Is MLS future in medium sized cities?

Don't forget Vancouver, BC! We have no MLB team, the city is relatively more soccer-aware than a lot of other cities, and our USL team draws well.

And I should add that I really do think you are on to something. I think mdeium sized cities works very well as a possible model. Even limiting yourself to cities of that size certainly allows for a lot of possible locations, and, like you say, no competition for the sporting dollar.

And if they can scale it down even more, they can put a team in Butte-Bozeman, Montana: I suggest: Lonesome Butte FC because then the fans could be either the "Butte-heads" or possibly "the Lonely".

 

The only thing that would get me to drive an hour to Butte willingly is St. Patrick's day and even then I'd have to be pretty drunk.

 

The reason most leagues want to be in NYC, Chicago, LA, etc., is because of the national television coverage. Presumably, any televised game with the big market teams has sufficient built-in interest and correspondingly high ratings.

MLS, having to rely on gate revenues, is probably better off going to the cities without the established sports competition and with hope to get cable coverage as their source of TV income and advertising.

 

Flint, Michigan here we come!

 

I think it's a mix. I think AEG is looking 10 years out and seeing some TV revenue. The adidas deal is huge. Sponsors require a national audience.

http://www.nielsenmedia.com/DMAs.html

I read that NHL's Bettman slept with this list under his pillow (maybe someone was kidding, but the essence is true). The NHL is showing that large markets and TV money can be a trap. Definitely MLS ought to proceed with caution.

But the list is important. Also of importance is the growth of these markets. SLC will keep growing. The families on average have more kids. The religion is growing. They're building up a city now after the Olympics. Columbus is the only major city in Ohio that's growing.

Mostly the Sunbelt is growing but cities like Nashville, New Orleans, Orlando don't have the same kind of average income/jobs that you'll find in Seattle, San Francisco, etc. If you could add to that link market growth, average salary, and ethnic data, then you'll see what MLS is looking at. MLS is committing to Hispanics (primarily Mexican/Central Americans). Salt Lake City has more Hispanics than most think and that population there is growing.

So Houston & Seattle are different than Atlanta & Philly.

There's a lower limit that MLS wants. Right around where Rochester is. MLS isn't excited about Rochester and its stagnant growth.

MLS isn't ignoring "geographic footprint". It's just way down below a bunch of other factors. MLS wants in the Pacific Northwest and Southeast, but won't settle for the wrong situation. For now they'll back off the SE summer humidity anyways.

Competition does seem important. DC (until now), Columbus, & RSL are good examples of MLS filling in where baseball isn't.

19 Sacramnto-Stktn-Modesto 1,315,030 1.200

20 Orlando-Daytona Bch-Melbrn 1,303,150 1.189
24 Portland, OR 1,086,900 0.992
25 Indianapolis 1,053,020 0.961
27 Hartford & New Haven 1,017,530 0.928
28 Charlotte 1,004,440 0.917
29 Raleigh-Durham (Fayetvlle) 966,720 0.882
30 Nashville 916,170 0.836
34 Columbus, OH 867,490 0.792
35 Greenvll-Spart-Ashevll-And 813,210 0.742
36 Salt Lake City 800,000 0.730
37 San Antonio 748,950

51 Las Vegas 614,150

Baseball's smallest market is #33 (Cincy). Right where that ends, you have 34 C'bus, 36 SLC, and 37 SA. Yeah there's an emerging pattern. Portland & SJ think they might can get baseball. Greenville's area is really spread out without a big city center type of feel. But it's growing. Vegas is really growing so baseball flirted with them. These cities often "want" to be major league. So SLC, SA, C'bus might actually seem to "want" a soccer team in the summer, they realize baseball is not realistic. I think KC really suffers from the competition. The Royals sputtering along maybe has helped recently. Fans ought to realize (like here in Tampa) that's there's almost no chance of being competitive.

I'm not sure MLS wants to go much lower than #37. Especially looking 10-20 years forward. What will the list look like then? Will some TV money come around by then?

So right now I think the list above is useful. But older cities like Hartford probably aren't going to grow. Orlando has much of it's economy based on service jobs. Maybe that's changing, but they're having trouble now keeping the Magic. New Orleans (43) may lose the Saints. The southeast is rough in the summer and while growing, not rich. Indianapolis probably isn't growing much?

So I think Portland is the ideal market on the list. Vancouver & Montreal if looking at Canada.

But also keep an eye on those larger markets at the very top. Especially the ones with large & growing Hispanic populations. SA seems like a very good fit for MLS.

