Should MLS begin to transition to all grass surfaces?

Discussion in 'MLS: Commissioner - You be The Don' started by GrimmFreak, Jul 9, 2018.

  1. Cavan9

    Cavan9 Member

    Nov 16, 2011
    Silver Spring, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Cool. All good point about an ideal situation.

    That being said, do you have the dough to buy out Kraft and get the Revs a 20,000 seat stadium that's in walking distance of the T?

    How about the cash/financing to buy out Arthur Blank and build the Five Stripes a 70,000 seat downtown stadium and then fill it?

    You see where I'm going with my point.

    The MLS has some NFL owners because that's who wants to invest in a young sports league that is still more about upside and appreciation than current revenue streams. At the same time, an NFL owner just saved the Crew and is in to build them a new downtown soccer specific stadium with grass. On the other hand, MLS rejected the NFL's Vikings owner because their proposal involved playing on a too-narrow turf field with no plans for training facilities or an academy.

    Even though they share an NFL stadium with a turf surface, the Sounders and Five Stripes have good academies and high brand awareness in their markets. That's nothing to sneeze at.
     
    Kejsare and JasonMa repped this.
  2. KCbus

    KCbus Moderator
    Staff Member

    United States
    Nov 26, 2000
    Reynoldsburg, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Oh, figure it the f*** out, would you?

    Oh, I get it. You're one of those people who thinks MLS should gear itself towards doing what's best for the National team at any given turn, but when it comes to aligning itself with big money, and with the biggest, richest most successful sports league in the world, NOW MLS is supposed to worry about itself and only itself.

    Is there anything about MLS you do like?
     
    CrazyJ628, Cavan9 and Kejsare repped this.
  3. adam tash

    adam tash Member+

    Jul 12, 2013
    Barcelona, Spain
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    https://www.sportsnet.ca/soccer/men-get-play-real-grass-2026-world-cup-unlike-women-2015/

    this headline sums it up nicely:

    Men get to play on real grass at 2026 World Cup, unlike women in 2015

    "Oh, I get it. You're one of those people who thinks MLS should gear itself towards doing what's best for the National team at any given turn, but when it comes to aligning itself with big money, and with the biggest, richest most successful sports league in the world, NOW MLS is supposed to worry about itself and only itself."

    yeah - there's no contradiction between those two points......i see the interests of the USMNT and MLS as symbiotic not competitive - the better the USMNT does the better MLS will do and vice versa.

    there's a reason that the world cup is ONLY played on REAL GRASS

    it is BETTER than TURF

    the cost of real grass is well within the budget parameters of 2019 MLS - WELL WITHIN!!!!

    choosing to allow turf is ONLY about cutting costs and saving money - not about the quality of the product....which is costing MLS in the short and long term. makes the league look amateur to big time players worldwide and to fans who are paying attention - and hurts the quality of play in places like seattle and atlanta and NE etc....the game is not meant to be played on anything other than GRASS. period.

    there's plenty i like about MLS - but the league makes bad decisions all the time - and i'm not going to just pretend like MLS is perfect like you apparently want me to. just because I criticize some aspects of what MLS does - doesn't mean I am 100% against EVERYTHING it does.

     
  4. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yet the World Cup finals is the only competition in the world that limits itself to grass. World Cup qualifiers, Women's World Cup, youth World Cups, Champions League games, D1 games in Italy and Spain, etc. have all been played on turf. It takes literally the biggest sporting event in the world to institute an all-grass policy, but you think MLS should do it?
     
    Cavan9, blacksun and Kejsare repped this.
  5. Paul Berry

    Paul Berry Member+

    Notts County and NYCFC
    United States
    Apr 18, 2015
    Nr Kingston NY
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No the English leagues have banned turf. But they tend to be behind the times. The last Football League vote came out 36 for G3 pitches and 36 against and they stuck with the status quo.
     
  6. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    My apologies, I didn't realize it was a formal ban, I just knew nobody in the league had turf.

    I know non-league teams have turf though.
     
  7. adam tash

    adam tash Member+

    Jul 12, 2013
    Barcelona, Spain
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Am I in the wrong forum?

    Is this 'Attack anyone who doesn't co-sign on GARBER/SUMNT's decisions'?

    Or is it "YOU be the DON"????????????????????????????????????????
     
  8. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It is entirely possible to be Don and agree with him and/or understand why hes makes the decisions he made. ;)
     
    Kejsare and JasonMa repped this.
  9. fairfax4dc

    fairfax4dc Member+

    Dec 5, 2008
    Fairfax, Va
    Oh, why am I weighing in on this issue... Here are my sometimes tongue in cheek points:

    - It's a damn shame that Providence Park in Portland doesn't have natural turf. I've heard and understand the reasons, but this venue is MLS's Fenway Park, and the only thing that keeps it from being perfect is the turf.

    - It's important to keep reminding our hipster Pacific Northwest brethren that artificial turf is neither "natural" nor "authentic.".

