Milwaukee Sports Market Overextended?

[Knave]

According to this article it is ...

Downtown soccer proposal has pros and cons (http://www.onmilwaukee.com/sports/articles/spobuzz072805.html) - Gregg Hoffmann

Recent studies have shown that sports entertainment might have reached the saturation point in Milwaukee.

Four years ago, a SportsBusiness Journal study concluded that Milwaukee could not support either a soccer or National Football League franchise.

Another more recent study by American City Business Journals included Milwaukee in its list of overextended sports markets. The study said Milwaukee needed an additional $30 billion in total personal income to supports its existing teams.
Do any of you folks (Peter?) have any insight into these studies? Are the conclusions of these studies well-founded? If they are then what's the plan for MLS success in an already saturated sports market?

[Minnman]

I believe that the SBJ study has been bandied about on BS quite a lot. I think that there were quite a few questions regarding its analytical approach to the issue. I mean, adding an NFL franchise or a MLS franchise isn't exactly the same thing.

No one is arguing that Milwaukee's another SLC: a fairly sizeable metropolitan locale that's ripe for the taking by MLS. There's a lot of competition in Milwaukee, most specifically by the Brewers. Which is why stadium location is so vital.

Perhaps someone more familiar with this study can respond. But, as I say, it's not really news around here.

[BulaJacket]

FTR, they were discussed in the expansion forum (and others like MLSN&A) when they came out, but it'd take a little work to find.

[BulaJacket]

http://www.bizjournals.com/specials/sports2004/story1.html
Here's one link...there's a bunch more out there...

More of the one I was looking for:
http://obc.infopop.cc/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/445605187/m/8096015471

[Peter Wilt]

According to this article it is ...

Downtown soccer proposal has pros and cons (http://www.onmilwaukee.com/sports/articles/spobuzz072805.html) - Gregg Hoffmann


Do any of you folks (Peter?) have any insight into these studies? Are the conclusions of these studies well-founded? If they are then what's the plan for MLS success in an already saturated sports market?

the missed point in the study is the relative saturation of the qualitative demographics....for example, is the market saturated for new Americans, soccer playing youth (and their moms) and young adults? Is it saturated for corporations looking to reach those groups with their advertising dollars. The Bucks, MU basketball, Packers and Admirals do not reach many of those three demographics. The Brewers would be a partial overlap for children and young adults. The Wave would be an overlap for the youth and moms, though in smaller numbers than Milw MLS would offer.

Viewed this way, the market is not saturated for those three key demographics, IMHO.

peter

[352gialloblu]

I'd be interested to hear what the conception of the "Milwaukee Sports Market" is, because I'd think, for an MLS team, you could attract quite a lot of interest from all over south-eastern WI, including Madison and maybe even some of northern Illinois (it'll be a lot easier to get to a Milwaukee stadium than Bridgeview from Lake County, for example). Most of these people won't go every game, but they'll go a few times a year.

[Pygmalion]

When we started out on the "Milwaukee in mix" thread http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=199795&page=4&pp=15
I looked up the study to take a look a its merits. Given the response below that I posted I was a little frustrated at that point.The ABJ study leaves a lot to be desired. We could lobby the mods to start a Paducah forum though if we need to...


On the American Business Journal angle:

In terms of MLS ready teams on that list (100 being the best), Madison WI gets a 100, Wausau WI gets a 95, LaCrosse WI gets a 45 and Milwaukee gets a zero. Fine, I've got relatives in Wausau, I'll drive and I hope Greenberg and his group get word and plant their stadium there.

Other cities more MLS ready than Milwaukee include: North Platte Neb., Aberdeen S.D., Hobbs N.M., Jonesboro Ark., Paducah Ky., Dothan Alabama, Casper Wyoming and Fargo.

Cities scoring 100 include: Anchorage, Elkhart Indiana, Des Moines and Davenport Iowa, Johnson City and Chattanooga Tennessee and Peoria Illinois.

Hell, ok, I'll drive to Peoria...

[Centennial]

I live in Denver and if we can have an MLS team then you guys certainly can.

1. Natural rivalry with one of the classiest teams in the league: Fire.
2. Downtown soccer stadium. (hopefully)

Denver has the NBA, NHL, NFL, MLB, Lacross, Arena Football. 2.5 million metro area.

I would love to see Milwaukee in the league. It will only add viability.

[Pygmalion]

More, perhaps, than you ever wanted to know about Milwaukee. Grab a beer first of course and sit down for a read.

