Sounder At Heart: FanPosts

Peter Wilt has a compromise solution

2010-03-17T18:17:28Z

The former general manager of the Chicago Fire and an active commentator on all things soccer, Peter Wilt has some detailed solutions to the current CBA mess. I have a feeling the owners would probably go for this, I am less sure the players would.

For players, he suggests granting free agency to MLS players, but only after seven years in the league, raising minimum salaries and boosting the salary cap. Status quo would continue in areas such as contract negotiations being left to the league and players not receiving a cut of transfer fees.

My proposal calls for free agency after seven years in MLS and compensation from the signing team to the team losing the player in the form of a SuperDraft pick. For example, if a player finished his second MLS contract (a four year and a three year contract), he could sign with any team in the League. The higher his new salary, the better the compensation pick the new team would provide the former team. Perhaps compensation of a first round pick for a player who signs for more than $200,000, a 2nd round pick if the contract is for more than $100,000 and a 3rd round pick for a player who signs for less than $100,000.

In other strike-related news, Soccer Insider Steven Goff says player reps are meeting to discuss possible actions and that the two sides have returned to their respective corners for the time being. Ives is reporting the non-bombshell that the union is preparing its players to walk out on March 22, a whole day earlier than previously announced. Also, here's the complete Joe Roth interview story from Don Ruiz. Money quote: "I think they’d have a hard time waiting out a billionaire. I just don’t see how it profits anybody, a work stoppage."

Joe Roth weighs in on the strike.

2010-03-16T19:14:10Z

Here. It looks like the ownership has been told that they are free to comment it up. I happen to also really hope this doesn't get to the stage of a strike as I suspect it will be bad for everyone involved. He makes some arguments that make sense. Of course, he's an owner so he clearly has a serious stake in things being looked at from his point of view. I do think it is potentially hopeful that he points out that both sides will have to lose something to get a new deal hammered out. Unfortunately it seems pretty clear that the free agency thing is what players want and also what the owners won't allow. Uggh. The whole thing is just a mess.

Update: More here.

It's really hard to judge everyone's place on this one, but I will say that it looks like the owners might have a bit of a point in terms of revenue. The problem is the players also have a good point with the free agency thing. There must be some sort of compromise in there somewhere, even if it is just free agency for veteran players.

Friendly C Face Value

2010-03-16T04:49:25Z

As I was flipping though my season ticket pack this evening, I noticed that the face value of Friendly C is nearly 38% higher than all the other matches. What could this mean? Is it a way to round off the total package value? No too basic. My mind kicked into flights of hyperbolic fantasy. Maybe MLS was so pleased with the MLS Cup turnout last year that the site will be Seattle again? Perhaps we should expect Manchester United? Anyone else have other rampantly speculative and totally unsubstantiated ideas? Or facts, facts would be okay too.

Hey!

2010-02-25T19:11:41Z

I've been subscribed to the Sounder At Heart blog for awhile now, but am yet to be active on it. I am a HUGE hockey fan, so that has been at the forefront of my attention lately, but with Sounder season looming closer, I thought I better introduce myself. I am a student at the University of Northern Iowa who loves football/soccer (not sure which term you guys use on this blog just yet) and a big Chelsea supporter (stereotypical, I know, but I started rooting for Chelsea when I was really little because I had the hots for a girl in my class in like 1st grade named Chelsea, and as soon as I heard there was a team with that name, they instantly became my team.) I always wanted to root for an MLS team, but no team seemed to have the passion that I wanted in a club to support. I happened to be channel surfing one day and landed on the SSFC-NYRB inaugural game and was mesmerized at the support the fans were giving. Add to this that I had just returned from my first ever trip to Seattle a few weeks prior (LOVE the city by the way!) and that this was a brand new franchise I could follow from the start, and I was hooked. I am a member of the ECS message board as well, but haven't been on it for awhile. Anyways, looking forward to the new season, and go Sounders!!!

The future of "Sounders FC Weekly"...

2010-02-24T21:25:35Z

Discussing the show "Sounders FC Weekly" on the ECS forum the other day, and I wrote this...

I think that from the features that they chose to do, and the way the show changed through the season, that it's obvious that they went into 2009 with the thought that they were going to have to have a very simple show that did a lot of education and lighter entertainment instead of a more in-depth footie show.

There was also a heavy feel of "getting to know you" since they had to introduce the entire team to the fans. That won't be as bad this year since nearly everyone returns.

As the year went on, it became obvious that they had underestimated the Seattle soccer fan. The questions in "Ask The Sounders" got much better and more involved in finer details of the game (Leo Henton, an ECS member, in particular kept asking awesome questions- keep doing it in 2010, Leo) and they started going into more detail.

I think another part of the problem for the show was the scheduling- Sunday nights, late, meant that the audience wasn't going to be your more average Joe- it was going to be someone who was into soccer and the Sounders enough that they intentionally tuned in or set up the Tivo. That meant that they were more educated in soccer, not a more casual, new-to-the-game fan.

On top of that, the match reports sucked because of such short time to prepare; they were little more than repeats of what we'd get on the evening news.

Putting the show on Friday evenings or something, and making them an HOUR long with a serious match report, would go a long way to helping it, IMO. You could have a match report where controversial calls or plays were really replayed in depth, and the reporter could take some time to really research it and get the coaching staff's opinion of something.

Plus, as Keith Hodo points out, you could do a serious preview of the upcoming weekend- and not just of the Sounders, but also of the rest of the league.

I think the league needs to pull its head out of its ass on this kind of stuff. It's pathetic that in this day and age, a show like that in a major TV market like Seattle ([13th largest in USA in 2010) had to rely on shitty quality internet video for some of the match recaps.

Every MLS franchise should be providing all sports stations, news, review shows, etc a high def feed of the entire match if they can and certainly of highlight reels.

But then I'm just a plain old supporter and fan, WTF do I know? :)

CBA deal not looking good

2010-02-24T07:06:36Z

Goff is reporting that Monday's meeting between the players and the league did not go well, and that teams may already be voting on whether on not to support a strike -- with reportedly unified support for the idea.

Could a deal be reached by Thursday night, thus avoiding a work stoppage? I suppose, but the sides seem too far apart at the moment. Would the deadline be extended again? I doubt it.

Notes from the team - Feb 22, 2010

2010-02-23T02:29:30Z

With my first go at publishing the news and notes from the team, I'm going to try and keep it to stuff you don't already know. So here it goes. Everything from the team is in a blockquote. Links inside block quote were added by me.

Sounders FC to Play for Fifth in La Manga Cup
Countering its first loss of the preseason, Sounders FC found its legs in a Group A consolation on Sunday against Norway's Stabaek IF, with a2-0 shutout victory at the La Manga Cup II in La Manga, Spain. Goals from Fredy Montero and Roger Levesque, both set up by Freddie Ljungberg, were the difference.

The tournament concludes with crossover matches to determine final placement on February 25 and 26. Seattle will contend for 5th place against SK Brann Thursday, February 25 at 6 a.m. PT with live blogging available at SoundersFC.com. FC Nordsjaelland will play Molde FK for the Cup title on Friday, February 26.

They then tell us about the last two preseason matches - 2-0 loss to Rosenborg and 3-2 win v Whitecaps.

Upcoming Training Schedule, February 22-24 (times are local & subject to change):
Monday, February 22 - No Training
Tuesday, February 23 - Training at La Manga, 10:30 a.m.
Wednesday, February 24 - 60 minute Training Game vs. FC Midtjylland at La Manga, 10:30 a.m.

