year.
This is a comment that I have made to the Sounders as well. One of the reasons you want to invite away supporters to the stadium is that you can make tens of thousands of dollars off of them. They will need to pay for their seats, buy food, buy drinks. They may even buy scarves and jerseys so they can set fire to them later.
But while it is apparent that both Seattle and Vancouver can allow for large groups of away fans to sit together what about our Southern neighbor? Could they fit more than 150 there? At this point they have expressed no interest in curtailing local sales to support a few match days of away support from Seattle and/or Vancouver. They have denied the ability to the Sounders FO, while the numbers clearly don't support the ability to be fair in how they want their fans treated compared to how they will treat the ones from the other two cities. What does Knox think of that?
As for your question re: fairness, it’s a tough one to answer. We have to take into account that everyone has a different-sized venue, and a different number of season ticket holders eating up the available seating capacity. I think that all three venues are going to be capable of absorbing at least 500 visiting supporters. If that’s the "even steven" benchmark, maybe that’s where we all start.
Of course, Seattle and Vancouver may be able to offer substantially more than that. Regardless of what is "fair" for all involved, I have asked Vancouver’s FO to let as many visiting supporters into our ground as possible, absolutely regardless of how many seats are open to us in Seattle or Portland. We want no part of tit-for-tat negotiations between the clubs. Your FOs either get it like ours does, or they don’t.
I have seen no indication that Portland will be able to have even that 500-seat mark. But again John Knox makes sense here. Two of three teams can easily fit more fans, and they should. It will help the two that can fit more make more money, it will lead to better TV, whether the analog is collegiate sports, or European football. The impact in local media of packed trains and buses heading along the Cascadia corridor will capture the imaginations of people around the world, not just locally.
There is that minor issue of security, though. While security concerns in MLS are not new, they do arise when large groups travel. Security has been so mishandled between Toronto FC and Columbus Crew that the Reds fans no longer make their massive trip to Crew Stadium.
But even those incidents were quite minor. While they were handled improperly, it was no worse than anything that happens at Philly Eagles or Oakland Raiders game. They were also easier to handle because the groups that traveled were seated together rather than scattered around the stadium.
On this subject Knox basically wrote a separate essay.
We only need to look at Europe to know that seating away fans together makes excellent sense from a security standpoint. The potential for trouble is always rooted in situations where fans have crossed the line in their interactions with each other. If you limit their ability to interact with each other to singing from opposite ends of the stadium, you’ve neutralized 95% of all things which could potentially go wrong.
As you know we’re mad for hockey up here, and the Vancouver Canucks are the most popular sports entity in town. Vancouver also has noticeable numbers of Toronto Maple Leafs fans. When the two teams play each other here, the perennially loud and obnoxious Leafs fans are scattered all throughout the arena, much to the nuisance and annoyance of everyone else. Home fans don’t want away fans seated near them, especially if the home side is losing. This inevitably leads to taunting and other nasty verbal exchanges, and in some cases, physical altercations which could have been prevented.
If sufficient efforts aren’t made to accommodate the large numbers of Cascadia supporters who want to travel, they will inevitably turn to ticket scalpers, resulting in scattered pockets of potential trouble all throughout the host stadium. This is trouble that none of the three main supporters groups want.
That final paragraph is quite true. No one in MLS wants a massive in stadium incident. The League will be on TV more in 2011 than it ever has before, a large part of that will be due to the expansion of the TV deal in Canada, but also because of the likely reworked deals in the United States.
The imagery of opposing fans within a stadium can be a powerful message. If you look at Rivalry Week for college football, these are some of the most watched games of any season. Most of the people who watch Michigan v Ohio State aren't doing it because they went to either school, they are doing it because it is a spectacle. The same holds true for Army/Navy, Harvard/Yale, Florida/Georgia, Texas/Oklahoma.
These are EVENTS.
The Cascadia Derbies can be the soccer analog of those events.
Contacts with the Timbers Army have told me on multiple occasions that they will not go on record in conversations with me, as they try to avoid a media presence. ECS leadership and I have discussed these issues many times, and much of their position exists within my own.
