[HeMan]

When i read the threads in the MLS expansion forum, it's often swarmed with why a city should not deserve a team...well, tell me only the positives about each potential candidate. Absolutely, no criticizing other cities, but simply the facts you want to include about YOUR pick.

Atlanta
1) the southeast is ignored, and MLS needs a footprint everywhere in the country
2) Going off #1, would pull in fans from all over the south due to the "solid south" mentality.
3) one of the fastest growing [international] cities in america
4) large fanbase (that is unknown to many) for proof look at how the Georgia Dome had over 50,000 fans for two games this summer with little advertising.
5) large hispanic population
6) top ten media market and metropolitan area
7) Fan Group already in place with the Brotherhood of Southern Soccer
8) Rich Owner, Arthur Blank, interested
9) Although not the most impressive stadium, Atlanta has shown that it can build it's own SSS.
10) Soccer continues to be probably the fastest growing sport in the region and is recognized as much as anywhere else in the US. having a MLS team will only strengthen this, and we'll see even more interest pick up. in other words, there's a lot of potential for growth.
11) Many good other attractions and also the busiest airport in the world makes it a good reason for potential players to come play their trade here.
12) pretty good soccer history in the NASL and the Silverbacks and Ruckus did alright in support due to being poorly managed and without a single advertisement.
13) Potential site for the World Cup.
14) One of the best soccer bars, brewhouse, in the country
15) one of the largest followings of Champions League soccer in the nation.

Carolina
1) because i'm from Carolina
2) for many of the reasons that Atlanta is mentioned about the southeast and BOSS
3) Clemson, North Carolina, Duke, South Carolina, and a few others have proven to be trademark soccer franchises in college. Not mentioning, the Battery in the USL. (Railhawks too, i guess haha)

[SilverSlimer]

I'll keep this simple. I'm from Montreal and this is why Montreal should be included in the MLS:

1) The stadium is already built.
2) The fanbase is already there, it's not a gamble.
3) The team is already very competitive, having won the championship of the USL three times in the past.
4) Local broadcasters are already covering the team.
5) Creating a rivalry with either Toronto, Vancouver, New England or New York will be automatic (Toronto, New England and New York due to proximity, Vancouver due to their elimination by the Impact in the finals).

[Killakakam]

Atlanta:

1. Only top ten most populous metropolitan area in US without a team (except Miami) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_o...tistical_Areas
2. Atlanta = "capital of the south"
3. Although previously stated, I'd like to provide the example of the Braves to prove that ATL would draw fans from all over the south. Almost everyone in the Carolinas, Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, etc are Braves fans. An MLS team would receive branding similar to that of the Braves as the "team of the south"
4. Also a top ten media market (one of just 3 without a team - also Miami and Detroit) http://www.mediainfocenter.org/compare/top50/#pop
5. I agree with all other reasons previously stated

[Mutiny RIP]

Originally Posted by SilverSlimer

I'll keep this simple. I'm from Montreal and this is why Montreal should be included in the MLS:

1) The stadium is already built.
2) The fanbase is already there, it's not a gamble.
3) The team is already very competitive, having won the championship of the USL three times in the past.
4) Local broadcasters are already covering the team.
5) Creating a rivalry with either Toronto, Vancouver, New England or New York will be automatic (Toronto, New England and New York due to proximity, Vancouver due to their elimination by the Impact in the finals).

Judging by Garber's state of the league address it sounds like Montreal will be the 19th team. The question remains who will be number 20. In my opinion the league needs to put a team in the Southeast, with Atlanta being the most logical choice.

[BacteriaEP]

I would agree. Montreal and Atlanta seem the two obvious cities to be next. But, Garber is desperately looking to get a second NYC team so.... who knows?

[DCU1996.]

9) Although not the most impressive stadium, Atlanta has shown that it can build it's own SSS.

Can you explain little bit more about this?

[babieca]

Originally Posted by Killakakam

Atlanta:
3. Although previously stated, I'd like to provide the example of the Braves to prove that ATL would draw fans from all over the south. Almost everyone in the Carolinas, Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, etc are Braves fans. An MLS team would receive branding similar to that of the Braves as the "team of the south"

How much of that popularity do you think was due to Braves games being carried nationally on TBS for so many years? Would MLS work as well without having access to the same huge tv market?