Upcoming Competition Schedule (All times Pacific)
Thursday, February 25, 6 a.m.- SK Brann, La Manga, Spain (La Manga Cup II)
Saturday, March 6, 4 p.m. - at Vancouver Whitecaps FC, Swangard Stadium, Burnaby, B.C.
Thursday, March 11, 6 p.m. - Portland Timbers, Xbox Pitch at Qwest Field, Seattle
Friday, March 19, 6 p.m. - at Colorado Rapids, Dick's Sporting Goods Park, Commerce City, Colo

We will be live blogging as many of those as we can. Wednesday and Thursday's matches may be tough, but the rest the group here has planned out already. I am excited for the @ Colorado match as everyone is in town (I think) and its the final pre-season tune-up so this place should be rocking.

The Three Roster Players Not in Spain
Midfielder Brad Evans is with the U.S. National Team, which plays El Salvador on Wednesday, February 24 in Tampa. Forward Nate Jaqua (lower abdominal pain) and goalkeeper Terry Boss (ankle) are recovering from injuries and remain in Seattle. Among the non-roster invitees traveling are Derby Carillo (GK), Michael Fucito (MF), Patrick Lane (GK), Lamar Neagle(MF), Jeff Parke(DF) and Tye Perdido (FW).

Links provided above are to my recaps of each of those players. Except for Patrick Lane, that link goes to when I chatted with Chris Henderson about his discovery.

How do you manage an 8 team tourney with only 3 matches? See below

La Manga Cup Breakdown
The eight-team field for the La Manga Cup II is split into two groups. Joining the Sounders FC in Group A is first-round opponent Rosenborg BK, FC Nordsjaelland and Stabaek IF. Group B consists of Molde FK (Norway), FC Krylia Sovetov (Russia), FC Midtjylland (Denmark) and SK Brann (Norway).

A Scandinavian power, Rosenborg is the winner of a record 21 Norwegian league titles and nine domestic cups. Rosenborg won 13 straight championships from 1992 to 2004. It begins defense of its 2009 title on March 13. The Norwegian season, similar to MLS, runs through November. Rosenborg gained notoriety in 2004 by reaching the group stage of the UEFA Champions League and has played in Europe four of the last five seasons.

FC Nordsjaelland, located in Farum, Denmark, is preparing to resume its Danish Superliga schedule. Nordsjaelland was eighth in the table going into the winter break, which began on December 1. The second half of the season opens March 7. U.S. international defender Michael Parkhurst, 26, plays for Nordsjaelland after spending four seasons (2004-2008) in MLS with New England.

Stabaek IF, the other potential second round game for Seattle, placed third in Norway last season after winning the title in 2008 and taking second in 2007. Midfielder Mikkel Diskerud, 19, has represented by Norway and the USA at the U-20 international level. Diskerud's mother is from Arizona.

Tournament Results
Quarterfinals:
Stabaek IF 0-1 FC Nordsjaelland
Rosenbork BK 3-0 Seattle Sounders FC
SK Brann 1-1 FC Midtjylland (5-6 penalties)
FC Krylia Sovetov 0-2 Molde FK

Places 5-8:
Seattle Sounders FC 2-0 Stabaek IF
SK Brann 3-1 FC Krylia Sovetov
5th place - Seattle Sounders FC vs. SK Brann - Thursday, February 25, 6 a.m. PT (3 p.m. local) kickoff
7th place - Stabaek IF vs. Krylia Sovetov - Thursday, February 25

Places 1-4:
Rosenborg BK 3-3 FC Nordsjaelland (6-8 penalties)
Molde FK 2-0 FC Midtjylland
1st place - FC Nordsjaelland vs. Molde FK - Friday, February 26
3rd place - Rosenborg BK vs. FC Midtjylland - Friday, February 26

Cascadia Friendlies are the next topic. Both www.GorillaFC.com and www.WeAreECS.com have trasportation up to Canada for you. Our rivals decided that Sounders can't win the Cascadia Cup this year, as the Rave Green aren't facing the Timbers twice, so we wait until 2011 to win that minor trophy and instead just rack up a couple meaningless pre-season wins.

Sounders FC to Visit Vancouver
Sounders FC will visit the Vancouver Whitecaps FC for a preseason match on Saturday, March 6, at Swangard Stadium in Burnaby, B.C. First kick is at 4 p.m. PT.

All tickets for the match will cost $15, plus applicable service charges. Tickets will be available to the public on Wednesday, February 17, at 10 a.m. PT. Tickets will be available online at ticketmaster.ca or by calling 604.280.4400.

Say 'ello to the Southsiders and then get ready to host the Timbers Army, but in a friendly kind of way. Oh, and I'm giving someone a t-shirt for that one.

Sounders FC Host Timbers in Preseason Community Shield Match
The Sounders FC will host the Portland Timbers in the club's inaugural "Community Shield" match on Thursday, March 11. Kick-off is at 6 p.m. on the Xbox Pitch at Qwest Field.

General Admission tickets are $10 for adults and $5 for youth (6-17). Children under the age of six are free. Tickets are available at www.SoundersFC.com, by calling 800-745-3000, all Ticketmaster outlets and the Qwest Field Box office.

Proceeds from the match will benefit the team's four community partners: Boys and Girls Club of Washington State, Save the Children, Seattle SCORES and Washington Youth Soccer. Following the match the teams will sign autographs from the field.

I'm skipping the recaps of the last 3 matches. You read about them here already right? If not they are linked at the top of this post.

No new faces are in camp. No Ettien, no Rayner Michael.

Throw-ins
Tyson Wahl will turn 26 on February 23...Ivory Coast midfielder Felix Ettien will not be able to train or play with Sounders FC after taking ill on Saturday...Brazilian trialist midfielder Rayner Michael, who joined the team in La Manga, is no longer training with the team...Sunday marked the first appearance of Steve Zakuani, who was cleared to play with a brace on his surgically repaired right shoulder. Central defender Jeff Parke saw his first action, playing the second half...

That's the first of the weekly news and notes, interwoven with my comments and links to stories here at Sounder At Heart that are related. Weekly news and notes (quoted material) are written by the staff at Sounders FC, other material and links are my own.

Luis Gil to Seattle or RSL? Currently with Wizards, what is his value?

2010-02-21T22:33:53Z

Promoted to Frontpage to discuss what his value is to Sounders. Originally written prior to allocation lottery, within the comments you can find that a few papers are reporting the first rumor linked here as fact.

With the lottery one day away to decide where Luis Gil goes, it may not be such a lottery after. According to Three Four Three FC Blog, Luis Gil is rumored to be going to either Seattle or RSL. If one of the 14 other teams win the lottery, He will be trade to either team, whoever puts up the better trade bid for Gil. He is a member of Generation Adidas so regardless where he ends up he won't count against the salary cap.

As a Sounders FC fan, my first thought of Gil coming to Seattle, as young as he is, taking up one of two remaining DV spot away from those that are fighting to earn them and what ever Seattle has to give up to get him is not really such a good idea . However, now that I think of it more to possibly have a Freddie Adu talent like player on the team is astounding. With Sigi as Head Coach of the Sounders, it sounds like he would be a perfect fit in Seattle and fill any depth gaps Seattle has in the midfielder like LW and RW but he would finally fill a hole that Seattle has been lacking at CAM but also work as a LAM and a RAM.

After he spends a few years developing and learning under Sigi, I think he could potentially become an offensive threat in the midfield that Seattle so direly needs.

