Garber's SOTL Address: Atlanta Implications

[BigKahuna]

In Garber's State of the League address, he did briefly talk about expansion plans between now and 2010.

Garber also provided an update on the league's plans to expand to 16 teams by the 2010 season. Toronto will join next year and is expected to be followed by one more new club in 2008 and two in 2010.

The league has an option agreement with the owners of Major League Baseball's Oakland A's to bring MLS back to the Bay Area by 2010, and Garber said he believes a team will be in the Philadelphia market within a couple of years. Garber also mentioned Cleveland, St. Louis, Las Vegas, Milwaukee, San Diego, Atlanta and Miami as potential sites of further expansion.

Here's my take; I'm pretty sure the Quakes will return and Philly is pretty much a lock for a team. I still believe Kansas City has a good chance of re-locating and I hope they move to St. Louis. Ohio already has the Crew and I hope the Cleveland thing falls flat. Southern Cal already has 2 teams...please don't tell me they will get a third. Miami had their chance with the Fusion...please don't give them two teams before other markets get 1. I'd say Milwaukee, Atlanta, and Seattle will be fighting for team #16. What do you guys think?

[jade1mls]

Southern California should get a 3rd club before Atlanta gets one. It's simple demographics.

Look at the support for both of Southern California's clubs.

San Diego would open up derby potential and rivalries with Chivas and Galaxy.

[Michael CM1]

Southern California should get a 3rd club before Atlanta gets one. It's simple demographics.

Look at the support for both of Southern California's clubs.

San Diego would open up derby potential and rivalries with Chivas and Galaxy.

Please do look at their support. The Galaxy's has dropped since Chivas entered the league. Chivas can't sell out a non-derby game without a gimmick (i.e. a doubleheader). That's called cannibalism. Nobody needs two teams until they have a Green Bay Packers-style waiting list for tickets. Move the Galaxy or Chivas to San Diego if you like. But saturating a market while there are huge swaths without a team is just dumb.

[Eleven Bravo]

Southern California should get a 3rd club before Atlanta gets one. It's simple demographics.

Look at the support for both of Southern California's clubs.

San Diego would open up derby potential and rivalries with Chivas and Galaxy.

hell, why don't we just rename MLS. call it the CCTNL for California/Texas/Canadian/Northern League. you want local rivalries than have that in College/PDL leagues as of now.

i mean nevermind the Northwest, the South, and Florida. it's only 60 million people.

rivalries and derbies should be 2nd priority to having a team in every major region of the country. for two main reasons 1) merchandising is not going to get any better by expanding to those cities 2) the legitimacy of the league as an American league. When 60 million Americans can honestly say they don't have an MLS team, they're right.

unfortunately, Garber would rather bring MLS to Canada before three major regions (yes, i consider Florida it's own region because it has zero southern culture except maybe in the northern most parts) in the United States. I bet if England wanted to have a team in MLS, Garber wouldn't have any complaints.

they could be the Real Liverpool United FC because we don't want to sound American by calling it soccer Almighty Superstars of Europe AD 116.

[Kung Fu Hamster]

hell, why don't we just rename MLS. call it the CCTNL for California/Texas/Canadian/Northern League. you want local rivalries than have that in College/PDL leagues as of now.

i mean nevermind the Northwest, the South, and Florida. it's only 60 million people.
...
When 60 million Americans can honestly say they don't have an MLS team, they're right.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states) lists the United States population at 299 million people, so assuming your 60 million figure above is correct, then roughly 80% of the United States is currently covered by Major League Soccer. With these numbers I see no geographical reason why Canada isn't a logical expansion site, not to mention (A) Toronto is the most populous city in Canada with about 2.5 million residents; (B) they've got their crap together already, having been awarded the expansion team; and (C) Toronto is actually south of Minneapolis-St. Paul. We're not talking expansion into Alaska here.

rivalries and derbies should be 2nd priority to having a team in every major region of the country. for two main reasons 1) merchandising is not going to get any better by expanding to those cities

I'm having a hard time finding numbers (can anyone help me out?) but I know Chivas is pretty successful financially. The fact is, the LA market is strong enough to support two teams. Not only that, but the facts that the "derby" city is LA and that the expansion team is Chivas--one of the most popular Mexican clubs in a strong Mexican market--promise an ideal merchandising situation. Love Chivas? Buy a Chivas jersey. Hate Chivas? Buy a Galaxy jersey.

