And another problem is where/how do you divide cities? The list above includes "Carolina" - it takes 12 hours to drive from Murphy to Manteo. It's really hard to call that 1 market. The NFL Panthers and NHL Hurricanes, while both called "Carolina" are not in the same market. "Raleigh" is also mentioned, but it's not clear whether that's just the "Raleigh-Cary" MSA or the "Raleigh-Durham" CSA. One is a construct, the other defines a metro area. Are Dallas and Fort Worth one market, or two? Then what about Washington and Baltimore. It's all a mess. And while Hartford shows up in that list, it would be borderline for any league. While the local population has the spending money, any team playing there is going to be squeezed out by teams in the Boston and New York City markets. While Raleigh-Durham is now 50% larger than Hartford, when the Whalers moved south the markets were roughly the same size. The reason the team moved is that Raleigh-Durham was "virgin" territory for corporate sponsorships and local broadcast revenues. The Hurricanes have a network of radio stations covering half the state. In Hartford, the opportunities for both corporate sponsorship and broadcast revenues were much, much more restricted due to proximity to the Bruins, Rangers, Islanders, and Devils. I'm not trying to knock the study. I think, taken in context, studies like this help narrow the field of discussion, but the devil, as they say, is in the details.
China has 16 teams. 1,300 million Russia has 16 teams. 140 million But the 20 team is not a FIFA rule, it is actually a 18 team recommendation.
All valid criticisms, AndyMead, and I'll get to them one by one. My "Carolina" is a combination of Raleigh and Charlotte. The idea behind it was that a Carolina team would receive some form of support from both cities (though that may not be true, which is why I included both cities on my own). All of these are MSAs. I addressed this at the bottom, by saying some of those cities should be removed without actually removing them. Just for hypothetical purposes. It's the reason why I didn't include it, Baltimore or any VA cities in my "final list."
how are people still ignoring Minnesota? The Vikes will have a new stadium in 2016 that owner of the team (Zygi Wilf) worked to get a provision into the bill saying that he (or any other Vikings owner with at least 3%) has exclusive rights to have an MLS team in that stadium RENT FREE for 5 years. As in the MLS team will pay zero rent for it's entire existence in the stadium if the team is there within 5 years of 2016. The house passed the bill taking out that clause. Zygi worked it back in for the Senate version of the bill and when the house and senate worked to combine the two different parts they kept the MLS clause in it. Now why would Zygi work it back into the bill if all he cared about was the bill passing. The reason is because he legitimately wants to have a MLS team and if they can play rent free all the better. So looking at some of the requirements for a MLS team: there is a deep pocketed investor who wants a MLS team, a brand new state of the art stadium to play in (even though it won't be a SSS that really hasn't hampered Seattle), a large market and good soccer support. (queue someone saying but the Stars only bring in X amount to games) The Thunder had good attendance before and the Minnesota Kicks had the highest average attendance in the old NASL, yeah higher than Seattle, New York, Portland, etc. While I try to get to as many games as I can, and have a great time with the Dark Clouds when I go, it is just too far for a lot of people. And being D2 it means people aren't as willing to make the drive. The new stadium will solve that being right downtown, easily accessible with Light Rail, buses, walking or good old fashion cars. Garber and MLS will be out of their mind to deny MN a franchise. Now I am not saying MN will be the 20th franchise, as they are still at least 4 years out, but they would be prime position to have a spot in 2017 season (as the stadium will probably be complete for the NFL 2016 season meaning it will be a season later for MLS) .
Follow the Nielson link, to their new company Neuro-Focus. It shows that you are totally missing the newest frontier: neuro-focused marketing! http://www.neurofocus.com/ http://neurofocus.com/images/imgmynd_fc.jpg Major League Soccer: watched by more neurons than any other sport!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA [gasp] HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Seriously, what would ever possess you to lump together two markets that are separated by 160 miles, not to mention the Triad?
You almost have to feel bad for the Triad. At current demographic trends, in 30 years or so, it could become a top 30 market, but it will always be trapped behind Charlotte and the Triangle. Just far enough to make it not worth the drive for the vast majority of residents, but too close to merit its own team(s). But, yeah, what you said. I hadn't replied in a similar manner because the explanation threw an internal circuit breaker.
