I bet that study was done while the Thrashers were still in Atlanta and I bet our number would be much better now that they are not.
We accounted for it and after doing so, Atlanta moves way up the list, right into what I called earlier our Tier 1 cities. triplet1, your post could not be more accurate. I really came to post about Sacramento. The Kings are in a sad situation. They were my favorite team to watch 10 years ago because they truly were a team: Peja (my favorite basketball player ever), Vlade, Webber, Turkoglu, Bibby, 1-12 they were good basketball players. I'd be sad to see them go. On the other hand, this represents a Seattle-like opportunity for MLS. The league must time perfectly expansion into Sacramento. Should owners and a stadium plan be ready, they must announce the team a bit after the Kings officially decide to leave. This city clearly supports their teams and if you give that entire city to an MLS team, it would certainly thrive. Besides, purple is still not used in MLS
I'll be honest that I'm not very objective about the Canadian cities. One because every Canadian city takes a spot away from an American city and that has repercussions down the line. No MLS team in a city no MLS academy, no MLS academy less talent coming out of that city possibly hurts the national team. Two I wish a Canadian league could survive on it's own. I'd make champions league far more interesting, I don't get into a Canadian MLS team playing an American MLS team it's not really special to me. As far as the league goes whether it was their strategy or luck I think they've gotten what they want out of Canada and I think Ottawa is out of luck. I could be totally wrong though as I could be totally wrong about anything else I think.
^ that times 1000. At the very least I wish they'd open up the stupid 4 team competition for the CCL spot. It's a damned joke. Call CSL what you will, but it's the top Canadian professional league.
I have always supported including Canadian cities in MLS, but I was struck how many Canadian cities have sufficient disposable income to support MLS teams. In addition to the three current cities, the study says Calgary, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Quebec and Ottawa could financially support teams and Edmonton is very close (94%). There's also enough income in Toronto for a second team. While I've always thought the argument that Canada didn't have enough big cities to have a top league made sense, it's interesting that the data suggests there are enough viable markets for a ten team Canadian league comparable to MLS.
How many times must this lie be debunked? Name one American city that does not have an MLS team because of the presence of the Canadian teams. Just one. If you can't do that (and you can't), name one reason why the presence of Canadian teams would prevent any otherwise wholly qualified American city from entering MLS.
I can't, you're right that MLS doesn't have better United States options than the Canadian cities that are in right now, if they did they’d probably be in. I don't know where this league tops out though, maybe it's in the 20s like some think maybe it's closer to the NFLs 32 I don't know either way I do think it will top out eventually. Maybe soccer will never get popular enough in this country maybe it will never matter that Midwestern cities like Detroit, Minneapolis, Cleveland, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, and Cincinnati that don’t have teams now never have teams. Maybe the league just stays away from the south and all of Atlanta, Tampa, Miami, Orlando, Raleigh, Charlotte, and Nashville remain an MLS desert. Maybe MLS doesn’t fill out California and Texas in places like Sacramnto, San Diego, and San Antonio or pick up a desert outlier or two in Phoenix Las Vegas hell I’ll throw in Albuquerque for the hell of it. Maybe it won’t be a problem if most of these cities never have top level teams but it’s just a lot of population and possible talent we’re not reaching right now. It also seems like there is pretty strong evidence that Canada could support their own league if there had been the will to do it. It certainly will not happen now and that’s too bad because it would probably actually help their talent level and it would also make the sport more interesting continent wide. Even if you want to argue it isn’t already eventually champions league is going to become MLS vs FMF. It would be more fun with at least one other strong league in there creating more foreign competition with teams you don’t see all the time making them a little more exotic in nature. I apologize for derailing the thread; feel free to get back to the topic at hand.
I don't know, I think MLS COULD work very well in Tulsa. Or OKC. I grew up in S.E. Oklahoma in the 70's and I became a HUGE fan of Tulsa Roughnecks, even though I'd never seen a soccer game before. They were very well supported back in the day. OU/OSU/TU football didnt negatively affect their support. IMHO, what killed the Roughnecks was the USFL. In 1983, when the Oklahoma Outlaws came to town, and played in Skelly Stadium at the same time of year as the Roughnecks, their attendance was decimated. Instead of averaging 15-19K, they averaged 5-7K. And they, and the rest of the league, were gone after that year. Of course, then you have the question that was asked earlier; would a team in Tulsa/OKC help the rest of the league? No. It would help US, but i don't know if it would help the rest of the league. Then again, does it help the league to see a game broadcast from FC Dallas stadium and you can hear the players talking on the field becasue its so quiet? No. Anyway...