Which ever team he may end up playing for rather it be here in Seattle or in Real Salt Lake or anywhere else, he will be a good contributing player to the team and this league.

If I was the Sounders GM, at the most i would give up to get him would be allocation and maybe a 3rd or 4th round draft pick. However, to give up a player or anything higher than a 3rd round for a 16 year old that could potentially be a bust would be a risk I am not willing to make at this time.

Players are in no-win situation

2010-02-22T02:39:59Z

From the outside looking in, life as an American soccer player has never looked better. Unlike many from previous generations, today's players have very real hopes of being able to play their entire careers on home soil, making a decent living doing so.

By 2011, there will be 18 top-tier teams in North America playing in some of the most desirable regions of the world. Those 18 teams will provide jobs for at least 360 players who will make, on average, about $100,000 per season -- even excluding the very highest paid players. That's certainly not as good money as professional athletes in some other leagues stand to make, but like those other athletes, American soccer players can reasonably hope that their jobs are here for the foreseeable future.

Compared to the prospects of similar players as recently as 10 years ago -- to speak nothing of those players 20 years ago -- this is an enormous accomplishment.

Viewed from this perspective, it's easy to wonder why players would be willing to risk it all with a strike that could derail what might be the apex of soccer in the United States.

As anyone who is at all familiar with the current Collective Bargaining Agreement under which Major League Soccer players compete, the situation is not nearly this cut and dry.

Even excluding players on the developmental and reserve rosters, about a third of the league's players are paid less than $50,000 annually, have very little job security and have almost no say into what kit they don.

Attempting to read between the lines of statements by both representatives of the players union and the league, it's hard to imagine any of these issues being sufficiently resolved to both sides' liking.

Since few details of the actual negotiations are publicly available, we can only speculate as to what has transpired:

The salary cap will likely be raised significantly, perhaps as much as $300,000 with annual escalators, but we're still looking at a total pool of less than $3 million per team.
Players making the minimum of $34,000 probably stand to get a raise, but I'm willing to bet most of the increased salary pool is going to go to the Freddy Monteros and Nate Jaquas of the league, not the Stephen Kings and Terry Bosses.
More contracts will be guaranteed, but the league has made it clear that all of them won't.
Real free agency, with teams bidding for the services of players, is not going to happen. I get the sense that even a hybrid free agency in which players are signed by the league but get to play for a team of their choosing after their contract runs out is something over which the league is willing to draw a thick black line.

Of all these issues, and this is not even a full rundown, free agency and guaranteed contracts are the biggest. Understandably, players want job security and more say into where they play. As it stands now, even if a team decides it no longer wants a player, that player is essentially left with two options if the team refuses to trade his rights: leave the league or retire. Many can also be cut at any point without so much as a severance package.

Commentators, and probably most fans, have tended to side with what seems like the commonsense position of the players on these issues, and some may even think that the league would never be willing to let its players strike over what seem like easily solvable issues. After all, as long as the league owns the players' rights and is the entity signing their paychecks, allowing limited player-controlled movement and guarantees shouldn't lead to skyrocketing salaries.

That opinion, at least on freedom, misses one key issue: The league, rightly or wrongly, believes at its core that part of what has made MLS successful is parity. If players are allowed even this much freedom, they will undoubtedly flock to places like Seattle -- well-run franchises that play in world-class facilities, in front of sellout crowds and for owners that are willing to spend on the little extras.

To be sure, the Seattles of the league would welcome this change. But MLS Commissioner Don Garber, and probably the vast majority of MLS brass, are convinced that a significant portion of the league would be left behind. In turn, this would significantly slow the league's growth, hurt TV contracts and ultimately lead the league down the path of the failed NASL.

There will be those that argue that other U.S. pro leagues have this kind of dichotomy but manage to thrive anyway. As much as soccer has grown in popularity, though, it's hard to argue that the sport has the kind of cultural cache that allows the Kansas City Royals, Los Angeles Clippers and Oakland Raiders of the world to continue to exist.

There may be more room for compromise on the issue of guarantees, though. One reading of the tea leaves suggests MLS, which already guarantees some contracts, could go as far as guaranteeing all or most non-Developmental players during the season the way most FIFA leagues do. The league will never allow itself to shoulder the risk of fully guaranteed contracts -- similar to those in the NBA and MLB -- but this seems like a reasonable compromise. I would suggest there being a limit of three years on the contracts as a way of keeping players from being thrust into a life of what amounts to indentured servitude.

In most labor disputes, I tend to side with the workers. There's no doubt the players make a great case here, and you can't blame them for wanting more control over their careers. But I really think this is the wrong time and the wrong place to draw the line.

Owners are not going to budge free agency, no matter how well you make your case. I understand that this, even more than money, is the biggest issue and probably the coalescing force behind unionization in the first place. But a strike will get you no closer to your goal. Most owners are losing money already and won't flinch if a some games have to be canceled. Eventually, you'll be forced to sign a contract with nothing but a frustrated workforce and angry fans to show for it.

I say take the increased salary cap, the raised salary floor and the modest improvement in stability, and sign a two- or three-year contract. By that time, the league may even be turning a profit and you'll be in a much better position to negotiate.

Poll

Is there any scenario in which you think MLS players should strike?

Only if league won't grant fully guaranteed contracts

0 votes

Only if league won't allow player free agency

0 votes

Only if players don't get more security AND freedom

1 votes

Players shouldn't strike under any circumstances

0 votes

Players should always reserve the right to strike

4 votes

5 votes | Poll has closed

Season may be in jeopardy

2010-02-20T03:50:55Z

Several websites and blogs are quoting representatives of the MLS Player Union as saying that the two sides are still far apart on numerous issues and that a strike could be their only bargaining chip.

"In the last month, there’s been no significant movement at all," MLSPU Executive Board Member Pat Onstad said, according to Centerlinesoccer.com. "The last offer we put on the table has not even been remotely addressed. Right now, (the negotiations) are in a bad place. We’re far apart."

Talks are still ongoing, with a meeting scheduled for next week, but talk of a strike is definitely out there.

The players are apparently prepared to dig in on issues ranging from free agency to what kind of expenses players are expected to cover when changing teams. One of the bigger issues, apparently, is teams' ability to continue to control players' rights within MLS even after the teams have not shown interested in keeping those players.

"I know on our side, we’re prepared to strike if we have to for what we want," Earthquakes keeper Joe Cannon told Centerline. "If the owners feel as adamant about treating us like they do, that’s up to them. It’s their business."

I am promoting this to the frontpage so that you can share your thoughts on the issues, and track what will likely be numerous reports over the next 24 hours. Here is Ives post on the subject.

MLS is in no danger of turning into the NASL

2010-02-15T19:04:33Z

Piggybacking on my previous post advocating for Austin, Texas to be the 20th MLS franchise (I'm assuming Montreal will be No. 19), I felt like it would be worthwhile to take a look at the last time an American outdoor soccer league went through a similar level of expansion.

The NASL was more than a interesting short-term experiment. At one point, the league boasted 24 teams drawing average crowds of more than 14,000 people. Yet four years after hitting those peaks in 1980, the league had essentially folded, fielding just nine teams and drawing an average of fewer than 11,000 fans in its final season.

There were numerous reasons why that league failed -- too many to explore in one post. Perhaps the most obvious of those reasons was the league's aggressive expansion. From 1973-78, the NASL went from nine teams to 24.

It got me wondering whether, in its current state of expansion, the MLS was at risk of repeating one of its predecessor's mistakes.