2) the legitimacy of the league as an American league.

Any doubts about the "legitimacy" of MLS as an American league were dispelled by Dwayne De Rosario's performance this past weekend vs. Chelsea. To paraphrase his comments after the game, DeRo mentioned how proud he was of his and the team's performance as they represent MLS (of course), Canada (of course), and the USA. (Naturally I can't find a quote.) Regardless, the winning goal-scorer was acutely aware that he was representing the USA (and so were the All-Star Game fans we could hear on tv chanting "USA! USA!" in the background).

unfortunately, Garber would rather bring MLS to Canada before three major regions (yes, i consider Florida it's own region because it has zero southern culture except maybe in the northern most parts) in the United States.

Again, Toronto is south of Minneapolis. Also, Florida had TWO MLS teams; it didn't work out, but it's totally disingenuous to claim that MLS has ignored the region.

I bet if England wanted to have a team in MLS, Garber wouldn't have any complaints. they could be the Real Liverpool United FC because we don't want to sound American by calling it soccer Almighty Superstars of Europe AD 116.

This is oversimplified hyperbole. Again, MLS has no plans to expand further north nor south than the contiguous U.S. borders.

[jade1mls]

hell, why don't we just rename MLS. call it the CCTNL for California/Texas/Canadian/Northern League. you want local rivalries than have that in College/PDL leagues as of now.

i mean nevermind the Northwest, the South, and Florida. it's only 60 million people.

rivalries and derbies should be 2nd priority to having a team in every major region of the country. for two main reasons 1) merchandising is not going to get any better by expanding to those cities 2) the legitimacy of the league as an American league. When 60 million Americans can honestly say they don't have an MLS team, they're right.


According to you they should put clubs in EVERY MAJOR CITY.... Well if we assume a major city is one of a million people or more then they have that ccovered pretty much:

Rank City Population Population Density Metropolitan Area Region
1 New York City, New York 8,143,197 26,402.9 18.7 1 Northeast
2 Los Angeles, California 3,844,829 7,876.8 12.9 2 West
3 Chicago, Illinois 2,842,518 12,750.3 9.4 3 Midwest
4 Houston, Texas 2,016,582 3,371.7 5.2 7 South
5 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1,463,281 11,233.6 5.8 4 Northeast
6 Phoenix, Arizona 1,461,575 2,782.0 3.7 14 West
7 San Antonio, Texas 1,256,509 2,808.5 1.8 29 South
8 San Diego, California 1,255,540 3,771.9 2.9 17 West
9 Dallas, Texas 1,213,825 3,469.9 5.7 5 South
10 San Jose, California 912,332 5,117.9 1.7 30 West

Phoenix is not represented, San Jose will be back, San Antonio may get the Club America "chivas option", and Philly will probably enter the league in 2008 or maybe as soon as next year if Kansas City moves. Looks like it's sorted to me.

If you look at where people live the league as done pretty welll, add Atlanta and Seattle and you have a pretty national league.
http://homepage.mac.com/dcunited4life/783px-US_population_map.png
http://homepage.mac.com/dcunited4life/800px-New_2000_hispanic_percent.gif

If you mean every thing you might call a city then that would be stupid and NASL like. Why put clubs in cities who don't give a damn about soccer?

I mean look at Kansas City. That's the future YOU want? Put a club in every region of the country regardless of whether it's successful? How about you become a billionaire and experiment with that hmmm?

Until the sport grows and all 16 clubs are filling a majority of their soccer specific stadiums I don't forsee expanding into iffy places like Kansas City or Columbus again.

