MLS Must Go South
by Dave Clark on Dec 22, 2010 9:00 PM PST
in Sounders: MLS Regular Season
Email
PrintIt may seem odd for me, a proud Cascadian, to proclaim this. And as an old media guy maybe you'll get a bit surprised because I'm not going to talk about the current TV/radio markets.
But the fact is that the Sun Belt is where the growth is. The census results are starting to trickle in, and while Washington and Utah both earned themselves a new congressman, every other state that did so is in the Sun Belt.
According to the new counts, Texas will gain four seats, Florida will gain two, while New York and Ohio each lose two. Fourteen other states gained or lost one seat. The gainers included Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina and Utah [and WA]
And sure, most of those gainers don't seem to be natural markets for MLS. Florida has struggled in the past. Arizona and Nevada have that heat thing. Atlanta is the most saturated market in American sports.
Yet, there's a ton of potential there. Look where the NASL is going to have 5 teams in the Sun Belt (Atlanta, Carolina, Miami, Tampa and San Antonio). While Cascadia and Canada will help MLS gain credibility in near term, there are plenty of demographic reasons for MLS pursue the Sun Belt.
The growth is largely immigrants, minorities and highly urban. While MLS has struggled in its chasing for of the Hispanic demographic, it is most powerful when urban and supported by the non-nationals as well.
America's four region system sees declares a clear gap in coverage for supposed national league. The West has the Seattle Sounders, Portland Timbers, Real Salt Lake, Colorado Rapids, San Jose Earthquakes, Los Angeles Galaxy and Chivas USA. Roughly 25% of the population has nearly 40% of the teams. The declining Midwest has the Chicago Fire, Columbus Crew and Sporting KC for a 16% to 21% ratio, fairly fair. The Northeast is also in decline but has the New England Revolution, New York Red Bulls, Philadelphia Union and DC United for an 22% to 18% ratio. The South has the Houston Dynamo and FC Dallas, two teams for ~37% of the population.
Sure Don Garber wants NY2 for many good reasons. It certainly makes sense. The next wave of expansion has to find ways to capture not just this decade's trends (Cascadia and Canada) but next decade's trends. What's the point to looking at sub-regions with declining populaces and declining incomes?
Certainly traditional American pro sports have trouble in the Sun Belt. You know what doesn't? College sports. Sports that connect with the community. Sports with Supporter Groups (they call them student sections). Since game day attendance is actually up for college soccer, and the ACC is a strong soccer conference there are signs of potential. The Charleston Battery are quite popular, though in a city too small for MLS. Austin and San Antonio make some sense for a third MLS team in Texas.
The strategy will be complex, and must have strong ownership involved. Nothing gets MLS intrigued like some good strong money involved, but as the USL-1 lead MLS into Cascadia and Montreal, just maybe the future is NASL 2.0 leading MLS into the Sun Belt.
70 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm for it, but
how will a team get there? How big will the league get? Will a team or two or four be relocated?
But the teams that are there suffer.
I see a huge potential in the south. But I don’t see any reason to risk that kind of investment as long as the teams that are there are doing so poor in attendance. What rank in attendance was Houston and Dallas last year? My (admittedly flawed) memory says they were pretty low. No matter who’s at fault for the turnouts, they need to improve before investors will be willing to put their money there.
Pizza Hut Park – the problem with FC Dallas’ stadium is that you can get to the Oklahoma border just as fast as you can get to downtown Dallas in traffic… and the Oklahoma route does not use an interstate. Houston is getting a new stadium downtown. That should help although their attendance is not all that bad.
Hot Time In Old Town SB Nation's blog for Chicago Fire, Soccer, & Chicago History
by Tweed Thornton on Dec 22, 2010 10:18 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, but Dallas...
…has a facility in a crappy location. Listen to Steve (over on Daily Soccer Fix) savage them with some regularity.
It would be the equiv of putting the Sounders home pitch in Monroe at the Fairgrounds. Almost equivalent drive times from downtown Dallas or Seattle, respectively, and a lot of target population even further south of both urban centers while the facility is to the north. I think a facility in Irving or someplace similarly situated closer to the D/FW center of gravity would drive up FC Dallas attendance by a LOT.
