MLS = World Cup

[Viking64]

FIFA ultimately decides where the World Cup games are played, by approving the stadiums. Houston and Seattle think that because they built these great stadiums, that makes them eligible for "the big games."

Why has the president of USSoccer not told these guys that "if you are thinking you will lure a World Cup game or major qualifier to your stadium without having an MLS team in your market...think again."

Sure, FIFA won't put WC games in small stadia when the WC comes back to the US. But it's not hard to see the rationale of a press release that says "as might be expected, FIFA announced the venues of the WC matches for 20XX, and they feature already established MLS markets. Stepp Bladder comments that 'we put the first WC there to bring a rebirth. We will go to the MLS markets to mark their rite of passage to a remarkable professional league.'"

[superdave]

Originally posted by Viking64
Why has the president of USSoccer not told these guys that "if you are thinking you will lure a World Cup game or major qualifier to your stadium without having an MLS team in your market...think again."
Cuz it's an empty threat. Compared to the commitment and potential losses from an MLS investment, a WC game is insufficient inducement.

[AndyMead]

Baring a late step in (like this fall's WWC), the US won't likely see a FIFA World Cup until 2018 or 2022. We'll get another Olympics, first.

I can't imagine any current stadium or franchise owners that are considering 5 or 6 games of revenue 15-20 years from now...

[Jambon]

I imagine he's also referring to qualifiers, friendlies, WNT games, etc.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Viking64
FIFA ultimately decides where the World Cup games are played, by approving the stadiums. Houston and Seattle think that because they built these great stadiums, that makes them eligible for "the big games."

Why has the president of USSoccer not told these guys that "if you are thinking you will lure a World Cup game or major qualifier to your stadium without having an MLS team in your market...think again.'"

I'm not sure FIFA -- or anyone else in their right mind -- is looking that far ahead.

[AndyMead]

Originally posted by Jambon
I imagine he's also referring to qualifiers, friendlies, WNT games, etc.

I'm guessing not. FIFA doesn't schedule friendlies, qualifiers, WNT games. I don't know about the etcetera part. And just to jump ahead, MLS doesn't schedule any of these things, either.

[owendylan]

Originally posted by Viking64
FIFA ultimately decides where the World Cup games are played, by approving the stadiums. Houston and Seattle think that because they built these great stadiums, that makes them eligible for "the big games."

Why has the president of USSoccer not told these guys that "if you are thinking you will lure a World Cup game or major qualifier to your stadium without having an MLS team in your market...think again."

Sure, FIFA won't put WC games in small stadia when the WC comes back to the US. But it's not hard to see the rationale of a press release that says "as might be expected, FIFA announced the venues of the WC matches for 20XX, and they feature already established MLS markets. Stepp Bladder comments that 'we put the first WC there to bring a rebirth. We will go to the MLS markets to mark their rite of passage to a remarkable professional league.'"

Because the head of USSF needs to make money for the USSF in order to fund their programs. While I don't disagree with the notion that a healthy MLS is good for the Men's National Team, the USSF is more than the mens, womens or youth National teams. It is not the USSF's job to help prop up MLS financially, nor is it MLS to prop up the USSF. It maynot be in the USSF's best interest for MLS to fold or not expand but it's not their job either.

We proved in '94 the people in this country will come out for an event and fill large stadiums and make lots of money. If we do get the Men's WC again I see the same thin happening. Big, filled venues making FIFA and the USSF lots of money. Remember it takes a lot of money just to put on the Cup and that money comes out of the USSF's coffers, whether through sponsorship deal they arrange or in direct payments.

[Viking64]

One, yes I did mean more than simply WC games. I do mean important qualifiers that would make good money for the stadium owner. There is also Gold Cup finals.

Two, USSF and MLS are symbiotic at this point.

More owners equals more MLS teams
more teams equal more players
more players equal more youth players
more players equals better national teams
better national teams mean more money for youth
and bigger offices for the bureaucrats

MLS is being held back from expanding by a lack of ownership in Philly, Houston, Seattle, and really TB, where stadiums exist that could house teams, if the owner would fork over the pocket change for a team.

And considering the symbiotic relationship that has developed in this country, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that USSF apply pressure to potential owners to buy an MLS franchise, to better utilize an asset they already own. We know from experience that new stadiums get MLS Cups, All-Star games. Other games were offered to certain cities that are not public record to entice them to build.

Why stop at offering plum games to cities to build stadiums? Let's go after entire ownership groups.