But the FC Dallas attendance issues aren't a City of Dallas problem but an FC Dallas front office problem (one that's being worked on very admirably, actually). If that same front office was running a team in Tulsa, the attendance would be much, much worse. Tulsa can work in MLS (if you define anything above 0% chance as "can"), but its not even worth trying when its not even the best choice for a new team in its own state, let alone region or nation.
Don't get me wrong, Im not saying that we have a snowball's chance in hell of being awarded a franchise. It's NOT going to happen. But I AM going to go out on a limb and say that IF a genie granted wishes and gave Oklahoma (Tulsa OR OKC) an MLS franchise it would be better supported than some existing franchises. And actually, Id much rather have a team in OKC, where I live, than Tulsa. I know that several years ago, when MLS was first talking about expansion OKC, and Express Sports, tried to put together a bid. Even back then though, I thought a HUGE flaw in our proposal was their stadium idea. They proposed expanding Wantland Stadium in Edmond, OKC's northern-most suburb. To me, that would be directly analogous to Dallas putting a stadium in its northern-most suburb. It never got very far, so it doesn't matter now. And like i said, snowball's chance...
I always laugh whenever these "studies" are brought up. I live in the Twin Cities, yes we have 4 major sports teams here already. So the studies "analysis" says I have less income to spend on a MLS team. When actually I spend 0 dollars on the Vikings, 0 dollars on the Timberwolves, 0 dollars on the Wild (although I would go to a few games a year, just never been), and about 50 a year on the Twins (4 or 5 games a year). Yet I would go to every single MLS game. This is the major flaw in these studies. They assume that the people who would be going to MLS would be the same people already attending other sporting events, which is true to a certain point, but not what they make it out to. Most people who are Vikings season ticket holders will probably not also be regular MLS attendees. People who are MLS season ticket holders will probably not also be regular NFL attendees. I am not saying they will only go to MLS, or NFL. But they are just plain wrong to assume just because a city has 4 major sports teams, their fans will have less money to spend on that team.
Sorry, but doesn't that all average out to about the same? If the MLS team dropped off you'd be more inclined to go to Wild games? The same for the mentioned season ticket holders. I think it's assuming that people are going to spend $X on sports regardless of what sports are available, unless I'm misreading it...
You've answered your own query about the study. Most Viking season ticket holders won't go to an MLS match ... sooooo then that'd mean there's that much less income likely available then yeah ? Now, multiply that by 2, 3, or 4 depending on the city.
No, I didn't. They (the people who conducted the study) assume there is no money in the area because all the people who would attend sporting events already attend them and have no more disposable income to attend MLS games should a MLS team be there. When actually there are people who don't attend any games (or very few games) and would go to MLS games with there extra disposable income that they haven't wasted on crap like NFL/NBA. Do you see the difference? Group 1 -> Spend lots of money on NFL, have no money left over Group 2 -> Spend some money on NFL, have some money left over Group 3 -> Spend no money on NFL, has lots of money left over They pretty much make the assumption that everyone falls into Group 1, when its actually a very small part of the population. Group 2 would have more and Group 3 has the most. What you would need to do to accurately assess the market's capacity to hold a new sporting team would be to actually conduct a poll in the area to see how much people spend on sporting events and break it into subgroups like I did. That way you could accurately determine what percentage of the population goes to events, and how much they spend. Also follow up with a question on how likely they would be to go to MLS games (or any other sport) if that league were to have a team there and if that would mean reducing the money they spend in other leagues. Oh ya, another assumption is the cost of each team is the same. The cost of the Yankees is a hell of a lot higher than the Oakland A's. To say that each team would require the same amount of money is ridiculous. I don't care if its the average either. Here is some simple stats. You have the following numbers (not relevant to the study other than to prove what I am trying to show): 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 10 The mean (average) is - 3.2 The median is - 2.5 The mode is - 1 The mean, 3.2, is higher than 7 numbers. Which I am assuming how the study found their number to use for each sport was to take the mean of each team. However, in a system like Baseball, this unfairly distributes the cost of the league onto the teams below the mean. Since the highest value, 10, is much further away from the mean than the low value, 1, you know there are more values underneath the mean than above it. So as you can see, this study's mean unfairly distributes the cost of the league onto the lower teams (in the example I gave it was the lower 70%). This just completely invalidates their study even more. I mean, I could keep going but its probably pointless, because you won't change your mind, and you will probably keep thinking what you do.
Again, the study doesn't suggest how much money IS going to each team, it is suggesting how much potential maximum money each team is DRAWING from. The actual amount of money each team gets is determined by how they run their team on and off the field. We can use the average of this, because if a team is below average on this measure, we shouldn't be considering them at all, especially for MLS, where there are dozens of cities which scored a 100.
