Some Candidate Cities are Just Oversaturated for MLS

Glad to see Riverside/ inland empire relatively high up on the matrix
It really is not LA ( too far via congested freeways) And though no organic local support has emerged, if a team landed there it would be a success if run semi decently because the inland empire residents do possess an identity i.e. they are NOT LA That's why chivas should go there Pomona is the next best option If they go then the inland empire is taken off the map

And glad to see Sacramento up there in terms of viability
As shaq called it, cowtown would be a smash success. Why ? Put it this way ....if Chivas had landed in Sac and still run into the ground the same way as now, they would still be pulling in 20K every game except against bad teams.
Cowtown and the surrounding valley are just more tribal than most. Maybe because of all the disparagement it gets from the rest of CA Just the way it is

 

I have set forth below the possible expansion markets that have sufficent disposable income to support an MLS team and are in the top 25 Nielsen markets (TV households).

There are only four markets that qualify:

Nielsen TV Homes Estimate 2011/Available Personal Income

1 New York 7,515,330; $583.98
2 Sacramnto-Stkton-Modesto 1,409,400; $45.87
3 Miami-Ft. Lauderdale 1,580,580; $38.96
4 Orlando-Daytona Bch-Melbrn 1,453,120; $34.95

The remaining markets are well below the necessary personal income threshold:

5 Raleigh-Durham (Fayetvlle) 1,131,310; 5.43
6 Atlanta 2,407,080; $4.73
7 Charlotte 1,166,180; ($7.41)
8 Detroit 1,883,840; ($21.57)
9 Minneapolis-St. Paul 1,753,780; ($43.13)
10 St. Louis 1,258,580; ($44.90)
11 Phoenix (Prescott) 1,881,310; ($49.24)
12 Tampa-St. Pete (Sarasota) 1,795,200; ($60.37)
13 Pittsburgh 1,160,820; ($60.62)
14 Cleveland-Akron (Canton) 1,526,200; ($77.20)

 

I only made a correction on the data given. I know many other things have to be taken into account besides what is given in this chart. Of course, if the Thrashers weren't that popular, then the available personal income would have been higher than what was noted in the chart anyway. These numbers assume that the teams in each league are equally popular in all cities, and consume the same amount of income in every city, which is not the case.

As I said in my post above, Atlanta's relocated NHL team has to be taken into account. Without the Thrashers, Atlanta now has a disposable income of $42.33 by the measures used in this chart.

 

Revised:

1 New York 7,515,330; $583.98
2 Sacramnto-Stkton-Modesto 1,409,400; $45.87
3. Atlanta 2,407,080; $42.33
4 Miami-Ft. Lauderdale 1,580,580; $38.96
5 Orlando-Daytona Bch-Melbrn 1,453,120; $34.95

 

I should have posted the updated Nielsen household numbers for 2012 -- here they are:

http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/.../tv/nielsen-2012-local-DMA-TV-penetration.pdf

The recession is taking it's toll -- some sharp declines in a number of markets.

 

It goes against conventional wisdom, but I like Atlanta. A lot.

But first things first, let's return to the thesis of this thread -- there is data out there that allows for a more analytical assessment of possible expansion markets. Obviously there is and, I'm sure, MLS itself uses some measurements.

It's a mistake, however, to confuse what is minimally necessary for what is sufficient.

When I was a young associate at one of the country's huge national law firms, an older colleague challenged the managing partner at an associates meeting about what many perceived to be more restrictive standards for attaining the brass ring -- a partnership.

"It seems like being a really good lawyer is no longer enough", he lamented.

To which the managing partner replied, "Being a really good lawyer has never been enough. Being a really good lawyer is the prerequisite, but I want really good lawyers who will make me more money to be my partners."

Unvarnished, but there it is. And while many won't say it as bluntly, I think that sentiment exists in most partnerships of any kind.

Too often fans desperate for a hometown team simply aren't asking the right questions IMO. "I think [insert my town here] can support an MLS team -- what do you think?"

It's an important threshold question -- can my market support a team? -- and this type of data helps look at the question less emotionally. But don't for a minute confuse what is a prerequisite for what MLS owners really want.

Will this new team make them more money?

That hasn't always been the question as MLS struggled through contraction and adding teams to get back to a critical mass to really present itself as a national league, but it is almost certainly the case now.

Again, will this new team make them more money?

