Only NY Cosmos and Orlando City should make sense as the 20th team

Yes and the best way to improve those dreadfully low TV isn't to do nothing about them. You don't attack a problem by committing to the status quo. Right now that's their biggest gaping issue going forward. It's not to ignore the south, but noone is entitled to having a team in their market. MLS is strong in a large percentage of the markets that they have and they would feel better taking risks in a new market like the south if they had at least a more stable television situation, bc the longer this issue persists the quicker MLS' positive momentum begins to subside. The perception of MLS as a growing sport will soon give way to stagnation. RBNY may be weakened in the short-term by NY2 but that will happen regardless unless they push that expansion out by 20 year, while doing it now will equal a net gain in viewership for the league as a whole that won't be equaled by expanding anywhere else.

Right now alot of their television deals have come from the networks on the strength of potential television growth going forward. Should that growth not come soon you might see the contract after the next regress from next to nothing to nothing. So it's not good business practice to sit on your hands or throw them up and say "oh well, this is the best we can do!" They'd deserve to not even get the ten million a year they currently get in their next contract if they practiced their business that way.

You seem to be under a delusion that even the relatively small amount of revenue that they currently get is guaranteed and it's not. Or that it's guaranteed that MLS will remain a growing investment commodity if they continue to not show growth in their TV numbers. Once again; definitely not true. This is especially a concern if you continue to expand into markets that don't increase the overall income of the league while simultaneously increasing the necessity of greater investment in players from abroad to augment an even further stretched talent pool. Another reason why it's a good idea to suspend expansion at 20. In other words it's better if the next expansion franchise can pay for itself. Don't forget that with the fact that a NY2 franchise will fetch 100 million for the league which isn't even close to the asking price that they'd get for a Southern team. And even if NY2 increases the bottom line by 2-5%, that's five percent growth that keeps NBC from reassessing their investment in MLS as a cornerstone to growing their new cable sports network. DG would be a fool if he sat on his hands and did as you advocate as his primary plan of action. Now it may come that they just cannot get anything done in NY at which point they'll either sit at 19 and wait, or go with two Southern teams with immediate plans for NY2 at 22 which doesn't make much sense if they're planning on taking a break on expansion at 20. Which they should.

 

NY2 & Orlando would be great choices as already stated in previous posts.

 

Expanding into other, large TV markets (Minne is 15, fyi) is not sitting on your hands and doing nothing. No one knows how much a second NY club would effect overall league ratings. It very may well have little to no effect. The reason MLS is seen as a growing sport in this country is not because of TV numbers, that much is for sure. It is because of the large volume of merchandise sales and the number of people in seats. The articles you posted had NYRB drawing greater numbers, but greater numbers of incredibly low TV numbers does not make an attractive market. And with all of my snooping on google, I have yet to be able to find an average rating for the NYRBs, let alone any other singular MLS club over the entire season.

Your entire hypothesis of NY2's impact on the league is the product of assumptions and theorycrafting. You have no idea how much a second New York team would effect overall MLS numbers or ratings. You are just riding the strength of one highly-viewed NYRB game and labeling that the end-all be-all. Hell, if you checked NFL numbers you would see that NY Jets games didn't always produce the largest ratings.

Secondly, your assumption that a need for multiple clubs in the largest markets is made even more ridiculous by the fact that there are two teams in the NFL in the San Fran TV market, which is ranked 6 and there is NO team in the number 2 market. The NFL seems to be getting along just fine, too.

Say NY2 doesn't grow the TV market, at all, doesn't expand the influence of the MLS in the country, at all, and results in no revenue gains from TV contracts. At that point, what have we gained? A club called the Cosmos? Fantastic!

Greater TV revenue from having a second NY club is not guaranteed, either. That said, I would rather place my trust in the 300m per annum that comes from merchandise sales ahead of the relative pittance that comes from the major TV contracts.

Minneapolis is number 15. Along with the greater exposure in a top 20 TV market that is currently completely untapped, you also have the added benefit of drawing in people interested in a MLS club from the surrounding states i.e. Iowa, ND, SD, Wisconsin, and on and on. The increase in merchandise sales from these areas would probably just about cover any theoretical TV revenue increase from adding a second NY club.