You gotta go where the people are and where the soccer loving people are especially. Seattle would be at the top of the list if MLS is able to convert people who follow european and mexican clubs. Philly is a slam dunk as it has a heavy soccer culture, numerous pubs with matches on and much of the talent comes from the philadelphia area. I am still kind of skeptical about Atlanta. If they have a front office that is great and a couple good supporter's groups then Atlanta could do well. If they go the Silverbacks route, then welcome to Tampa Bay Mutiny 2008 style.



unfortunately, Garber would rather bring MLS to Canada before three major regions (yes, i consider Florida it's own region because it has zero southern culture except maybe in the northern most parts) in the United States.


Define "southern culture" please.

I bet if England wanted to have a team in MLS, Garber wouldn't have any complaints.


Why should he? So long as they played over here the FA would have no problem with it. Doesn't make much sense though. MLS buying a cheap english club would actually make more sense.

[GTMerciless]

add Atlanta and Seattle and you have a pretty national league.

I agree totally and doing this would make MLS much more...well...accessible. As it stands MLS is no more my league than the EPL is. And the team wouldnt have to be in Atlanta, anywhere in the SE would work fine with me. I imagine people in portland and seattle would feel the same way regardless of which city got a team.


You gotta go where the people are and where the soccer loving people are especially. Seattle would be at the top of the list if MLS is able to convert people who follow european and mexican clubs. Philly is a slam dunk as it has a heavy soccer culture, numerous pubs with matches on and much of the talent comes from the philadelphia area. I am still kind of skeptical about Atlanta. If they have a front office that is great and a couple good supporter's groups then Atlanta could do well. If they go the Silverbacks route, then welcome to Tampa Bay Mutiny 2008 style.


What exactly is so bad about the Silverbacks?


Define "southern culture" please.

Florida is not "the South" plain and simple. Its fairly common to hear the phrase "Florida, the only way to go south and end up in the North" The culture in Florida is as different from the South as Cali, or New England.

[MPoole]

Ok guys, here is my conspiracy theory...

If you look at current expansion the MLS keeps mentioning Miami, Atlanta, and Seattle but never really doing anything about it. And I too was confused by the fact that the MLS is avoiding the Northwest and Southeast. Then it dawned on me... Atlanta, Portland, Miami, Charleston, Seattle... all part of the USL, and all planning to build soccer specific stadiums in their respective cities. So 2010 rolls around and the MLS has added Toronto, Philidelphia, St. Louis, and one more. Then they have their league max, and they adopt the USL as a second division bringing some of the USL 2nd division into the 1st to make it 16 teams. Then you have Seattle, Atlanta, Miami, Portland, Vancouver, Charleston, Richmond, Charlotte, and even Jamaica capable of being promoted into the MLS.

It's just a crazy idea right now, but when it happens in 2010 I will say "I told you so."

[Kung Fu Hamster]

Ok guys, here is my conspiracy theory...

If you look at current expansion the MLS keeps mentioning Miami, Atlanta, and Seattle but never really doing anything about it. And I too was confused by the fact that the MLS is avoiding the Northwest and Southeast. Then it dawned on me... Atlanta, Portland, Miami, Charleston, Seattle... all part of the USL, and all planning to build soccer specific stadiums in their respective cities. So 2010 rolls around and the MLS has added Toronto, Philidelphia, St. Louis, and one more. Then they have their league max, and they adopt the USL as a second division bringing some of the USL 2nd division into the 1st to make it 16 teams. Then you have Seattle, Atlanta, Miami, Portland, Vancouver, Charleston, Richmond, Charlotte, and even Jamaica capable of being promoted into the MLS.

It's just a crazy idea right now, but when it happens in 2010 I will say "I told you so."

That plan is a lot less crazy than some things being tossed around.

My only amendment would be to say that rather than a "conspiracy theory" to officially add USL participation to MLS, could it simply be that MLS is avoiding stepping on USL's toes? It makes sense to me that if USL is developing certain locations for their teams that MLS, having shared interest in some USL areas (Pacific NW, So. Florida, etc.) along with exclusive interest in others (St. Louis, Cleveland, Philadelphia) that MLS would avoid competition, such as it is, with the USL cities and instead focus on the "exclusively MLS" locales.

