The MLS Stadium Thread

Ironically it tells you how far we have come when you realize Columbus had the first SSS, and in 2018 will have one of the worst stadium deals/situations in the league.

In 2019 Mapfre stadium will be 20 years old!

 

Banc of California Stadium is going up FAST! I can't believe the progress.

 

Not like they have a lot of time left. It has to be ready in approximately 6 months.

 

LAFC would hardly be the first team to have to start on the road while their stadium was completed.

(I think DSG Park was the first stadium to be fully complete and host MLS First Kick the year it opened)

 

Meanwhile in DC the FO says June while construction workers say July and rumors say August.

 

It is moving fast! DC's stadium also is starting to take shape and Minnesota's stadium site seems to be humming with activity.

This got me thinking about how amazing it is to see how many of the teams in the league have their own homes. I think the league has three categories of teams, those with their own SSS, those that share but have primary control, and those that are secondary tenants. (I may have missed some minor secondary tenants in the Own SSS list).

What is ultimately fascinating to me is how far the league has come since the first SSS in Columbus was built in 1999.

Apologies if this list is redundant to earlier posts, I didn't read the whole thread.

Own SSS

Chicago
Colorado
Columbus
DC (once stadium is finished)
Dallas
Houston
LAFC (once stadium is finished)
Minnesota (once stadium is finished)
Montreal
New York RB
Orlando
Philadelphia
RSL
San Jose
Sporting KC

Share with primary control (tenant)

LA Galaxy (LA Chargers)
Portland (Portland State football)
Toronto (Argonauts)
Vancouver (BC Lions)

Secondary tenants (primary team)

Atlanta (Falcons)
New England (Patriots)
NYCFC (Yankees)
Seattle (Seahawks)

 

Even these situations are pretty darn good as they share ownership with the primary tenant. The exact opposite of every team back in 1996. Biggest problem here is field turf but I suppose, as problems go, that's not the end of the world.

 

I didn't realize whitecaps were the primary tenant. Is that correct?

Like said above, I think it needs to be highlighted that the bottom list of secondary tenants all get revenue from concessions, parking and advertising because they have owners or co-owners that control the stadium. This is key. As far as the league is concerned they don't seem to see this any differently than the SSS teams. Considering one of the most recent expansion teams falls in this category.

 

Are you sure on Vancouver? I'm pretty sure PavCo has primary control of BC Place, not the Whitecaps. The Caps are just a tenant like the BC Lions.

 

Depends on your definition of primary tenant. If you mean someone that gets non-game day revenue from the stadium, then no. BC Place doesn't have a primary tenant. BC Place is run by a crown corporation and the Whitecaps "lease" their dates from the crown corporation.

 

Not 100% sure on Vancouver, maybe they are their own category of equal co-tenants?

 

Fair enough. But co-tenants or someone else's tenant, they're in the same boat. The Whitecaps don't control stadium revenues. In fact by the measures we're using above they'd be in a fourth worst category in that they're a simple tenant with no revenue control not unlike many MLS 1.0 teams were in other ownership group's NFL, city owned stadium, or university owned NCAA stadiums where the other owners NFL team, the city or the university controlled revenue.

Portland and Toronto, while in publicly owned stadiums, control the revenue streams directly so it operationally isn't much different than owning the stadium outright. (I'd put LAG in the first category too since they own Stub Hub Center and the Chargers are merely a short term tenant who is paying them to play there).

And the remaining category, the Secondary Tenant category, is filled entirely with teams, ATL, NE, NYCFC, and SEA whose owners are also owners of the primary tenant with revenue control, so the MLS side have indirect control of all revenues as well.

 

Agreed about the revenue control, which is very important. One big difference though is scheduling. As we've seen with NYCFC, these teams can get pushed out and have less ideal dates for games.

 

Annoying true... but revenue control is the first and foremost important thing when it comes to stadium situations. Which is why Vancouver is soon to be in the worst or nearly the worst situation in MLS.

Its why you've seen the Revs stay in what for fans in particular is a less than ideal situation in Foxboro over one of the other temporary situations closer to Boston that would be vastly superior for fans. The Revs control their own destiny in Foxboro thanks to the Kraft family and Pats.

 

I might create a category of financially challenged teams where Chicago and Columbus could reside. Neither team is making the money in their stadiums that they could be under better circumstances. I'm not privy to the details, but I've read here that Columbus is missing on premium seating/suite opportunities and Chicago has an issue with the town losing money.

 

Portland State is hardly the "secondary tenant". It barely interferes with the Timbers scheduling. I can think of a couple other teams with more of an impact.

 

The Crew (Precourt) make some pretty good money on other events at the stadium. Rock on the Range every year, for instance.

 

There are two cameras that update just about every 10 minutes during daylight hours.

 

A bit off-topic, but...

The City of Albuquerque recently completed a feasibility study in connection with a downtown 10k SSS that would host the Albuquerque Sol FC. It contained some interesting financials and revenue estimates for USL stadiums (and pro soccer in general). These types of studies tend to provide the most transparent look we get for projects like this, so I thought this group might find it interesting.

LINK to Stadium Feasibility Study.

 

Any pics of Minnesota United stadium?

 

I thought Sounders and Seahawks were co-tenants.

 

It's really happening.