Now's the point where the hopeful resist, trotting out an example like RSL. But as I noted in the other thread, some expansion into shallow markets has been more about the "who" then the "where." MLS wanted Checketts, and the reasons where laid out clearly in a USA Today article by Chris Agnello, then co-owner and coach of the Blitzz of the Pro Select League:

"anytime you bring in names like Checketts, it helps. He's a very powerful person, and he can make things happen."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/soccer/mls/2004-06-15-utah-expansion_x.htm

It wasn't a deep desire to be in a smaller TV market than Columbus that brought MLS to Utah, it was a partner who could help them make things happen in the rest of their business.

So boiled down, any expansion candidate has to first, demonstrate the team can work and be viable, but second, it must demonstrate that beyond viability it can make money for the others long after their share of the expansion fee is gone.

Atlanta, with it's big TV market in the southeast and especially with Blank involved, ticks those boxes IMO.

 

In San Antonio's defense when it comes to the Media Market .... it's right down the road from Austin (usually less than an hour drive with normal traffic). San Antonio is 36th on the newest list while Austin is 47th. Combined those markets are over 1.4m households (San Marcos is smack dab between them as well) which is roughly that of the Orlando triangle number of households. The distance between Orland/Daytona Beach isn't THAT much closer than San Antonio/Austin.

Also, the Spurs lead the NBA in regional tv ratings: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/02/27/Media/NBA-RSNs.aspx ... and that's with the biggest dip of all teams for this year's regional ratings (due to shit first half mostly).

Combined, these markets have a very strong soccer soccer following:
http://www.rslsoapbox.com/2011/2/25/2013700/2010-year-in-sports-report-by-nielsen-soccers-impact

2010 WC viewing facts: Austin was in the top 10 for English broadcasts, and both Austin/SA were in the top 10 for Spanish broadcasts.



Austin should be taken off the list, period. It simply isn't the right place for any top tier professional sports team. They've already got one, it's in the NCAA FBS.

 

Sacramento - There's this group, but are they big enough for MLS? Who knows. Again, at least there's someone trying. Check.
______________________________________________________________

This group has no confirmed deep pocket. And more importantly, their proposal is for a suburban stadium, not in Sac proper and not close enough to light rail. So basically Sac is still a clean slate. No doubt, this would be a Portland like market and punch way above its weight. But the best people for the best location have not emerged.

 

This is the fatal flaw in studies like this, and why they are not as conclusive as some people like to believe.

While the data is somewhat useful, relying on it to determine where to expand is simply lazy thinking, IMO. There is a lot more to due diligence than just numbers like this.

 

I think it would be Ottawa Sports and entertainment group, they are going to own a NASL team and a CFL team once the brand new 22,500 seat stadium is completed. I think that Traffic it the interested group in the carolinas. i don't think that claure is out but i don't think he will go it alone. DB23 might be his partner in the future. When was austin in the conversation? also Sela Sport owns the cosmos.

 

"There are three kinds of falsehoods: lies, damn lies, and statistics."

Sure, these numbers may be useful as a guideline for evaluating markets, but to treat them as absolute is foolhardy. There are nuances to each market that numbers like these don't convey. To assume that the Sounders' success in MLS wouldn't have been possible without the departure of the SuperSonics is supremely ignorant, and quite frankly, insulting. The Sounders launched their MLS era at a time when the Seattle sports landscape was experiencing a perfect storm of underperforming, losing teams in other sports. On the court, the Sonics had been struggling for years, that and the specter of the team moving drove down attendance. If the team had stayed in town, it would have had to have needed a couple of seasons of playoff-contending teams to bring those numbers back up. Yes, their presence would effect the customer base for the new Sounders MLS team, but the Sounders could half their attendence and still be a solid MLS market. but according to the numbers used on this tread, with the Sonics still in town, MLS should never had tried.

 

There is a reason why there are other Econ classes after 101.

 

Well a part of it is confidence in your product; does MLS believe its product can out muscle, out maneuver other things for entertainment dollars? Let’s keep this purely sports related and look at three cities with 0 ratings.

Nashville – They have NFL which MLS isn’t going to beat for the foreseeable future and NHL. This isn’t a Canadian city; I hope you will concede the point because I don’t feel like I need to look it up because I’m confident youth participation in soccer is far higher than youth participation in Hockey in Nashville. That is already one built in advantage for soccer. The team was founded in 1997; it’s not as if MLS would be competing with a storied history here. There is very little season overlap college or pro for MLS to compete with in Nashville.

Phoenix – Their NHL team is not the most popular in the league, it is hockey in the desert and it goes up against Basketball directly. There is a very good chance the desert experiment is called off soon and the team is moved, even if it doesn’t happen that shows the level of competition MLS is up against in the Coyotes. The real question is does MLS think it can best MLB? Last year the Diamondbacks were middle to lower tier in attendance for MLB, I’d fully believe they could pull dollars from the Coyotes but how would they do with direct in season competition with the Diamondbacks?