[BigKahuna]

Take a look at this map and the locations of the current MLS teams:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v420/BigKahuna/CurrentTeams.jpg

Look at that!!! You could draw a line from Boston to LA and nearly every team in the league falls rights on it. I don't know about anybody else but my eye is drawn to the southeast which appears to be a vacuum of MLS franchises. Yes, the geographic aspect isn't the most important....you have to go where the fans are, but for some reason, there is still this myth that the deep south will reject soccer yet on the rare occasions when the USNT played down here, the whole country was surprised to see the fantastic crowds and support. When will they learn? Southerners will support MLS down here and Atlanta is the undisputed capital of the New South. A team down here, if done correctly could attract the support of all southern soccer fans from Jackson, MS to Charlotte, NC...much like the Braves.

Now lets add Toronto, SJ, and Philly as it is clear that these market will be getting teams eventually.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v420/BigKahuna/SureExpansion.jpg

God, my Line Theory still applies. There is just no MLS presence in all the southeast or the Pacific NW. Given this fact, could you imagine them shoving ANOTHER team into Ohio? Or a team in Milwaukee when they have Chicago just a few hours away? I really hope MLS doesn't botch this one. Add a team in Atlanta. Add a team in Seattle. We might not be one of the firt 16 teams, but eventually we need a team here.

And I will not support a team in Florida. That state has nothing in common with the south...they've had two chances to support a team and I don't think they should get another one before MLS has even tested the waters in the south.

[BigKahuna]

Ok guys, here is my conspiracy theory...

If you look at current expansion the MLS keeps mentioning Miami, Atlanta, and Seattle but never really doing anything about it. And I too was confused by the fact that the MLS is avoiding the Northwest and Southeast. Then it dawned on me... Atlanta, Portland, Miami, Charleston, Seattle... all part of the USL, and all planning to build soccer specific stadiums in their respective cities. So 2010 rolls around and the MLS has added Toronto, Philidelphia, St. Louis, and one more. Then they have their league max, and they adopt the USL as a second division bringing some of the USL 2nd division into the 1st to make it 16 teams. Then you have Seattle, Atlanta, Miami, Portland, Vancouver, Charleston, Richmond, Charlotte, and even Jamaica capable of being promoted into the MLS.

It's just a crazy idea right now, but when it happens in 2010 I will say "I told you so."

There are some issues with your idea. It would be nice but...what about the expansion fees? Will the USL team have to pay the same amount that Toronto is paying? Believe me, the teams that have already ponied up the dough aren't going to stand to see teams let in for free when they had to shell out millions and the USL team aren't going to be able to afford the expansion fees to get in if they are charged. Also, would the USL owners even want to be in MLS? They are gauranteed losses in the millions for the first few years, they have to pay out $2 million in salary alone and that doesn't even include travel expenses, marketing, stadium upgrades. The Silverbacks owners are rich but not that rich nor that stupid. The business aspect is what will govern their decisions and it just wouldn't be feasible for 90% of the teams.

[Eleven Bravo]

Take a look at this map and the locations of the current MLS teams:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v420/BigKahuna/CurrentTeams.jpg

Look at that!!! You could draw a line from Boston to LA and nearly every team in the league falls rights on it. I don't know about anybody else but my eye is drawn to the southeast which appears to be a vacuum of MLS franchises. Yes, the geographic aspect isn't the most important....you have to go where the fans are, but for some reason, there is still this myth that the deep south will reject soccer yet on the rare occasions when the USNT played down here, the whole country was surprised to see the fantastic crowds and support. When will they learn? Southerners will support MLS down here and Atlanta is the undisputed capital of the New South. A team down here, if done correctly could attract the support of all southern soccer fans from Jackson, MS to Charlotte, NC...much like the Braves.

