On to the next issue. Friendlies are not significant replacements for league matches. Any evidence that two leagues (one of which has no TV revenue currently) would get more total revenue by working together? Other than "very possible"? Right now MLS has the whole thing. It looks to me like moving some of the MLS teams to the NASL would just make the revenue for both lower since you would be spreading the "good draws" out more. And that's assuming that the new NASL teams would continue to draw despite changing leagues. If you are making the argument that a larger league could get more TV money then that is what MLS is in the process of doing. Without involving the NASL. Teams leaving MLS would be taking a huge gamble.
Attendance 1. Looks to me like the NASL legacy teams had good attendance when they were in the top leagues (original NASL and MLS) and less attendance when they were in lower leagues (A-League, USL, etc). So what could we expect if they leave MLS and join a lower league? The only evidence we have is that their attendance would go down. 2. "They knew that soccer in the US was best maximized at about 15,000 on average with room for increase to 20,000. This is where we get soccer specific stadiums from." I would disagree with this conclusion. Soccer specific stadiums are about revenue control and providing an appropriate playing field with dimensions suited for soccer. They are not "specific" as to the attendance capacity. Look at the range of SSS that MLS teams have built. There are only two below 20,000 capacity and they go up to 27,000 seats. The next few to be built range from 18,000 to 25,000 or 30,000. On the other hand the existing NASL SSS range from 7,000 to 10,000. USL stadiums vary from 1,000 to around 6,000. Notice a pattern? Those sizes are not based on some theoretical idea of what an SSS should hold but on what the teams can afford based on their finances and expected ticket demand.
Correct me if I'm wrong please, but one major flaw I see in this plan to have NASL "compete" with MLS to be "1st" division is that USSF and FIFA have already recognized MLS as THE 1st Div league in America? Why is this a big deal? Well, if NASL truly said "SCREW YOU" to USSF and started a rival league that was NOT sanctioned as Div 1 would ANY player of note sign a contract, knowing that he would most likely be signing his death warrant on the world FIFA stage? Would FIFA not come down hard on any player who played in a non-sanctioned league? Just curious...
It's part of the fun of all minor league sports. D-League, ECHL/AHL, and MiLB teams come and go quite regularly too. Soccer at the lower levels is admittedly a tad bit more unstable than any of those 3, but even when minor league soccer is "stable" it will still have teams coming and going almost annually. That's just the nature of minor league sports.
Him and a bunch of his friends. There's been a rush on poorly thought out and obstinate NASL cheer-leading in the last few weeks. Either Peterson has recruited a bunch of his best friends to fill the board with theoretical NASL will jump to the top nonsense, or he's got a crap load of sock puppets.
I'm pretty sure that USSF can sanction two Division 1 leagues in the U.S. More to the point, though, the NASL people will tell you that without Promotion/Relegation the division labels are arbitrary. NASL doesn't have to be "Division 1" to compete with MLS. They could be fully sanctioned by USSF and labeled Division 2 by that organization but still have teams, stadiums, sponsorships, media coverage, etc that are the same (or better) than MLS. All of that would be done without causing any problems with the USSF or FIFA.
Not sure if it was a D1 sanctioning, but things went down in Indonesia in 2011 which ultimately ended up with the breakaway league 1) getting sanctioning and then 2) disbanding.
Interesting. The Minnesota Kicks of the old NASL did well compared to the attendance numbers. The total Minnesota Kicks average (1976-1981) in 6 years 146,280 = Average 24,381
I'm sure it has happened somewhere. I don't see any rule against it. This is from the Fraser v. MLS court case: http://www.leagle.com/decision/2002331284F3d47_1327 I'll look and see if I can find the source of that original statement.
Of course that was almost 20 years ago. And undoubtedly the standards to meet D1 are even higher today than they were then. Meanwhile NASL and its franchises are currently struggling to meet modern D2 standards.
