Fortunately for the fans there, FC Dallas is worth more than an expansion club, largely because the metroplex is huge. While it's possible for a team to move out of one of the twelve or thirteen largest places, it won't be common, and such teams are likely to be replaced. Small cities like Columbus probably won't.
so a lot has happened the past few months. MLS has deemed McKalla, a location 10 miles from downtown with a GREAT many things wrong with it, an acceptable location for Austin. So when Austin is inevitably scuttled, surely a stadium 12 miles from downtown that is actually at a better location in a highway artery of the city of San Antonio instantly becomes a viable option for expansion, right? Garber did not so subtly name-drop San Antonio not too long ago. Think he's starting to come around that Austin is dead-man-walking and San Antonio is more appealing as a third city with that "latino demographic" that is so important.
Where did you get your Market Size Numbers? Wiki has San Antonio 31st and Austin at 39th. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_television_markets EDIT: saw your follow up post where you are referring to GDP ($) not total population or media market. Most other sports and marketing reference Media Market share as top priority, Not GDP. MLS is different in that it's media contract is not the largest money maker.
Maybe. But at least UT Basketball is inactive during the MLS season. UT Football doesn't start til late Aug, though that might only effect attendance when they play at home. Don't see UT Baseball effecting soccer any.
Yes. MLS is different in that media isn't the biggest money maker, but even if it was, GDP (or earnings) is probably a better indicator. What's worth more to an advertiser? 120 heads making 45k each or 100 heads making 60k each? Advertisers pay for viewers, but they're going to pay more for viewers with more disposable income. The league's bread and butter is 25-45 year old college grads. The top 14 urban areas in the US for pop in this group have a team (or soon will at least with Miami). Here's every other metro with at least 150,000 of these folks from #14 down (25-45 college grad pop in 000s): San Diego (384), Denver (372), Phoenix (354), Detroit (336), San Jose (326), Baltimore (293), Portland (282), Austin (273), St Louis (247), Tampa (237), Pittsburgh (231), Columbus (213), Charlotte (207), Indy (196), Cincy (187), Orlando (186), KC (186), Raleigh (175), San Antonio (174), Sacramento (174), Cleveland (169), Milwaukee (151), Nashville (151). Bold = already have teams. Italics = the fast risers. If I'm MLS with 23 teams + Miami, the next cities I would want (assuming they have a credible offer) are San Diego, Phoenix, Detroit and Austin (because they'll likely pass Baltimore in the next few years in the league's core demo). Raleigh too because those number don't include Durham. R-D combined = 243K Beyond that it's a) fill a geographic hole in the middle with the best offer from STL, PIT, COL, Indy, Cincy, CLE, MIL, Nashville or b) find something that will balance the league East-West with the other teams on the list. Personally, I don't like COL getting screwed in this though. I'm against that aspect of it completely, but I get it on the business end. We could say the same thing about Columbus though with tOSU, too. Austin is no more a college town today than Columbus is. A lot of people tend to think of Austin as what it once was (a large college town that was more or less a bigger version of Madison WI) rather than what it is (a metro now the size of Indy, KC, Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland...except growing much faster and already wealthier). Regardless, I do think that college sports (football especially) is a completely different animal. Half the people that buy tickets to at UT aren't living around Austin. They're alumns from San Antonio, DFW, Houston, etc who show up to all 6 home games. Regardless, I didn't believe them when they said they're done expanding at 20...or 24...or 28. They'll keep growing.