As if revenue only came in the form of ticket sales? Are you going to tell me there's no one in Greensboro that owns a Hurricanes jersey or other such things? Or watches them on TV? Are cities in the Carolinas in separate TV regions? That no company outside Charlotte sponsors the Panthers? Or that there are no Panther fans in Raleigh that purchase anything or watch them on TV? That's rediculous, and it gets even more so when you include other cities which also contribute to the revenue of both teams, albeit in smaller amounts. Sure, I should not simply combine populations and incomes so readily, but you guys are looking at one revenue stream, the importance of which will be reduced significantly come 2014 TV contracts and beyond, just like every other league. This study looks at all forms of revenue, not just ticket sales. People buy other things than tickets you know. Second off, that part is literally the only part, as I mentioned way way way earlier in this thread, that was to be taken with less seriousness as the others. Looking at the two cities individually yields not so much worse results. I don't know much about the Carolinas geographically or demographically, but to say the above isn't true is ludicrous. DC United gets fans from all over DMV, so why wouldn't a Charlotte team experience similar effects? Everyone talks about a "team of the South," so why don't we further study this effect? I'm looking to get the most accurate results possible, and I admit simply mashing the two together wasn't gonna do that. Again, this study is a measure of disposable income in each city (or in this case, cities). I never implied that a team in Raleigh would get equal support in Charlotte, I was saying that together (and, honestly, individually) they are capable of supporting a team with as much ease as the other cities in that list.
Over 7,000 fans braved horrible traffic to attend a Division 3 match last Thursday night. Heads-Orlando. Tails-Orlando.
After reading through the thread, here are a couple things to consider when looking at personal income #s to summarily write off or include a market as a viable expansion candidate that I don't think have been discussed: 1-These are generic ratios/estimates that don't hold across all markets. Not just because the a team like the Yankees will consume more personal income than the Royals and not just because of COL adjustments. It's also neutral with respect to where other money is spent on various forms of entertainment--not just sports, but in the broader recreation category as well. A huge city like NYC will has a ridiculously high number of diversions compared to say Cleveland or Tulsa, so the available income is vastly overstated. I still think that NYC could support 1 or 2 other teams, but let's not pretend that there is half a trillion + of available income for soccer, because a lot of that is consumed in the additional entertainment amenities available in NYC. The same goes for college-sports heavy towns like an Austin or markets with a lot of outdoor activities. Or a place like Vegas. 2-It's not just about where a market is today, but where it is likely to be given prospective growth and future sports $$$ competition. San Antonio might look good now, but what if an NFL team decides to relocate there in year 2 of the San Antiono MLS experiment? What about an NHL team after that? Worst case, it's entirely possible that an MLS franchise could be pushed down the pecking order for 20 years in a market environment such as that. Same w/ Tulsa and football. Like it or not, unlike a league like the NFL or NBA, MLS needs to be more careful about who they might subsequently share a city with 10 years down the road. Similarly, PHO based upon available income is abt $50bn underwater at the moment, but, it's a rapidly growing market with all 4 competing franchises already in place. If the area grows 20% in the next decade and if income growth per head exceeds increases in money required to support teams by 1% per year (not crazy assumptions), that $50bn deficit is gone. Does it make sense to invest now in a market where you might get squeezed down the road or does it make more sense to wait a 8 years or so to allow a larger market to grow and there will be no new entrants for future evaluation? Almost all of the recent entrants (other than SLC) have been easy choices from a broader market standpoint: Philly=lots of room+no other potential entrants. Canadian cities have very low probabilities of getting any other sports other than Toronto+NFL, and Toronto has a huge economy. Seattle has enough room to take a hit from 1 of NBA/NHL/NFL. Same w/ Portland. Obviously it comes down to financial investors willing to take the plunge and SSS construction capabilities, but investors are going to analyze the competition for revenue in a market at a more granular level too. Apart from the obvious soccer fan market issue in each city, there are reasonably serious marketing $$$ questions for a lot of the cities remaining. Sacramento if the Kings leave and/or another team doesn't enter+concerns around very few corporate HQs. Miami if the market is actually sportsfanish enough to support an MLS club. San Antonio and other cities if another team doesn't enter. Minneapolis or Phoenix if they can grow enough over the next decade or so. Vegas if there is enough money post-gaming and no other team enters. Atlanta looks good, but sports support in that market has been less than stellar and MLS goes up against the most iconic sports brand on the local calendar (the Braves). It might make more sense to play a wait and see game at this point w/ a list of cities like Miami, Mnpls, Phoenix, Calgary, San Antonio, Atlanta, Carolina, Orlando, etc. The league would also be smart to leave a market or two open for possible relocation of existing franchises. With fewer available slots for future franchises, the risk reward tradeoff beteen expension fees/new market and making the wrong choice is different than when the league had 12 teams.