You're missing the grand point of the "spoken for monies" ... it isn't saying there aren't monies there. The study is pointing to the fact that the sports markets studied show a saturation point. The point of proof, is money for this study. It represents a much larger scale of things though. While there may be "X" number of monies still sitting in the community for MLS availability, that amount is substantially lower than other communities where "X" amount isn't already flowing into 1 or up to 4 other sports franchises. The remainder isn't necessarily going to be devoted to an MLS club should one arrive. Who says even 1/2 or 1/4 of that will go to an MLS club ? This study never claimed to be an indicator of what is there, but rather, what isn't there. What about group 4 ? Spends no money on sports, period. It's all relative to the market they are in. Sure, in a simple statement the Yankees cost of existing is much higher than that of the A's. However, put them in their relative markets and the picture changes. That's the problem with simple statistics. I mean, you berate the study for using them but then try to prove your point in the same manner. At least the study used factors in the respective markets to come up with the numbers. ... because you're so open, obviously ... yeah ?
As an add-on to my last post, the finding of the ACTUAL number of disposable income dollars the team could potentially draw on is done after the lower tier candidates are weeded out through a detailed market research. We use the average for each team because we wouldn't want a below average city, especially when so many cities would meet the minimum requirements as the post says. Again, this is based on all things being equal (meaning both cities having met the stadium and owner requirements).
More important, and often missed in these discussions, than disposable income is available corporate sponsorship dollars. In the late 90s when Hartford and Raleigh-Durham were roughly the same size markets (no longer true as RDU is one of the three fastest growing MSAs over the last decade), Peter Karmanos relocated his NHL franchise because the sponsorship and broadcast revenue potential in Raleigh-Durham for professional sports was untapped, whereas playing in Hartford, his organization had to deal with both a declining economy and pressure from the major sports teams in both Boston and New York. Local corporate sponsorship dollars (and where available broadcast rights) are the real lifeblood of professional sports teams. Putting fans in seats is important, it's hard to convince someone to buy signage or radio commercials if there's nobody watching or listening - but it's those local business revenues that can be the real make or break for teams.
Tesoro and Valero are headquartered in SA (both Fortune Global 500) ... there's also USAA, Clear Channel, and NuStar Energy (Fortune 500). There's also Taco Cabana, Whataburger, Bill Miller BBQ, Frost National Bank, and Rackspace. SA also has regional HQ's for companies like AT&T, Caterpiller, Sysco, Toyota, Citigroup, Boeing, QVC, Lockheed Martin, Kohl's, Allstate, Chase Bank, and Wells Fargo. Oh, and HEB is the 19th largest private company in the US is also headquartered in SA. I know there's some more too ... I'd say we've got that covered.
I don't know if this has been covered yet or not, but it confuses the heck outta me... why does MLS want another team for NYC? If the Red Bulls are averaging 50% capacity or less in NJ, won't most of those fans that travel from NYC to NJ just support the new closer team if they build the stadium in Manhattan? Won't that render the Red Bulls and their brand new state-of-the-art stadium obsolete? Or is the assumption that all Red Bulls supporters will remain loyal to the further team or is the fanbase mostly from NJ?? They should probably show that they can support the current team before getting another one. Maybe I'm missing something?
I think the MLS BoG is gambling. But they're gambling with house money. If it works, the sky is the limit. If it doesn't work, NY2 will be just another MLS team, and there's nothing wrong with that - and given the size of the NYC area, I don't think there's any real issues about "splitting the fan base". The thing is, if a franchise launch in NY can replicate what's going on in Portland, Kansas City, Toronto, then we're talking about pushing MLS to a whole new level of media and marketing awareness and relevance. New York isn't just a big city. It is one of the two or three most important cities globally. The business, media, marketing, and entertainment industries all intersect in New York like nowhere else. Putting a pulsating, riveting, MLS franchise in NYC - especially if it creates a heated rivalry with Red Bulls, is something no other expansion market can remotely compete with. That's what it looks like to me. It looks like the MLS BoG is gambling that they can push MLS to the next level (including the value of their own investments) with a successful team in New York. And, frankly, there's no real downside here. If it doesn't succeed, it's not going to increase the naysayers, and a second team in New York - even it it draws no better than Red Bull isn't a particularly bad thing.
Sachsen is right in one respect about Tulsa. If a team has only minor-league money and minor-league vision, Tulsa will see it as minor. I watched Tulsa during high school and college there and saw no dynamic wealthy leaders who were interested in sports. Plenty of cash-shy hustlers. No one like the guy who had the money and moxie to make everything happen at little Salt Lake.