Good post, but Columbus should have been in bold. Had a team in August when you posted. As for San Antonio, I see 3 reasons for optimism. First, I think there is a significant chance things go sideways in Austin. PSV put out a statement saying they are optimistic they can begin play in Austin by 2021 after the #SavedtheCrew news broke. At which point, several ACC members started to pump the brakes, saying the whole reason you needed our approval fast was so you could begin play in 2019. If that is not so... PSV then planted a story with resident schill Bils about how they intend to play in 2019. Yeah, right. They are fearful that if council slows down and does an RFP at McKalla they could lose. Or that any significant delay could even put 2021 out of reach. Or scuttle the whole deal. Remember Austin can back out if he hasn't secured them a team by a certain date. And that is not to mention the potential Aleshire lawsuit, the fact that if this isn't a done deal by May it could be subject citizen referendum, and the history of what happened the last time someone tried to build something at McKalla. Second, if things go sideways in Austin, I think you guys are in. It was a terrible injustice that MLS pulled the rug out on you in order to screw Columbus over and give Precourt his Austin dream for $80 million less than the going expansion rate. You were hopping mad and justifiably so after you bought the land for the stadium on MLS' word. There was talk of a lawsuit. Which went away after a meeting with MLS. All nice nice since. Perhaps this is tinfoil hat territory, but the belief in Crewville is that MLS told you guys you were still in the hunt, but only if you played nice. Now, take the word of MLS at one's own peril, but why else stop shouting? Further, even MLS has realized PSV's tales of no corporate support, no buyers, and no stadium deals in Columbus were bald faced lies. Plus, he is light in the wallet & there is no way they prefer PSV over the Spurs as an ownership group. Garber said they were pausing in the SE for a while (Tampa, Raleigh, Charlotte). Detroit, Phoenix, & Indy do not have viable SSS stadium bids at the moment. Soccer City looks to fail at the ballot for SD. Sacramento does not have the $$ in ownership. That leaves SA & St. Louis for #27 & #28 if things go awry in Austin. Lastly, even if Austin goes through, no way MLS is stopping at 28 teams. 32 minimum. You guys still have a shot. I bet this was also conveyed in the 'play nice' meeting. See above analysis of the candidate cities. Plus, I think MLS is starting to see the benefit of 2 teams in close proximity. At first, it was a violation of territory of the franchises. But that bridge has been crossed. LAG/Chivas. NYRB/NYCFC. NYRB/Philly. NYCFC/Philly. LAG/LAFC. Plus Crew/FCC coming soon. Not to mention the Cascadia & NE rivalries. Austin in does not mean SA out. Additionally, outside of possibly Detroit, I do not think MLS views any market left as a must-have. And the geographic footprint is pretty well covered as well. Strength of bid will be determinative & SA is strong in that aspect. Sorry for the length. But I think you are in before 32 with a legit shot at #27 or #28.
Follow up post. Hypothetical MLS at 32 teams. A. Structure: 4 divisions of 8 teams. Play division opponents twice (7×2=14) + everyone else once (24) = 38 games. B. Divisions 1) East/Atlantic: DC, NE, NYRB, Philly, NYCFC, Orlando, Atlanta, Miami. 2) Great Lakes/Central: Columbus, Chicago, Toronto, Montreal, Minnesota, Cincinnati, Nashville, Detroit. 3) Mountain West/Midwest: SKC, FCD, Colorado, Houston, RSL, Austin, St. Louis, San Antonio. 4) Pacific/West: LA Galaxy, San Jose, Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, LAFC + pick 2 from PHX/SD/Sac/Vegas/SF-Oak. Obviously, could break the divisions up differently (South, Montreal & TFC in East), especially if different teams get in. If they go beyond 32, scrap the divisions & conferences. Just play eveyone once + a couple rivalry games for each team to get to 34/36/38 games total.