Hi everyone and Happy New Year. I could not respond sooner as I was previously busy with the festivities and various tasks. Glad to see that there is some feedback. Let's start with a few. Hi newtex. Good that you bring this up. Though in honesty I did not want to discuss these specifics here, as it is a separate topic of conversation, I will share just a few things (but let's stick to the main topic though). Yes, it is true, MLS has registered many brand names of the clubs under the league. However, there is more to this than what it appears to be. As I originally mentioned, the individual clubs own their properties (and businesses). Part of the arrangement they have with MLS is to share revenue. One of MLS's major concerns is that relating brands should be protected especially focusing on the league's (MLS) brand. In order for them to assure this, the league works to place the brands under their name. This is done because of third party brands that may seek opportunities in using the MLS name to promote themselves via the teams without MLS's wishes. So the clubs compromise with the league. Nevertheless, they have an agreement where the clubs have say with their brand, but while the clubs are in the league they have to work with the league's policies. So if they decide to leave, they can take their brand with them (following proper procedure). Since you are in the process of looking up the US trademark registry, look up Red Bulls, Vancouver, Montreal, and Orlando City SC. None are under MLS because they reached a similar agreement where third party brands have to first pass through MLS's approval while these teams are in the league. Red Bull of course uses its own brand and its parent company undoubtedly will not accept another group owning its products. Now look up the Canadian trademarks of the Canadian teams, and you will see that the original owners also first registered the brands and they are currently transferred under MLS. (Notice all trademarks of the caps since 1974 are with MLS). You can also look up the recent Canadian tradmarks of the US teams (registered there for merchandising purposes). Still, if the owners of the teams choose to leave, they can walk away with their brand (as part of their agreement). Look up the US trademark for NYCFC... It is under MLS. Yet, do you really think that the New York Yankees and Manchester City, two powerful club organizations in the world, would pay the league $100 million dollars and not purchase or own their brand? That is absolutely not the case. While their team plays in MLS, they just share revenue with the league, and the league feels assured that both brands are protected. There really is nothing more to it. Btw, look up Miami Fusion FC to see something interesting (Intelisport Inc.)... With regard to this, I am not referring to FIFA standards but the ability to manage too many teams in a league and sport that, believe it or not, is still growing. Though we are in a great period of soccer in US and Canadian history, it is still important to caution with expansion. To note, some of the biggest matches in the world are friendlies and cross league match-ups. Recently, Khalifa Stadium was jam packed at over 50,000 with Real Madrid and PSG. Granted, I am highlighting two of the top teams in the world. However, two strong leagues placing their regional teams together in competition can be very demanding. Also teams that once played together and then meet again, while representing another league, can generate more fan interest and build further rivalries. Actually, I am not making the argument that one giant league can sway TV deals. I am stating that two evenly strong leagues working together can influence TV networks looking to acquire them. The leagues in collaboration can help persuade a lucrative deal. Remember, D2 in the 1990s and 2000s was more grassroots with a core of dedicated fans. A large sum of people in the two countries knew little of MLS in the early stages of this period (in comparison to today) and knew less of D2. Things have progressively changed in nearly 20 years. MLS has gained tremendous acknowledgement by the media, while the NASL and its teams are continuously elevating D2 awareness. Attendance in the NASL has significantly increased in percentage and its on an upward trend. You are partially right. To begin, I wasn't addressing the point of ownership and the usage of the stadium (nor was I excluding either of them). The name Soccer Specific Stadium is already placing emphasis on the layout of the competitive field (e.g. it's not a cricket oval, a baseball diamond, an indoor arena with a basketball court or hockey rink, a track and field, or a football field with lines, etc, but a soccer field with x amount of seats surrounding it that is primarily dedicated to this sport). I was signaling that attendance has been studied and the capacity of the stadium for professional (league) soccer (in the US and Canada) is synonymous as per the initial vision of a SSS. For a professional level, they did not build stadiums 5,000 or 50,000. There was a range that was calculated. For professional soccer 15,000 is the basic average that the league wanted each team to obtain. This affects all kinds of financial decisions (for average cost and revenue). By creating a base, the league could build from there. This is preferred instead of having high expectations, high investments, and low returns. In focusing on 15,000 I am not referring to this being the limited size of the stadium, but the minimum average (the base) that each team at a professional level aims for to indicate that they are doing well and meeting the base entry at the gate as per their (relative) investments. Entry at 18,000 is (quite good) above minimum range, while at 20,000 is success. 