It sounds so definitive when you say it. First off, which "FIFA-approved" guidelines does Ford Field not meet? There are 11 FIFA requirements for World Cup stadiums, and Ford Field meets every one of them. I'd like to hear which guideline(s) you feel Ford Field fails, because I've heard this mentioned several times here and elsewhere. Secondly, Don Garber himself said MLS could relax their SSS rule in light of Atlanta's success. Source: https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/201...pen-to-tweaking-soccer-specific-stadium-rule/ Don Garber: MLS Could be Open to Tweaking Soccer-Specific Stadium Rule
If Garber is open to tweaking his SSS rules, then we'd be hearing about how Detroit is getting a team to play at Ford Field, along with Sacramento, Nashville, and Cincinnati, now wouldn't we?
28 is gonna be an interesting race that’s for sure. And possibly 27 too if Miami continues to be who we think they are http://torontosun.com/sports/soccer...ley-checks-in-with-sun-in-exclusive-chit-chat Bring out your deeeeeaad........ bring out your deeeead. Hell Miami could move on to San Diego or Las Vegas once David waves the white flag.
One aspect of this that is consistently underestimated is the desire to reach the optimal national footprint prior to the expiration of the current TV deal in 2022. Right now, MLS makes most of its money at the gate. But the opportunity for growth is getting people to watch on TV (or via live stream) which will not only increase the value of the broadcast rights contracts (both national and local) but also the value of various sponsorships (i.e. Adidas uniforms and boots, jersey sponsorships, etc.). So, the size, growth rate, demographics, and location of a market will be considerations as well since that is what advertisers and sponsors care about. In that regard, Detroit (or Phoenix or St. Louis) would blow-away bids from places like Buffalo, Milwaukee, OKC, etc. Consider this. The TV deal MLS renegotiated in 2015 more than tripled in value from $27 million per year to $90 million per year because MLS promised to do the following: Add a 2nd team in the nation's largest media market, NYC FC Replace a struggling club (Chivas USA) with LAFC in the nation's 2nd largest media market Add at least 3 teams (Orlando, Atlanta, and eventually Miami) in a massive, growing southeastern region that previously had zero teams Add another team in the Midwest (turned out to be Minny) The next TV deal, as well as future equipment, uniform, and jersey sponsorships, will be influenced greatly by the choices MLS makes on expansion cities. Thus the rush to name the 28 and begin play before the next deal would commence. And that helps places like Detroit who are not only large, proven sports markets, but ones that fill a hole in the national map.
People that are trying to make decisions that will impact the league for the next 50+ years aren't going to be nearly as rigid as you seem to think they will be. They will weigh ALL of the factors and make the best overall choice. Ownership matters, financing REALLY matters, the size, location, and demographics of a market matter, the prevalence and commitment of local corporations matters, and the local interest in soccer matters. Yet somehow, you've convinced yourself that the stadium is the only thing that matters and believe that people who make their living covering issues like this are fools for not agreeing with a message board poster. And I'll point out that I'm not the one saying anything is a done deal. If St. Louis comes back with a compelling bid, they could bump Detroit out of that final spot. If North Carolina FC puts together a compelling bid, like Nashville did, they could be a dark horse because of their market dynamics and the fact that they'd fill a giant hold in the map between DC and Atlanta. If things go right for San Diego, they could re-emerge, despite all the other teams in California. However, Detroit remains in 4th position right now, despite the shift to Ford Field, for all the reasons I mentioned.
I know that Detroit *shouldn't* get a team based on not having a SSS in their plans. But if MLS *does* award Detroit a franchise, then what does that say about MLS's expansion criteria? If this is the last expansion round, then it doesn't matter if they break their own rules so long as MLS feels it will bring the greatest benefit.
San Diego will be the 4th team. I base that on nothing but gut instincts. North Carolina will eventually get a team (tech industry is on fire there) and one more Midwestern team will be added, either Detroit or Cleveland. All gut instinct. It just *feels* right.
Rules are done on a sliding scale imo, the greater the perceived value the less the rules matter. The rules are for the Cincinnatis and Nashvilles to ensure they have viability
I'd like to see San Diego land a team because it seems so wrong that they keep losing their teams to LA. But unless and until they expand beyond 28, there will have to be some tough trade-off decisions as there simply won't be room for all.
San Diego is my favorite place in California therefore they should get in. joking aside, they are going to win their vote for that visually impressive development and it will get built and they will have a team. It's the biggest market on the table with no nfl to compete with for entertainment dollars.
One of the known factors for an expansion bid is the ownership. I think that what that means is often misunderstood. It's not just about checking off a box labelled "rich enough." Nor is it a scale where a net worth of $2B is not quite as good as $3B. Nor is it "already owns a sports franchise." A desirable owner is one with both the capacity and the interest in building a successful club, particularly off the playing field. Current owners want to add someone who will move the league as a whole forward. They are all far more ecstatic about Atlanta's success than they are jealous of it because it made every MLS team more valuable, from the already prominent clubs like LA, Seattle, and Toronto all the way down to the teams most likely to be forgotten. This means the seemingly indifferent owners like Kraft, Kroenke, Precourt, and Hauptman want new investors who are more committed than they themselves are. It's their reward for getting involved sooner, and it makes their investment worth more when they sell. And the owners who are investing more and more each year in facilities, rosters, development, and outreach hardly have interest in another mouth to feed. They want more horses to pull the load alongside them. Thus, the question of how good the investment group in Detroit, Nashville, Cincinnati, Sacramento, or anywhere else is for MLS isn't just about the top level teams they already own or the sum of their money. It's the squishier concept of how much the current owners (especially on the expansion committee) think they can and will run a great MLS operation.
