You really might be on to something there. Not too long ago, MLS was not a sure thing. Back then survival was the first order of business. They were primarily focused on building stadiums in suburban locations -- look at Dallas, Chicago, Colorado, Philly... that may have been good in the short-term, but as you mentioned, the inner city markets are still untapped. The SF Deltas and NASL Chicago may be proof of that. I could definitely see Boston being added to that list and who knows maybe the Metroplex could support another team besides FC Dallas in Frisco.
1 problem, it is expensive to build stadiums inside city limits. Other than that little detail, I agree 100%
I know Peter Wilt reads these board from time to time, so let me make this plea: You're too wedded to Soldier Field, Peter! Yes, putting a soccer pitch down at US Cellular wouldn't provide for the same kind of sightlines as SF, which is about as perfect of a soccer venue as there is in the country, but there are myriad other benefits including the quality and variety of concessions, the smaller capacity that will feel more full with 10-15K fans, the ample parking, and perhaps counter-intuitively, the better accessibility. Because the red line goes right up to the park and it's directly off the Dan Ryan, there really isn't anywhere in the Chicagoland area in which soccer demographics exist that wouldn't have a shorter trip to US Cellular Field than Soldier Field. SF is sneakily hard to get to given its "central" location. I have no inside information here, so maybe I'm totally off, but I have to imagine the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority which owns US Cellular and which has come under pressure from the Rauner administration to host events there when the Sox are out of town would be willing to cut a deal. I hate to think that the Chicago NASL folks are putting a Spring 2017 start date (or the club's very existence) in peril trying to fit a financial square peg in a round hole at Soldier Field when a viable deal exists at US Cellular which IMO might be a better venue period, not just a passable alternative.
It's really tough to break into the market for entertainment dollars in markets like New York, LA, Chicago, the Bay Area, Philly, DC, Dallas. It's not just soccer, it's not just sports, it's all the options in places like that. It's saturated. You look at where MLS is getting big attendances and deep cultural penetration and mindshare versus where it still looks like 2003 and the question isn't geographic or demographic or ownership or brand-based, it's simply "how much other stuff is there to do there?" I don't mean to come off like some elitist Chicagoan saying that, lots of those strong MLS markets are great cities, but that relationship just seems to jump off the page when I look at how soccer is developing in the US.
The only issue with U.S. Cellular (which I love, and prefer going to over Wrigley by a huge margin) is that a lot of yuppie Northsiders don't want to venture that far south, especially those who move to the area from other parts of the country. I have a lot of friends who moved to Chicago from the East Coast who refuse to go, and have never been, south of Roosevelt. Overall though, I definitely think it's a better option than Soldier Field.
Nor north of Lawrence or west of Pulaski I'm sure. I acknowledge the point, but I think that you only need to get someone down there once to realize how convenient and not terrifying it is, and honestly, you're doing a non-irrelevant amount of social good for the city getting yuppies to stop thinking that way.
I doubt a second division soccer team is going to be doing much to break that mentality. The reality is that you'd really be sacrificing large swaths of people that would otherwise be willing to give the team a chance. Maybe it is still worth it given other factors, but it is no small concession.
In the short term it might be worth using the stadium as a lose leader of sorts. Playing the first couple seasons at Soldier Field to get them in the door, then move to the better economic choice. Hopefully enough of them will follow that you can overcome the area's bad perception.
Fun fact, guess what's south of Roosevelt? Soldier Field. Just remembered that. I really really really don't think the "scary south side" factor is a meaningful distinction between SF and US Cellular in terms of their viability for a startup soccer team. Maybe the Chicago NASL team is holding reams of market research that indicates that isn't true, I dunno. They did ask on their survey which of the three venues (or "other") fans would prefer the team to play at. The fact that literally every single person (including me) did not select US Cellular should not be interpreted as an unwillingness of soccer fans to go there, IMO. I'd be surprised if 75% of people didn't say Wrigley, anyway.