    - .That said, any city that can draw 60-70K for professional soccer, must play in that sized venue, regardless of the turf. Over time those supporters will begin demanding improvements and will have the economic clout to do make it happen.
     
    Cavan9 and adam tash repped this.
  10. adam tash

    adam tash Member+

    Jul 12, 2013
    Barcelona, Spain
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    yeah sure - you can "be the DON" and agree with what he and MLS have done/are doing - but it seems to be this thread is taking that truth to the extreme - it's like lets "be the Don" by vigorously supporting everything he does and attacking anyone who wants anything done differently than he has...weird.
     
  11. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I know I'm shouting into the void here, but you understand the point of a forum, right? Its not your personal place to post ideas and have us all bow down to your brilliance. You posted an idea, essentially holding MLS to a standard only the biggest sporting event and the most successful soccer league in the world is held to. I asked why MLS should be held to that standard.
     
    Kejsare repped this.
  12. adam tash

    adam tash Member+

    Jul 12, 2013
    Barcelona, Spain
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    not really what MLS should be HELD TO - its not a hostage situation.

    to answer your question - the USA and MLS have more money than almost every other league/country in the world - the sporting infrastructure in the US is the best in the world - MLS just spent the last 20 years building most of their clubs soccer-specific state of the art stadiums - why cut corners on the actual playing surface....

    it's like running 25 miles of a 26 mile marathon then quitting ....

    grass is better. mls should play their matches on grass. period.

    it is within the means of MLS and its financiers to play all MLS games on grass....the budget considerations are not prohibitive. turf allows for their fat margins to ever so slightly fatter thats it.

    instead, you have people in suits making way more money than they shouldnt who have never played the sport deciding what playing surfaces are "good enough:" for MLS - it shouldn't be about being barely good enough - it should be about being the best...grass is the best surface. period.

    you act like putting in all grass pitches is some kind of pipe dream that is beyond the reach of mls and its owners - which is hilariously off and just flat out wrong.these dudes are fricking loaded.....

    and yeah this forum is exactly what you are describing it as - a place for posters to be the don - and propose what they would do as commish - not a place for people to shoot down anyone who doesnt agree with what MLS does -as you and your cohort seems to think....
     
  13. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Fun to spend other people's money isn't it? These people didn't become "fricking loaded" by spending bad money. Spending a ton of money on grass fields with no real return doesn't make much sense in a league that's still trying to find a strong financial footing.
     
    Kejsare repped this.
  14. adam tash

    adam tash Member+

    Jul 12, 2013
    Barcelona, Spain
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #89 adam tash, Feb 20, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2019
    this argument is so weak.

    i question if you are even a fan of MLS and soccer in general with this "train of thought".....

    1. if you just look at the amount of money fans pour into MLS - there's more than enough there to have the best product available - there are only a small handful of soccer leagues in the world with higher attendance rates than "MAJOR" league soccer.

    it's not even about "spending" mls owners' money - it's about giving fans and those passionate about the sport in the USA a viable and premier product.

    2. how much money does MLS and its owners make off of the USMNT?

    they certainly have no problem taking money that they have no right to.....

    3. it is not bad money to make sure mls games are being played on the best surfaces - its actually very good money from only an economic perspective - the league looks mickey mouse to real soccer fans playing on stadiums like ne revs, nycfc, atl, seattle, etc....when players like zlatan and drogba etc refuse to play on turf it is hurting MLS investment into those stars - they should just wake the ef up and stop trying to pinch pennies - because it is actually costing them money (and fans who spend money) in the long run to put out an inferior product.

    4. turf fields cost money too...its not like there are free turf fields out there that make spending on grass a totally additional cost...i dont know the exact figures but im sure there's quit an overlap in terms of cost for grass and turf.....and i'd bet if you looked at the overall expenditures of an mls club the difference is well within the budget and operating costs involved - considering the majority of mls teams already play on grass in the first place.
     
  15. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And yet its still stronger than yours.

    Ah yes, the "you disagree with me so you're not a real fan" line of argument. Always a sign of strength in your argument. We can compare fan resumes but I'm guessing my having seen lower-league games in multiple countries puts me in pretty good standing.

    MLS also has a higher cost than most of those other leagues. And again, most of those leagues also use turf fields. Revenue is not the (only) measure of success, in fact if you ran a business based only on revenue and not profit you likely wouldn't be running it long.

    I'd prefer a product that was still around in 20 years. Throwing money away is a dumb way to run any business.

    A. Immaterial, as that doesn't make taking that money and spending it somewhere else a good investment. B. How do thy have "no right" to it? It would be OK of Traffic (to pick a random company) were profiting off of owning the USSF media rights but not MLS owners?

    Two teams that have bigger issues than just turf, and two teams that I've never heard anyone describe as 'mickey mouse'. I don't see how this proves turf is the issue.