Houston is a fairly strong gate receipt team
And has a brand new downtown stadium about 18 months away.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Didn't Austin just lose their 2nd Div team to Florida?
Combine that with Dallas attendance and I’m not sure Texas is the way to go. Florida has clearly had issues with soccer in the past. I’ll admit to not knowing much about the South, but I just don’t see much of the Deep South as a real soccer market. You’d think Vegas has some investors, but a lot of pro sports get leery of that because of the gambling issue. That leaves maybe Arizona or NM? Sure it’s super hot in the summer in most of the SW, but is it worse than Dallas? Other than that, I just don’t know where MLS will find a fanbase in these areas.
Just pull a Qatar
We could make island stadiums made from solid gold and have cool air brought in from the slopes of the himalayas to keep things on the pitch sub-100 degrees.
Miami
is way ahead of you on this. There is a movement to create a floating stadium. I call it a pipe dream. They call it a normal dream.
by Little old me on Dec 24, 2010 11:17 AM PST up reply actions
how
exactly would that meet MLS stadium requirements.
Part of the problem is that the population may be shifting to southern states but the metro areas are not increasing. Metro areas make teams, not states. Let’s look at the top 50 metro areas in the US.
MLS exists in
1. New York
2. LA
3. Chicago
4. Dallas
5. Philadelphia
6. Houston
8. Washington D.C.
15. Seattle
21. Denver
23. Portland
29. Kansas City
31. Columbus
32. San Jose
37. Providence
48. Salt Lake City
Then you want to dismiss the 4 Florida markets (No. 7, No. 19, No. 27, No. 40) where you agree MLS has struggled in the past. You want dismiss Phoenix (No. 12) and Las Vegas (No. 30) for heat reasons and you dismiss Atlanta (No. 9) because it is too saturated. Well what’s left? I’ll stop once I reach a Southern market.
No. 10 Boston (yes this is a bit of a joke but Providence is closer to Foxboro than Boston)
No. 13 San Francisco
No. 14 Riverside
No. 16 Minneapolis
No. 17 San Diego
No. 18 St. Louis
No. 20 Baltimore
No. 22 Pittsburgh
No. 24 Cincinnati
No. 25 Sacramento
No. 26 Cleveland
No. 28 San Antonio (Southern? Go ask a Texan that)
No. 33 Charlotte – okay definitely in the South. Who would their Southern rival be?
No. 34 Indianapolis – despite some Chicagoan jokes, not in the South
No. 35 Austin
No. 36 Virginia Beach – what the hell let’s round out the top 50
No. 38 Nashville
No. 39 Milwaukee
No. 41 Memphis
No. 42 Louisville
No. 43 Richmond
No. 44 Oklahoma City
No. 45 Hartford
No. 46 New Orleans
No. 47 Birmingham
No. 49 Raleigh-Cary
No. 50 Buffalo
You would pass up 12 other markets to get to the South? MLS has 19 teams (20 if you count New York 2 which I think needs to happen). You can find 10 other markets in the USA and Canada before even considering going to Charlotte.
Hot Time In Old Town SB Nation's blog for Chicago Fire, Soccer, & Chicago History
by Tweed Thornton on Dec 22, 2010 10:03 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
I didn't say this
Then you want to dismiss the 4 Florida markets (No. 7, No. 19, No. 27, No. 40) where you agree MLS has struggled in the past. You want dismiss Phoenix (No. 12) and Las Vegas (No. 30) for heat reasons and you dismiss Atlanta (No. 9) because it is too saturated.
In no way did I dismiss those cities, but recognized their struggles.
Also, several of the cities you list ahead of Sun Belt cities (um San Diego?) have declining populations.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Fair enough, I would hope that strong ownership groups would pop up in Phoenix, Las Vegas and Atlanta before looking anywhere else. I wouldn’t rule out Florida either. Population matters.
