http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6143100/ An article in the American City Business Journals has rated the best cities for expansion teams in MLS, NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB. Check out this article it is a must read for discussion on the expansion boards. According to this article, the following are the most desirable cities for soccer in order of preference. The first 5 are no surpise to frequenters of this site, but after that there must be some raised eyebrows: 1.) Philadelphia 2.) Detroit 3.) Miami 4.) Houston 5.) Seattle 6.) Indianapolis 7.) Orlando, 8.) Portland 9.) Sacramento 10.) Carolina 11.) San Antonio 12.) Jacksonville 13.) Memphis
It should also be pointed out that from that list, every league except the NFL has 2 teams in LA. Also every team has 2+ teams in NY except for MLS. NY is the #1 market, so it probably should also be considered as an expansion candidate with the others.
Re: Best cities for expansion *MUST READ ARTICLE* I did a bit of a "speed read" through this article, but if I'm reading this right, all the study looks at is the economic power and total personal income in each of these markets. It looks like it doesn't take into account other factors, such as fan interest, municipal interest/support, facilities, transportation, etc... It is an interesting read, though.
Re: Best cities for expansion *MUST READ ARTICLE* Certainly there is more to choosing expansion candidates than simply picking the top number off this list, however it's another important piece of the puzzle. Take Denver for example. Who knew that they were already overextended as a market? Also, Atlanta should probably not be brought up as an expansion candidate in the same breath as Detroit, simply because they can't even economically support the teams they ALREADY have!
Re: Best cities for expansion *MUST READ ARTICLE* Well, they can, they just choose not to. Which brings us to the point made by filmorejive, that there is more than just the amount of money in a city to consider. Sure, LA can financially handle two NFL teams, but they tried that once. They too, chose not to.
Re: Best cities for expansion *MUST READ ARTICLE* Better believe it. That town cares about nothing but the Dolphins. Sure, they jump on the bandwagon, usually late, when a team can win it all, and off, real quick, when they slump back to the pack in other sports. Miami as a soccer town, and it's hordes of soccer living immigrants, is a myth.
Re: Best cities for expansion *MUST READ ARTICLE* Miami shouldn't surprise you at all, given the demographics of that city. If they had a proper owner, they would still be in the league. And i actually believe that despite the fact that I think Miami is not a great sports town.
Re: Best cities for expansion *MUST READ ARTICLE* Disagree. My brother lives in S Beach. Been there for ten years. Visit for a week every spring. The Dolphins come first at all times of year. Then the Canes. Then whichever other sport is doing well, and is the flavor of the month. Tix to any playoff game, other than Dolphins can be gotten by walking up during that time. This means Heat, Marlins and Panthers. Most playoff games were none sellouts (except fpr the Heat when the Knicks visited becuase there are just as many NYers down there). Only when, or if, those teams made it to final, or the game before did you have sell outs. Too much to do down there, so pro sports is not followed as wildly as most places. Lot of distractions. Play at a local park in pick up games, and watch some league matches and these guys (Haitian, Columbian, Ecudorian, Peruvian, many from the Carribian) couldn't give a rats a** about MLS and US Soccer. Most think they are better players than all in MLS and even the Jamaicans didn't have much respect for their guys because they were only playing in MLS. Don't know about the burb "soccer mom" crew, but these guys were MLS haters across the board. Shockling to me. If most won't go to see the Fins, Panthers and Heat why would the burb kids go to watch a soccer match? Also, national matches that have featured Euro teams at the Orange Bowl were horrible draws. They stopped in the early to mid 90's. Germany in 93 vs Argentina drew 12,000. US warm up matches in 93 vs Bolivia and Sweden (double headers with Columbia) drew about 20,000 on avergae with almost no Americans in the stands. At least the Columbians started cheering with me because I had no one else. I don't see Miami as a soccer town at all, and screw the demographic. Give me passion...whether a small town like SLC, Rochester, Portlandt, etc. Give me a smaller town that cares. Miami is not it - IMO. Have played many pick up games and while there are a lot of soccer players they could care less about MLS
Well, i lived in florida for 10 years myself, and have spent tons of time in Miami. I'll be in Miami on Friday, as a matter of fact. Miami is not a good sports town. I'll give you that. However, given the right owner and the right committment, I believe that those fans can be won over. They clearly have a higher percentage of people who are interested in soccer, for obvious reasons. The question is can you get someone in there who understands the market, and how to tap it? That didn't happen the first time around.