The quick answer, I think, is no. It's pretty clear that MLS has seen how and why unchecked NASL expansion contributed to the league's downfall. As we are regularly reminded, MLS is still not a huge money-making operation. But its steady expansion appears to be far more calculated, with expansion franchises such as Seattle, Toronto and Philadelphia enhancing the league's overall numbers rather than pulling them down.

Let's start by looking at the way the two leagues expanded. The NASL was in an almost constant state of flux. The roster of teams never stayed exactly the same from one year to the next. Even the number of teams in the league only stayed the same for three separate consecutive-year stretches and never for more than three consecutive years.

New teams popped up and old teams folded or moved at a staggering pace. There were 43 separate franchises during the league's 16-season life, and that doesn't even account for the 13 franchises that moved or were renamed at least once (including the Minnesota Strikers which played in five different cities under five different names).

The reason for all the change seems simple enough to explain: Aside from a few teams with relatively large and stable attendance figures (that make the overall averages looks much better than situation actually was), many teams struggled to find an audience. During the league's peak attendance period (1977-83, when it averaged more than 13,000 fans during each season), there were multiple teams every year failing to average 5,000 and about a third of the league failing to draw averages of 10,000.

The Cosmos, for instance, averaged more than 27,000 fans every season from 1977-84, and more than 45,000 fans from 1978-80. Meanwhile, teams in places like Atlanta and Rochester, N.Y. never averaged as many as 9,000 fans in their 21 combined seasons. (For the record, the Sounders' attendance peaked at an average of 24,246 in 1980 and hovered around the 20,000 mark from 1976-81 before dropping off to just over 12,000 during the 1982 season.)

Expansion teams, while boosting the coffers of existing owners, did little to help the league's overall health. In 1974, the first year of significant NASL expansion, five of the six lowest attendance average teams were new to the league that year. Those same teams, in addition to other new teams, continued to represent the worst attended NASL teams essentially until the first massive wave of contraction in 1982 when the league sloughed off a third of its members.

The MLS has been a modicum of stability, at least in contrast. Nine of the league's 10 original teams still compete, with only the Tampa Bay Mutiny falling by the wayside. Of the league's expansion franchises, only the Miami Fusion have failed to take hold.

While almost every franchise has moved home stadiums, only the Houston Dynamo have relocated cities.

Although the league will have grown from 10 teams in 2004 to 18 teams in 2011, the growth has been much slower and more deliberate. No more than two teams have entered the league in any one year and there have never been more than two teams with fewer than two seasons under their belts.

MLS attendance has been similarly stable. The league has averaged better crowds than the NASL at its peak in all but three seasons (1998-2000) and has averaged at least 16,000 for each of the past three seasons. While attendance has certainly had some level of fluctuation, it has never dipped below an average of 13,500 (2000).

No team has yet to equal the heights of the Cosmos (Seattle's average of just over 31,000 is an MLS record), but the struggles of even the worst attended MLS teams pales in comparison to their NASL counterparts. No team has failed to average at least 10,000 fans per game since 2005 (Kansas City averaged 9,691 that year) and only four teams have failed to hit that mark since 2001 (four teams actually averaged less than 10,000 in 2000), according to the MLS website.

More to the point, the expansion franchises have recently been the more successful ones at the turnstile. Four of the top 5 teams in attendance last season were at one point expansion teams. Although that appears to have been an aberration, since 2005 the expansion teams have at least avoided being the teams dragging down league-wide attendance averages (that honor goes almost entirely to charter member Kansas City). At the very least, each expansion franchise has drawn well its inaugural season before eventually settling into the middle of the pack.

I don't think I'm making any crazy predictions by saying this could be a record-setting year in MLS, eclipsing the inaugural 1996 season's league-wide average of more than 17,000. The New York Red Bulls will open their soccer-specific stadium. Tickets for the Philadelphia Union are selling quickly. And both will likely be dwarfed by another record-setting year of attendance by your Seattle Sounders.

If anything, this seems like the perfect time for MLS to be expanding. Done smartly, there's no reason to believe the league doesn't have a bright future ahead of itself.

Note: Finding primary sources for almost my NASL attendance figures was tough. I was forced to rely on this post from Keen.com for most of my NASL figures. After initially failing to find primary MLS figures, though, a reader pointed me to this somewhat hidden area on the MLS site.

Markus Kamp for Alliance Council

2010-02-14T20:55:32Z

We did it! We successfully voted Ken Wyatt onto the Sounders FC Alliance Council. NES is now urging its members to vote Markus Kamp in as further representation for the north end of Qwest.

Like Ken, Markus grew up playing and supporting the sport of soccer, having been raised in Tulsa during the heyday of the old NASL. After holding KC Wizards season tickets for the inaugural season of MLS, he becames a Sounders season ticket holder as soon as tickets were released in fall 2008, eager to support a team that didn't have Ronnie Roughneck (who bore too strong a resemblance to Timber Jim!) as a mascot or a satin rainbow across its kit.

You've likely seen Markus in section 148 directly behind the north goal, banging a drum, yelling his guts out, dying his eyebrows green, and otherwise making a display of himself. All that withstanding, Markus actually is a responsible adult and would be proud to represent other responsible adults on the Council.

Season ticket holders get one vote per account. If you held season tickets in 2009, your vote from last year carries over to this season's tally, but you also get a vote for 2010!

Let's add another north ender to the Alliance Council. Please vote for Markus Kamp!

Thank you!

Please cast your vote athttps://eballot.votenet.com/SeattleSoccer/login.cfm.

Arlo White to succeed Kevin Calabro as Sounders' Play-by-Play announcer

2010-02-10T18:13:27Z

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sounders/2011027342_sounders10.html

Calabro wasn't exactly "let go," as he was only on a one year contract in the first place. Looks like the team just wanted to go in a "different direction."

I don't know about others, but I actually like this move. As admirable as Kevin Calabro's enthusiasm and voice are, his ignorance of the game could be rather cringe-worthy at times. White has covered Premier League games, bringing some much needed experience to the table.

I am frontpaging this and adding in the press release from the Sounders as well.

Sounders FC Hire White as “Voice of the Sounders FC”
Renton, Wash. – The Seattle Sounders FC today announced Arlo White as the club’s play-by-play announcer. The “Voice of the Sounders FC” will be heard on all television and radio broadcasts.
“I am extremely excited to join the Sounders FC family,” said White. “When I came to Seattle last season for opening night, I was overwhelmed by the atmosphere at Qwest Field. This is a great opportunity for me to be a part of a first-class organization. I have high hopes for this club this season.”

White, 36, joins Seattle after spending the previous nine years with BBC Radio Sport in England where he served as a host on “BBC Radio 5 Live.” White also hosted the station’s flagship Premier League Football show, “Saturday 5 Live Sport,” and the “Monday Night Club” alongside the legendary BBC football commentator John Motson.

From 2002 to 2005, White was a key presenter on the “5 Live Breakfast” program. During that time, he covered the 2003 Cricket World Cup in South Africa, the 2004 Athens Olympic Games and various Champions League football matches.
In November 2006, White joined a very select band of broadcasters to have worked the “Test Match Special” and presented “Sports Report.” He served as the presenter of “Saturday 5 Live Sport” for several weeks, and was a regular voice on the network presenting “5 Live Sport.”
White has called five Super Bowls for BBC and hosted a weekly NFL show.
Last season, White was in the booth for one Sounders FC match, calling play-by-play versus Houston.
He and his wife, Lizi, are the parents of twin daughters, Eva and Amelie.