Only Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, New Orleans and Buffalo had their metro population decrease between 2000 and 2009. I don’t think it would be wise to put a team in New Orleans or Buffalo. Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland’s loses were not that big and they still have more people than MLS markets like Kansas City, Columbus, San Jose, Salt Lake City. Cleveland is not a very good candidate but people aren’t leaving the Midwest in droves. The region just isn’t growing as fast as the other areas. The debate on whether or not Southern growth is sustainable or whether it will stabilize is valid enough that MLS should chase strong ownership in large population areas, not demographic trends.
As for not counting San Diego, I was assuming when you said South in the headline and mentioned strong college support in the body of the article, you were talking about the Southeastern states unless San Diego has some great college support I’m unaware of. San Diego is in the Sun Belt sure, but it is a world away from the ‘SEC’ states.
The supporters’ culture of the SEC and college sports is something to take note of. They go crazy for football and even baseball is a big deal where they will set out their seats during the week and the baseball teams play Friday, Saturday, and Sunday night. Can MLS get that kind of passion going? I don’t know.
Overall I give you credit for painting a good picture, I just think it could use less black and white when filling in different areas of the country.
Hot Time In Old Town SB Nation's blog for Chicago Fire, Soccer, & Chicago History
by Tweed Thornton on Dec 23, 2010 9:14 AM PST up reply actions
people actually are leaving the midwest in droves
Just look at the states losing congressmen.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Again you are painting the picture black and white when it’s much more dynamic than that. Using a system that divides up the United States in 435 parts but gives small states one part no matter how small they are, is not the best way to measure things. It doesn’t hurt, but it doesn’t help either.
I suggest checking out this study.
The new study shows there are 16 states that are close enough to that last seat that they could still
change when the final population data is released at the end of the year.
People are not necessarily leaving the Midwest, some states aren’t growing as fast overall. There is a difference.
When talking about sports teams, it’s better to look at Metro areas anyway. Detroit’s population may not be rising but they still have 1.4 M people more than San Diego or should I say an entire Jacksonville worth of people. St. Louis has an entire Salt Lake City worth of people more than Charlotte.
It’s possible San Diego could overcome Detroit and Charlotte could overcome St. Louis in our lifetime but the other question is do you want to go into a rapidly expanding area and guess where to put a sports stadium? What seems hot at the time might end up being a disaster. Even more reason why I think it goes back to ownership groups first, location a distant second. If strong owners pop in Charlotte and San Diego, let’s get the ball rolling, I’m in.
Hot Time In Old Town SB Nation's blog for Chicago Fire, Soccer, & Chicago History
by Tweed Thornton on Dec 23, 2010 10:33 AM PST up reply actions
Relocation?
Maybe Chivas, Columbus, New England, or DC should be relocated to one of the places you call out?
I’d much rather see a larger league than have a city and it’s fans lose a team. Especially, DCU because of it’s history and role growing MLS.
DC is still a great city for the future. It has a great supporter base, an amazing academy system and a large, urban demographic. All it needs is a deep-pocketed ownership group that can get the financing for a stadium since there’s no way that the DC government will do it for them.
by Dizzo on Dec 23, 2010 7:33 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Did you see the baltimore report that just came out?
Basically a study showed that baltimore would be better off building a MLS stadium and stealing united than building a new minor league stadium for crystal palace Baltimore.
It’s a moot point since CP Baltimore is – sadly – folding at the end of this year anyway. If they get another squad it will be MLS more than likely.
The Doctor Jones fanclub: Active for more games than Jones himself.
"Just Do Something" - Nike’s new logo for Bills apparel.