To add something to my post above, we could estimate where personal income could potentially be 10 years from now to determine who might be in the conversation. Basic method: use 2000 - 2010 metro personal income increase in real terms (CPI adjusted) to estimate 2020 personal income. Assume income required for existing teams tracks w/ CPI. Just look at cities without an MLS club with a projected personal income of $45 billion+ to keep the list manageable. Exclude metros that are to some extent satellites of larger metros (Bridgeport, Inland Empire, Providence, Hartford), even though they could financially support a team w/ no territorial issues at play. Exclude Honolulu. Cut the list to $30 billion plus of income availability. No Canadian markets made the list btw. Take the best case scenario for each metro in terms of team relocation to open up space for MLS. MLB-no movement. Not enough income in non-MLB markets to support relocation. Assume contraction won't happen. NBA-Sacramento, NOLA, Charlotte, and Memphis most likely to leave. NHL-Nashville and Phoenix most likely to leave. NFL-Jacksonville, San Diego, Oakland, St. Louis, and Buffalo most likely to relo. The max figures above can't be achieved for all metros, because franchise leaving one market to open up income for MLS will lead to a loss in another of these markets as they gain an NHL/NFL/NBA team. There's always the possibility of expansion in other leagues too. This is the estimated "best case" scenario for markets w/out MLS in 2020: Sacramento 104.3 bn Vegas 91.6 Austin 85.4 VA Beach-Newport News 84.8 San Diego 80.6 Miami 74.5 Atlanta 67.9 Richmond 62.8 San Antonio 62.8 Orlando 58.6 Memphis 55.1 Louisville 51.6 Birmingham 49.5 Charlotte 46.8 Rochester 46.2 Raleigh-Durham 44.1 Baltimore 41.1 Nashville 40.9 St. Louis 37.8 Phoenix 32.9 These 20 metros will probably need to absorb as many roughly 10 relos/expansions . This probably leaves 10 w/ sufficient income, of which maybe 5 would be suitable for soccer. So larger markets like Phoenix, St. Louis, and San Diego just look questionable now, but there is a good chance they won't look that way soon. Ex: San Antonio currently looks much more attractive than STL, but if the Rams leave STL and San Antonio picks up an NHL or NFL team, STL would likely be the more attractive market. Some best cases are more likely to occur than others. Ex: ATL won't pick up another NHL team and they've got everything else, so they're good. MIA is maxed out w/ other sports, so they're good. PHO won't pick up another hockey team if the Coyotes leave town, so they're good if they leave.
Where in the blue hell are you even thinking up that SA might get an NFL team, let alone an NHL one ? The NFL has flat out said that the Alamodome is a "no go" for NFL stadia and turned the city down more than once. The city has since turned a big middle finger to the NFL. We have a hockey team here already, and if there's anyone in the city that actually wants an NHL team here it'll be news to me.
I realize that the Alamodome is a no go. I've been in that place, and it is a giant piece of crap. It's unfortunate that you guys built what was basically the last of the old school indoor facilities right before the ante was upped in terms of amenities.. No NFL team would accept that venue as a long-term solution. The thing is, ten years is a long time in the world of sports. I don't know how old you are, I've seen a lot of things happen over the years when it comes to franchise relos and expansion that seemed ridiculous ten years earlier. Colts from Baltimore to Indy Hockey in Miami, Phoenix, and Tampa. Football in Jacksonville Hockey played in Greensboro Coliseum of all places Baseball in Montreal Basketball in Sacramento, Vancouver, etc. Browns from Cleveland to Baltimore Basketball leaving Seattle for Oklahoma City The Oilers leaving for Nashville San Antonio continuing to grow, putting some financing up for a stadium, and landing an NFL team in a football mad state? Seems like nothing of a stretch to me. This is something that any MLS investor recognize as a downside to placing a team in SA. I think SA would make a great addition to the league, but if someone dropped coin into the NFL after the team arrived (5 years or 15 years from now), that would be a huge hit for the franchise. That goes for any city of roughly SA's size that has holes in its pro sports offerings.