All Sounders FC league games not aired nationally on ESPN or FSC will be carried live on KING 5 or KONG 6/16. All games can also be heard on the radio home of Sounders FC, News Talk 97.3 KIRO FM. All Sounders FC Spanish language broadcasts will be aired on Ke Buena 1210 AM, except nationally aired broadcasts. Select Sounders FC Spanish language TV matches will be aired on KOMO2 TV, Comcast channel 114, a Univision sister station.

Feel free to share your thoughts on the change

If MLS wants another Seattle, look at Austin

2010-02-04T08:01:11Z

The addition of the Philadelphia Union gives MLS 16 teams. When Vancouver and Portland officially start in 2011, that will be 18. It's pretty clear that Montreal will end up being No. 19.

I think it's fair to say that No. 20 will be right around the corner, and that will halt expansion for a fair amount of time.

The smart money would seem to be on St. Louis being the lucky city. They already have an ownership group that is working on getting a bid together, which may end up being the only thing that ultimately matters. It got me wondering, though, which city in an ideal world, would make the best addition to MLS?

After going through demographic information, attendance figures and some other stuff like site location, I realized that none of it drew a direct line to what teams succeeded at the box office and which ones failed. Without a clear direction, I thought I'd look at the most successful MLS city to date -- Seattle -- and looked for the city that might best emulate it.

What I ended up deciding was Austin, Texas would make a great No. 20. Not only would the MLS team have the market of about 1.6 million people essentially all to itself, but the area's population, at least on paper would seem to be soccer friendly.

Add in the possibility of a three-team Texas rivalry and another city MLS supporters would actually want to visit, and suddenly you have the makings of a pretty attractive bid.

How I came to this decision is certainly unscientific, but it wasn't random, either. Here's some of the stuff I considered before ultimately deciding on this:

Obviously, the most important thing for any new team is stability; there would be few things worse than starting a team and being forced to contract it a few years later (like with Miami, which was around for four years before being folded along with original MLS member Tampa Bay).

The easiest thing to do is to learn from past and current mistakes. Last year, five teams failed to average at least 14,000 fans, all of which have pretty easy to identify issues.

New England (13,732 per game average in 2009): They play in a NFL stadium, which in and of itself is not a killer as we well know, but the Revolution have the added problem of playing outside of their city center. Making matters worse, there seems to be very little attempt to make Gillette Stadium feel like a soccer field. They also share their season with two teams, again not a killer, but that's exasperated by the fact that they are really the fifth most popular major league team in their market. On the plus side, it is a college town, but being 30 miles away kinda renders that point moot.
New York (12,491): If the Red Bulls still fail to draw after getting their own stadium, they will officially be out of excuses. On paper, they really shouldn't be struggling to draw as badly as they do. Sure, there are eight other teams in the market and four of them essentially compete directly with soccer season, but there are also nearly 20 million people in the metro area. That alone should be enough to render any competition meaningless. Playing in Giants Stadium, far from ideal in almost every sense, obviously hurt as well.
Dallas (12,441): FC Dallas has its own stadium, but is probably hurt by the fact that it's about 30 miles from downtown Dallas. The four other teams in the market -- two in season -- don't help, but with 6.3 million people in the metro area, that shouldn't be as big of a problem as it is. From everything I've read, it sounds like marketing has been a problem and the team's rebranding has not gone off particularly well.
Colorado (12,331): The Rapids have their own stadium, but also had to go to the suburbs to get it. Of course, it's less than 10 miles from the city center, so you wouldn't think that would be a huge issue. The biggest issue here, I think, is that the Rapids are essentially the fifth most popular team in an area that is the fourth smallest metro area in the league, are forced to compete with the Rockies in the summer and the Broncos in the fall, and skews a little older than is probably ideal.
Kansas City (10,053): Obviously, the Wizards have problems. They left Arrowhead where their attendance ranged from awful (8,073 in 1998) to acceptable (15,573 in 2003), and moved to a minor league baseball park across the state line in Kansas where there just aren't that many seats to fill (10,385 capacity). There is a new soccer-specific stadium on the way, also on the Kansas side of the border, that should provide some boost. But big problems, such as being the third smallest market in the MLS while still having to share their season with the Royals in the summer and Chiefs in the fall; having a demographic that skews too young (more than 31 percent of Kansas City residents are younger than 20) without much disposable income; and not having much in terms of successful history make me wonder why anyone thought building a stadium was a good idea.

Much of the same negatives can be said about the two failed franchises in MLS history. Tampa Bay was one of the smaller markets to have to share its season and played in a football stadium that was less than ideal (it was usually about one-sixth full) and Miami was actually playing about 30 miles away in Ft. Lauderdale in a converted high school football stadium.

To put it in a nutshell, the ideal MLS situation would have the market all to itself; play in a stadium that is either soccer friendly or situated near the urban center; have about 55 percent of its population be between 20-49 years old (most of the information I use is from the real estate site Zillow); at least 40 percent of its inhabitants be single; and have a proven ability to draw fans to soccer matches.

Here's how the Top 5 MLS attendance teams fair in these regards:

Seattle (30,897): They play in a stadium that was designed, at least in part, for soccer that is right outside downtown; almost 56 percent of the city's residents are between 20-49; about 42 percent are single; and the USL's Sounders had showed serious promise.
Los Angeles Galaxy (20,416): Home Depot Center is considered the model for MLS stadiums; about 48 percent of its residents fit inside our age bracket; 37 percent are single; the city has a long history of supporting the national team; and despite sharing the market, being in the second biggest metro area helps a lot.
Toronto (20,344): The only problem with BMO Field is that the team may have to expand it, as they continually sell out the 20,500-seat stadium; about 53 percent of the population is between the ages of 20-54; due to common-law marriage in Canada, marriage statistics are little more complicated there; and although they share the market with the CFL's Argonauts and the Blue Jays, neither team outdraws Toronto FC by much.
Houston (17,047): If there's a team that has real attendance growth potential, this might be it. Despite playing at a college football stadium in a bad part of town and not fitting in to my nice little demographic target (49 percent are 20-49 and 32 percent are single), the Dynamo still draw well. I suppose winning titles the first two years the team was in town didn't hurt. Imagine what would happen if they had a stadium they actually wanted to go to.
Salt Lake City (16,375): Rio Tinto Stadium is, apparently, a pretty easy light rail ride from downtown Salt Lake City; 52 percent is in our ideal age range; only 32 percent are single; but not having to really compete for attention certainly goes a long way.

Using this same information, I think we can safely assume the three new expansion teams will do just fine attendance wise.

The Portland Timbers will have their own stadium in the middle of downtown; already average about 5,000 a game for USL matches; don't really skew my way demographically (50 and 32 percent, respectively); but won't have to compete for attention among the area's roughly 2 million residents.
Vancouver will play in a downtown stadium designed with both the Whitecaps and the B.C. Lions in mind; has about 55 percent of its population between 20-54; will only have to compete with the Lions for attention; and recently drew 50,000 people for an exhibition game between the Whitecaps and Galaxy.
The Philadelphia Union will start off playing in a stadium soccer fans are already drooling over; skews a little young (just 44 percent in our age bracket); is sufficiently single (40 percent); have already sold out their club seats; and will have to compete for attention, but with nearly 6 million people in the metro area, should be just fine.

Which brings us all the way back to the point of this post, which was to support Austin's candidacy for MLS inclusion.

Unlike St. Louis, as far as I can tell, there's no ownership group making its case, and that might be the end of it. But there's no reason MLS has to hurry up and admit St. Louis. In fact, AC St. Louis is really only now starting, so while it might make some sense to admit Montreal sooner than later (they fit our mold nicely), they still won't be playing until 2012.

