Because I was curious, here is a list of the fifteen largest metropolitan areas in the United States and Canada where there is no MLS team nearby. (For statheads: "nearby" means in the MSA or an associated CSA). 1. Miami, 5.4 million 2. Atlanta, 5.2 million 3. Detroit, 4.5 million 4. Phoenix, 4.2 million 5. Montreal, 3.6 million 6. Minneapolis, 3.2 million 7. San Diego, 3 million 8. St. Louis, 2.8 million 9. Tampa, 2.7 million 10. San Juan, Puerto Rico, 2.6 million 11. Pittsburgh, 2.2 million 12. Portland, 2.2 million 13. Cincinatti, 2.1 million 14. Vancouver, 2.1 million 15. Cleveland, 2.1 million If two of these fifteen get into this round of expansion, the next cities on the list would be Sacramento and Orlando, both around 2 million. The next largest Canadian city is Ottawa, well down the list at 1.1 million people, followed closely by Calgary and Edmonton with about 1 million apiece. In case anyone is wondering, Salt Lake City is currently the smallest city in MLS, with about 1.1 million people in its statistical area. Cities in between Orlando and Salt Lake City in population include: San Antonio Las Vegas Indianapolis Virginia Beach Charlotte Providence Austin Milwaukee Nashville Jacksonville Memphis Louisville Richmond Oklahoma City Hartford Buffalo Birmingham So what do people think? Will MLS teams 19 and 20 come from this list, or from the smaller fry? Which of the "small" cities would you most like to see a team in? If you were a millionaire, where would you build your stadium?
Being from Texas originally, I'm a bit biased. Personally I'd look into San Antonio/Austin. Both have been scoffed at and been taken as no more than a joke by more than one professional league. Between the two cities (that are roughly 1:20 apart) there are the San Antonio Spurs and the San Antonio Silver Stars ........ and that's it. NHL ? nope. NFL ? get real. MLB ? er, no. Both cities have HUGE metropolitan areas and both are heavily "spanish" population based. The success of the Round Rock Express (triple a affiliate of the Astros) shows just how much the metropolitan area of Austin will get behind a team. Both markets are starving for "major" presence in the sporting world. San Antonio technically has two professional teams (major professional here) but the city has the ability to support much more. Soccer would fit the atmosphere of both of these areas as well. With the AFL in doubt now, Austin lost it's only real drawing card as far as "competition" for the MLS. The whole Central Texas area is highly populated and there's only an NBA and WNBA franchise to show for it. I think putting a team in either of the places would be huge, and would actually garner you a second market by default (whichever city didn't get the team).
I think that's an important strategic issue for the league. Is it better to be in a major market, even if that means competing against four other leagues? Or is it better to be the only fish in a smaller pond, at the risk of making the league seem less "major league"? For reference, there are only five "four-sport" cities that don't already have an MLS team: Atlanta Detroit Miami Twin Cities Phoenix
I would argue that MLS should expand to cities where soccer is popular or that city had a NASL team which drew crowds. Actually I think they should expand where they don't have a "four-sport teams" because let's face it out of those four soccer will be number 5
Chapka, I like this data it is very similar to something I nearly posted but using CSA instead. I think MSA is instructional to some degree but because city physical sizes vary so much I tend to find the CSA more useful. With a few exceptions it is not common for a CSA to have more than 1 franchise in any sport in more than 1 of its MSAs. The exception would be DC-Baltimore-NoVa with both the NFL and MLB, and the Bay Area with both the NFL and MLB, and now NY-Newark with the NHL (since the Devils moved down the road). Either way good to see someone else finds value in this type of data and analysis. I would argue that Metropolitan New York is underserved and probably should be at the top of the list despite the presence of the Red Bulls.
if the attitude was, "take this usl team and if you win enough and have a ton of support, you'll get a crack at mls" would it work to put teams in these markets? absolutely, i think. smaller investment, greater motivation for fan support, etc. smaller markets CAN work, and better than some of the current MLS markets, imo. but the systems aren't in place to foster this. i'd love to see the impact and the battery in the mls, but the way it's going...not likely (soon, anyhow). i think it's a shame. i think in general we need to stop thinking about market size and start thinking about viability of the market (not saying that's been the prevalent thought in this thread...just saying)
All except Pittsburgh and Cleveland. Atlanta and Phoenix are the fastest-growing right now. Miami's growth rate from 2000-2007 was about 8%, on par with the Twin Cities. I assume you asked because you thought it would be a devastating argument in Miami's favor. Not really. Info from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas
The city of Detroit is losing people, but more of those people are moving into the suburbs rather than moving completely out of the state. And, with the Canadian cities that surround Detroit, the metro population approaches 6 million.