My statements to Joe Roth have been that we need not concern ourselves with fairness from one or both of our neighbors, we should lead. We can show that MLS stadiums are too small for what is needed for the sport to continue to grow. I have a feeling that ECS and GFC leaders agree. We want them here, be they Timbers Army or Southsiders. Come to my stadium, spend your money, and watch your team lose.
That in essence is what the Southsiders want as well.
We love the derby atmosphere, and we also know that the interaction between supporters groups will help us energize the Vancouver sports scene in ways that nobody would have ever dreamed of. Believe it or not, it’s fans from Seattle and Portland who are going to help us convert Vancouver spectators into Southsiders supporters.
2011 will be a year of change for MLS, and while the new rules, the schedule, the new TV deals are all part of it, a large part of it will be three teams challenging for the Cascadia Cup in ways that should remind America of Tobacco Road basketball or SEC Football. The fans will be traveling, the only question is how organized will it be.
51 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Amtrak
I think not only should they open it up to as many away fans as possible, they should go a step further and promote/market the games in the away markets jointly with Amtrak to get as many fans as possible from the opposing teams. Just imagine all the money from a 5K fans getting off the train and walking over to the stadium! And imagine all the money from the food/beer sold to them in the upper deck that is mostly emtpy now. And once you have 5K away fans up there, you might as well sell the rest of the seats cheap and try to get to 65K. All those cheap seats will still buy overpriced beer and hotdogs as well!
There's a good chance I will be leaving the country next summer...
and because of that, I’m hoping that we get the game at PDX early in the season. I would so love to take a train down there and watch us destroy them before I move (maybe even with some flags saying “you’re welcome”). Does amtrak do beer on trains? I could just imagine a train full of supporters…. it would be a hell of a night.
If Amtrak has a train to the at Portland match next year...
… and I have the money for the tickets, I am so there. That would indeed be the best way to work the travel situation in the derby.
I meant in a partnership
Like you were proposing. Something like a “buy a ticket for the match, get a round trip train ticket for X% off” sort of thing.
I guess I just don't see how Portland would ever hold up their end of the bargain
It would be big of us to offer them a huge section, and I’m in favor of us modestly offering them more seats than they can offer us, but unless they really limit season ticket sales, I don’t see how they’ll ever be able to offer more than, say, 2,000 seats max if the team is even modestly successful. And given PGE’s downtown location, it seems unlikely that they’ll be able to add more seats to the stadium as time goes on, and I don’t see them getting a new stadium for at least 15 years, probably more.
And even if the Timbers were willing to entertain the idea of an alternate venue for those games, there’s not a bigger venue in Portland, and the only options that might even make sense would be to go to Eugene or Corvalis, and they are awfully far from Portland for that to be a particularly appetizing option for their supporters.
Who cares
If they can not make room for us? The point is it makes a better game at home if we allow them as well.
Stick them in the upper deck on the east side.
I think they could get a really good view of our banners from there.
I care?
While it might make the atmosphere better, I think that having supporters in attendance is an advantage on the pitch, and I don’t want Portland to have an advantage that the Sounders don’t get in return.
Atmosphere is cool, but I think that maintaining home-field advantage is more important.
At best they get maybe 5K
and they are all in the upper deck. This compared to 40-45K sounders supporters. I do not think they will be giving PDX any advantage.
I disagree
I think that 5,000 supporters can do an awful lot to buoy a team’s spirits when they are all working together (which they will be.) Sure, the Timbers fans won’t overwhelm the Sounders support, but 5,000 people is enough where the players will definitely feel the love.
I think the advanatge is overstated
of having a bunch of your fans in attendance, unless you are overwhelming the home support. And I don’t trust any math that states differently.
I would like to point out that these matches may be serious business for the players, and livelihoods are at stake. BUT: these matches are intended primarily as ENTERTAINMENT for the fans. And large away contingents seriously increase the entertainment value.