This is the difference in "being from Texas/here" and "I've been there before." The A'Dome was the effort ... it also was proven to actually be up to standard (minimum perhaps, but still up to the task) of housing an NFL team when NO needed a place to play for a season (well, half of their home dates anyway). 1992 the "nfl chase" began here ... and sure there are people lip servicing that they chase is still on. The blood still boils in this city after the A'Dome was shot down and the NFL essentially broke promises. Couple that with the fact that the NFL is VERY much in love with its current 32 team set up, and you aren't exactly getting "any time in the relative near future" signals.
You're flattering the Alamodome. The place is a dump. It's nowhere near up to the task of anything except being a split time (with a college venue) short term contingency for a team displaced by a catastrophic event. The Alamodome as it currently stands would be dead last in the NFL in club seating and hospitality suites and its concourses are a mess. That's not good enough. It's not good enough to host men's final 4s anymore either. Your heart might have broken in 1992, but there were no broken promises. SA took a play from Indianapolis, who built a stadium without a team with only the hope of luring a team through relocation or buying one in expansion. It was a gamble that worked for them but backfired for SA. You may want an MLS club badly, and the NFL might be on hold, but those types of things can change quickly. A 32 team league is neat and tidy right now, but it won't be when they push the schedule to 18 games. After the NFL fixes its LA mess, San Antonio Post LA relo, San Antonio+Orlando will be the biggest metros without the NFL. Difference being ORL has Tampa+Bucs down the street while SA has Austin. 8 years from now when the economy is better, and businessmen+politicians have forgotten their lessons, do you really think the city will resist the temptation of a team like the Jags sniffing around for a new home? Good for you if SA does, but that will be about the first time that's ever happened.
I think Orlando has really really impressed thus far. However, I cannot get over how many professional Florida sports teams are so dreadfully supported. TWO MLS teams have already been contracted in the state, so I just don't think it makes sense to put yet another MLS team there. Maybe Orlando would be different, we don't know because nobody can see the future. But it's hard to ignore the history of the state of Florida. I'm not pro-NY Cosmos or any other expansion city, I'm just saying that putting an MLS team in Florida would be risky.
Thanks Chicago76 for the great posts. I live outside Sac and of course want cowtown to be no. 22 or 23 because i do think the Kings are gone. Your points about lack of corporate HQ are very valid However, there are always contraindication intangibles such as......... Sac LOVES pro-ball. Any pro-ball. And it's TV numbers for soccer are respectable. The empirical evidence is there. And the physucal infrastructure is there ( albeit probably with a very small window before city leaders go in a non-sporting direction) Hence all Sac needs is the Kings to go and a vigilent deep pocket to emerge, because no NFL team is ever coming here.
The NCAA tournament was here all of 2011 ago. Flattering ? Not quite. Not allowing someone to simply call it a "dump" ... yes. I'm a regular at the place for all sorts of events. It isn't that bad. Renovations needed ? Sure. Does it need luxury boxes/whatever else you want to call them ... absolutely. Nobody said work didn't need to be done, and the city knows it. I will ask though, if you've been to Jacksonville Municipal Stadium, The Metrodome, Landshark Stadium, The Edward Jones Dome, Candlestick, Giants Stadium (yeah I know they now have a new one), or The Superdome .... there's absolutely no way in hell you can honestly say that Luxury Suites aside, that the Alamodome can't float an NFL team but these places can. You'd be flat out lying. Thanks for your concern, but my heart was far from broken in 1992. Also, I'm curious as to what you actually know about what went on in the early 90's with the NFL and San Antonio. Not in San Antonio. Again, the difference between being from here and having been here before. Do you know what it took the Spurs to get an arena built here ... and the city LOVES them. They can do no wrong and they had to damn near do some under the table, knee scuffing favors to get it done. Goodell just stated in March that Expansion isn't on the table, at all. The NFL isn't interested in expanding because they've got some shit markets to clean up first. Sure, the Jags may sniff around but the league still has to approve, and the league has a back alley ass beat view of SA. That won't change in 8 years.