Is it true what they say about Milwaukee?
http://www.jsonline.com/lifestyle/people/jul05/343875.asp

[Stan Collins]

The original article was a survey at 20,000ft. Basically all it does is examine the amount of cumulative personal income "it takes"*, on average, to support a team in each of five leagues, and then examines how much personal income is out there in given cities.

First, a couple points to be fair to the survey:
I mean, adding an NFL franchise or a MLS franchise isn't exactly the same thing. They're not saying it is. In fact, the Total Personal Income (TPI) to support an NFL team is deemed to be an order of magnitude greater than for MLS ($70 Billion versus $14 Billion).

In terms of MLS ready teams on that list (100 being the best), Madison WI gets a 100, Wausau WI gets a 95, LaCrosse WI gets a 45 and Milwaukee gets a zero. A score of greater than zero should not be interpreted to mean that a city could support a team. Basically, the score should be nearly 100, the level required for "full support", for the city to be considered a "good candidate" on income terms. For instance, the survey's authors did not conclude that Portland would be an attractive market for baseball, even though it scored a 78 for MLB. (They did conclude it was a good market for soccer.) From the methodology page: "A score of 100 indicates that a market's income base is strong enough to support a team in a specific league. A lesser figure is a sign of insufficient API."

The only cities that got zeros for MLS were cities who were deemed 'overextended.' Naturally, given the nature of the survey, these had to all be comparatively large markets that already have major league teams (just that they have too many of them).

However, as a result of their 20,000ft methodology, all kinds of overgeneralizations are built in. Here are some of them:

1 - The residents of some communities may just be bigger sports fans (as in, willing to spend more of their personal/family incomes on sports) than others.

2 - They only considered the 5 "major league sports". (Interestingly, considering MLS one of them.) While these may (you may disagree) be the most relevant competitors for an MLS club, they are definitely not the only ones. Major colleges, minor league teams, etc., and one-off events are not considered.

3 - Neither is non-sports economic activity. And the movies, a picnic in the park, a night on the town, staying at home and watching TV, etc. must be competitive with a sports franchise at some level.

These two factors are responsible for some of the elevation you get for smaller markets, getting probably more credit than they deserve for having no current major league clubs.

4 - The Personal Income figures are averages, and they're based on where each league stands now income-wise--as in, more where MLS is than where it wants to get to. So the $14 Billion figure may be (probably is) low for MLS across the board, and (an even bigger deal) probably in reality varies wildly market-to-market, based on things like the availablility and quality of the venue (first and foremost, but also on lots of other things).

That and in something you could probably call a more methodological out-and-out error (rather than an overgeneralization), they use Total Personal Income, rather than a cumulative disposable income figure (you'd rather have a bit fewer residents but have some of them be richer).

What you're left with after taking these types of things into account is a broad picture of the economic 'juiciness' of a city. Milwaukee will not bowl you over with it's economy, as would Philadelphia, Orlando, Houston, and Portland, the four highest scorers in terms of "additional personal income for new sports teams" on the survey that don't already have clubs.

And that's a factor to consider, but looking over that list, there are clearly other issues involved as well. (It's even clearer when you add the next four: Las Vegas, Greensboro-Winston-Salem, Grand Rapids, and Detroit.)

Personal Income versus competition should be looked at as a reason for a touch of caution about Milwaukee, but it's likely to take a place somewhere behind the quality of the proposed venue, and the quality and long-term commitment of the ownership group.

I'd never assume the survey had much predictive value for attendance, but it could indicate a challenge to finding sponsorship, stadium naming rights, luxury suites, and the like. Maybe merchandise sales, I suppose.

{*- They do this by working backwards, looking at the teams that do relatively well or poorly from a revenue perspective, and see where each falls on the income/competition scale.}


By the way, if there's a forum where I can post it as an attachment, I have the whole spreadsheet, if anyone needs it.

[Stan Collins]

More, perhaps, than you ever wanted to know about Milwaukee. Grab a beer first of course and sit down for a read.

Is it true what they say about Milwaukee?
http://www.jsonline.com/lifestyle/people/jul05/343875.asp Here's a relevant fact to pull out of that article:

The Milwaukee area ranks third in the nation in watching sports on television. Live sporting events got us out the house, too. In Milwaukee, 47% of adults said they'd been to a professional sports event in the last 12 months, compared with 34% nationally.