Now lets add Toronto, SJ, and Philly as it is clear that these market will be getting teams eventually.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v420/BigKahuna/SureExpansion.jpg

God, my Line Theory still applies. There is just no MLS presence in all the southeast or the Pacific NW. Given this fact, could you imagine them shoving ANOTHER team into Ohio? Or a team in Milwaukee when they have Chicago just a few hours away? I really hope MLS doesn't botch this one. Add a team in Atlanta. Add a team in Seattle. We might not be one of the firt 16 teams, but eventually we need a team here.

And I will not support a team in Florida. That state has nothing in common with the south...they've had two chances to support a team and I don't think they should get another one before MLS has even tested the waters in the south.

Looking at that chart is almost amusing how much the south is really ignored. it looks like they were drawing a line and avoiding the south like it was the plague. seriously, it's like a damn horse shoe right around the whole entire south. i don't care what anyone says that just out and out stupidity(or discrimination).

i could understand if soccer wasn't played in the south. But don't give me that sh!t that soccer is lightyears ahead in California, Ohio, Texas, etc... than in the south. it's a f_cking lie. Excluding the hispanics in California and i guarantee you that soccer is about equal to the south. The difference is the south has NOBODY to feel any kind of loyalty towads. The most soccer bashing i ever received happened when i was in the Army from people who lived in California, Texas, Ohio, etc... When i go visit my cousins who live in San Diego, i don't see a huge change in soccer culture where they are the extreme fans like you hear about in Europe and we're still throwing the old pigskin around.

I swear i hate conspiracies, but damn it's hard not to think that this goes back to the discrimination of the south being full of nothing but a bunch of inbred, obese, racist, ignorant people on the planet. funny how if you mention any racial slur it's the worst thing that ever happened, but you can say "redneck" all you want.

And don't give me that sh!t that we're suppose to pull for Florida. Anybody with a f_cking brain knows that no true southerner would EVER pull for a team in Miami or Tampa Bay (add Orlando too if they're talking about expansion). I'd root my ass off for a team in NC, SC, TN, southern VA, northern FL, MS, AL, and any where else in GA though. the ignorance of that is telling someone who lives in Seattle to pull for Los Angeles because it's on the west coast or hey you're from Nigeria so you should have pulled for Tunisia in the World Cup because they're from Africa. Honestly, you think Atlanta is oversaturated and not suited for MLS?...fine but put a team in Birmingham, Nashville, Cary, etc.. i at least can say, "well, i'm at least going to pull for the southern team." just as most of the true southerners from Georgia tend to pull for Clemson or some other college in the south just because they're southern.

[BigKahuna]

There definately appears to be some discrimination but its not racial. I really just think that the yankees that run the league have this misconception that soccer won't work here unless it is the hispanics that support it. Its complete nonsense. The only reason I can think of for the horrible lapse in judgement is their belief that football is king and we can' compeat with it. Well, thats funny considering football is a winter sport.

I just wish they would seperate themselves from this no-southern-soccer paradigm and really look at the participation and support for the game at the youth and professional level down here. Its really too bad that the GA Dome was constructed, because had they built a grass stadium, maybe we might have seen a few friendlies in Atlanta and everyone would realize what we already know....that Atlanta is a soccer hotbed and is just waiting for the right opportunity.

[Michael CM1]

That plan is a lot less crazy than some things being tossed around.

My only amendment would be to say that rather than a "conspiracy theory" to officially add USL participation to MLS, could it simply be that MLS is avoiding stepping on USL's toes? It makes sense to me that if USL is developing certain locations for their teams that MLS, having shared interest in some USL areas (Pacific NW, So. Florida, etc.) along with exclusive interest in others (St. Louis, Cleveland, Philadelphia) that MLS would avoid competition, such as it is, with the USL cities and instead focus on the "exclusively MLS" locales.

If MLS is trying to not step on the USL's toes (which I doubt), I doubt they would've created Toronto FC.

The pro/rel conspiracy theory is a good one. I doubt it would be as soon as 2010 though. I also think it would be a gradual process. There would be some sort of stadium and/or financial requirement for promotion to the MLS top division. I don't know what the deal would be with the expansion fees.