Even from that standpoint, I'm personally not buying it
I don’t want 5,000 people reminding me that my team lost at the end of the game, and there will be some games that don’t go the Sounders’ way. I doubt that I’m the only person who feels this way.
I also think differently about the crowd support than you do. I feel like you get the biggest advantages from having some audible support in the stadium (which 150 fans does not get you), basically that the biggest difference is going to be between some support and no support, and that that’s a bigger difference than the difference between having 20K and 30K.
And when we win
You will love reminding it to 5000 away supporters! It just makes winning and losing feel better and worse.
It is part of the sport
Premier League teams can be minutes from each other. They get huge swaths of fans for the derbies.
I’m trying to track with you a little on what your opinion is exactly…are you against having away supporters altogether, or only if they don’t return the favor to us?
by chrisperry1983 on Oct 25, 2010 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions
And it isn't part of the sport in other parts of the world
Soccer is a global sport.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
I would sum up my position this way:
I am wary of having lots of away support at games.
I am a Sounders fan, but before I was a Sounders fan, I am just another American sports fan. I grew up on sports where home support dominates home crowds. This is not necessarily the case for college football, but I also wasn’t a huge college football fan growing up.
Just last night I was watching the Vikings play the Packers in Lambeau. Even though you could easily get 5,000 Vikings fans to make the trip to Green Bay, can you imagine Packers fans agreeing to set aside 5,000 seats for Vikings fans? I think you would get laughed out of town, or worse, if you proposed that.
And as a baseball fan, I generally hate it when Yankees or Red Sox fans wind up polluting home crowds around baseball.
But I like to keep an open mind. It seems as though a lot of people enjoy having away support for soccer matches, so I’m open to the idea. But I’m cautiously open to the idea, and if Portland isn’t going to reciprocate, it makes me wonder if it’s a good idea.
Also, having a one-way street seems like it could invite trouble. Say Portland gets 5,000 upper deck seats. They then proceed to throw streamers onto Sounders fans beneath them all game long, because, hey, that’s not going to happen to them when the Sounders come to visit Portland. Maybe situations like that wouldn’t happen, but I’m not sure I see the benefits outweighing the risks.
Again, I'd just look at college football as an analogy, rather than pro sports
Away support hardly diminishes that experience, in fact it seems to amplify it.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, North American soccer editor SB Nation and of course follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on Oct 25, 2010 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Speaking as a University of Minnesota alum...
…I can say for a fact that away support does not always amplify the experience.
I live for AWAY games
Having traveled to 3 Sounders away matches (1-Van, 2-PDX) these past two years, I can say that the two away matches next year will be my most eagerly anticipated. More even than when they come to Qwest. Nothing compares to the experience. It is great to be amongst 2-3K ECS in the Broughm End. It is off the hook being amongst 500 at PGE.
I can only image how much better it will be, if that can be amongst 1K at PGE, or 2K at Empire Fields. And I welcome as many of them as can make it in return.
There's no way that 1000 Sounders fans will be in single section in PGE
NONE
There may not even be 1000 total Sounders fans in the stadium
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Past, Present and Future
My sense is that the FO, League Headquarters and others are not nearly as educated about derbies as ECS members and other strong supporters are, especially people like me who have regularly followed European football. In the ownership group Carey would be the exception but he is a minority owner. I’ve never read anything about the dynamics between the owners. How often are they on the same page? How are differences settled? Carey got his band but that is a throwaway issue for others in the ownership group.
Likewise, Garber hardly knew what a soccer ball looked liked before taking the helm of MLS. It was one of the reason he was picked. He and Roth to name a couple people in power are learning and I think they will get where we wish them to be but it is not a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination. The existence of the Alliance Council is crucial to pushing this issue and I think the solution for next year will be closer to what the majority of people at this site wish.
In a few years after a number of derbies are under our belt I expect it will not be a significant issue. Likewise, I expect Philly, NYRB and the future NY Cosmos will have similar issues in the not-too-distant future and those fan bases will push for similar away support.