the list seems to include Chivas and I guess SLC already "must read again"? cause it's basically the same list as posted when the study was done before. It's not like the article considers things like investors and SSS which most of us might agree are the keys for current expansion
Alright fellas, let's not let this discussion degenerate into a "Miami for MLS? Good or Bad" type of thread. Rather, let's look at some of the other points of interest that this article and spreadsheet have unearthed. I think the most important one being this: If a city can financially support another pro team, they ought to be AT LEAST considered for expansion. As others have pointed out, there are other factors that play into the decision FOR expansion, but this is a start. On the other side of the debate are those cities that I see bandied about on these boards for expansion, yet according to these findings could not support any more pro sports teams no matter the league. Therefore, perhaps these should not even be considered for expansion at all, because no matter the perceived interest, demographics, or stadium situation, there isn't the money to support them as well as other places. The following is a brief list of the (best) Worst places for MLS to go. 1.) Atlanta 2.) Minneapolis-St Paul 3.) Phoenix 4.) Cleveland 5.) St. Louis (this one really pains me) 6.) Pittsburgh 7.) Tampa Bay 8.) Nashville 9.) San Diego 10.) Charlotte 11.) New Orleans 12.) Buffalo 13.) Milwaukee 14.) Cincinnati I should also add that Rochester and Oklahoma City came in at 51 and 52 respectively and able to support an MLS team. They came in below the following: Green Bay, Wis. Las Vegas Greensboro-Winston-Salem Grand Rapids Norfolk-Virginia Beach Syracuse Des Moines Richmond, Va. Austin, Texas Birmingham Oklahoma City Rochester, N.Y.
When did we finally merge into one state? Dang- I'm living in North Carolina and I didn't even hear about that! Honestly people, I hope most of you Northern Fairies know better than this. Even if Charlotte(bordering SC) had a team, there wouldn't be much of a draw from Columbia or Charleston. Football, yeah sure- soccer, no way. I don't see a team being put anywhere in North Carolina other than Raleigh. Charlotte could never support a team but Raleigh, Chapel Hill, Durham, Greensboro, Winston-Salem could generate a great following.
What a waste of a list. If you haven't figured it out by now, here's a hint: owners with deep pockets. If Bill Gates wanted to put a team in Pocatello, we'd have a team in Idaho before you could blink. That's the ONLY thing that matters to this league. As for the list itself, we all know that San Antonio has a far better chance of getting a team than just about any other city on that list, because the mayor has figured out that his city will probably never have an NFL, NHL, or MLB team. Any MLS expansion list without Rochester somewhere on the list is a worthless list. I don't know if Rochester will ever make it into MLS or not, but you have to at least put it on the list. As for New York City, yeah, I'd buy that. I don't think the league has any plans to have a second team there in the next few years, but its probably still part of their long-term outlook. Finally, I'd take Des Moines over just about every city on that list.
But Bill Gate's or any other billionaire WOULDN'T put a team in Pocatello, Idaho. He'd use a list like this to HELP make the decision. Why do people think that because MLS went to SLC before Philly that owners could put teams in Alaska and MLS HQ wouldn't blink. Not true! SLC makes sense for many reasons, and one of them is SUPPORTED BY THIS LIST! So The Crew wouldn't be the only Cow town in the league? Why else?
Where did my Wichita come in at, former home of the Wichita Wings, greatest soccer franchise in history?
Well, there's always that little bugaboo that a market could be, you know, considered a good potential expansion market based on this criteria or that criteria, but unless they have a freaking owner and a place to play that makes sense, the rest of it is just pulling the wire. Indianapolis? I lived there for 9 years. They were one of the 22(?) cities to originally bid for MLS and the bid was to play at Butler Bowl, the football stadium on the campus of Butler University. It would have needed a boatload of improvements including widening the field and adding lights, and it still would have just been a bunch of bleachers in a hole in the ground in a residential neighborhood with no parking. Unless you're going to play in the RCA Dome, or whatever new stadium the Colts finally get (neither one particularly appealing from an aesthetic or dates or revenue or size standpoint), or IUPUI's track and field stadium (which hosted the US Open Cup final in 1997 but which doesn't even have its own locker rooms, has a track around it and has, again, not much parking), there ain't no place to play in Indy, either. So all the demographic calculations and all that crap mean nothing. And there ain't nobody going to pony up to put a team there.
If you look JUST at future MLS cities who HAVE ownership AND a place to play RIGHT NOW...how big is that list? Seattle and...?
Houston (CA, Robertson) possibly SA (undisclosed or AEG/AlamoDome) Rochester as of next year and that's why these 4 are repeatedly mentioned I think a lot has been said behind the scenes (CA & SA). Seattle isn't a 100% sure thing either.
In Seattle we know our group is Hanauer and a unknown consortium, and that MLS has already had dealings with them. Nothing is 100%, but we at least have a group in place waiting to make a 2006 bid. Unless they change their minds.