I would love to see a team in San Antonio... With that said, however, don't use city size as a meaningful description of San Antonio's significance. Being the 10th largest city means squat when San Antonio is the 30th largest metropolitan area. Boston is the 20th largest "city" in the US, but everyone knows Boston > San Antonio ...
The Spurs have soldout over 30 of the 41 home games. I like all sports..all of them, and i do go to a couple games of AA baseball and hockey but i wont buy those jerseys or remember the players names.....it's minor league. I don't see anything in them other than the game itself. No city profits from the WNBA, and the spurs org. sold it to us. Is anybody complaining about that? Ur right, it's a small market big city. Give us a true major league team that makes ESPN/FOX SPORTS (not just local) and people will jump on the bandwagon. miguel
To you the truth I don't know cuz I don't have all the calendars w/i my futbol radar. But. And someone will correct me, I can see the following non-MLS matches: --Interlinga/SUM --FIFA friendlies (foreign leagues/national teams). --USNAT games (friendlies or official--early rounds) --FMF (friendlies or official--early rounds) --STYSA and other youth soccer association championships --H.S. soccer championships.
To us, MLS is a major sport. But to most, they are going to treat it as a minor league sport (the local media included).
That's a little harsh. Since there are opponents out there, coming up with some alternative idea is only their just political responsibility. But if this is the best they can do, it only makes the pro-MLS case look stronger. . . http://www.kenn.com/sports/basketball/nba/nba_san_attendance.html The Spurs drew quite well in the Dome (and in the HemisFair before that) when the team was merely pretty good (the late 70s and late 80s periods compare favorably with the NBA average). The reason it was a morgue was the tendency of the giant space behind the curtain to eat up sound. It was horrible aesthetically for b-ball. I think that will be less true in SA than most MLS cities, because of the market demography and the lack of sports competition.
My question to you was largely rhetorical. My guess is that SA would get very few additional games that it would not have gotten without the MLS deal.
My guess is they'll get at least 1 or 2 a year that they would not otherwise have gotten, including friendlies against the MLS club, and that this will be good for knocking a hundred grand or so off the losses each year by itself. (Not including marquee MLS events, which they should get at least a couple of in the early years as well, as well as whatever the club can do).
Hmmmmm.Maybe.Maybenot.SUM is connected with MLS and the USSF is drawn in with a stadium that will be used for soccer games. All the games have been drawn in (with the exception of the Colorado vs Metrostars friendly game) have been part of the issue of brining an MLS team into SA.
San Antonio Chamber of Commerce went totally KOO KOO after the first game of the Mexican National team the tourist industry is pushing real hard for a soccer franchise after a deluge of Mexican fans from the north part of Mexico show up to watch the game ....
One or two games (or $100K as you speculated) a year is not much in the whole scheme of things, especially if you consider the amount of money that the city has to put in up front. I live in Austin and would love to see a team in San Antonio (if it does not involve playing outside in the Texas summer). I am just not as sold to the idea that an MLS team there would lead to much non-MLS income.
I'm not sure it would either, but the more interesting question is, since SUM controls a lot of the possible friendlies and marquee events, would San Antonio lose some of the revenue it has gotten lately? (And remember, they've only been getting this money lately). And the answer is: probably yes. The stadium in Frisco will be a new option in Texas for some of these events, as will anything that ever ends up happening in Houston. If the other elements of the equation are somewhere close to each other, SUM will prefer to line MLS's pockets rather than the pockets of those who spurned MLS. Also, note the prior post was a reference to the AlamoDome's bottom line, rather than San Antonio's. As whip correctly notes, the principal beneficiaries of those marquee events will not be the Dome--they'll be the tourist industry. The cumulative impact there is much larger (10,000 Mexicans/out-of-towners a year, spending $250 or so each in town = $2.5M a year). And remember, you, as an Austinite, are also valuable to the city for every penny you spend (though since you won't be staying overnight in a hotel, you'll be spending a lot less than $250, people like you will still not uncommonly spend $25-50 on the RiverWalk, and that's still valuable to SA). I recommend telling someone (say, newspaper columnists or city council members) that MLS in San Antonio will probably bring you to town more often than you visit otherwise.
...and if FIFA, Costa Rica, and Mexico are fine with playing in a field like the Alamodome...then...I am fine with...so give me an MLS in San Antonio, NOW!