BC Place
Theoretically, BC Place is supposed to be ready by July (no guarantee). If MLS is smart they’ll have scheduled the big matches for the Whitecaps later in the year, i.e., vs. Sounders FC, Timbers, TFC, Galaxy, NYRB.
Though there’s a rumour the NYRB’s are the first kick opponent.
There’ll be the NCC to satisfy while we wait.
Though, I’ve read the BC Lions are rolling their dice, that it will be ready on time, as they have no lease agreement with the PNE at all. Their possible out is starting the first few games on the road, just in case. Perhaps their not concerned about pre-season?
All things being equal, in this scenario if Qwest opened the upper deck, maybe BC Place would do likewise in a return engagement.
שלום
Any other Sounders fans in SF Bay Area here?
A bit off topic but worth my minute of typing. I live in San Jose and don’t know of another Sounder fan around here. Is there anyone writing or lurking at this site from the area? I’d love to know. Thx.
Dan
Body in California, Heart in Seattle
I'm from the Bay Area, but that's probably not helpful
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, North American soccer editor SB Nation and of course follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on Oct 24, 2010 8:05 PM PDT up reply actions
I live in San Francisco.
Made it out to July 31st game, which was actually my first. Had a good time, though kind of an awkward venue.
I have absolutely no interest in seeing any more away fans at Qwest than necessary
I love the Sounders, and enjoy the MLS, but my ties to the sport are completely domestic – I have no affiliation or care for anything that happens in Europe. My ideas about sport culture are entirely American.
What I love most about Seahawks games is the absolute fortress the stadium turns into. I love that when the opposing quarterback takes the field, he sees nothing but blue and green in the stands, and hears nothing but the jet engine noise of our fans destroying his ear drums. This is our house, and if the other team wants some fan support, they’ll find it back in their home stadium, not here.
I get the ideas about increasing the profile of the sport, and generating fan rivalries. But the best place to do that is with the product on the field, not in the stands.
As much as I love the constant national attention on how great our fans are, and our constant sellouts, the last thing I want is the story of a good game between Portland and Seattle to be about conflict between fans in the stands rather than what’s happening on the field. Don’t get me wrong, if away fans want to find their own tickets, they should of course be allowed to attend. But I personally would prefer the organization doesn’t provide any more guaranteed away tickets than necessary.
In fact, the more I think about this, the more it reminds me of when the Red Sox are in town
And that makes me like the idea even less.
A few responses
I love the Sounders, and enjoy the MLS, but my ties to the sport are completely domestic
Dave gave the example of this happening in college football, so it isn’t purely a European thing. Also, the team clearly looks outside its borders for some ideas, whether it be the announcers, the band, or the future talent.
Don’t get me wrong, if away fans want to find their own tickets, they should of course be allowed to attend.
It seems like this would more likely lead to confrontations in the stands (though I think even intermingled fans would be unlikely to cause arrests. Seattle fans are loud, but seem to be nice to visitors. None of the Cardinals fans I’ve seen at Seahawks games have black eyes or food stains on their stupid Kurt Warner jerseys.
I get the ideas about increasing the profile of the sport, and generating fan rivalries. But the best place to do that is with the product on the field, not in the stands.
The fans at Qwest are a major reason why the Sounders get so much national air time. I watched the local Houston feed of yesterday’s game, and while the announcers kept praising Zakuani’s speed and pink shoes, the element of the team mentioned the most were the fans. Letting away fans in would only boost the appeal.
I think your Red Sox comparison doesn’t apply to the Sounders. The reason the Red Sox can invade Safeco is because the Mariners’ fans don’t show up to support the team when they’re doing poorly. That likely won’t happen for the Sounders, at least for next year.
Also, the Mariners understand that there’s a bright side to the Sox takeover—those tickets cost a few bucks more. In addition, Qwest for the Sounders is unlike Safeco because the Sounders can increase the maximum seating by removing the third-deck tarps. That’s even more potential profit.