Not a lot of time, so a quick hit post: -coulda bolded Columbus, but that was crystal ball thinking as of August -when you say “you”...keep in mind I’m not from SA. At the time, I had no horse in the race. That’s changed a bit since STL appears to have been resurrected. -the league seems hell bent on Austin. That’s because it is a) wealthy and b) growing by leaps and bounds. It is growing at a bigger clip than any other metro and if it continues to grow the next business cycle the way it has the last two, it will have left the pack in the dust (2025). Smaller than DET, SD, PHX but bigger than all of the mid markets in the MW, PGH, SA, Portland, Charlotte, Tampa, etc (by metro GDP). They’re still likely to grow at a healthy clip past that and there are zero pro sports teams in the market. That’s why they’re crushing so hard on Austin. That’s why the league is rolling out more stops for this market than any other w the possible exception of Miami. They view it as a must have. And they want it before another pro sports franchise drops in. -agree completely the league isn’t stopping at 28...or even 32. I think there’s two more spots without Austin this time of the bids are right. The league will make Austin #29. That’s how much they seem to want them. -I’m not sure what their Austin crush means for SA. My gut tells me if they have two other credible bids for 27-28, SA will be left out. This doesn’t mean SA to MLS is over. Just that the Austin fetish may lead the league to keep their path clear before the Austin entrance. -Where those bids come from is anyone’s guess. I’m skeptical of STL’s ability to secure the stadium deal in this environment and unlike a wealthier market, I don’t think they can lock up the corporate investment if the deal doesn’t get the subsidies it claims it doesn’t need.
The upcoming November 6 General Election can bring about which types of consequences, ramifications, side effects, or outcomes for MLS in San Antonio?
Not sure. I think the SS&E is not really trying anything in purpose, in order to keep San Antonio all for the NBA Spurs. They secretly prefer Austin gets the green light so they can have all the city to themselves for a very long time. They are not stupid. We the fans have been more stupid for trusting in them in the first place.
The number of soccer fans in the Alamo City which now think "like that" has been accelerating recently and now is growing by leaps and bounds. It's only a matter of time before they become the vast majority. Not everyone here is fond of the Spurs Sports & Entertainment because of their monopolistic tactics they have always employed for professional sports in this particular city. And only for one objective: to control all of the pro sports dollars spent here. To keep the MLS outside of San Antonio makes perfect sense. Or is this not so?
Wait, what am I missing? SS&E would be the owners of the MLS team. They would still control all the sports money in SA. But instead of making money from late Oct to April/May/June, they could make it all year long. MLS: March-Oct + POs. NBA: Oct-April + POs.
SS&E also operates a minor league hockey team in San Antonio and a minor league basketball team in Austin. And they are currently operating FC San Antonio, a soccer team. As far as I can tell the Spurs haven't tried to stop the Elmore Group from moving a AAA baseball team into town to replace the AA Missions who are moving to Amarillo. I'll grant you that the Spurs want to control as much of the sports market as they can in San Antonio but they aren't against other sports.
Adler and Precourt have been sleeping in the same bed for some time now. They are in love with each other.
We will see. Never underestimate PSV's ability to screw something up. And Austin getting in does not mean SA is out. MLS is just starting to discover the glories of the regional, non-intra city rivalries. Cascadia, NY/DC/Philly, and FCC/CLB & Miami/Orlando on tap. Maybe even SKC/St. Louis. Heck, MLS may even remember the glory that was SJ/LAG. Whether before 28 or 32, I think SA is a player. I have a hard time getting to five (if Austin makes it) cities better suited for MLS. Detroit & Phoenix are larger markets. SD too if one counts TJ. St. Louis with that soccer pedigree. And SA with the Spurs behind them. Those would be my top 5 at the moment. Next tier: Sac, Tampa, Indy, Raleigh/Durham, Charlotte, Vegas. I think MLS would prefer to choose from tier 1 as long as their is a viable bid. If not, then Tier 2 has a shot. Detroit has no stadium plan MLS likes. Can they actually play outside in Phoenix/Vegas? SD just lost at the ballot. Sac has a stadium plan but no deep pockets. At this moment, I would rate STL #1 and SA #2.
This MLS operates without any code of ethics regarding the expansion process. Requires SA and many other cities to comply with all these regulations and million dollar fees to apply for a franchise, but here comes Austin out of nowhere and they offer them a free handout. Shameless cowards. I hope one day the KARMA will catch up to MLS, The city of Austin, and Don Garber with his boyfriend Anthony Precourt.