[Kung Fu Hamster]

If MLS is trying to not step on the USL's toes (which I doubt), I doubt they would've created Toronto FC.

Oops, you're right, I totally missed that.

[dl]

There definately appears to be some discrimination but its not racial. I really just think that the yankees that run the league have this misconception that soccer won't work here unless it is the hispanics that support it. Its complete nonsense. The only reason I can think of for the horrible lapse in judgement is their belief that football is king and we can' compeat with it. Well, thats funny considering football is a winter sport.

I just wish they would seperate themselves from this no-southern-soccer paradigm and really look at the participation and support for the game at the youth and professional level down here. Its really too bad that the GA Dome was constructed, because had they built a grass stadium, maybe we might have seen a few friendlies in Atlanta and everyone would realize what we already know....that Atlanta is a soccer hotbed and is just waiting for the right opportunity.

This is just about the most ridiculous post that I have ever seen. I grew up in the south and consider myself a southerner, but to say that the league is ignoring the south because it's being run by a bunch of yankees is just plain stupid. Two of the principal investors in the league are Hunt (from Dallas) and Anschutz (from Colo.). Have you ever heard one quote from the league office or one of the owners that even intimated that they do not want a team in the SE?
The league clearly would love to have teams in all of the large markets - but they aren't going to put teams in locations that do not have a committed ownership group and a stadium plan (I doubt they'd go through the SLC thing again - I think they actually want something in place - like in Toronto - before they'll award a franchise). They are learning from past mistakes (no ownership group in Tampa and a less-than-committed owner in Miami). If a group were ready with money and a stadium plan in Seattle, Portland, Atlanta, Charlotte, Birmingham, or Jackson, or Charleston, Mobile, or wherever I'm sure that the league would be listening. People with money (Potential owners) don't spend large sums of cash without doing a little research to findout the plausibility of their investment working.
Don't mistake a desire to have a team somewhere (they do desire teams in the NW, SE and Philly) and the ability to put one there. Call your local billionaire and get them interested in the league. Then maybe you'll have a team (if the potential owner determines that it could be successful).

[Eleven Bravo]

one thing that makes me still optimistic is that the expansion to Atlanta was on the front page of the Atlanta Business Chronicle this past weekend.

[BigKahuna]

This is just about the most ridiculous post that I have ever seen.

You must be new to the forums then...welcome.

I know the league is looking for owners and would like a team in the SE, but why aren't they more actively persuing it? I don't claim to know everything MLS is up to but I get the impression that if they really wanted to expand into this market, they would make a little ore noise about it than they have...tey would try harder to drum up interest. Why aren't they? You can't possibly tell me that the league doesn't solicite potential owners. I just think they should be trying harder to break into the market.

[BigKahuna]

one thing that makes me still optimistic is that the expansion to Atlanta was on the front page of the Atlanta Business Chronicle this past weekend.
Yeah, that seems serious...I'm still trying to learn more about that group.

[Eleven Bravo]

Yeah, that seems serious...I'm still trying to learn more about that group.

the thing about that article is that it seemed the only thing they are waiting on is a place to put a stadium. hell, and if one of the owners owns a real estate company than i'd be SHOCKED if they couldn't come up with the land. honestly, i would put more stock into that article which is simply just suggesting that they are thinking about bringing a team than Garber's state of the league address. I just think Garber uses that as bait to keep fans interested. Notice how SLC, LA#2, and Houston just kind of popped out of no where.

I don't care what anyone says if Atlanta can average 15,000 at major league hockey game they can easily get 15,000 at a major league soccer game. unless they just don't advertise it at all. And please, don't throw that crap about USL. a second tier team is not going to make it in a major league city.

Also, if that was any kind of indication of how successful a team would be in MLS than where are Philadelphia, San Diego, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Saint Louis at in the USL? hmmm...? at least we have a team. i don't buy this crap that they're some soccer starved city while we've never even heard of the sport.