Hell, Atlanta is number 9. Why not put a team there? That would give the MLS a grip on the Southeast and more than likely result in a large increase in merchandise sales, which is precisely where most of MLS's income is currently being generated. It would also make sure MLS is in more homes than it currently is. You don't suddenly discover new viewers by expanding into the same market, even though it might draw some more. In all likelihood, the two NY teams would probably just cannibalize the each others' viewership. Unfortunately there are not enough people interested in the most populace city in America (by far) to generate overly large increases in already bad numbers. Adding more teams is not a solution, it is incredibly short-sighted.

e: I am thoroughly convinced that all of this unfounded "data" that supports a second NY team is merely meant as a veil for the true argument: "B-b-b-but my Cosmos!!! "

 

Yeah that's really how MLS is thinking.

And I'm thoroughly convinced that the anti NY2 reaction is a knee-jerk that alot of ppl get when they feel that leagues are unreasonably interested in larger markets. Yeah because the NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB are filled with fools. Yeah right. That little piece of idiocy cost you alot of credibility in my book.

 

You sure are amusing. Hey, would you like to know that the NY Giants have some of the lowest TV ratings in the NFL? Well, imagine that! I thought it was impossible for a team from a big city (the biggest city, even) to have low TV ratings, after all. This is further compounded by the fact that the highest revenue-generating team in the league (the Cowboys) is in the #5 TV market, with a third of the household TV numbers as New York.

Furthermore, it is funny that you are using those leagues as evidence for the inability of "smaller" markets (apparently anything from 5-30) to hold teams when one of the NFL's most prominent teams is Green Bay, which has one of the most devoted followings in the country. They should definitely move them to LA, eh? Get that vital #2 TV market money, yeah? I mean, what were they thinking letting scrubs like San Diego, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, New Orleans and Denver in the league? Sheesh, how utterly incompetent they must be!

e: Also, to the first comment in your post, I am talking about the posters who are making threads like this. The only near-legitimate reasoning they can provide is "Cosmos!"

 

I think your post was really good - and i even got a laugh at the Cosmos jokes.

This is a great point which I never thought of before but I would only counter with this.

Yes, the NFL is doing just fine, but even with the leagues enourmous popularity and revenue, they are still trying to get a team back to that Number 2 Market themselves.

The San Fran market is also being split up as (and i think i got the locations right) but one of them is going to Santa Clara and the other San Jose. (This is due to the fact that building an NFL sized stadium is a challenge and not because of the market - i get that)

I think its a valid point because even with the teams in those locations as you specified, the league is still doing fantastic, HOWEVER even the powerful NFL is still trying to get into the larger markets.

 

I am definitely not meaning to imply that we should ignore large markets, I just meant to say that multiple teams in large markets is not an indicator of a league's success. In actuality (as is the case with the NFL and NBA), a greater indicator of success is the country-wide footprint of the league.

Sure, there is room for a second NY team down the road somewhere, but right now? I would rather grab the people in the Southeast, the Northern Midwest, and the Southwest that do not have a team within a few hundred miles for which to cheer. We could put 3 teams in New York and that wouldn't solve the league's TV troubles. If they are unwilling to work from the ground-up building a fanbase all across the U.S. due to their search for get rich quick pipedreams, this league will meet the same fate as the old NASL.

I am just worried that other areas of the country which could be great for the league will be ignored because LA and New York "need" their two teams.

 

I don't get why the cosmos can't expand in 2013. they have ownership, a website, an academy, and PDL team, and they could play at citi field temporarily. as for teams 21 and 22. i think Orlando should go to NASL in the mean time. are they trying to get an SSS. Detroit or Minnesota should get team 22

 

Well, there is a multitude of issues with this:

A) The New York Cosmos Academy is not actually owned by the Cosmos. They pay Blau Weiss Gottschee for the rights to the name of the academy team, and they have not been able to even do that correctly.

B) The PDL team has yet to play a competitive match. They literally do not even have a true presence, yet, in the US soccer pyramid.