25,000 and up is a triumph. Most MLS soccer specific stadiums are less than 22,000, which gives the teams room to meet the minimum and the opportunity to grow their fanbase to a successful range. Only two stadiums are currently above 22,000. This is not including any multi-use stadium mainly designed for the NFL or CFL - two of which arrange the lower bowls for capacities less than 22,000). Three of the new SSSs being designed are also less than 20,000, while one is 25,000. Of the total 21 MLS teams set for 2015: 14 will have SSSs with less than 22,000 4 will have three SSSs with more than 22,000 (1 is shared by the Galaxy and Chivas) 3 will play in NFL-CFL stadiums - two of which for designs less than 22,000 and one approximately 40,000. That is basically 16 teams playing in arrangements with less than 22,000 and 5 in more than 22,000. Factoring in that Chivas may also find their own home which would also probably be less than 22,000. In 2013, the league average is approximately 18,600 - meeting above the minimum of 15,000, but still below 20,000 and far less than 22,000. (Without the NASL teams, the league average is at 16,800). Of the current 19 teams: 4 teams average less than 15,000 (below the minimum range) 4 teams average between 15,000 and about 16,000 (just meeting minimum range) 2 teams average between 17,000 and about 18,000 (above minimum range) 4 teams in the 19,000 range (just less than 20,000) (success) 4 above 20,000 (higher success) 1 in the 40,000 range (amazing) Effectively, 8 teams (42% of the league) still don't average above the minimum, with 4 averaging below it. Trust me when I tell you with certainty, the numbers have been studied. Yes, this may be true but not likely. USSF prefers a singular division 1. However, I am not suggesting creating another division 1 nor that NASL is or should be competing for it. What I am presenting is that both leagues can share the status equally and can promote each other equally, thereby strengthening the sport in the two countries. At this point everyone can simply just focus on the game and mass promoting. Yes. Minneapolis, Minnesota is a great place with so much potential. The truth is, the original NASL did not have to end, and many investors knew it. However, the infrastructure was not built at the time to place the teams in smaller capacity venues that would create the right environment in conjunction to the optimal capacity determined while cutting cost. It was a different period back then. And that is what this thread is about - possibilities. Btw, MLS has recently reconfirmed that the San Jose Earthquakes are celebrating 40 years, acknowledging their history in the NASL. Good for them and the club. It helps to build on the legacy. http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/artic...eveal-new-logo-uniforms-40th-anniversary-bash
Seems like the San Jose Earthquakes, the Seattle Sounders, and the Vancouver Whitecaps are all celebrating their individual 40th anniversaries for their clubs. http://www.sjearthquakes.com/news/2014/01/kavals-kickoff-reunification-and-rebirth-earthquakes http://www.soundersfc.com/news/articles/2014/01-january/sounders-40th-anniversary.aspx http://www.whitecapsfc.com/news/2013/11/whitecaps-fc-2014-mls-schedule http://www.whitecapsfc.com/news/2013/11/long-standing-grudge-vancouver-new-york While the Portland Timbers are also celebrating their 39th (next year will be their 40th) http://www.timbers.com/timbers-soccer-history http://www.timbers.com/team-timeline Meanwhile, the Montreal Impact recognizes their full history and just celebrated 20 years: http://www.impactmontreal.com/en/club/history Seems like the clubs admire their history and fully embrace them.
Honestly, it's for marketing purposes. The MLS teams who are attempting to lay claim to the history of the NASL/minor league teams are really celebrating the fact the brand they're operating under, or the brand they're similar to and operating under ('Sounders FC'), has been around for that long. Once the money men realized more people associate with the name Earthquakes and Sounders than Clash and Alliance/Republic, history started being 'rewritten'.
Can someone identify what is "wrong" with trying to identify with teams of old...especially if they are in the same city and/or have same name? I understand where Philadelphia may have had a stretch in identifying with Bethlehem Steel. But, for San Jose...what's so wrong? Maybe I just don't see it, seeing as the Crew I support don't have that to work with. I wish there were more history, but it's not there.