Paul McCartney Can't Play Piano
Burgundy Wave - SBnation's home for the MLS Cup 2010 Champion (!) Colorado Rapids
Glory, Glory, Colorado. The 'Pids go Marching on!
by UZ on Dec 23, 2010 5:12 PM PST up reply actions
If mass transportation was a tad bit better...
the Revs really would be a valid combo of 10, 37, and 45. I know for some of us Westerners, those east coast distances seem like nothing. I used to road trip to revs games from my home in Haverhill MA, (which is basically New Hampshire) and thought nothing of it. The locals thought I was nuts… but consider, that trip is only 53 minutes in normal traffic… I’m looking at 4 1/2 hours to get to Timbers matches from my home in the southern end of Oregon. And since the drive is more pleasant, I had greater affinity these past two seasons for the Sounders than I had for the Quakes (who are two hours closer to me)
I did not keep up with the Austin Aztex
but it is too bad they did not make it in Texas. I had still think with the right investment and stadium etc Austin could potentially be a good MLS franchise home. They do not have any professional sports, its a college town and it would make another three-way rivalry similar to ours now.
Here is a quote I found from someone in the Aztex organization concerning the team relocation.
"I know the new investors very well — they are football people and have been interested in working with us for some time. They like what we have achieved on the field and in the community," he continued. "However, they made it very clear that their investment was contingent upon the team relocating, citing Austin’s lack of a soccer specific stadium with any corporate facilities, the inability to sell alcohol at games and the geographical isolation of the team within the new USL-Pro League. In short, they didn’t see Central Texas as the right market for the team and their future plans."
Anyway, I grew up in Texas and although soccer is popular among kids, its always been football, football, football. A little hyperbole if you will, but I think they have high school football stadiums in places that could probably come close to par with a university. Its just that crazy passionate.
IMHO. Austin got screwed. The owners clearly want to make an MLS jump and thought moving to Florida was the way to do it. The other reasons all sound like justifications.
by Dizzo on Dec 23, 2010 6:54 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Dave already linked this...
In case you didn’t check it out, here’s something I wrote about a year ago promoting Austin as a great target for expansion.
http://www.sounderatheart.com/2010/2/4/1291510/if-mls-wants-another-seattle-look
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, North American soccer editor SB Nation and of course follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on Dec 23, 2010 9:24 AM PST up reply actions
The deep south is college football, the near south is college basketball.
This is why NFL teams like the Jaguars/Titans/Pathers, and NBA teams like the Bobcats/Hornets/Grizzlies will never really succeed. The same social thing has happened in Washington state. Why be held hostage for hundereds of millions of dollars for new stadiums for pro teams? Your college teams kick ass and are cheaper and more fun to watch. Hoops fans in the Northwest can watch great basketball played by the Zags/Huskies/Cougars, without having to personally fund stadiums. The next MLS team should be in …..
PUERTO RICO.
Great fan support and following.
Do it Garber.
by DaveValleDrinkNight on Dec 23, 2010 3:03 AM PST reply actions
+1
I think moving the Islanders up to MLS would be a slam dunk. A great front office, good team, strong supporters and it would draw the interest of a key demographic in other markets. However, it only makes sense with a couple other Southern teams and a conference based travel schedule.
Also – the near South is college basketball country, BUT that doesn’t conflict with the MLS season. No reason they can’t co-exist.
Any thoughts on a team in Hawaii? It would be brutal travel-wise, but it’s a completely untapped market for pro-sports.
by Dizzo on Dec 23, 2010 7:04 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
It would be brutal travel-wise, but it’s a completely untapped market for pro-sports.
You kind of answered your own question there. Soccer thrives on traveling fanbases and close proximity rivalries, neither of which could be realistically possible in Hawaii with an MLS squad.
The Doctor Jones fanclub: Active for more games than Jones himself.
"Just Do Something" - Nike’s new logo for Bills apparel.
Paul McCartney Can't Play Piano
Burgundy Wave - SBnation's home for the MLS Cup 2010 Champion (!) Colorado Rapids
Glory, Glory, Colorado. The 'Pids go Marching on!
by UZ on Dec 23, 2010 5:20 PM PST up reply actions
MLS does need to end
it’s coastal bias. That’s one thing I do agree with from this. I think Chivas should be relocated to San Diego. San Jose should be put on notice to provide the promised stadium or be moved, and Kansas City should start acting like the Wizard actually exist in the city or they should be moved (frankly, KC should’ve been moved when Lamar passed away, and the only reason they ever were IN KC was because he insisted on having a team there when he was bankrolling the league).
kc stadium opens this year
Moving them would be awful.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
by Dave Clark on Dec 23, 2010 7:33 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
I honestly believe it will change nothing.
