Except, with LA, one big huge giant difference exists between them and the rest of the league that makes their attendance better. Everyone knows that. However, what's the big huge glaring difference between TFC and the rest of the league? It doesn't matter how far away the other two cities are from Toronto. It's about Canadian culture. russ bolshevik hit it right on the head: "Up there all you got is a long winter & hockey. So by spring an MLS team is a great new thing to be into & be out & about. Canadian cities have lots of money to spend & lots of kids to become future players." I do agree that neither Vancouver nor Montreal should be favored simply because of TFC's success, there has to be a good fan base and committed ownership. BUT, it's impossible to completely ignore the only Canadian club's success when considering two other Canadian cities.
NY2 should not be a priority. You don't give a market a second team when it still has yet to show an adequate interest in the sport. Let RBNY and the Red Bull execs build on their investment and attract new fans to the sport there, bc I think that they are making all the right moves to build that into a great soccer market. But I think that the MLS should let them build up, skip NY2 this round, and award them in 5 years or so with 19 or 20. They already have plenty of regional rivalries in Phili, Boston, and DC so the wait shouldn't be at issue. I understand the difficulties and opportunistic approach that has to be taken in finding a stadium site inside the boroughs to place a NY team, but this is less significant if when your target is Wilpon. He, and the land at his disposal, will possibly still be in place 5 years from now. russ bolshevik hit on a point that I made a few months ago in a similar thread, Canadian culture seems to me to be a bit more enabled to be receptive towards the game than much of America. I remember watching UFC this weekend in Montreal and was shocked to hear the crowd break into soccer chants. I've only heard the Brits do this at fights. That alone says something about the makeup of their culture. Over looking the fact that these Canadian cities have shown the interest in their USL franchises is no small thing either. That passion isn't exclusive to Canada though. I think that cities like DC and Houston have shown the same brand of passion in spades. Seattle will certainly look alot like TFC when they start if things play out like they appear to be. I would love to see a team in San Antonio some day because a team there will have incredible success. St. Louis will have a team in the next round of expansion, I believe, and it has a great chance for success too. But we can't get caught into awarding markets with teams just because those cities have teams in other major US sports. The number one question should be if the city will come out and support soccer. People will want to say that b/c NY has 2 teams in every sport it should be the same in the MLS, it does not matter, because it is currently not ready for another team. And Soon maybe, but not now. The first major league to put a team in Las Vegas will likely be the last. Too many question marks there. It may be attractive because it is a major city with currently no major pro sports, but try to think on why that might be. Miami is interesting with thier diverse demographics, but much of that diversity comes from Carribean, baseball-loving, nations. MLS is going to be a league with many American markets and probably 3 Canadian markets when all is said and done. So it will all even out in the end.
Here's a point that I really haven't seen discused. But what about the Canadien player pool. It seems to me that they are having a hard enough time staffing one team with quality Canadien players, what would happen if there were one more or two. Let's say for argument's sake that a new team in Montreal and Vancouver would do really well off the field with fans, tickets and sponsorship. But in turn there is a weaker product on the field, how does that effect the league. This is also a problem with expansion teams in the US. However, it seems like our player pool is a little deeper and we are making steps at improving player development here.
The real difference between the success of TFC and many of the US-based teams is that TFC positions itself as a serious sport for serious adult fans, no different from the Leafs, Argos, Jays and Raptors. Unfortunately for many US MLS teams, the only reason to go to a game is if your kids are tired of going to Chuck-e-Cheese again. Oh yeah, and the stuffed animal mascot. If any new team, regardless of their location, positions themselves as TFC have done, then they will go a long way toward being successful. If they think that having a lot of kids who play soccer in the area is all you need to translate it into a successful business, then MLS shouldn't waste anyone's time with that city.
A good point - echoed by the kind of support that D.C. United have built up and sustained over the years, despite the difficulties they face compared to TFC (such as a less friendly municipal government and more precarious stadium situation) - and the long-standing rivalries and fanbases in Cascadia. But just to clarify, when the word 'Canadien' is used in English, are people trying to refer to French-Canadians only, or perhaps to those who play for the following hockey club: Not sure how many Habs would want to play for the Impact or TFC... ...though hopefully, some of their fans might.