I don't think I buy it. I understand what you're saying, but the two most successful clubs in American soccer play in the heart of two major cultural centers in Seattle and Portland. There can't be more entertainment options for the primary soccer consuming demographic (18-34) than there are in those two cities. Sports aren't just entertainment, though, even though in the simplest sense that's what they are. They give people of every background an outlet of civic pride that things like house shows and brewery tours don't, which is why I think it doesn't affect attendances in those places. I live in Philly, so most of where I'm at is from that perspective, but I imagine it's much the same in other cities. The Union are bigger with mainstream sports fans and suburban families than with the demographic that has made soccer so successful in some MLS cities. I just think there's such a major market waiting for a club to consume, and I think it's likely the same in some of the cities I mentioned. Do the Revs have a major following with the 18-34 demo in the heart of Boston? I don't think so. What about the Fire and that demo in the city of Chicago? I'm sure one of you can answer me that.
Yea, you're totally right, that's why I mentioned the endless amount of money thing. The thing is though, property values have been steadily increasing in urban areas since the onset of the 21st century, and the influx of young people to the city hasn't slowed down, and it won't probably until another generation with different sensibilities decides like the generations before us that they want to abandon the city. The more and more people that come into the city, not only do property values go up in the city center, but also in surrounding neighborhoods as poor young people look for urban space to inhabit. There will always be up and coming neighborhoods where property values will double in a given 5-10 year period, and those are the perfect places for any venture to invest. Instead of blowing up an entire block in the most desirable parts of a city, a team would be wise to develop a piece of land currently just on the margins of redeveloped areas of the city, one where young people are moving and boosting property values, but still doesn't have the absurd price tag of the neighborhood five or ten blocks away. This does two things; first, it puts a team right in the heart of a community where demand is high and supply is low, and two, gives a team the huge asset of appreciating land. I don't know a ton about San Francisco, but from what I understand, this is what the Giants did with AT&T Park. Now I don't know if that was the strategy or even who owns the stadium and has seen a major jump in their portfolio as that neighborhood, largely thanks to the baseball club, has become a very nice and expensive area, AND I understand that it's a totally different scale with a team with more than 40 years of establishment in the market, but it is the same idea. I'm sure there are tons of instances of this in American sports, but that's what resonates with me right now. Again, this is all heavily theoretical and would be a major risk for even the wealthiest of investors, and in a lot of potential areas ripe for this kind of endeavor there are ethical questions of gentrification, but from an economics and purely fan perspective, it's incredibly interesting to think about.
Sox have veto power and have previously used it to keep the Fire out even though Mayor Daley requested him to allow the team to play there. They would surely exercise that power....and yes, the sightlines would be poor for soccer.
The stadium was built with public money and is owned by a public entity...and a private corporation was given permanent veto power against any other tenants. America! But I digress. Keep fightin' Peter. As you know, there are tons of us rooting for you guys to pull this off.
For what it's worth, I will buy season tix and use my Southwest points to fly from North Carolina to Chicago Midway. Let's go STING!
When is the owners' meeting? Things have been pretty quiet on this front. I hope that the Spring 2017 start is still viable.
Owners meetings just wrapped up Tuesday. Should have an update in a bout a week. Like a swimming duck, we're quiet on the surface and paddling like crazy beneath....or something like that.
3 great guests on this week's @ITSoccerPodcast: @IMSoccerNews, @PeterWilt1, and @JonLivesOn of @RailHawksFC with his revealing life story.— Inverted Triangle (@ITSoccerPodcast) June 9, 2016
yikes...after watching Copa America at Soldier Field...place looks disgustingly huge, even with tarps - not a good place for Chicago NASL IMO. agree 100% Timbers/Sounders are integrated into the local culture, especially in Portland. Not only that but PDX has a 15k waiting list....15k!!!!!! If NASL would want to make some "noise"...head to Cascadia. Portland is a TIMBERS town, but a second team in NASL would actually do decent IMO - especially if it was ran like a counter culture type club - still plenty of hipsters in Portland for that to be at least semi-successful.