The market being a soccer town is important. Find places where the AYSO/traveling team system is large, and it has translated into talent that will be getting to the MLS or is in the MLS. Combined with USL/NASL history. A lot of those cities up there just don't make sense to have a team for a long time, if ever. But I understand the info was provided more to spark argument than to argue in favor of any one city. By the way Cincinnati is spelled incorrectly.
My humble opinion is that San Antonio would not be a good market (at least in the short term). I think there are two models for success in the MLS that we have seen over the years. One focuses on a soccer culture within a city and the other focuses on the Hispanic population. A lot of teams combine both. I don't think that San Antonio has either. While there is a huge Hispanic population in San Antonio, most of the Hispanics there are either 3rd or 4th generation Hispanics who have almost assimilated fully into an american way of life. This segment would much rather have an NFL team than an MLS team and they have their Spurs to keep them occupied until that happens. The Hispanic population in San Antonio is VERY different from the one in Houston or Dallas. Now, while there is some soccer culture, I don't think its enough to make a team successful. The most obvious way to test this is to first have a USL team, see how that does, and then proceed from there. I think that there are other cities that are much better markets for MLS teams than San Antonio.
I'm sure you are aware of the fact that San Antonio was a leading candidate for expansion before the new mayor blew them off for NFL. So they have that going for them. Although that was before the Quakes moved to Houston, so I doubt SA is likely in the near future. I think USL-1 works best for Austin. I'm curious to see how the Aztecs do.
It matters how many of the new inhabitants or transplants are soccer fans..The growth in NYC,Miami,Texas is probably due to an influx of immigrants or out of towners who lost a job and are looking for a better opportunity, and I don't think any of the stated above are willing to pay the big bucks to watch a MLS team
But then, you lose out on the top TV markets without pro soccer. TV revenue is just about as important as game attendance.
That would be true if we were talking about local tv like the NFL and MLB but for the most part TV in MLS means cable. smaller more committed markets will get you a similar size increase in the cable numbers mls is primarily relying on. If you have a rabid base in Portland it will probably watch more ESPN2 games than an apathetic market in Phoenix. If we get large enough to have major network contracts, then some of the larger markets might have a better argument, until then fan support is #1
Just FYI since alot of people just look at city or metro area reports about Salt Lake City. There is about 1.1 million people in the Salt Lake Valley. But pro teams in Salt Lake draw fans from all across the wasatch front. I myself go to many games each season, and live about 45 miles away from the stadium in Ogden. The whole wasatch front has a little over 2 million people in it from Ogden in the North to Provo in the south. And I would argue that people go to games even farther away from that. So when comparing SLC you really cannot say that all of those cities listed above would be bigger markets. The Salt Lake City market is bigger than just the Salt Lake Valley. Thanks, I am done with my rant.
also, to get back to the question asked. If Miami 1, 5.4 million and Vancouver 14, 2.1 million get the franchises (which is what my prediction is given all the content I've been absorbing) Then Montreal 5, 3.6 million and Portland 12, 2.2 million will be the front runners with St. Louis 8, 2.8 million a strong contender if next time Garber thinks they have their money together
So if you include both MLS, and USL-1 as professional leagues does that mean that Atlanta is the biggest city in the WORLD not to have a professional soccer team?
Technically, Atlanta still has the Silverbacks in USL-1, although they are on hiatus this season. Also, since the Detroit area is actually larger than Atlanta when you include Windsor and a few other Canadian suburbs, the answer is no, Atlanta is not the largest city in the world not to have a professional team. That city would be Detroit.
Wow, I just looked at Detroit on Google Maps and y'all are just about equadistant from Toronto, Columbus, and Chicago, but not really weekend traveling distance to any. That sucks!
You're right, they're all driving distance but way too far to be considered in their market. Toronto's about 4 hrs, Columbus is a bit over 4 hrs, and Chicago is 5-6 hours. However, with each of these cities, you have traditional rivals in other sports that would dissuade Detroit from really standing behind them (Toronto - Maple Leafs, Chicago - every single team, Columbus - Ohio State). Detroit has 4 teams that we support to the death (yes, even the Lions), and even with the bad economic times that we've had since 2001, the Lions sold out every game in Ford Field until this year, the Pistons have a streak of sold-out games at around 255, the Tigers had 3 million people attend games at Comerica Park, and the Red Wings, despite the strike and higher ticket prices, are the biggest draw in the NHL.
When you throw out the W-word on something is hard not to feel curious. Detroit is ranked 68th on this list of most populated cities (or if you can find a list based on size, that would do). So if somebody has the time it would be nice to look up if the other 67 do have professional teams. Geeky, ain't it?
I was merely pointing out that Detroit was bigger than Atlanta. I'm pretty sure I can find a couple cities in the world that are bigger that don't have soccer teams. However, those numbers on that website that you provided are waaaay off. Just glancing at the list, the population numbers for the metro areas of Detroit, Dallas, DC, Tokyo, Madrid, Mexico City, NYC and Chicago are much lower than they really are.