The best thing Austin probably has going for it is the fact that it's a totally untapped market with the closest professional team being about 80 miles away, while a St. Louis MLS team would be competing directly with the Cardinals and Rams. Although the St. Louis metro area is certainly bigger than Austin (2.8 million compared to 1.6 million), if you consider it on a per team basis, that ratio is practically flipped (938,903 to 1.6 million). Let's also not forget that Austin does have an active minor league team, the Austin Aztex, which will play in the newly formed USSF D-2, drawing as many as 4,500 fans for a game against the Dynamo.

Neither city has a soccer-specific stadium that would be MLS worthy, but Austin is a much better fit demographically (56 percent in our age bracket and 40 percent single as opposed to 44 percent and 41 percent). Austin also has a much higher median income (about $42,000 compared to approximately $27,000). I also like the potential of having the University of Texas' roughly 50,000 students on the front porch.

I'll be the first to admit that this suggestion may be dead in the water, but if we're looking at which city fits our ideal, I challenge you to find a better fit than Austin.

As a side note: I considered several other cities than the ones detailed here for possible expansion. Real quickly, I main dismissed Miami and Tampa because they have already failed; Atlanta because the city has shown little willingness to support any sports, let alone "second-tier" ones; Carolina is probably too small; in general soccer has not caught on in the professional ranks in the South as well as it has in other regions; Baltimore would have to compete with DC United and is probably too small, anyway; Minnesota might be the next best option, but would have to compete with both football and baseball.

Notes from the team

2010-02-02T00:42:55Z

I'm not going to be the guy that posts the full notes, but I will focus on a few of them that I think are of particular interest.

First though, from the Seattle Times, in 7 on 7 large field scrimmages Mike Fucito had a hattrick.

The rest is condensed from an email the team sends out weekly

Vancouver Whitecaps FC of the NASL Conference in USSF Division Two will be the first friendly/exhibition. It will be Feb 11 down in Phoenix.

As the Secondary Transfer Window closes in most of Europe (Nordic Countries and Russia still have their Primary Open) the team's cheif talent evaluators are going on their first trip.

General manager Adrian Hanauer and technical director Chris Henderson depart later this week for 10 days of scouting in Argentina and Uruguay

Comings and Goings this week for players
Coming - Ljungberg, Marshall (returning), Lusky, Gardner
Goings - Seamon, Predido both back to school

How big of an issue is our FieldTurf?

2010-02-01T20:56:54Z

There's an interesting post over at Daily Soccer Fix discussing the pluses and minuses of various MLS stadiums. On the whole, Qwest comes out looking pretty good. Steve Davis, the author, gives the stadium four out of five stars, putting it in the upper echelon of MLS stadiums.

Still, he docks us for two things: size of the stadium and synthetic turf. I tend to think the size of the stadium is a potential plus, but I was more worried about the turf, namely the likelihood that it could cost us a chance to host major international matches.

What I found is that there are definitely examples of MLS teams sharing stadiums with NFL or college teams, playing on grass fields in equally wet climates. I also found that the U.S. national team has not been shying away from turf fields as much as I thought, and in the long run it might not make that much of a difference, anyway. Here's how I came to those findings:

I started off by looking for grass fields in cities with large stadiums that get as much or more annual rainfall as Seattle. There's no shortage of these, as virtually every city in the Southeastern Conference has a football stadium as big or bigger than Qwest, receives often times far more rainfall and generally plays on grass. But they also only play five to eight games a year and don't share the field.

I then whittled down the list to grass stadiums that share or shared space with an MLS tenant and received as much or more rainfall as Seattle. That essentially left me with four stadiums: Tampa Bay's Raymond James Stadium, Kansas City's Arrowhead, Houston's Robertson and Washington D.C.'s RFK.

Of those, only Robertson currently matches, as the Mutiny were dissolved in 2001, the Wizards moved out of Arrowhead after the 2007 season and the United have had RFK all to themselves since 1997.

From what I can tell, Robertson is not an ideal soccer stadium. The field is too tight, it's aging and because of its heavy use, not always in great condition. Obviously, Seattle does not want to look here for encouragement. But if it's simply a matter of being able to stage games on grass fields while it's raining, I think there's ample reason to believe it can be done.

Which brings us back to the main point, how big of a deal is it that Qwest has a turf field? A quick look through Wikipedia's archives will show that the U.S. National team has chosen turf fields on occasion for its home games, at least since 2007. Prior to last year's Gold Cup, the U.S. had only played on turf once in each of the past two years, at Giants Stadium in 2008 and Gillette Stadium in 2007. But last year, the U.S. actually played four games on FieldTurf, all during the Gold Cup. One of those games, as many of you will remember, was at Qwest.

FIFA has recognized that FieldTuf is most likely the wave of the future. It has given one- or two-star approval to at least 60 FieldTurf stadiums, even allowing the 2007 U-20 World Cup in Canada to have half its games played on the surface. To be sure, there were and are complaints, but obviously, FIFA does not consider FieldTurf to be the death knell of a stadium's hosting bid.

Of course, FIFA's stance on FieldTurf may not even be that big of issue. While it's unlikely that anyone is willing to pay the costs of converting Qwest to grass for a one-time appearance by the national team, there's reason to believe it could be done in order to accomodate several games as part of the U.S. World Cup bid.

At least according to a 2001 PI article, the decision to install FieldTurf at Qwest was done with the caveat that grass could be installed if that's what it took to bring MLS or FIFA to town. Obviously, that ended up not being an impediment for MLS, but there's no reason I see why similar moves couldn't be made to accomodate a multi-match event with tens of millions in potential revenues.

All of this is to essentially say that the FieldTurf issue may be much ado about not very much. There will always be detractors, but there's no reason I see why that issue alone would keep Seattle from becoming the centerpiece of a winning U.S. World Cup bid. In the long run, it probably makes sense to keep the field FieldTurf, since that's what seems to work best on a day-to-day basis.

Why the venom?

2010-02-01T16:33:40Z

I have noticed that on a lot of soccer forums/blogs (not this one) there seems to be this certain pride in soccer fans setting themselves apart from other sports. American Football in particular. My question is, "Why the venom?"

If the goal is to grow the popularity of soccer in the USA, then why do fans intentionally isolate themselves and create this barrier between fan groups of other sports? For instance, was browsing through a thread on the Seattle Times Sounders forum and found an extensive amount of references to the "Sea-Chickens" or "Seahags". WHY? Are these not precisely the people that we are trying to persuade to give soccer a chance?

Thoughts?

Diving into Sounders attendance figures (and barely coming up for air!)

2010-01-31T03:39:35Z

In a busy week of Sounders and MLS news and activity, one news story was somewhat overlooked. On Wednesday, Sounder FC management announced that 2010 season tickets would be "capped" at 32,000 (over 31,0000 have been sold). This, along with existing plans to set Qwest/RBP seating capacity for League matches at about 36,000 means that we can reasonably expect Sounders' average attendance figures for this upcoming season to exceed 35,000.

While this would more than double the MLS average attendance for 2009 (16,120) many cynics have hastened to point out that the MLS is a poorly-supported niche sport in the American big-time sports landscape (not necessarily true, more on that later). Added to that is the seemingly endless consternation of many in the sports community that a "sellout" is deemed such even though it only constitutes selling just more than half of Qwest's 67,000 seat capacity.