We're hitting an interesting time in MLS expansion. While I've never believed for a minute that they'd stop at 28, the recent news out of Miami makes me think that MLS will add an extra expansion team while still adding Miami at a later date. While what Precourt is doing on Columbus is pure crap, it's really not surprising. I think he got spooked by San Antonio's bid so he decided to exercise his out clause a little early. I don't think the Crew relocate BTW as I think this is a PR nightmare that MLS doesn't want. I also don't buy in to the "if this can happen to Columbus, it can happen to your team" line either. Columbus was always the biggest flight risk since KC got their stadium figured out. The real question is, who is next? Most of the large markets have teams, so they're not likely to relocate anywhere outside of their market. Unless LAFC peels off a whole bunch of the Galaxy's fanbase.
I can't see anyone else moving because the large markets are too large for the owners to just give up and leave and the other small markets (Portland, KC, Salt Lake, etc.) are healthy. That said, I do think we're about to see a lot more discretionary spending by the deep-pocketed clubs and that will put a ton of pressure on other clubs to keep pace.
So then will the Cinci/Nash rules apply to Detroit and Phoenix? I wouldn't be surprised if they get the Miami treatment. I think any Top 15 city (save Tampa) will have fewer hoops to jump through.
The path MLS has taken to expansion is a lot like George Orwell's Animal Farm. All animals are created equal (Philadelphia, Orlando, Minnesota). But some are more equal than others (Seattle, Atlanta, New York City). Miami would seem to be the only market left in the latter category. The rest would be in the former, Detroit included.
Yes. Detroit isn't the titan it used to be-plus the ownership group seems to have used garber to obtain a property. I think they pissed him off, we'll see.
Like Columbus, Colorado is valued below the expansion fee and is in the smallest market with all five sports. If they're sold near the end of the DSGP lease, there may be reason for concern. Vancouver and Salt Lake are both at about the same level as the fee, according to Forbes, though both team values and expansion fees are annually changing. Everyone else is at least $20M more.
Remember the basis for needing the SSS... control of the stadium and maximizing revenue. You take Atlanta in with an NFL stadium because Blank owns the Falcons and controls the stadium. You can't accept Paul Brown Stadium in Cincinnati because Mike Brown isn't involved in the MLS expansion bid and most of the revenue from the stadium goes to him. Same goes for Nashville. From this perspective, adding the Ford's into the ownership group in Detroit makes Ford Field viable. My recollection is that all places where MLS in an NFL stadium, the MLS and NFL team share an owner.
It's not a "rule" it's a preference and it's important to understand what that preference is based on. MLS wants clubs to be able to control their revenue, and they want an environment where soccer is the focus rather than an afterthought. A good example of what he's trying to avoid is New England where they can't curtain-off the upper decks in a way that creates an intimate environment for soccer and they STILL play soccer games with football lines on the field in the fall. But Atlanta and Seattle have proven you can do it right in a dual-use venue. So, Garber seems to be evolving his thinking in general. Check out his quotes after visiting Mercedes-Benz Stadium earlier this year... http://www.orlandosentinel.com/spor...-soccer-specific-stadiums-20170916-story.html MLS wanted a SSS in Atlanta, but the owner convinced them the facility would be world-class, that it would accommodate soccer, and that they'd fill it up. Detroit is making all the same assurances. Detroit can also control the revenue, offer an intimate environment for soccer, use all the appropriate branding to ensure MLS is prominent in the facility, and they've already hosted many USMNT and USWNT games. Finally, don't underestimate the weather issue. It's a big deal in a place like Detroit. We already have a fair amount of panic over bitter cold playoff games or MLS finals, as well as early-season games in a number of northern cities. Detroit would be the ONLY northern club where that would never be a risk. Put that together with all the other elements of their bid (ownership group, financing, market size and support for sports, location in the city and on the national map, etc.) and their bid is still among the top 4.
Plus, with increasing chatter of the MLS season moving in line with the international calendar (approximately late August thru May), Detroit would still be viable in the winter months. And, there has been talk of someday changing Ford Field's roof to be retractable. I'm not saying Detroit will get a team, and I think they hurt their bid by changing the stadium plan, but the bid is still very, very viable. With the stadium already in place, if Detroit is chosen it's more likely to be this December and not further into 2018. Why wait to announce Detroit if everything is already in place?
IMHO, and this is a personal point of view, Detroit is a super sports city. The antithesis of say, Miami.
Yep, they support everything well, even when the teams aren't winning. If they are awarded a team, it wouldn't shock me one bit if they ended up closer to Atlanta and Seattle in attendance than the rest of MLS.