Kansas City’s Chamber of Commerce doesn’t even LIST the Wizard in their “sports related activities.” When the city cares ‘that’ little, the stadium was bad money after good.
by Shawn Gillogly on Dec 23, 2010 4:25 PM PST up reply actions
They should still refrain from moving after building the stadium. It’s the same thing for people to insist that Colorado or Dallas move, they both have fairly new stadiums that only really serve the purpose of local team’s football stadium that would be a complete waste if they left.
This is also why I think the only team that has any real danger of moving besides the DC fiasco is Chivas, since their stadium might as well just be LA’s and they kind of squat there.
The Doctor Jones fanclub: Active for more games than Jones himself.
"Just Do Something" - Nike’s new logo for Bills apparel.
Paul McCartney Can't Play Piano
Burgundy Wave - SBnation's home for the MLS Cup 2010 Champion (!) Colorado Rapids
Glory, Glory, Colorado. The 'Pids go Marching on!
by UZ on Dec 23, 2010 5:14 PM PST up reply actions
It's the money, honey
All of this discussion is academic until there is a committed, serious ownership group with money to put on the barrel. MLS isn’t going to go anywhere until there’s somebody already there with the $40 million franchise fee and a whole lot more to bankroll a professional sport.
yes, but owners don't have to be in the city
See Joe Roth
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Doesn't matter
See also Drew Carey and the late Lamar Hunt. Of course they owners don’t have to be in the city, but they do have to exist. Thinking specifically of the southeast, nobody seems to have come forward locally to back an MLS team, so outside investors are an obvious option, but they don’t seem to be tripping over each other to do it either. How many people are stepping up from anywhere saying, “I’ll put down $40 million for a team in Charleston”?
Miami FC has made noises about wanting to join MLS, but nobody will back them financially. The new owners of the Azteks moved them to Florida supposedly with an eye on MLS, but even they can’t seem to justify the expense of making a bid. No matter their origin, unless there’s someone willing to put up the money for a specific region, this is all still academic.
Actually Traffic is making noise about investing in MLS
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
As did Boca Juniors
and Barcelona
But three multi-billion dollar organizations = no one
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Exactly
And that’s kinda my point. Traffic’s interest in relocating the Azteks (if I’m not confusing owners) seems to have been placing a good team in an under-served market with the hope of attracting interest from MLS. Until they demonstrate the financial viability of that, it doesn’t matter. I’m not familiar with either Boca Juniors or Barcelona investing in MLS outside of partnerships with existing teams, but even so, it’s unfocused money.
Until someone says, “I’ve got the cash for a team in [location]. Let’s do this thing,” and then actually bankrolls a real organization, teams aren’t going to appear anywhere.
I agree that the source of the money doesn’t matter, but so far as I’ve seen, over and over again, a solid ownership group willing to spend the money needed for a top-flight team is the number one stumbling block for attractive MLS bids among potential cities.
Now, maybe I’m misreading the situation in the southeast. Maybe there’s enough interested, committed business people between Annapolis and Jacksonville to constitute a well-funded ownership group. Maybe there’s something else buried away in the arcane labyrinth of MLS leadership keeping the southeast from acquiring a franchise. Regardless, I still don’t think we’ll see balls on the field until we first see dollars on the table. Sadly.
Oh, and in case it wasn’t clear, I agree with your premise that MLS needs to expand into this region. I just think they can’t do it by fiat.
Market Size Doesn't Matter
Expansion is all about the money. Specifically it’s about an owner and an arena, all this talk about market size doesn’t really matter. The reason why the Sonics are in Oklahoma and Garber is sniffing around NY for a second franchise are for the same reason. The right owner and right arena make up for the “wrong city.”
San Fran and Boston are both really expensive to develop in, which is why their teams are in the ’burbs of Foxboro & San Jose.