[AndyMead]

Originally posted by Viking64
There is also Gold Cup finals.
Which is scheduled by CONCACAF, not FIFA, not USSF, and not MLS. As a side note, the games being played in Mexico City DF were originally scheduled for RFK, but given the political climate at the time the announcement was being made (the US on the verge of war), the games were moved to a safer locale.

Two, USSF and MLS are symbiotic at this point.
Not true. There is a strong relationship, and MLS I/O's tend to make the most competitive bids for USSF events, but I wouldn't characterize it as symbiotic. It has been heading that way, but the relationship will definitely ebb and flow, considering the markedly different objectives, and competition for like resources (fans, players, advertisers).

More owners equals more MLS teams
more teams equal more players
more players equal more youth players
more players equals better national teams
better national teams mean more money for youth
and bigger offices for the bureaucrats
While this is true, it is true on a macroeconomic scale, and decisions are based on microeconomic, or "what's in it for me right now" basis.

MLS is being held back from expanding by a lack of ownership in Philly, Houston, Seattle, and really TB, where stadiums exist that could house teams, if the owner would fork over the pocket change for a team.
This is partly true. MLS has no desire to expand into only NFL stadiums. The first three above would get teams quickly if the the existing NFL owners decided to buy in. Otherwise the markets are in the same boat as everyone else - meaning, no stadium = no team. Tampa is a special case. Glazer had his chance and he passed. I don't see a new group getting an opportunity in TB for a long time. A long time is not the same as never, however.

And considering the symbiotic relationship that has developed in this country, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that USSF apply pressure to potential owners to buy an MLS franchise, to better utilize an asset they already own.
This is where you have it backwards. MLS pressures potential investors to bid on USSF events, and offers their support (not competing in bidding) as a carrot. The USSF could care less whether a stadium owner has an MLS franchise or not. It just doesn't matter. What matters is the guaranteed revenue from events staged.

We know from experience that new stadiums get MLS Cups, All-Star games. Other games were offered to certain cities that are not public record to entice them to build.
But see, those are games that are MLS's to offer.

There is a close relationship, but it's based on overlapping business needs of the two organizations, not any particular desire of one organization to help the other out.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by AndyMead
This is where you have it backwards. MLS pressures potential investors to bid on USSF events, and offers their support (not competing in bidding) as a carrot. The USSF could care less whether a stadium owner has an MLS franchise or not. It just doesn't matter. What matters is the guaranteed revenue from events staged.


Agreed in principal, although I'm sure USSF would rather help an MLS city/team if they can.

BUT, there is a rather large exception to this divide: AEG. Let's be fair, Phil and co. have more than their fair share of influence over MLS. This in turn probably leads to some amount of undue influence over the USSF.

I think this is very possible in regards to the WWC, and the USSF taking a gamble on hosting the tournament. Not that this necessarily happened, but AEG very easily could have said, "This is a very good deal for us, if not for you, and so we want you to do it."

Given how much AEG props up MLS, and the whole structure with their TV rights ownership, stadium building and the rest, the USSF would be foolish not to cave* to their demands.

* = I use "cave" here loosely because I would argue that what is good for AEG and MLS right now is very good for the USSF in the long run.

[Viking64]

Originally posted by AndyMead
This is where you have it backwards. MLS pressures potential investors to bid on USSF events, and offers their support (not competing in bidding) as a carrot. The USSF could care less whether a stadium owner has an MLS franchise or not. It just doesn't matter. What matters is the guaranteed revenue from events staged.

But see, those are games that are MLS's to offer.

There is a close relationship, but it's based on overlapping business needs of the two organizations, not any particular desire of one organization to help the other out.

I am not sure it's worth driving into the ground... but I think you underestimate the incestuous nature of the "soccer family."

And no, I don't have them backwards because I was told what was offered to whom, and when. Does the "Lamar Hunt US Open Cup?" not demonstration how it's just one big happy family?

And I do think I'm being very specific about the microlevel enterprise. MLS wants a team in Houston, that has a stadium very fit for WC qualifiers. The operator of the Stadium could buy and operate an MLS team on what he pays his gardner. But he doesn't want the trouble of an MLS team when he can host international friendlies that sell better and then when the bidding comes for WC venues, he's ready and waiting. Meanwhile, the operator of the stadium has not done one ounce of good for MLS. MLS is the reason we got a world cup at all, and is the reason we are now playing the way we are. I resent cherry pickers that feed at the trough without having grown the food that goes in it.