The USA is playing Ecuador, middle of the field seats in a smaller stadium run $100-400. The Mexican National Team is playing this same window in San Diego, in a larger stadium, with middle of the field viewing seats running $60-$110. As we all know, SUM handles the marketing for both of these games. Why is the ticket price and attendance strategy for Mexico to maximize ticket sales and attendance and the strategy (being kind) for the USMNT is to maximize per ticket costs?
Demographics. I assume the largest segment of USMNT fans are shown to have money, but is not large. So, lowering prices won't mean that they necessarily get a larger turnout. Reverse is true for the Mexican National Team. Of course, this is pure speculation on my part. I just went to the US vs Costa Rica game in San Jose. I probably paid twice as much as I should have for my tickets. Probably shouldn't have paid for them, but we did and had a great time. Oh well...
The more US fans, the more fans complaining about SUM. Mexico fans don't care, they love SUM. Cheaper seats and special treatment. SUM deal runs to 2022. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, is that a new deal with USSF and SUM is not even considered and/or blocked 3 years from now.
Looking at ticket master and stub hub, "red line" Lower tier tix are going for 145 for Mex/Chile and 225 for US game. As note San Diego stadium is bigger and most of the "cheap seats" are sold @ about 45 bucks. Orlando cheap. seats are going for $38. Of course, as a general rule a bigger venue would have lower tix prices (supply/demand and all that) but those rules don't apply if there is different demand for the different teams.
Re-sale sites have nothing to do with federations selling tickets. The question is what is the cost of tickets when directly buying from the seller and not third parties.
Of course, but it is easier. Even if you look at the price on the ticket, you can't buy them directly from USSF. Ticketmaster or whomever adds on to that. So, when you are looking at SeatGeek, they show how close to retail the price is. So, it is a good approximation. We are not talking about a few dollars, the Mexico tickets generally were 30% cheaper. Of course, it sounds like they might have made that savings from skimping on the field...
No, but they are a reasonable way to assess their pricing strategy. If resale prices were low, it meant scalper/brokers over-bought and getting burned - and pricing was poor. If the resale prices, esp. approaching KO are above or at face value, then the pricing is reasonable/realistic. Just looking at seat maps it looked like the Mex game was very well sold out at the $45 price point. And moderately in the expensive seats. Similar for the USMNT match -though tbt I didn't check in too many times. But that would be the analysis. If scalpers were getting big premiums the tix are underpiced at box office. If scaplers were dumping tix, they were overpriced at box office.
They don't , if we don't. But that's where our USA Soccer media reporters come into play. To force the issue. Instead they are more concerned in giving Michel Bradley 8/10's on match summaries for better access then they are about the team making to a world cup. To USSF, its more important to protect the past legacy of soccer dinosaur's then it is to make a world cup. Look at the recent selections by Berhalter. Both Ream, Bradley, and Gonzalez. Arena's flops last cycle, resurrected to dominate the Gold Cup coming up and pretend 2018 never happened. Berhalter stated that Fabian Johnson is not a guaranteed based on his current age and the position he plays. Meanwhile, Tim Ream and Fabian Johnson are the same age and born only two months apart. Fabian is a champions League level flexible player, Tim Ream starts for the worst team in EPL relegation. Tim Ream played LB or tucked in LB these two games. Those are the facts. The players are the same age and Johnson is 2x the player. Why is Berhalter giving Johnson the run around but not to Ream for the same position? who is picking these rosters? Berhalter basically just told a long-time associate in Fabian Johnson to his face that he is a back-up consideration (despite being one our current top-5 players) but wont do the same to his MLS associates in Trapp and Zardes.
unfortunately SUM has its tentacles so deeply dug into soccer in the USA that I would put the odds of this cartel being broken up in the astronomical range...something like a 1/5000 chance, maybe??? but you are spot on as far as pinpointing this continuted connection as a major stumblin block to having a succesful USMNT.... as long as SUMNT exists the USA will suck at soccer/futbol. 100% guaranteed. and it is a shame.
Suck at football? Suriname sucks, the Faroe Islands, Tajikistan, et al suck. We range from low end top 25 to top 50 in a field of 211. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Football_Elo_Ratings We dont suck, we are good to fair. Just not ELITE. Anyways I have issues with SUM and its leadership but we have to be careful comparing ourselves to Europe. By virtue of their association and prestigious tournaments, they are able to command a much higher amount of revenue from media as opposed to just at the gate. I bet USSF focuses more on the gate for these friendlies comparitively because they won't get blockbuster ratings. Plus as previously mentioned, people still do show up. What's more I've seen stands for Euro qualifying games and they are hardly filled either, so go figure.
It's sad that the only thing that motivates USSF is greed. They could be doing so much more for the sport in this country, but sadly money is the only thing that matters in the USA anymore.
Which is why I don't get the "build around MLS" thing. Isn't USSF's best chance to make money having a good to great USNT? Based on my interest and attendance, it seems people don't really care at this point? Though maybe that is simply because we don't have important games for a while. But to argue with myself again, surely focusing on MLS and missing the World Cup doesn't help them make money. I'm so confused by this mess. All I know is I haven't cared less about this team in probably two decades. And certainly based on what has happened in the last couple months, I will be skipping the Gold Cup as well.
But it's not greed is it. For a start most of the board members don't get paid. USSF has set a financial target, which for some reason I can't find, and they're nowhere near it and probably won't be unless they host another Copa or until after the 2026 WC.
So, you don't know what the end goal is, but you know how far away the USSF is from reaching that unknown goal?
Off the top of my head they have investments of $160M and are looking to increase then to something around $450M. That may be completely wrong but I don't have time to check as I'm moving house today. But I think it's all in the public domain.
Well I was partially right. Despite swallowing a World Cup embarrassment over that period, U.S. Soccer increased their unrestricted assets from $148 million to over $162 million. They added a net of just under $11 million from $123.6 million in revenue less $112.7 million in expenses, and added the rest from an unrealized gain on their investments. The article doesn't back up my claim about their target: "U.S. Soccer has built a nice nest egg, but currently has over $100 million invested in stocks and bonds. While investment in soccer related activities appears to be increasing, the vision for using these funds to achieve the Federation’s mission remains a mystery to the public. The reality is this non-profit’s relationship with its balance sheet is far better than the one it has with its soccer community. The U.S. Soccer Federation should start turning all of this financial equity into brand equity for soccer by setting a clear public direction and backing it up with big financial risks to grow the game."
We have a population roughly 6,000 times larger than the Faroe Islands. Our GDP is something like 10,000 times larger. We should not be comparing ourselves to countries like the ones you listed. We do still suck against the elite soccer powers in the world and by this point in our soccer evolution, that is who we should be benchmarking ourself against.
The implication, I believe, is that the SUM/USSF axis were also responsible for the selection of the MLS/MLS-connected friendly Berhalter.