I keep hearing the bad location argument for Dallas (Frisco is pretty far from downtown) and about NYRB Arena. Houston’s stadium is a dog and it is still a decent draw.
MLS during the summer in Arizona would be good conditioning for Qatar 2022, not such a great idea IMO. The Florida teams in MLS didn’t work out, not so sure if I would go running back there again. Atlanta is interesting and so are some of the other mid-major cities that maybe don’t have a major pro sports team.
Of course market-size matters
You’re definitely right that the more important issue is finding the money to support a team, but let’s not pretend that the number of available people isn’t a factor. (and just as an aside, San Jose is hardly a ‘burb. It’s something like the 10th biggest city in the U.S. and the stadium is essentially a 5-min drive from downtown. it’s also not a cheap place to develop.)
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, North American soccer editor SB Nation and of course follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on Dec 23, 2010 12:20 PM PST up reply actions
I'd be wary of basing expansion decisions on the most recent census.
Much of the growth in the sunbelt states was fueled by the construciton/housing boom, which is now completely gone. Texas seems to be the exception, but there’s some evidence that these states are already seeing people leave for greener pastures. All that being said, it’s absurd to have a region that big with no teams. Atlanta’s a saturated sports market, but it’s also by far the most cosmpolitan cit in the South. If they can find good ownership, I think that’s the city to start with.
Let's recall that this recession started well before the census did.
About 2 years before
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Oh, of course.
But the results of this recession are slow and ongoing. It wasn’t as if everyone lost their jobs and left in August 2008. The effect is ongoing though, and I think it’s just hard to see where exactly it’s going.
That was ineloquent.
What I was trying to say is that a lot of what shows up in the 2010 census data is from lifechanges and decisons made in 2007, 2006, etc., when the economy was still chugging along. Two years isn’t much time when it comes to studying or making projections from census/demographic data, especially with a huge unkown variable like the current recession thrown in. And if you look at current Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment rates by state, six of the bottom ten are Southern/sunbelt states. So, I agree that MLS needs to expand in the SE, I’m just not sure how enthusiastically they sould set forth on that path.
This league isn’t big enough to have more than two teams per state, I think. Chivas really isn’t working out and needs to be moved. If there’s going to be another southern team it shouldn’t be in Texas. Florida has already failed MLS twice so I doubt they get a third chance. Despite the heat I’d give Phoenix a chance before any of the other areas in the southern half of the country.
Off topic; I actually think that a Buffalo team might work in MLS considering how great a sports city it is despite being a smaller size. Plus considering how bad Chivas is, they’d fit right in. :D
The Doctor Jones fanclub: Active for more games than Jones himself.
"Just Do Something" - Nike’s new logo for Bills apparel.
Paul McCartney Can't Play Piano
Burgundy Wave - SBnation's home for the MLS Cup 2010 Champion (!) Colorado Rapids
Glory, Glory, Colorado. The 'Pids go Marching on!
I have nothing to back it up...
…but I’ve always felt like Minneapolis/Twin Cities would make for a great MLS market.
Plus once the Vikings move to LA they’ll have no competition!
(eheheh)
The Doctor Jones fanclub: Active for more games than Jones himself.
"Just Do Something" - Nike’s new logo for Bills apparel.
Paul McCartney Can't Play Piano
Burgundy Wave - SBnation's home for the MLS Cup 2010 Champion (!) Colorado Rapids
Glory, Glory, Colorado. The 'Pids go Marching on!
by UZ on Dec 23, 2010 5:46 PM PST up reply actions
It would need to be studied more, but Buffalo has potential
The Sabres and Bills are well-supported despite their tragi-comic histories. There is no MLB team to compete with in the summer. They would have a natural rivalries with Toronto (close proximity) and the NYC clubs (mostly the western NY inferiority complex). There are plenty of good parcels in the downtown area for a stadium. If an ownership group that met MLS’s financial requirements came forward, the league would have reasons to give them a good listen.
You will hear us on Brougham, you will hear us on Occidental, you will hear us on King. We are all around you, there is no escape.