    Explain to me how ATL and SEA are losing fans over turf, and how NYCFC and NE are losing fans due to turf and not the myriad of other problems with their organizations (which yes, do need to be fixed). Beckham only ever played one game in Colorado, despite it being a grass surface, so there are plenty of reasons why the big stars don't show up to games. It does hurt, a bit, that they won't play on turf but in the grand scheme of things what hurts more, missing out on a once every two years attendance bump in NE when Zlatan doesn't come or replacing the grass field every year during/after the NFL season? Whatever benefit is added from Zlatan's presence wouldn't come close to paying that move off.

    In Seattle, New England, and Atlanta the cost would be a grass field every year (well, ATl being indoor is probably not even possible) after the NFL tears it up. That's a lot more expensive than a new turf field every 2-3 years. And lets not forget, those MLS teams aren't the primary tenants anyway, so they'd have to get the NFL teams to sign off. Both the Seahawks and Patriots have made it clear they prefer turf. Again ATL is indoors so not much of a choice there.

    Not surprisingly, now that the Portland State football team has moved out of Providence Park the timbers are talking about converting to a grass field, which makes sense. Without football tearing it up the costs for a grass field go down and there's a good return on investment there.

    Nobody is saying grass isn't better than turf, what we're saying is that grass+football isn't as good as turf. Gt rid of the football and I'd be fully supportive of grass where it an be grown. Until then though there's a real good argument that the costs outweigh the benefits.
     
    CrazyJ628, Kejsare and KCbus repped this.
  16. adam tash

    adam tash Member+

    Jul 12, 2013
    Barcelona, Spain
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    In Seattle, New England, and Atlanta the cost would be a grass field every year (well, ATl being indoor is probably not even possible) after the NFL tears it up. That's a lot more expensive than a new turf field every 2-3 years. And lets not forget, those MLS teams aren't the primary tenants anyway, so they'd have to get the NFL teams to sign off. Both the Seahawks and Patriots have made it clear they prefer turf. Again ATL is indoors so not much of a choice there.

    Not surprisingly, now that the Portland State football team has moved out of Providence Park the timbers are talking about converting to a grass field, which makes sense. Without football tearing it up the costs for a grass field go down and there's a good return on investment there.

    Nobody is saying grass isn't better than turf, what we're saying is that grass+football isn't as good as turf. Gt rid of the football and I'd be fully supportive of grass where it an be grown. Until then though there's a real good argument that the costs outweigh the benefits.[/QUOTE]

    Okay well - having an NFL guy as commish of MLS is problematic - he wants to jump into bed with the NFL so hard...

    marrying mls to the nfl is not a good long-term move for MLS - it's not necessary at this point in the game - in the beginning of the league it was - but not now - MLS needs to stand up and say that what the NFL wants it irrelevant to MLS.
     
    KCbus repped this.
  17. KCbus

    KCbus Moderator
    Staff Member

    United States
    Nov 26, 2000
    Reynoldsburg, OH
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Also, @adam tash , try not being a jerk about this. Jason is one of the most respected, long-time posters in the MLS forums. The only time you post in MLS forums is when you’re complaining about something.
     
    Cavan9, Kejsare and JasonMa repped this.
  18. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    When does Garber stop being an "NFL guy" considering he's spent more time running MLS than he ever spent working for the NFL?

    How would that work exactly? The Sounders telling the Seahawks "screw you, we're ripping your turf out"? Are you suggesting Atlanta United under Arthur Blank was bad move for the league? Because I have a hard time seeing anything ATL has done as being bad for the league. Or maybe you'd prefer the Crew be in Austin instead of being bought by the Browns' owner?

    Quite simply, the NFL is financially the most successful sports league in the world. There are really good reasons for MLS to learn from the NFL and follow some of their business practices. And remember, financially, the big leagues/teams in Europe are regularly asking MLS for advice. The world of soccer is going to trend more towards MLS on the financial/business side, not away from it.
     
    Cavan9 and Kejsare repped this.
  19. Paul Berry

    Paul Berry Member+

    Notts County and NYCFC
    United States
    Apr 18, 2015
    Nr Kingston NY
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    SUM has paid USSF $80 million over the last 3 years, which represents half their assets.
     
  20. Paul Berry

    Paul Berry Member+

    Notts County and NYCFC
    United States
    Apr 18, 2015
    Nr Kingston NY
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I remember the days when people didn't whine about pitches.

     
    Cavan9 repped this.
  21. Yoshou

    Yoshou Fan of the CCL Champ

    May 12, 2009
    Seattle
    Club:
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Cavan9 and JasonMa repped this.
  22. Paul Berry

    Paul Berry Member+

    Notts County and NYCFC
    United States
    Apr 18, 2015
    Nr Kingston NY
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    American youth spend their entire soccer career training and playing on artificial turf.
     
  23. Cavan9

    Cavan9 Member

    Nov 16, 2011
    Silver Spring, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It beats mud pits, dust bowls and ankle breaking rocks and ruts. That's what happens at most grass fields that are in public parks or schools due to being used 7 days a week. That's definitely true all the Washington DC Metro area.
     

Share This Page