Tampa – This team has two teams that are pretty good but the market has shown a lot of ambivalence towards. In MLB the team MLS would have to compete with the most the Rays were third to last in attendance in 2011. In the NHL they were 18th again with a good team. In my opinion it doesn’t look like MLS need be scared off by competition by either of those sports, maybe they should be scared off by an apathetic fan base in general but not the competition. So the question MLS would need to ask is how much does Tampa like soccer not can we compete with the juggernauts that are already there.

If any of these cities had investors with a solid stadium solution a good marketing strategy and showed firm commitment to building their team and the league would you really turn them down?

 

I'll ask you the same question, but assume it's Des Moines. Or Billings. Or any number of cities not even on that chart.

My guess is that MLS would have no problem telling them no and very few fans (outside those places) would complain.

If you doubt it, remember MLS told Ottawa no.

The quality of the market matters.

This isn't (or shouldn't be) simply about selling franchises. It's about building a league for the long term, and that means being picky about where the league conducts its business because, in doing so, it will be stronger.

I can't tell you if $15 billion is the right number to support an MLS team -- maybe its double that, maybe its less -- but I can tell you that virtually every major company selling franchises of any kind I've ever dealt with that's interested in building a company and not simply selling franchises has tight criteria over population, income and location.

And, like on Big Soccer, they are used to people who use "our market is special so don't believe the data" arguments. And, often, companies that do make exceptions regret it.

So, before I answer your questions, I'd like to hear the case about how putting a team in Nashville makes more money for a team like Chicago.

 

This. I'm a rabid fan living in the Tulsa area, and it would be fantastic to have a local MLS team. But do I think Tulsa would support one? Would it bring value and more dollars into the league as a whole? Heck no. Like Mike said, it's a conservative football town - and I do mean town. It's got a small town feel despite having about a million people in the metro area. Everything about Tulsa screams "minor league". I think bringing MLS to a market like this would be a huge mistake.

And by the way, we've got tons of youth participation around here. I don't believe for a minute that it would automatically translate into MLS support. In fact, when I talk soccer with players, parents, and other refs, no one around here is an MLS fan. It's all EPL for them. Buncha Europosers. So posters, please don't ever bring up "high levels of youth participation" as a reason for bringing MLS to a market. It means next to nothing.

 

I just want to make sure I wasn't too abrasive and you understand I think you have a completely valid argument here. I'm just saying if an interested party with deep enough pockets stepped forward for a city that scored a zero on the list MLS should still consider some of them. If MLS really wants to be taken seriously at some point it has to feel it can hold its own against other leagues.

 

I'm not trying to be rude but what is the point of your argument? I mean Albuquerque and Birmingham are on the list; both score 100 but I wouldn't put a team either of those places before Nashville, Tampa, or Phoenix. I'd put a team in either Albuquerque and Birmingham long before I put a team in Billings or Des Moines.

Your second question is vastly different than your first hypothesis and depends greatly on how and why you see the league growing in the future. What do you see as the basis for that growth. As long as the Don is at the helm I think a lot of people that argue single table and pro/rel or any other commonly used soccer practice the world over are never going to get what they want; I'd argue they shouldn't. I keep reading MLS should cap the number of teams at 20, 24, some other arbitrary number. I'm not arguing that it's going to happen tomorrow but I'll give you a number, something closer to 32.

I've read and listened to the Don talk a lot about this league and I'm pretty sure there is a league he wants to emulate, but it isn't La Liga, Bundesliga, or even The Premiership I'd say it's the NFL And why not it's the most successful league on our continent, the continent he's competing on. Now maybe the next guy comes in and changes everything but you look at the schedule this year and it's the very model for a more fractured league as more teams are added. I would be more surprised to not see a greater breakdown in the divison of teams in the future so more can be added than what we have now.

So we're back to why do you see this league growing, where do you see the money coming from? I'd argue the Don wants what all sports leagues want TV money, so the question is what is the best way to get at that money? So how does Nashville make Chicago more money, well if done right it gets more people to watch the league on TV people that have little to no interest right now because the closest team to them is Columbus. Now if you want to argue that the leagues present is about the gate and they need to stick with that then they should put teams only places that will sell tickets now and in the future and not worry about the TV aspect but I'd argue that's foolhardy and it will never get the league to the heights the Don says he wants to take it.

 

In 2000 ? Sure.

Now ? No way.

This league has moved past the "insert money here" phase and is taking huge steps forward every year in every facet of the league as a sport and business. This is one reason that the league is starting to be taken seriously, as you say it wants to be. That's what contracting teams in the very markets you're talking about did. That's what bringing new ownership into the league did. That's what pushing the SSS did. That's what the DP rule did. That's what the new CBA did.

