I think that the reason why Cincinnati comes in with the 25/26 round of expansion are 1) its got billionaire owner who apparently has liquid cash that he's willing to spend, 2) its oit rabid fan support, and 3) it has a stadium deal that's locked in with Newport, Kentucky while options closer to Cincinnati's city center are still on the table.
I keep seeing this and simply can't process what it is supposed to mean. I understand there is a funding mechanism for the land in question. I understand preliminary talks have been positive. But who signs the $100 million check?
My understanding is the city has an infrastructure tax in place. $100 million of that would go to the stadium project. The answer is tax payers, but should note it is built into taxation already, it would not be a new tax. Although you could argue it takes money from other potential projects and can debate value of various infrastructure investments.
Dont get me wrong. Cincy is a fine market and this location looks like a great option, especially given that there is a way to finance with a preexisting mechanism. But i'm not buying that they get the $100 million simply because they asked for it and the government guy said "Sounds good.Here ya go."
The Newport KY stadium would be built on the site of a large residential/commercial development called The Ovation. The development company already has something like a $300 million tax-increment financing district in place for the development. FCC has a memorandum of understanding with the developer (Coroporex) to build on the site using some of the TIF money to offset the cost of the stadium. Corporex has been trying to get the development done for about 10 years now and has cleared the land but the financial crash in 2008 stalled the project. They hope (I assume) is that a stadium would help bring foot traffic to businesses that would occupy the buildings they, Corporex, builds around the stadium. Basically a smaller version of the Banks project that occupies the Cincinnati riverfront between the Reds and Bengals stadium. From every interview the FCC GM has done, it sounds like all they have to do is say the word and Newport is a go. The argument is that they have the stadium lined up so they're MLS ready and can play in Nippert for a year or two until they either move in at Newport or get something built in Cincinnati proper.
There's actually two methods available in NKY. The TIF and the tax. I've made my feelings known about taxes for stadium...the TIF, though, is available right now. And yes, it is basically, "sounds good, here you go" it's financing system meant to promote growth and development on unused land the state wants to grow. The tif was used to finance new port on the levee (a multi billion dollar project) and the land adjacent to Newport on the levee is empty. It's already a TIF district. There's no vote, no fight, just a politician (and the local schools) giving the all clear.
Now we are getting closer. But is there no oversight as to what is included in the development? Could they build an 80000 seat stadium without any regard to how it might affect the infrastructure? Do they require an economic study to determine that it will generate the 100 million in incremental revenue? My feeling is that a stadium like this would fit in very well with what they are trying to do, but there is usually a set of rigorous hurdles when making such a significant change to a development.
The TIF also has the ability to pull a portion of property tax dollars from the surrounding entertainment district for the infrastructure upgrade which is why the school board also has to give a thumbs up (which they did from what I understand)
I don't see Cincy even getting those spots. They will get one of the 29-32 expansion spots MLS will announce after the completion of this round of expansion.
After LA and NY, Nashville for music and entertainment is probably the main hub of the country. And not just country pop. That is where lots of alt-country and Americana acts base out of there like Jason Isbell and Margot Price. Austin is a close 4th place in terms of producing media. But, Nashville is a very creative media city... and not just mainstream country. I am not predisposed to like Nashville, but its a nice city, very pretty, and my guess would have rapidly growing young adult, mover and shaker, hip millenial population that tends to take to MLS well, and which MLS covets. Moreover, its in the South, which is a region MLS needs to expand into and grow more. It is a market that 10 and 20 years ago we could not have imagined as a potential MLS site, but this shows you how much the tide has turned. The fact that big money people are looking to invest there means it is a huge potential.
Agreed the south is under-represented in MLS and I could see Nashville, Miami/Tampa, and Charlotte/Raleigh getting the next 3 slots.
Over major media markets like Detroit & Phoenix? Over ready-to-go, well-supported and billionaire owned expansion candidates like Sacramento and Cincinnati? Strictly speaking, I am suspicious of the Southland (excluding Florida-based teams because, of course, they really aren't located in the Deep South per se) because the South as a whole favors college football over the NFL, college baseball over the NBA and, for whatever reason, has just one MLB team. And, strictly speaking, Atlanta is a progressive city that is politically, culturally and socially out of step with the rest of the South. That being said, Nashville would be an interesting choice because, in a lot of ways, it's a lot more like Atlanta than Charlotte or Raleigh. Nashville seems to be a cool media/entertainment town with a fair percentage of hipsters and young folks with money.
The next 5 spots could go Miami, Detroit, Phoenix, Nashville, Raleigh. I know people talk about built-in rivalries with San Jose and Columbus, but I think the USSF has an ear to the MLS Front Office and prioritizes geographic locations for academies to support teams and to cast a wider net for American soccer talent.
Take Nashville out of the equation for that argument. You'd be better off with Cincinnati as far as local youth talent goes. Even though some Nati kids play for Crew youth, they still have many national caliber teams. They just got Girls DA and i think younger boys DA. Shoot put Tampa over Nashville too when it comes to trying to capture youth talent in MLS academies goes. None the less your argument is bogus.
I could have sworn that a read some article several years ago where Garber was stating how important developing the local talent was and how encouraging the USSF was in making sure teams were spread out to cast as wide a net as possible to find american soccer talent. Maybe it's all in my head?
I'm sure Garber made the comments, but it is a huge leap to say that MLS will allow USSF input on where they put expansion clubs and that increasing the size of the development footprint is going to be anything more than a significantly minor factor. The most important factors for expansion will related to business reasons. In fact, here is what MLS wanted from ownership groups wanting to be the next expansion clubs: https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2016/12/15/mls-announces-expansion-process-and-timeline Notice that player development is not mentioned a single time and that everything is related to financials. Even "soccer support" is related to financials as MLS wants to make sure that there is already an existing fan base for the sport...
If that's true, then why does MLS show such a desire to have teams in San Diego, St Louis, and Miami?
TV ratings and big soccer markets... = fans. But as stated above, youth development is not one of criteria MLS has stated they are looking at for expansion teams. Is it a by-product - sure, but not a decision factor.
There is an existing fan base in Miami, av. 6,015 and St Louis, av. 4,572. Orlando's average the year before expansion was 4,743, Seattle's 3,386, Vancouver's 5,152 and Atlanta's 4,024, so how big an existing fan base do you need?
Miami is huge. It's the last greater metro area of over 6M without an MLS team. In a market that large, there are sure to be enough fans if the team is run well. These markets have always been prioritized by the league. St. Louis and San Diego are special cases at the moment, given the opportunity presented by NFL relocation, which meant the prospects of municipal cooperation were better than usual.
Well, it certainly didn't work out in either case. But San Diego is a challenge even under the best circumstances, and St. Louis was very close. And whether it's soccer or not, most stadium efforts seem to fail.