Rochester
The Rhinos are a fairly well supported team in Div 2 already right? I would bet alot of Rochesterites would support a Buffalo team as well. Certainly seems like a better idea than a second NYC team. But most everything does to me.
Rochester seemed like a lock to be in MLS at one point
Probably up until the Seattle Sounders got in with the 30M$ buy-in.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Rochester also just dropped to Division 3
They’ve been in a bit of financial trouble, even though the support is there. Of course, it’s always relative when we’re talking about the lower divisions.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, North American soccer editor SB Nation and of course follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on Dec 28, 2010 12:26 AM PST up reply actions
I believe the drop to third division
is because the usl is no longer number 2 but 3 now right? Not really the owners fault…
A sky of blue, a sea of green...(or claret)
by kelliott1527 on Dec 29, 2010 10:58 PM PST up reply actions
Actually, the owner was one of the founders of the NASL
which is the 2nd division.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
so what league are they now?
A sky of blue, a sea of green...(or claret)
by kelliott1527 on Dec 31, 2010 2:19 PM PST up reply actions
USLpro
but not because of his attachments to the USL, but because he couldn’t afford to stay at the 2nd division level with the new rules.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
interesting, so he left the usl, then came back...funny
A sky of blue, a sea of green...(or claret)
by kelliott1527 on Jan 1, 2011 10:50 AM PST up reply actions
why chivas?
Personally i dont care if the south is a big deal to MLS. I dont mean to disparage the south in any way, its just that i don’t care if a team comes from colorado or atlanta when they play the Sounders at Qwest. While i get that the MLS must be in the south before its truely considered a national league, i just dont care about that happening soon. MLS cant be a national league before it hits 30 teams. but….
why do folks always bring up Chivas USA as a team ripe for relocation? I dont get it. They got 16k+ all last season. Sure, thats not the 21k+ LA Galaxy get at the HDC, but why relocation? last year they were almost right on the league average, and with Seattle inflating the average, that says they are better than most. The Columbus Crew was only getting 14k+. Revs the same. Why relocate Chivas? Especially to San Diego, where the Chargers have to threaten and go through with live media blackouts on their games so that people will actually attend rather than watch them at beach bars? I just dont get it. Maybe this isnt the right place to talk about it, but i’ve seen it come up a lot and never understood. What gives?
by Jonathan Cracolici on Dec 23, 2010 10:27 PM PST reply actions
why Chivas
Mainly, I think it’s a grass is greener proposition. Rightly or wrongly, I don’t think people believe there’s a devoted following there and whatever following there is would probably continue to follow them in San Diego. Admittedly, it does seem like over-saturation to have two teams playing in the same stadium and essentially going after the same fans.
That said, maybe moving a team to somewhere like Long Beach or the Inland Empire would make sense. I’m one of the people that would like to see Chivas get their own home, whether in LA proper or somewhere else in the Southland.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, North American soccer editor SB Nation and of course follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on Dec 24, 2010 8:48 AM PST up reply actions
Regardless of gambling...
Vegas would be an awful soccer market, imo. As far as I know, no soccer has been played there at division 2 or above, including national teams. The market for any sport is going to rely on tourists, and as far as I can tell MLS is the worst potential league to pull that kind of demographic.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, North American soccer editor SB Nation and of course follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on Dec 24, 2010 3:59 PM PST up reply actions
I disagree...
Vegas has quite a bit going for it. It has a very soccer-oriented culture (the pre-season RSL v. Rapids game is already sold out), a market larger than San Jose, Columbus, or Salt Lake, and a very savvy ownership group in Las Vegas Sports & Entertainment Group and their spokesperson Paul Caligiuri making a push for a team. It has been mentioned in Garber’s short list more than a few times. And Bekham mentioned the city specifically as a location he would market whose team he would want to own as well. There is funding lined up already for a retractable roof, soccer specific stadium- so that takes care of the “too hot” factor. And as far as gambling goes- it certainly hasn’t seemed to hurt any of the EPL teams.
They would have a great homegrown area – 2 of the U-17 Nats are from L.V., and the club soccer scene there is about as active as anywhere in the US.