You make a good point, but that's really going to be a short-term problem with the emphasis on the youth academies. Teams will be able to shepherd promising young athletes who usually leave soccer around the early teens, and build them through their system with the light at the end of the tunnel being a slot on the senior team. This will eventually serve to increase the overall player pool in Canada, and with two teams, that number grows that much quicker. We'll soon see the quality of play rise in both the Canadian and US MNT's due to the establishment of youth academies. Houston has done a very good job of this as well and with their supporters groups El Batallon and the Texian Army. Chicago also seems to be showing signs of attracting loyal adult fans with the marketing of Cuauhtemoc Blanco to serious fans of the game. Seattle shows positive signs, and Philidelphia already has a sizeable supporter section in place. You make a strong case, and it almost has to be done from the outset. DC United always marketed themselves very seriously. Look back at those original kits, theirs were one of the few sensible ones. For a lot of the existing teams, who either placed their stadiums in remote suburbs and only get kids and families at their games (FC Dallas) or just have built the wrong culture from the get-go, I wonder if it's really too late to turn around their fan bases and introduce the more serious fans bc when those fans try to start coming to the games and introducing chanting, etc, they are not appreciated or shouted down.
Doubtful given that such academies already exist, regardless if a professional team is in the area or not.
The difference is the "light at the end of the tunnel". The fact that there is now a domestic professional avenue towards which an amateur academy career can be applied will cause more players to stick to the sport. I feel that players will be more likely to continue playing if they feel that they are being groomed for a senior professional team.
I'll tell you why I think Vancouver will be an amazing MLS city, up to the level of Toronto. In 1979, when Vancouver won the NASL Soccer Bowl, 100,000 fans took to the streets to celebrate. http://www.whitecapsfc.com/club/history/1979_nasl/ Whitecaps NASL average attendance: * 1974 - 10,098 * 1975 - 7,579 * 1976 - 8,656 * 1977 - 11,897 * 1978 - 15,724 * 1979 - 22,962 * 1980 - 26,834 * 1981 - 23,236 * 1982 - 18,251 * 1983 - 29,164 * 1984 - 15,208 The record home attendance for a Whitecaps game was on June 20, 1983. 60,342 came to watch the caps take on the Seattle Sounders in the first game at BC Place Stadium. It is also the largest crowd to ever see a club soccer match in Canada. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_Whitecaps_(NASL) The Galaxy have always lead the league in attendance even before Beckham arrived. Our 2005 average attendance almost matched our 2007 attendance. regular season/playoffs 1996: 30,129 / 29,883 1997: 23,626 / 26,703 1998: 21,784 / 13,175 1999: 17,632 / 21,039 2000: 20,400 / 25,033 2001: 17,387 / 28,462 2002: 19,047 / 24,596 2003: 21,983 / 20,201 2004: 23,809 / 20,206 2005: 24,204 / 17,466 2006: 20,814 / N/A 2007: 24,252 / N/A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LA_Galaxy#Average_attendance
How are 25 year old stats relevent? Vancouver's stadium only hold 5700. They were about 500 shy for the home opener and less than 5000 showed for the second game. They are not even selling out USL. Do I think selling out USL matters? Not a chance. I don't think it has anything to do with MLS attendance. But it is a whole lot more relevent than 25 year old stats
I'd say that the "25 year old stats" show consistent interest in the game at its "top" level, while the USL is clearly seen as a step down and has been "just a part of the scenery" for too long to grab the Vancouver public's imagination.
if old league numbers were relevant, why aren't the red bulls leading the league in attendance? as for the canadian talent pool and the academies, exactly how much talent do you expect them to produce? they are going to graduate what, maybe 25 players a year? i expect the cap to roughly double over the next few years, certainly bringing the league competitiveness to the next level, and i'd say clubs will be lucky to get 1 player a year that is truly worthy of a pro contract. i'll go further and say teams can consider themselves lucky to graduate 1 pro contract worthy player a year even if the cap doesn't move a single dollar. toronto came into the league as MLS was getting more attention then ever. they came in with their own stadium. basically, they launched at just the right time to reap the rewards the league has sown for the last 13 years, and the beckham media blitz pushed them to another level. seattle is coming in next year under similiar circumstances, and guess what, their season ticket deposits are rivaling toronto's and they still have a year to sell them. philly is 2 years out and they are showing that they too might very well have block buster season ticket sales and sold out matches. basically, there is nothing magic about canadian cities, and i look forward to seattle proving that so this conjecture can disappear.
That would only prove that Seattle also has the magic and that its not unique to Canadian cities. Until a Canadian team enters the league and fails to get extraordinary support, the "magic" of Canadian cities is still undecided, though I lean towards yes because of Toronto and what I think will happen in Vancouver and Montreal.
how silly of me. one and a bit seasons in one canadian city proves that canada is the promised land, but if seattle, then philly come in under the same momentum that that one canadian city had in its single year of existence, and do just as well, it doesn't mean anything! give me a break.