My watch list for the top markets (that I think MLS still really wants in)

4 Philadelphia 2,919,410 2.664
6 San Francisco-Oak-San Jose 2,359,870 2.153 (SF)
11 Houston 1,902,810 1.736
12 Seattle-Tacoma 1,690,640 1.543
21 St. Louis 1,216,700 (most likely scenerio is a move from KC)

these are the 5 I think we should watch

lesser options
9 Atlanta 2,059,450 1.879
10 Detroit 1,943,930 1.774 (not growing)
13 Tampa-St. Pete (Sarasota) 1,671,040 1.525 (tried it, humid)
14 Minneapolis-St. Paul 1,665,540 1.520 (probably tops on this list)
15 Phoenix (Prescott), AZ 1,596,950 1.457 (the desert in the summer?)
16 Cleveland-Akron (Canton) 1,556,670 1.420 (not growing)
17 Miami-Ft. Lauderdale 1,496,810 1.366 (see Tampa)

Miami & Atlanta will get serious looks with the right ownership stepping forward. The south has a lot of newcomers and thus some issues with residents not identifying with local teams like those with history in the northeast.


So summing it up, the markets I think coudl be good for MLS (ranked)
Houston
Toronto
Portland (if the give up on baseball)
Seattle
Montreal (probably not all 3, 2 would be a stretch)
Vancouver
Philly
SF
St. Louis

lower tier:
Rochester (stadium is tempting)
Indy
Minneapolis
Miami
Charlotte or Raleigh-Durham (not yet)
Detroit
Tampa
OKC
Birmingham (make the leap to "major league", not kidding)
Nashville
Vegas

while the medium-sized theory is great. I only see it taking off to a limited extent. Of course we all need to repeat OWNERSHIP > stadiums > anything else

 

Sweet!!

 

San Jose Earthquakes?

 

I put (SF) at the end. I think they can be considered either 1 or 2 markets. I don't think much of SF considers SJ to be in "their" market.

 

Buffalo for MLS!


Or..........not.

 

I'm not sure about soccer wise but they wanted to move the Oakland A's to San Jose but the Giants wouldn't allow them to move there, because it was in their market.

 

I didn't say SJ wasn't part of the SF market. But SF isn't really part of the SJ market. Does that add up?

 

Umm, sure why not..

 

But see, the Crew do compete against baseball. No, the Columbus Clippers are definitely not in MLB, but they are direct competition for ticket buying, sports going fans. In fact, according to www.kenn.com , some 480,000 fans attended Clippers games in 2003. The Crew, by comparison, saw barely half that number: 243,000.

Half a million parking, hotdog, popcorn, and souvenier buying fans is definitely competition.

 

How many games do the clippers play in comparison to the Crew?

Paul

 

Based on what? Seriously. No stadium. No ownership. It's just as easy to move a franchise 3,000 miles as it is to move it 200. Please explain any scenario which relocates the Wizards to St. Louis.

But we've had that discussion. It isn't about "markets". It's about ownership and facilities.

Step 1:
Get an owner

Step 2:
Get a financially viable facility

Step 3:
Welcome to MLS

All San Antonio has done is show us that Steps 1 and 2 may be reversed - but then they don't have a team, yet.

 

They tried a soccer team in Long Island. It didn't work. Hot soccer Moms, I mean hot bad of soccer Moms. The team was from "A" league.

 

72 (minus rainouts/doubleheaders) to 15 in 2003.

But that only affects average attendance. Anyone that doesn't consider half a million sports watching spectators in the same market during the same time of year to be competition is fooling themselves.

 

For the sake of comparision, here are the top 50 MSAs (as opposed to the Neilsen numbers, which count TV households, presumably in a smaller geographic area):

http://www.charlottechamber.com/content.cfm?category_level_id=134&content_id=1402

Looked at in terms in MSA-measured population, MLS' 12 teams are in markets 1, 2 (LA), 3, 5, 7, 11, 22, 27, 30, 31, 50. San Antonio is number 28.

 

Gotta disagree. I think the media definently views soccer in this country as minor league, including MLS.

I think Andy raises a good point: Minor league BB IS part of the overall competitive framework (which consists of a lot of different 'competitors' for soccer fans time and money).,.

 

Any chance of them being called the Blues?

 

That's irrelevant. He wasn't making a post about the relative popularity of the two sports. He was just making the point that the Clippers suck some money from the Crew.

 

I will say this about Raleigh-Durham ... they already have a soccer specific stadium. SAS Stadium only seats 6,000 or so right now but it's incredibly easily expandable. It was built originally for the WUSA's Carolina Courage but has six or so youth fields around it (I played on one of them in the adult rec league I was in and it was pretty nice), has good parking and isn't too far from Raleigh or Durham.

It's one thing to keep in mind. The USL uses it now (as well as any collegiate competition in the area).