I said Final 4, not preliminary rounds. I was at the last title game to ever be held at the Alamodome: Kansas v. Memphis. The NCAA has stated the venue is no longer up to their standard. I've actually been to most of those multiple times, but first off, don't bother putting Giants Stadium, the Metrodome, and the Stick on the list. One is no more and its a done deal the other two will be no more soon as well. The LA game of getting nice venues via threat of relo has now worked for all but 6 franchises. The NFL will close the deal on 2 of them and put them in LA...and most importantly, you can't ignore luxury suites. That's the biggest reason for the stadium boom: premium seating = revenue generation. Maybe dump is a bit harsh. When I was there it was worse than the RCA dome pre replacement and its certainly worse than the Edward Jones dome. It's not pretty, but it's not falling apart. By Economically obsolete is a better term. The problem is it is physically too small to add suites and club seating without reducing capacity too much, so they'd have to pop the top and add a level of seating and shine it up a lot w/ other creature comforts. That will run almost as much as building a new stadium. For reference: Rams want $700 million of renovation work in STL (no additional suites--currently @150 to SA's 40 or so) and they're playing one home game/year in London as a form of "punishment". The CVC's counter of $150 million will not get this venue out of the bottom quarter, much less make it remotely close to top quarter. FWIW, the remaining 6 bad venues are: Oakland, SD, STL, Buffalo, Jax, and Miami. 3 could very well end up in LA and Toronto regardless, and from a revenue genertion standpoint, the Alamodome is inferior to all of them right now, and even w/ a more modest $150 million renovation, probably doesn't climb out of the bottom 3. The Superdome doesn't belong anywhere near this list. You may not like the asthetics--I certainly don't--but it is a good money generating vehicle now. Bottom line: No team will relocate to trade one stadium problem for another, and the place is a problem without a ridiculous amount of coin thrown at it. By relocation standards, the place qualifies as a dump due to economics. Still, a couple of teams will probably be ripe for the taking, and that's tough for a city like SA or Portland to not take a long look at. If you guys have the spine to say "no" to the NFL, then that's a good thing. Most cities can't, even after they've been burned: LA (3x in their history), Oakland (maybe 2x), STL (maybe 2x), Baltimore, Cleveland, Houston. You guys have been burned to some extent, but not the way any of these cities have. I've gone way off track,, so to revert from "biggridiron" back to bigsoccer mode, here is the larger issue as it pertains to MLS for SA or Sacramento (if they were to somehow retain the Kings)compared to a town like Atlanta. In Atlanta, hockey has failed twice at the top flight. It's not coming back for a long time thanks to two failures. That well has been poisoned far greater than the NFL and SA. You can never say never to NHL and ATL, but by the time that comes around again, ATL will be so big, it won't matter. There also isn't going to be a second MLB, NBA, or NFL team added. An investor knows what he's facing in terms of competition. With SA and Sacramento, what makes them attractive to MLS (largish market w/ lonely pro sports landscape) makes them attractive to other leagues. If they were a bit smaller they wouldn't be attractive to other leagues or if they were a bit larger, the pie would be big enough to eliminate the problem. The unavoidable risk is that another league comes in around the same time and submarines the chance of MLS to shine in either market. Only way to eliminate the risk is to seek arrangement with the local govt that they will not pursuse an NFL/NHL team for x years. Good luck w/ that one. FWIW: You guys definitely deserve to be on the short list w/ a few other mid markets: SA, Orlando, Sacramento, and Raleigh-Durham. Personally, I would prefer ORL thanks to their sustained third div showing and Raleigh-Durham for a lot of reasons: good soccer roots and sustained attendance at lower levels, younger and affluent demographic, NBA would be stupid to try anything here, NFL already has a NC team in a not-so gridironish state, rapid growth, MLS need for a better SE US footprint. With proper ownership, I would expect all 4 markets would host successful franchises though.
The Nfl in san santonio has zero bearing on an mls franchise. As for hockey in san antonio.... what? the sunbelt exp is a disaster , they are retreating north slowly, and even the wildest hope of another nhl franchise in the south would fall on houston, not san an. Your argument about mls seeking protection in particular markets is delusional at best.
Knew a guy who opened a nice pizza business once in a smaller town. Business was great for a year until a McDonald's opened 100 yards away. Pizza...burgers...they have zero bearing on one another right, so I'm sure that was mere coincidence... San Antonio is just an illustrative example. No need to get your panties in a bunch. Replace San Antonio with whatever city you find inoffensive. Doesn't change anything. Dunno what to say about "seeking protection". Wondering if you're reading someone else's post on that. Maybe you got it in the quote below, in which case you didn't bother reading the follow up sentence here...I've bolded it in red for you. Only way to eliminate the risk is to seek arrangement with the local govt that they will not pursuse an NFL/NHL team for x years. Good luck w/ that one. Lemme know if there is a coherent argument anywhere in your post I might have missed somewhere.