I say let our opponents pay us for far-away third deck seats to watch us trounce them. Let them loose in our stadium, let them lose in our stadium.
by yuniform on Oct 24, 2010 9:30 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Every single time I’ve been to a soccer game where there was trouble in the stands between supporters – every single time – it was when the away fans were scattered through the stadium, in small groups or individually. If you’re a home supporter and all the away supporters are in one section, the foolproof way to avoid trouble is to not go in that section.
Manager at Vancouver Whitecaps and western Canadian soccer website Eighty Six Forever and infrequently-posting flunky at Edmonton Oilers blog The Copper & Blue.
by Benjamin Massey on Oct 25, 2010 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions
Why can NFL fans be next to each other and Soccer fans can't?
I’ve been to games in the NFL, NBA, and MLB. Away fans are almost always scattered throughout the stadium. Sure there have been “incidents” but never the wide spread catastrophe that MLS fans keep harping on about. Why can fans of differant teams sit next to each other in these other sports but not in Soccer?
I understand that Supporter groups want to be together in one section. I’ve been too away games in a large group and its great. However, the doom and gloom about the other guys being spread out causing hellfire and brimstone is silly.
by DarthGreedo on Oct 25, 2010 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions
I wasn’t talking about wide spread catastrophe. I was talking about incidents.
Manager at Vancouver Whitecaps and western Canadian soccer website Eighty Six Forever and infrequently-posting flunky at Edmonton Oilers blog The Copper & Blue.
by Benjamin Massey on Oct 25, 2010 10:58 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm willing to be the NFL has more fan-on-fan incidents than any other sport
It might not be catostrophic, but it’s a regular occurrence in places like Oakland.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, North American soccer editor SB Nation and of course follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on Oct 25, 2010 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions
I have no doubts that is true
The first Seahawks game i ever went to was against the Raiders and a Fight broke out right in front of me. I was 5 and i still remember my Dad jumping over the bench and seperating them until security came.
My comments weren’t really directed at this discussion by itself, but everywhere this topic comes up i see this arguement: If they don’t sell them to us in a group, we are going to by them ourselves and be with home fans, and terrible things will happen. If NFL security can handle those incidents you bring up why can’t we handle it in a similar way?
I just don’t like the hyperbole, cause it goes along with the mainstream view of Soccer fans as worse then other sports fans. We aren’t, but the press loves to paint us that way.
by DarthGreedo on Oct 25, 2010 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions
Or Philadelphia
After all, they used to have a jail and magistrate set up in the old Vet to handle incidents that happened at Eagles games.
If you want examples of incidents, ask anyone who’s gone to an Eagles game wearing a Giants jersey how that worked out for them.
This seems like putting all of your eggs in one basket
While it might make it easier for individual fans to avoid confrontations, it also seems to make it easier for large-scale trouble to break out. I can’t ever recall a situation in American professional sports where an away team has had to forfeit a game because of away support causing trouble, but even just recently, that was a problem when Serbian fans traveled to Italy.
On top of that, this almost seems to condone people being dicks to one another. It’s like saying “well, they have their section of the stadium so if you happen to go there, they can abuse you as much as they like” which I think is the wrong message.
You have to pick your poison
Away fans will be at the game. The question is do you want them all together or spread out?
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, North American soccer editor SB Nation and of course follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on Oct 25, 2010 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions
Large scale trouble shouldn't be an issue
With a proper security plan in place (separated supporters, specified gate access, additional security/alcohol enforcement, etc.), it really should not be much of an issue.
The Serbia/Italy match that you’re talking about is an example of hooliganism that we don’t have in the U.S. I don’t really see how it’s relevant to the Cascadian away support discussion. If you want to know more about the background of this Serbian hooliganism, check out this great piece from ESPN: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/feature?id=832137&sec=euro2012&cc=5901
by jonnyreno on Oct 25, 2010 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Proper security plans cost money, take time to plan, are not always executed properly
These are all drawbacks of bringing in large-scale, coordinated away supporters. I think it’s also reasonable to argue that since MLS has not done a good job at coordinating away support in the past for smaller groups of away supporters, that it is wishful thinking to suppose that a group of 5,000 fans can drop by without issue.