Hi. On a friendly note: try not to underestimate the full capacities of these well organized establishments. These clubs are run by very influential and financially capable individuals with vast experiences and resources at their disposal who with reason have affirmed the history of their respective organizations. If they say it with absolution it is because they have the authentic right to support their certainties. You call it marketing. In truth it is something greater - it is nearly 50 years of soccer history since the 1966 World Cup being televised in the states coming full circle with the clubs finally standing proud of their heritage. It is not a gimmick or a stunt. It is actual pride in US and Canadian soccer history that is now leading the way. Absolutely. It starts with supporting the clubs in all their iterations and accepting decades of tradition and over a century of soccer that have existed in North America. The more we embrace and respect our history, the stronger the sport becomes.
There's nothing wrong with it, and in a lot of ways, it represents a sea change from even 5-10-20 years ago when everyone wanted to pretend soccer had no history in the United States and needed overtime and shootouts to make things interesting for an American audience. But the point remains - the reason these teams are embracing their history is because there is more money to be made by embracing the history than by not embracing the history. In the case of the Timbers/Whitecaps/Impact, the owners certainly thought giving the new MLS team an established identity would make it easier to market. In the case of the Sounders, it took a fan vote to make the owners realize people identified with the previously established brand. These are not teams with 40 years of history. They are teams in cities who have 40 years of non-continuous history in professional soccer. That's worth celebrating regardless.
So, what's the problem with that? Or, what's it matter? Now...don't get this misconstrued, this can be answered by anyone. It doesn't have to be directed to you (@OnlyOneTInFootball). To me, it makes 100% perfect sense to do. The thing that all kinds of people need to understand too is soccer isn't a "new" sport to the United States. I do believe there are people out there who think soccer is around 20 years old. Reminiscing a little bit is awesome. I love the throwback stuff. It's the same thing that any MLB, NFL, or NCAA football/basketball team tries to do too. They reach back to "what used to be." Yes, it's good to grasp those that identify with then, and yes they make money out of it...but, that's business... This is exactly how I see it! Grow the game...even if it means digging a little to find what used to be "dead."
Yes. And this is why I said we are coming full circle with history. Money is one point, which I have already addressed in the stats of NASL teams in MLS being an influence in attendance. However, it is not simply about the finances its about reaching out to several thousands of fans and bringing them together, giving everyone a sense of tradition. Some things can't be measured by money. The history of these clubs are priceless and cherished by all the fans who pride themselves with it. Like I said, these organizations are very successful and filled with a lot of capabilities. If they affirm that their clubs are celebrating 40, or 39, or 21 years respectively, it is because they have the authentic right to support their history. Nonetheless, it is good to see that there is a renaissance in soccer history. Part of this had to do with change and not looking back. Fortunately now, the views are broaden and history is being accepted more and more. The further we look back, the more we discover how rich our soccer history is and the more we can build for the future and share with others. With history the game can grow even further. MLS and NASL are leagues that we should equally respect for their unanimous heritage and contributions to soccer in the US and Canada. Both are a part of each other and are a part of us whether directly or indirectly. Together, they have made history and working together they can shape the future of the sport.
The reason the MLS teams are keeping historic names is because people ARE attached to the brand. It's a good thing - it means people identify "Sounders" with soccer in Seattle, or "Timbers" with soccer in Portland, or "Impact" with soccer in Montreal. I'm not arguing it's not a good thing. As I said before, if people didn't identify with the team, all of these cities would have MLS teams with different names... The problem I have is that the history isn't actually "authentic". If I start a business, and buy the name from a business that failed a year ago, those are two different businesses. If I sell t-shirts that say "founded year of original business", that's not true. The new NASL isn't the old NASL, but it's trying to claim to be for business purposes. And it's good business, and the history is worth celebrating - but the history isn't worth celebrating because you bought or transferred the name of a defunct business. Every team should embrace whatever soccer history their city has, regardless of what their team is currently called.
Hi. I'm not sure what may be giving you the impression that any of these clubs only bought a name or a license to use a label. However, that is not the case for any of them. All of these clubs actually have the name, the trademarks, the business rights, and all intellectual properties (both in the US and Canada) from the previous owners transferred in direct lineage from the beginning to them. This gives each of the clubs the identity they have. Nevertheless, getting back to the main topic, the NASL legacy clubs in MLS have a lot of important history that is honored and reflected upon today. They are very influential within both leagues and can make a difference again in the NASL. The two leagues collaborating can strengthen the sport. The more MLS and the NASL work together the greater soccer becomes in North America.