If you think for a second that the league is going to toss all of that away simply because someone flashes money from one of the markets you're referring to .... you simply haven't been paying attention to what's been going on the last few years.

As was mentioned, see: Ottawa for exactly what we're talking about.

 

I never argued that, I argued that the base level of support in Nashville is likely higher for soccer than it is hockey. I concede the point that the team would have to be marketed correctly to capitalize on that base level but I'd argue it's there. I truly mean no disrespect to your city's value to the league but could you never argue Tulsa, Billings and Des Moines against Nashville, Phoenix, and Tampa ever again?

TV markets nationally
1 New York
2 Los Angeles
3 Chicago
4 Philadelphia
5 Dallas-Ft. Worth
6 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose
7 Boston
8 Atlanta
9 Washington, DC
10 Houston
11 Detroit
12 Phoenix
13 Tampa-St. Petersburg
14 Seattle-Tacoma
15 Minneapolis-St. Paul
16 Miami-Ft.Lauderdale
17 Cleveland-Akron
18 Denver
19 Orlando-Daytona Beach-Melbourne
20 Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto
21 St. Louis
22 Portland, OR
23 Pittsburgh
24 Charlotte, NC
25 Indianapolis
26 Baltimore
27 Raleigh-Durham
28 San Diego
29 Nashville
30 Hartford-New Haven
31 Kansas City
32 Columbus, OH
33 Salt Lake City
34 Cincinnati
35 Milwaukee
36 Greenville-Spartanburg-Asheville-Anderson
37 San Antonio
38 West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce
39 Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo-Battle Creek
40 Birmingham
41 Harrisburg-Lancaster-Lebanon-York
42 Las Vegas
43 Norfolk-Portsmouth-Newport News
44 Albuquerque-Santa Fe
45 Oklahoma City
46 Greensboro-High Point-Winston-Salem
47 Jacksonville, FL
48 Memphis
49 Austin
50 Louisville
51 Buffalo
52 Providence-New Bedford
53 New Orleans
54 Wilkes Barre-Scranton
55 Fresno-Visalia
56 Little Rock-Pine Bluff
57 Albany-Schenectady-Troy
58 Richmond-Petersburg
59 Knoxville
60 Mobile-Pensacola
61 Tulsa
62 Ft. Myers-Naples
63 Lexington
64 Dayton
65 Charleston-Huntington
66 Flint-Saginaw-Bay City
67 Roanoke-Lynchburg
68 Tucson
69 Wichita-Hutchinson
70 Green Bay-Appleton
71 Des Moines-Ames
72 Honolulu
73 Toledo
74 Springfield, MO
75 Spokane
76 Omaha
77 Portland-Auburn
78 Paducah-Cape Girardeau-Harrisburg
79 Columbia, SC
80 Rochester, NY
81 Syracuse
82 Huntsville-Decatur
83 Champaign-Springfield-Decatur
84 Shreveport
85 Madison
86 Chattanooga
87 Harlingen-Weslaco-Brownsville-McAllen
88 Cedar Rapids-Waterloo-Iowa City-Dubuque
89 South Bend-Elkhart
90 Jackson, MS
91 Colorado Springs-Pueblo
92 Tri-Cities, TN-NC-VA
93 Burlington-Plattsburgh
94 Waco-Temple-Bryan
95 Baton Rouge
96 Savannah
97 Davenport-Rock Island-Moline
98 El Paso
99 Charleston, SC
100 Ft. Smith-Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers

All of the markets I listed in my original argument are top 30 TV mote-markets. Tulsa and Des Moines are outside the top 50; Billings isn't even in the top 100. Comparing those markets is about as apples and oranges as you can get if you are trying to grow a league though TV which I will continue to argue is the Don's aim.

 

I'm sorry but you aren't serious are you? I'm sorry Canadians but I'm pretty sure the league is done with you. The Don wanted Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver to try to land a lucrative national Canadian television deal I'd say he's not concerning himself with Ottawa for very good reason he doesn't think a team in Ottawa will help or hurt the chances of a national Canadian broadcasting deal and I think he's right. Now you can keep arguing about Ottawa if you want but I'm finished there.

What you are saying is MLS will turn down a deep pocketed ownership group in a top 30 TV-metro. MLS will do this even if they have a stadium solution and a comitment to their team, by which I mean the willingness to use cash reserves to support losing money for years and a marketing strategy to force the team into the public consciousness of the city the team is in. If you seriously think that I find it laughable.