I am here to point out that these two arguments miss the point entirely. In fact, America's perception of crowd size is completely skewed by the enormous draw of college football and the NFL, and to a lesser extent Major League Baseball. The numerical mathematical facts are, that from a "global" or even "European"perspective, 35,000+ is a shit-ton of people to draw to your games 15+ times a year.

Let's start by looking at some tables -- absolutely every bit of data I am drawing from is easily found by anyone using google and Wikipedia. First is a listing of the attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues, listed by average attendance. The first thing that should jump out at you is the immense popularity of the NFL, although there are always a number of mitigating circumstances with regards to attendance figures, the two biggest being number of games and also obviously the population of the nation involved. (as an aside, it is interesting to note that far and way the most popular league in the world in terms of raw attendance is Major League Baseball, which is somewhat stunning in and of itself).

One thing this list does not provide for is the aforementioned extraordinary popularity if major-college football in America. To begin to gain an appreciation for this, let's look at the list of largest stadiums in the world, ranked by seated capacity. No less than 12 of the top 25 "largest" stadiums in the world are American college football stadiums, or stadiums built or used primarily for that purpose, with an additional 1 more stadium in the top 25 an NFL stadium (Fed-Ex Field, home of the Washington Redskins). And we know from anecdotal knowledge these college teams generally sell out all their home games.

Obviously, there are a lot of people in the United States and Canada attending professional or major-college sporting events, and when you include "indoor" sports figures it all becomes more clear. The combined population of USA and Canada is 342 million people (about 0.05% of the 6.8 billion people on the planet, compare this to Western Europe's 397 million -- 0.06%), but the region is ridiculously wealthy, the GDP of the USA alone is $14.2 Trillion, or about 20.5% of the global GDP of $69 trillion (compare to the European Union -- which includes more than just "western Europe" at $15.2 trillion)

[all figures from Wikipedia] Obviosuly, let's skip altruism for the moment and remember that it really is about the money!

So lets revisit the MLS average attendance figures for 2009. Many cynical or jaundiced members of the sports community would like to dismiss or laugh off this figure as a paltry and insignificant number. It is tempting to look at the table and dismiss the average as a lie, since the Sounders' figures surely skew the average. So lets succumb to this notion and do just this. Its pretty simple math to eliminate the Sounders from the MLS average, and in doing so we get 14,040, which reduces the figure by about 12.9%.

Soccer is the one truly global sport. There are those that would like to sell hockey, basketball, and baseball as global sports, but baseball, frankly falls laughably short, hockey is almost entirely a North American and European endeavor; but basketball has some merit. Unfortunately for us, the NBA is a monolithic entity, arrogant enough to label its champion as a "World Champion" and employing different rules than the international game. In fact, American basketball is severely inbred, something we are seeing more and more as foreigners become established in the NBA. The global reach and significance of international basketball competitions is a fraction of that for soccer, and while soccer boasts multiple high-level domestic leagues, the same simply cannot be said of basketball. Nice try guys, but you don't compare to soccer globally!

So lets look at European domestic soccer leagues, and, in fact, lets go right for the top. Europe is the richest, densest, and most accomplished soccer network on the planet; South America comes in a distant second. Going back to our domestic league attendance table, we can see the 3rd, 5th, 8th, and 11th-most popular sports leagues in the world (by average attendance) are the top-flight divisions in Germany, England, Spain, and Italy, respectively, which also happen to be widely recognized as the top four leagues (in terms of level of play) in at least Europe, if not the World.

Let's look at averages, and in the same exercise as we performed in MLS, throw out the top club and see how that affects the numbers:

England: 35650

without ManU = 31885 or -10.6%

Italy: 25324

without AC Milan = 22388 or -11.6%

Germany: 42736

without Borussia Dortmund = 38549 or -9.8%

Spain: 28491

without Barcelona = 24769 or -13.1%

You do not have to be a mathematician or statistician to come to two obvious conclusions. Claiming Sounders' attendance figures "unfairly" skew MLS averages is stupid, and the projected attendance for the 2010 Sounders' season will be about equal to English Premier League average attendance and exceed Spanish and Italian top-flight average attendance.

I will be the first to concede that there are a ton of contingencies to the data. Population, wealth, number of clubs, number of games are just a few of dozens. You cannot look at the data absolutely, although numbers tend not to lie. Anybody familiar with statistics in sports knows this well.

I would like to address the sense of the competition for butts in seats, which is to say how can we filter the data to address the options to the sports fan. For instance, in Italy, Turin, Milan, and Rome each had two clubs in Serie A last season, so surely that must be taken into consideration somehow, as well as the litany of lower-division clubs the fan has to choose from. This argument is all well and good, but I hasten to point out that these are the 4 leagues that supposedly "rule the roost" in Western Europe, a region the numbers shown above compares to USA/Canada in terms of population and wealth, whereas the MLS is considered a relatively lowly and unpopular "niche sport" in North America.

But lets take a quick look, specifically in Italy and specifically at Turin, the home of historic European soccer giants Juventus and lesser-renowned Torino, a lower-level club that was relegated to Serie B (Italy's second division) this past season.

Torino: 22973

Juventus: 21329

First of all, lets take a moment to appreciate that a club relegated after the 08/09 season outdrew powerhouse Juventus. Beyond that, the combined numbers for these two teams is about 44,000, a number which would be considered an abject failure at the NFL level. The worst-drawing NFL team, the Oakland Raiders, drew on average 44284 fans. Detroit, a team with a dismal recent history and playing in an economically depressed region with astonishing unemployment rates, drew an average of 49,395. Granted, Serie A teams play 19 league home games, compared to 8 for an NFL team, but I've already established that NFL and major-college football crowd sizes alter our perception of sports attendance.

Turin is a city of 909,000 people, and an urban area of between 1.7 and 2.2 million (figures from Wikipedia) and is considered a cultural and economic hub, and as the center of the Italian automotive industry (including the headquarters of Fiat, the world's 6th largest carmaker) is one of the major industrial centers of Europe. Turin is the 4th-largest city in Italy and 78th wealthiest city in the world by GDP (58 billion).

Seattle, on the other hand, has a municipal population of 602,000, and an urban population of between 2.7 million ( as defined by the "urban area") and 3.3 million (as defined my the "metro" area). It is the 15th-largest metro area in the US, and in the always important TV market rankings it is 13th. Seattle is the 24th wealthiest city in the world with a GDP of $235 billion. (Remember, its about the money. To put the enormous wealth of the US into perspective, Seattle doesn't crack the top 10 in the US, but would rank ahead of Rome and Milan, the two wealthiest cities in Italy!)

So what does this all mean? Now that I've bored you to death with numbers, what conclusions can we draw from this? First of all, given the population and wealth of Western Europe, it seems a shocking amount of people are not attending soccer matches. Also, MLS attendance is surprisingly strong, despite its lowly stature in the sports landscape -- but also perhaps not so surprising due to the astounding wealth of the US from a global perspective.

But what about the stature of the sport, and the number of teams and matches played. For that, lets just focus on the 4 major western European countries discussed above.

(all figures from Wikipedia)

Germany: 82.33 million, GDP = $3.67 trillion

Italy: 60.23 million, GDP = $2.31 trillion

England: 51.45 million, GDP $2.2 trillion (note, this is for England only, not all of Britain)

Spain: 46.66 million, GDP = $1.6 trillion

totals 240.67 million, GDP = $9.78 trillion

USA/Canada: 342.58 million, GDP = $15.94 trillion

The "Big four" sports in USA/Canada are NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL, which combined are 122 teams, and across our Wikipedia sample set drew a combined 133.3 million fans over 5147 games, for an average of roughly 25,800 spectators per event (keeping in mind the "indoor" nature of NHL and NBA limits attendance compared to NFL and NBA). This is .388 by factor of population and 1 person for every $119 thousand of GDP

The "Big 4" domestic leagues consist of a combined 78 teams, drew 46.9 million fans over 1446 games, for an average of roughly 32,400 spectators per event. This is .195 by factor of population and 1 person for every $208 thousand of GDP.