So taking back what I said, its not the fact that the cities are Canadian that makes them special. Its that they are international cities with soccer fan bases. They just happen to be in Canada. I was wrong to say there is anything special about Canadian cities, because I don't think MLS would do well in Edmonton or Calgary. Its that the cities that have a built in first love of first division soccer happen to be in Canada (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver). I was criticized for using 25 year old attendance stats, that's a valid criticism, though I still think it shows a that Vancouver is a soccer city. However, others pointed to the fact that Vancouver isn't selling out all of their USL games. That's about as relevant as using 25 year old attendance figures as both of these arguments have been proven wrong. Red Bulls play in Giants stadium, where the Cosmos played, and yet their attendance isn't even close to what the Cosmos got. While Toronto and Seattle USL teams had average attendances that don't even come close to the worst MLS teams and now those cities lead the league in season ticket sales.
Canada should have its own league. And more importantly, a country as large as the United States should not have to need anyone. It certainly shouldn't need a country that cites its inability to start its own league as a point of pride. Competition between clubs from different countries should be limited to international tournaments. MLS, sanctioned by USSF, should concentrate on expanding ONLY in the US. I'm not saying that TFC hasn't been a success. Nor am I saying that TFC doesn't have good fans. Nor am I saying that TFC hasn't helped MLS. But TFC's experience doesn't change the fact that Toronto is in another country. That country, by the way, is not a one square mile protectorate. Nor is it in political and monetary union with the United States. That country is an independent nation with a population of over thirty million. That nation has distinct wage scales and labor laws. It should have its own league. Remember: for every MLS team in Canada, there will be one less MLS team in the United States. And, above all, only American teams should be able to compete for the championship of American soccer. Or does MLS even still claim to determine that? Wimbledon was not allowed to move to Ireland. The LA Salsa was not allowed to play in Mexico. Canadian teams should not be allowed into MLS. There is nothing radical or extreme or hateful or xenophobic about that assertion.
It's also sanctioned by the CSA, so by your logic it should focus on expanding in the U.S. and Canada. New Zealand is not in a union with Australia and yet they are in the same league. To make things even more extraordinary, the two countries aren't even in the same FIFA Confederation. What's wrong with awarding a team to the most qualified city? I don't have a problem with Seattle or Philly over Vancouver because those cities are ready with the proper support and infrastructure. If Vancouver and Montreal never get their act together, then they never join. But if they are ready why should MLS deny them entry? So we can have another KC or NY that plays in a huge NFL stadium with low crowds and pays so much in rent it doesn't turn a profit for the first 13 years of its existence? No, FIFA has sanctioned MLS as the official top division for the U.S. and Canada so the MLS champion is the U.S. and Canadian champion
USSF sanctioning preceded CSA sanctioning, did it not? But USSF can withdraw its sanctioning. Get it? It can withdraw it if it concludes that MLS is not acting in the interest of the game in the US. By sanctioning MLS, the USSF , among other things, determined, at the time of sanctioning, that MLS was acting in the best interests of the soccer in this country. See, the USSF should concern itself with promoting the game here, not elsewhere. There is plenty wrong with expanding when that expansion is at the expense of American cities. But you seem not to care about that. Fine. Your view, however, flies in the face of soccer convention: one country, one league. Are you saying that MLS is not an American league? And how can a team from Massachusetts or New Jersey or Texas or California or Missouri or Illinois or the District of Columbia be the champions of Canada? Why would they want to be? New Zealand / Australia is a rare exception and hardly the model that we should follow.
The A-League has been doing pretty well for itself and is about to expand. I don't see why that's a bad model to follow. In fact, Australia is probably closer to the North America in sports culture than any other country with a top flight soccer league. I'm thinking of the NHL as the general model to follow. You don't see people complaining that the Anaheim Ducks were the champions of Canada. At this point, its too late for having MLS as exclusively a U.S. league. The league has already expanded into Canada and expressed interest in future expansion north of the border.
Or you can take a look at the current support for a USL team that markets to kids: http://youtube.com/watch?v=5k5OgK8k0Kg http://youtube.com/watch?v=XeeTe49XFv0 http://youtube.com/watch?v=Vrs6AyJYoXU The support is already there.
You do understand that the Seattle ownership approached Toronto FC for marketing advice and sales information. No lie. They sent a pretty big group over here to work with the TFC staff and pick their brains over club ownership. Not only that, Atlanta sent a group up to Toronto as well. Basically, they wanted to know why Toronto works so well in a league that has a relatively low average attendance. So yeah, a lot of Seattle's success could very well be due to the right things Toronto has done.
so i'm assuming you attribute a lot of toronto's success to the MLS teams they confired with prior to launching? for some odd reason i highly doubt it.
hmmm - non sequitur there. The point was that Toronto's FO was consulted by the Seattle ownership; which basically indicates they are interested in using some or all of TFC's business plan to replicate its successes.