There is also a lot of talk going on about the ownership trying to buy and relocate the Crew to L.V. as well. And as far as I can tell, until that issue gets resolved it is unlikely the L.V. investors will push another expansion bid- especially considering N.Y.2 is likely the next spot.
Whatever the case, I think St. Louis will probably be next in line after N.Y.2 due to their very strong investor support.
by Little old me on Dec 26, 2010 2:49 PM PST up reply actions
St Louis investor support?
Please elaborate.
Their USSF D2 and WPS teams fell apart because the very people bidding for MLS didn’t have enough money for lower cost leagues.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Public Funding, Garber
What I meant- and I’ll admit I wasn’t clear- was that the City is doing a great job of supporting the investors, as is Garber. The City has twice now approved public money for a soccer-specific stadium, and I know there was some communication about public funds being allowed to help cover the expansion fee. Add that to Garber’s work trying to get the Investor group a little more steam and it would seem that St. Louis is well on its way. And talk about a city with some rich soccer history…
by Little old me on Dec 28, 2010 3:40 AM PST up reply actions
can not support
I may enjoy the benifits after the fact but I can never support public funded stadiums even in opposing cities. The idea of it just sickens me. Corporatism at its worst!
and who would not want
to travel with the sounders to vegas?
From what I can tell
All the talk of Vegas as a MLS market happened before the economy in there really started blowing up. Until they can support soccer at any level, I’d be very reluctant to put a team there. Of course, this is always with the caveat that any market with investors willing to put up the money is going to move to be considered. If there’s really a good ownership group there, they will get considered and if they can come through on a stadium, they’ll probably get a team. I’m doubtful that team will be able to draw consistently good crowds, but it would definitely be fun having a team in Vegas.
Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, North American soccer editor SB Nation and of course follow me on Twitter
by Jeremiah Oshan on Dec 28, 2010 12:35 AM PST up reply actions
how about a pheonix/vegas hybrid?
half games played in each town?
Pheonix would be great
If it weren’t already occupied by the Diamondbacks, the Suns, the Coyotes, the Cardinals, the Sun Devils, the Rattlers, the Mercury, Phoenix International Raceway, and the Cactus League. Its a big market- but it’s saturated. Honestly Tucson might be a better option. And I’m not really saying its a good one.
by Little old me on Dec 29, 2010 5:16 AM PST up reply actions
Austin and San Antonio
I’ve lived in both places, and what kinda breaks my heart is that each is HALF of a great expansion market, but I just can’t quite make the two halves add up.
- San Antonio has a legit appetite for more pro sports teams, Austin does not.
- Austin has the young, hip wealthy singles, San Antonio does not.
- San Antonio is currently a bit bigger, but Austin is growing faster.
- Between the two of them, you’ve got 4 million people, about 40% of whom are Hispanic, and only one major college team (Longhorns) and one major pro (Spurs) team.
Unfortunately, they’re about an hour and a half away from each other, in two different media markets (I seem to recall there’s one AM radio station you can get in both cities, but that’s about it for media crossover), have no mass transit links (the road choices aren’t great either), and have two palpably different cultures. People in each really seem not to care much about what’s going on in the other.
I keep thinking about trying to ‘split the difference’ by putting a team either half way between the two (some place like San Marcos), or in the suburbs of one hoping to draw from the other, but it just doesn’t game out. Halfway between would be about 45 minutes + drive from either and in a pretty rural area.
The best suburban option would probably be on the north side of San Antonio (the south side of Austin is a fairly bad area, for the most part)m which still leaves you an hour from central Austin and ‘to hell and gone’ from its northern suburbs. If you put a team there, Austin would probably deem it out of sight and out of mind.
I’d also love to see them both have a D2 team at the same time (I don’t think either city deems itself ‘too good for minor league sports’), but somehow that never manages to work out either.
'Gentlemen' he said,
'I don't need your organization,
I've shined your shoes,
moved your mountains and marked your cards,
but Eden is burning.
Either get ready for elimination,
or else your heart must have the courage,
for the changing of the guards.'
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