C) I could make the Railhawks a website yesterday, does that mean that they should be given a MLS franchise? All form no substance. e: On further inspection, it seems they DO have a website, and it is quite well done! Amazing. As a matter of fact, it seems all of the NASL teams have a website! We should be giving them all franchises.

D) They still do not have a stadium, and they very well may not have a stadium actually in NYC for the foreseeable future. Why does every other team have to play by the rules (i.e. secure a SSS) and the Cosmos get a free pass?

 

Look at the Krafts for a reason why it's bad. Zygi never showed an interest in MLS until he was trying to get his new NFL stadium approved.

 

The January payment came in with no issues - just thought people should know this. Seems the new owners are keeping to their word and are interested in the academy.

Yep - and im hearing that the PDL team wont happen this year. However, do you need a PDL team to go into the league by 2013? I think we are looking at 2014 at this point as most new expansion teams are given 2 years to put all together, however, can you clarify what you mean by this and how it effects entry into the MLS at any year? Honest question.

FCNY had a website

Agreed - Garber will not and SHOULD NOT put the team in NYC based on playing at Citi Field for 4-5 years. Citi Field should be an option for like a year or two. If they came in 2014 and did a year and a half - 2 full seasons at citi - it would not be THAT bad. And hey, maybe the Mets are good by 2016 and want them out. lol

 

This is good, as it seemed they were going to shirk their responsibilities to pay the academy. This would definitely have been a devastating blow for the prospect of making the NY Cosmos a MLS team. At least, in my eyes it definitely should have.

I am concerned that without at least some presence in the pyramid, the team will be lacking in strong ties to the community. Every other expansion team has had some sort of team (be it PDL, etc) prior to entrance into the league. I think the only case where this did not happen was when my Dynamo were moved from San Jose to Houston 6 years ago. And ever since then, our FO has been working overtime to attend/set up charitable functions and get the team out there with the people of Houston.

It seems like a risk, is all. Especially if they are not going to be building a SSS. Even in the Latin-American stronghold that is Southeastern Texas, our attendance has not been phenomenal. Though, I am hoping this will change with the hype over the new stadium.

This is the only way I can see it working. Before they are admitted to the league, they need to be in the early building stages of the stadium. Just "having plans" is not good enough, as those can easily fall through. There needs to be an assurance that within a year or two the stadium will be built and playing at a different venue will not be a permanent thing.

e: Despite my brief annoyance due to the OP, Orlando (or another Floridian or SE team) is looking like a much better prospect for the next couple years. MLS cannot stall indefinitely until some breakthrough happens that allows them to bring in a second NY team. The league should move on with or without them, as it should with any team that is not already part of the league.

 

Right but to be fair, the new owners now have to clean up the mess.

Remember, it was the PK era that said they were going to do PDL and they did the exhibition schedule so they could get a run out to bring some of the kids over to Manchester for the Globetrotter team. They promised a PDL team.

However, not going through with the PDL (would stink, i would like to see it) but I dont take it as a sign of a failure. I am upset because now with Belson vacant again, it would have been a nice spot to possibly see some games, but if they don't see it with the investment, then that is their call.

These new owners caught his attention pretty nicely (I imagine it has to do with the number of 0's in their check book) but are in a tough spot because they came into a complete mess. There are going to be some decisions they make now (PDL, COSMOS COPA etc) that might not be popular with the fans, and the fans will just say "here we go again" but as long as they obtain that end goal, all will be forgiven.

Its all yet to be determined, and just hoping it works out of course.

One thing I will say though, is don't discredit the youth system they have that agreement with. Gottschee has been around for a very long time and always develops top quality players. Yes, I guess there is more clout in owning the academy and credit to OC for that, but I totally respect Gottschee and hopefully the new owners continue to honor their contract and take the relationship a little further.

Meet with the guys at Gottschee a lot and with the Jan payment coming in ontime, they seem more confident in the new owners as does Garber which is huge. They just need to get their shit together.

FYI - i do enjoy the City of Orlando and just think it might do well in MLS. Just want to state that. lol.