There are certainly other sports in Europe of note, including rugby, basketball, and hockey, and there are lower divisions of all the domestic soccer leagues. It is worth noting that the second division in English soccer, the Championship, averaged 17891 fans (24 teams, 552 games) making it the 18th most popular domestic league in the world, and the 10th most popular soccer league in the world, 7th in Europe!

In USA/Canada, this also leaves out the prodigious influence of major-college football and the lesser but still significant influence of the Canadian Football League (the world's 7th-most popular domestic league by average attendance). But we can see that Americans and Canadians absolutely love attending professional sports in their major domestic leagues, at a rate nearly double the population factor and wealth factor of Italy, Germany, England, and Spain, even given the indoor limiting nature of hockey and basketball!

Seattle is a town with and NFL team, the Seahawks, that averaged 67995 for 8 homes games for 2009 (16th of 32 in NFL), a major college football team, the Washington Huskies, that averaged 64,355 for 7 homes games, a Major League Baseball team, the Mariners, which averaged 27,105 for 81 homes games (18th of 30 in MLB), as well as reasonable, relative, attendance rates for lesser sports such as college basketball, women's professional basketball, and minor league hockey. The loss of the NBA team, the Sonics, probably helped Sounders attendance figures, but 35,000+ a game is an impressive figure, no matter how you frame it, from a local, national, global, economic, or social perspective.

In fact, the Sounders last year became one of the top 50 soccer clubs in the world with an average of 31,203, and will probably rise up the rankings this year. It is easy for "mainstream" pundits to dismiss, or even laugh at, the Sounders' claims, and the overall MLS attendance figures, but to buy into this cynicism is a huge mistake. The ultimate, and only proven effective, means of fans and supporters to convey what is important, on a global scale, is butts in seats (or standing in front of seats), and in that regard, the Sounders community has spoken loudly!

An open letter to the Sounders FC front office, Alliance Council, and Supporter Groups.

2010-01-29T00:33:40Z

I have a harder and harder time justifying my sports fandom as the years go by. In fact, the reasons to not really care about professional or big-time sports severely outweigh the reasons to care, or at least it often seems that way. I have many friends who couldn't care less and I find myself almost wishing I could join them.

A big part of sports fandom is nostalgia, at least to most of those who have a genuine passion for their teams. In many cases it is the team they grew up pulling for, for whatever reason, and they still do so today. It is a mistake to think of nostalgia as "good memories," as they are indeed just powerful memories. Watching and enjoying sports has provided many of us with a plethora of these powerful, emotional memories, and this feeds the nostalgia which keeps it all coming.

But this isn't a treatise on what makes a fan, I would really like to leave it at the fact that there are fans, for whatever reason, and move on from there.

The Sounders, although claiming a history back to 1974 through various iterations, are in reality a brand spanking new sports entity. They have been fortunate to immediately connect with many supporters in the region despite this dubious history, for a variety of reasons which have been explored at length over the last year, in many outlets. But again, lets just accept that the chord has been struck, for whatever reason, and move on.

What we have here, and now in this city, with the Sounders and its Supporters, is a unique opportunity to get things right. The fans and supporters are the consumer of big-time and professional sports, and yet they are the most abused and overlooked party in the equation. This is due in no small part to the fact that the fans/supporters have ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN TO THEMSELVES, and owners, commissioners, and players have been all too willing to abuse this largely unrequited love for their own personal gain.

In the American soccer community there is a stated resistance to repeat these old habits, and at the forefront of this movement is the Sounders and its Supporters. As such, we have the opportunity to create a community in which the Supporters matter, and the club organization listens... really listens, not just pretends to listen. The apparatus have been put into place, there is an Alliance Council, there are active and vibrant supporter groups, and there is a Front Office that PURPORTS to want to listen to the Supporters. So lets do this!

I have long envisioned the "club membership" model in American professional sports. (I would like to see public ownership, but this may be a pipe dream, so this is certainly the next best thing.) I would like to see "club members," or season ticket holders be treated as true SHAREHOLDERS in the interest of the club. Again, the nominal apparatus are in place for this to happen with the Sounders, so let's make this happen! Let's not put up with the same old excuses, the tired obfuscation from alleged "businessmen" who tend to hold too much sway within sporting organizations.

I am encouraged with what I have seen in my first year as a Sounders FC Supporter, but I am also struck that we are only part-way there. This will be a process that may take a few years... in fact, in my efforts this season, i always had it in my head that this is all "Project 2011" giving us all 2 solid years to get our shit together and become one of the great sporting clubs on the planet. (Beyond that, 2011 will be rocking when Vancouver and Portland join in! Let's give them something the Really be jealous of!)

Seattle is a town of innovators, and has been for an entire century. we revolutionized air travel, computers, and coffee, just to name a few. Now, lets revolutionize sports fandom in America!

Jake Reeder

A home for the Champions League

2010-01-28T02:21:16Z

As reported by Romero, Prost, and likely others, it sounds as if our CCL play-in games might be played at Starfire. Certainly we were all hoping to welcome real international competitors to Qwest, and I assumed that our guaranteed CCL game would be included in the season ticket package.

The club, apparently, thinks otherwise:

"That'll be just like the U.S. Open Cup," VP Gary Wright said. "Should we play in a Champions League final and its a home game, that would be a little different."

However, they may have a problem.

The CONCACAF website lists regulations pertaining to different competitions that fall under its jurisdiction. I checked out the regulations regarding the Champions League. A lot of the rules are interesting, but most interesting are these:

10.2 Stadium Location
a. The home venue selected by the participating team should be the stadium usually used by the team for its home games.

That seems clear enough. Qwest should be the venue. Unless we're moving to Starfire.

And:

10.7 Other Stadium Facilities. Each stadium shall, as a minimum, provide the following facilities:
a. Separate locker room facilities for the home team, away team and match officials, meeting international standards in terms of size, quality, and basic amenities such as hot water, towels, as determined by CONCACAF.
b. Controlled Areas that may serve as post game interview areas.
c. Room for post-game press conference, air conditioned if available.
d. Facilities to accommodate broadcast and production operations, consisting of at least 2 enclosed booths for radio and TV and preferably at least 2 enclosed TV booths and 4 enclosed radio booths.
e. Controlled seating for no less than 50 media personnel for Preliminary Round and Group Stage games, 80 for Elimination Round games.
f. A media room, preferably air-conditioned and with high-speed internet access for all attending media, television monitors carrying a live feed of the match, and food and beverages for all attending media.
g. Provide a private, secured box or comparable seating area for the officials of the visiting team.
h. Broadcast facilities for television trucks including parking space, security, and power and two (2) phone lines in the location where the production trucks will be parked.
i. A fully operable public address system, audible both inside and outside of the entire stadium, and an operator or announcer qualified in its use.

I'm a little ashamed to admit, I've never been to Starfire, so I don't know if it meets these minimum requirements. However, last year the RSL announcers had to sit at a folding table in the walkway, I'm pretty sure they don't have two enclosed broadcast booths. And it just seems like Starfire isn't quite up to snuff for a tournament of this level.

So, see you at Qwest in July.