[Lucho305]

Originally Posted by BacteriaEP

I would agree. Montreal and Atlanta seem the two obvious cities to be next. But, Garber is desperately looking to get a second NYC team so.... who knows?

I agree... Why does garber want a second team in NYC? it just baffles me, this country is so big, it shouldn't have two teams in a city until the league has a good footprint in the country...

I say Montreal and Atlanta, although i wish Miami can have a team as well... maybe Miami and Atlanta, it would create an instant rival in the south, kind of like how Garber entered Vancouver and Portland to create instant rivals straight from day one!!

[drSoFlaFan]

Miami/Ft. Lauderdale:

- 7th largest market in the US(largest without MLS)
- Top 20 TV market in the US
- Consistently high ratings for MLS and international soccer(including English language USMNT broadcasts)
- Diverse, soccer-friendly demographics with influences from all of South America and the Caribbean.
- Overall decent support for our various pro teams over the years, only one of which could really be called a quality organization(Ft. Lauderdale Strikers).
- Great(ish) weather, attractive locale for potential big ticket players who may wish to join the league

[4door]

while it is not 'my' city...here goes.

New York CITY

1. The argument about the size of the country and 2 teams in one 'market' actually points to why you need two teams in the NY metro area. It has 20 MILLION people, it would be a mid sized country in Europe, it is 4-5 times bigger than the metro areas of the other biggest candidates. If you go by size of the country (population not geography) NY City needs a team. If geographical footprint is less important than population footprint, for instance a team in the Dakotas would help geographical footprint but would do nothing for population footprint thus proving that population is what matters for expansion not geography.

2. History. The history of the sport in this country is tied directly to NYC and some of the oldest teams in the country played and still play in the Cosmopolitan Soccer League. For a league and country desperate for history, a New York Cosmopolitans named giving ode to the NASL days and also an ode to the oldest league in the US would help give a sense of american soccer tradition.

3. The most diverse and international place in the entire world.

4. Possibly the most famous city in the world, would be a big interest for many international players.

5. NBA, NFL, NHL, MLB all understand that the NY-NJ metro area needs 2 teams, they all have at least 2. This has to do with the huge tv audience that 1 team can not support all of in any sport. MLS would be the only american sports league that thinks they can handle a 20M person market with 1 team located in NJ without a title and named after an energy drink.

6. Red Bull branding has totally turned off a large percentage of soccer fans who do not want their club associated with the marketing arm of a soft drink that they don't like.

7. A stadium east of Manhattan in Brooklyn or Queens would be more accessible for 10+ million people double even the largest candidate city markets and quadruple others. And located near public transit a much higher percentage of people could get to games, unlike other cities who may end up building stadiums outside of the city in suburbs that make it more difficult to get to depending on where in the metro area you live. The public transit of NYC (best in the country) could eliminate this issue we've seen at other SSS.

8. The largest media market in the US has ignored the current NJ team, has more potential than several candidate cities markets combined.

9. Rivalries and traveling supporters groups are the future of this league. Spreading teams out makes it more difficult for fan groups to travel. A more traditionally branded team with ties to NYC and an urban stadium near public transportation could have very similar success to TFC (another diverse population with a traditional branding and an urban stadium) but most importantly the RB Arena and future NYC stadium could both be accessible via public transit. A true 'subway series' could spark the interest of both casual sports fans and more importantly the media.


I actually like alot of markets, I am going to be glad to see Montreal get in, and would welcome Atlanta and Miami as well but I think people who are interested in seeing a team in their own city often are not happy with the idea of a 2nd NY area team and a 1st NYC team. But I think if we knew that MLS was going to let in lets say 24 clubs total where we knew Miami-Atlanta were in I think fans in those areas would start to look at the real facts and not their personal interest. The facts are that urban teams in diverse areas with urban stadiums near public transit do well. And we need TV numbers, and Red Bull can't carry a 20M market alone. Their branding along with location in NJ is going to turn off millions of potential fans that MLS needs. I won't say the other cities shouldn't get in, but I think NYC needs a club.