 

Ppl do this on BS alot when they're trying to win arguments; but anytime you make an apples to apples comparison between a startup league like MLS and the NFL you are dealing with two totally different dynamics. Football is far and away the most popular sport in this country and the time period in which it rose to prominence are so incredibly different from the conditions of sports today it's almost insane to try to mention it. It's as insidious as the arguments that "the NFL couldn't build a stadium in NY so why would MLS." This ignores the fact that NFL stadiums have a much bigger footprint, the NFL plays much shorter seasons, their stadiums are the most expensive to build, and all of their games are on Sundays; so the incentive and opportunity to build stadiums in downtown areas isn't always there. You're much more likely to see NBA arenas in city centers than NFL stadiums. So trying to base MLS strategy off of NFL realities is foolish. MLS might never operate under the same realities as the NFL, primarily bc they play many more games in soccer, but also bc I don't expect this sport to ever eclipse football as the number one sport or even get close. So don't do that. It's dumbed down analysis. It's sounds nice in an argument but it doesn't portray and accurate reality.

And not the reality that MLS will experience. It's better to use sports that once existed along similar realities as MLS. The NBA and NHL crawled out of the shadow of two larger sports in this country and at a time where the sports media was starting to gain a foothold. ESPN was launched around the same time that the NBA was beginning to get their playoff games off of tape-delay. This is during the NFL's boom decade. Now the sports media market is more crowded than ever. Numerous website offering endless streaming opportunities for sports and leagues from around the world, 24 hour sports channels including channels that offer a direct competitor to domestic games. It's hard enough to compare a logical growth model off of any of the existing Big 4, or even look for patterns, but if you are going to do it, then it doesn't make sense to do it off of the most popular sport which has television numbers and a dynamic that MLS will never emulate. For example a city like Green Bay could never even support a professional team in any of the other four sports at near proportionately the level that they do in NFL. If you want to say that,... you are lying to yourself.

You also might want to take into account the net value of both NY teams vs the net value of two particular teams in any other popular NFL market. Say both NY teams vs both Texas teams or both Ohio teams. That would also be a nice way of determining the net value of the NY market, even in a league like the NFL, rather than the direct value of the two individual teams which is a thing that I mentioned before pertaining to potential RBNY losses but... moving on. I still hate ppl who default to NFL comparisons to try to win arguments, bc it shows an immense lack of understanding of the tremendous gulf between the realities of the two sports.

 

There, I just summed up your entire post without going into 3 paragraphs of detail. The issue with claiming that it is an "apples to oranges" sort of argument is that you were talking about potential TV revenue and viewership. If, in a sport like the NFL, the two NY teams are drawing unusually low ratings for the size of the city, is that not a bad sign for other sports?

In truth, even in the NBA, the two teams in the New York market do not have the best numbers. Especially attendance. The Knicks finished sixth after Portland, Cleveland, Chicago, Dallas, and Miami. The Nets (which are a part of the New York market and are probably the best analogue to a NYRB - NY Cosmos situation) finished 28th in the league. To put this into perspective: New Orleans (52), Memphis (49), and OKC (44) all outdrew a franchise right on the doorstep of NYC.

Your argument that big markets = big revenue or interest is flawed no matter what sport you use (mayhaps aside from MLB).

e: The issue here is the same issue that every wannabe with a MBA has in this country. They see big numbers and they think big profits. However, this is not the case unless you can guarantee a number of variables, the most significant being success. If the Cosmos finish at the bottom of the table consistently, they will act as a drain on this league as opposed to a boon. It doesn't matter if you had 100 million people in the New York metropolitan area, no one is going to go watch a shitty team in a big city. This is the complete opposite of some other teams that have rabid followings in small cities but do not have a history of success.

That is the type of market we should be looking for, not one rife with fair-weather fans that will jump ship the second that things look grim. Believe me, NYRB keep under-performing and I can guarantee they will have one of the lowest attendances in the league by the end of the decade, all while places like Portland and Seattle continue to sell out stadiums full of fans.

 

We have had a soccer team in Minnesota since 1995. For the first 10 or so years the average attendance was around 4k i believe. Not great but solid numbers for a DII team.

The team then decided to move to a high school field and attendance dropped. After 4 years they moved back to NSC and attendance didn't really pick back up, in fact it declined.