We don’t have to have Serbian level hooliganism for an incident to turn into a black eye for the league. Certainly if we look at, say, college football, there’s plenty of evidence that fans in the US can hold their own at causing trouble and destroying property. If you have enough away supporters and enough matches, we are guaranteed to have a bad incident at some point.
While I agree
with most of what you have to say, I have questions.
Of course, there will be added costs, planning, etc. If clubs don’t want to invest in that, then it will turn out poorly. Using the Italy match as an example, there was allegedly plenty of warning before that match and we’ve seen all the results. Anyone who is highly motivated to cause mayhem is likely going to be able to get that result, no matter how much prior planning goes into preventing it.
If, as you say, we are guaranteed to have a bad incident at some point, would you advocate banning away support to head off such incidents? Limiting the amount of support?
Of course there will be incidents. I’m sure there were arrests at Sunday’s Seahawk game. I saw three people get thrown out of the Sounders match vs. Chivas. Idiots are a fact of life.
I mainly just wanted to point out the risk here
I feel like it’s fair to say that in limiting the risk of many small incidents breaking out, you increase the risk of a larger incident breaking out. I will explicitly say that I don’t know the relative sizes of those risks, but I feel like we should acknowledge that they exist.
MLS is still young enough that PR matters, and fair or not, in the US, casual sports fans associate soccer with hooligans. From a PR standpoint, individual incidents in the stands will probably go over more smoothly than something big which the media can jump on and start bellering HOOLIGANS! at the top of their lungs.
I am a fairly risk averse person, and I would guess that the smaller overall risk is with individual incidents in the stands. I don’t know what measures can be taken to limit those incidents, but I would investigate ways to do that. (It would be nice, for instance, if teams worked together, and anyone who was looking for trouble at a Sounders game would not be able to buy season tickets from the Timbers, and vice versa.) Generally speaking, I think it makes sense to start small with allowing away support and build from there. That way teams can gradually adjust to organizing this kind of thing, and hopefully the fans would, too.
Preferably, there would be no incidents ever, but like you say, idiots are a fact of life.
I agree
There are definitely, definitely things that must be addressed from a security standpoint before this moves forward. It would definitely need to include coordination between the FOs. I agree about the idea of hooligans losing their ticket rights as well.
I also believe that an approach of building gradually would be a good idea. It’s worked for Sounders attendance, so I think that would be a good model for away support. I think we can all agree that 150 is not the place to start. Now, if that initial number should be 300, 500, 750, 1000, I don’t know.
Give Vancouver as many seats as they want if they will do the same.
Only give Portland what they are willing to give to us. It is bad business to be benevolent. You will be taken advantage of.
by Sec 108 on Oct 25, 2010 10:09 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Basically it comes down to a couple things...
Vancouver, I believe, can and will find room to give us far more than 150 tickets. That’s all fine and good.
We can open up the Hawk’s Nest or more of the upper bowl to accommodate both Vancouver and Portland away support.
Portland’s the problem in the whole quid pro quo deal. Timbers FO needs to decide if:
a) they’re prepared to deal with the backlash from the TA and the rest of their away support if we only give them what they’re willing to give us.
AND
b) they’re willing to have potentially much fewer home supporters in their building to gain the tension and atmosphere of a true derby match that only away supporters can provide.
Dunno what will actually occur. But I think both Seattle and Portland’s FOs will be surprised (perhaps unpleasantly) how many ECS and TA buy random tickets from Craigslist and the kind of security issues that’ll pose if they cap away support at 150.
Eternal Blue, Forever Green. Sounders 'Til I Die.
by Michael Wiegand on Oct 25, 2010 12:46 PM PDT reply actions
No, they won't be
This has been discussed. There was never a potential for a ban.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
A ban on what?
I never said there would be a ban on anything.
Eternal Blue, Forever Green. Sounders 'Til I Die.
by Michael Wiegand on Oct 25, 2010 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions

by 




