While NSC is a better stadium than most the fact that it is up to an hour away from very populous suburbs (without traffic), getting there can be a hassle. Most of the population of the Twin Cities lives in the southern part of MSP or in the southern Suburbs. NSC is in a 2nd ring Northern Suburb.

Plus when the local Paper (Star Tribune) has one footnote about the Stars winning the Championship, its not like they are exactly a known team. When I was going to the playoff games I told people and they didn't know we had a professional team. So that is also part of the problem.

There is good solid base in the Dark Clouds, but a combination of terrible location of stadium, and absolute zero coverage means people aren't making the trek out to see them.

A more central location and the fact that it is a top tier league rather than the USL/NASL would make the media coverage better and make getting to the stadium better. So it fixes the two main problems with the attendance.

 

Yeah, because you know how MLS is thinking.

Yeah because the NFL, NBA, NHL AND MLB are infallible. Yeah right.

See? You're not the only one who can play the "pretend that someone is asserting something unreasonable, even if you have to make it up completely" game.

The credibility of your book is pretty low, if it exists at all, after that BIG piece of idiocy.

But you just keep on making your simple-minded generalizations and cherry-picking your evidence to support them, and then flailing and attacking when anyone dares challenge them using genuine logic and reason. That makes it that much more amusing when you try to insult someone else's intelligence.

 

I doubt the stars attendance would matter to MLS, if they have the stadium, a plan and a check with lots of zeros, Minnesota would get a team.

Also it would be a new ownership, so it may be a brand new team and not the stars that would go to the MLS.

 

Arden Hills, while not exactly a central location, is much closer to the center of MSP than Blaine, which is where I believe the NSC is located. That is not to say it would be the optimal location for a stadium, but it would definitely be better than what they currently have. It is not exactly the Frisco situation that Dallas has.

e: For comparison purposes, Arden Hills is about 10 miles northeast of the city center of Minne whereas Frisco (Dallas) is 30 miles north of the city center. Arden Hills is also about half the distance of Blaine to the MSP city center.

 

Really? Did you check all of the numbers? The Knicks are the NBA's most valuable franchise, higher than the Lakers, and top 5 in overall viewership on the MSG network. This is a franchise that has won only two championships the last of which came close to 40 years ago. They haven't made a true run at the title in over a decade. Yet, because television is the primary driving vehicle in that league, their value continues to rise. And this despite being one of the NBA's bigger spending teams.

The Rangers are the NHL's second most valuable franchise behind the Leafs and ahead of the Canadiens although they've been alot more successful in recent years. You also neglect to note little things like corporate sponsorships and how they become elevated in a market like NY. So quit quoting attendance numbers. It's not the biggest revenue source in a fully mature league. I've been talking about television and you know this.

You clearly don't read Forbes.

Happy to see that the Blau Weiss situation has been handled well in the wake of PK's mismanagement. The kids deserve to be taken care of and given the free opportunities to home their games.

It is interesting to note that Garber also mentioned that he likes the ppl that they've hired. I believe the closest thing to the quote was that they've surrounded themselves with competent soccer ppl or some such. It's interesting bc we still haven't heard any announcments about any new hirings. So it appears that this group is playing their hand much more below the radar than PK's group which is probably a means of managing expectations. But it would be nice to know who they've hired and whether or not these ppl are active in assisting the stadium effort. I tend to doubt that though.

 

Sometimes, it's best to know when to stop digging a hole of yourself. My advise to you. Stop Digging!

 

Lol, oh please. Your initial argument was that New York = big TV contracts when that is clearly not so. The Knicks may pull decent TV numbers but they are also only 6th in attendance in the league. This is compared to the New Jersey Nets (also in the NYC market!) who are 3rd from last in the league in attendance and do not have the best of TV ratings. Your argument that the New York area will automatically result in astronomical TV ratings for any teams based there is complete and utter hogwash.

I am not going to argue other irrelevant points with you. If you can prove that the New York metropolitan area automatically results in greater TV ratings and revenue then go ahead. If you cannot, then please just stop digging yourself a hole.

I do, guess what team is the 9th ranked in value in the NFL?!