Toronto FC is helping keep the MLS alive, they're the second most valuable team and have unbelievable support. The Impact (out of Montreal) and Toronto FC have a huge rivalry created in the past two years. Without the Canadian, MLS is a league with perennial money losers minus LA. Putting a team in Montreal for the MLS would boost the league further by bringing the kind of rivalry that is not seen anywhere else in the MLS. Montreal Impact fans and TFC fans rabidly hate each other. There is no loss in bringing Canadian teams into the league. Of course, you're probably one of those people who actually thinks the MLS is about developing American talent. Which it's not. All sports leagues operate on the premise of making money. The teams will go where money can be made. That's Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver, places with strong soccer fanbases and places which will rake in cash more than American markets with twice the population. The Ottawa team should be an after thought though, as Ottawa can't even support a CFL team, or any team, other than an NHL team
But Joey Saputo is a putz and screwed up Montreal's chances of having a team. The 40 mil isn't negotiable folks. Maybe MOntreal should find an owner who is willing to kick in the required fee and then we can talk about the league "dropping the ball". The only ball dropped was by Saputo.
Yeah but that involves TFC qualifying, we don't doubt you could sell a lot of tickets in any quaterfinals, but thats just cause it'll be the first playoffs in like a decade.
55,800. Capacity. And it was just one game, but three that were at capcity. Over 200k tickets sold over 4 or 5 games.
Ottawa can't support a team? What about Montreal? The CFL died twice (Alouettes, Concordes) there (like Ottawa), The Montreal Machine (World League of AF) also did not last. Soccer died over and over (Manic, Inter-Montreal, Supra etc...) and let's not talk about baseball (Expos, can't even get a canam team now) or Basketball (Matrix ABA team folded, moved, renamed etc etc...). Might as well talk about hockey, where you lost the Wanderers, the Marroons and countless junior Hockey teams. That was all in the past. Can Ottawa support CFL or MLS now, of course it can. Just like Montreal can support USL or CFL....
I think they did. They would sell out their games and the city would actually give a damn about the team. I understood the fee when it was $10 million and $15 million. It showed the expansion ownership had a decent amount of financial backing and commitment. Now that it's $40 million, you have to wonder why you would want a team to start out that much in the red. I mean seriously, how long does it take for the average MLS team to even spend that much? Five years?
I should have stopped reading after the first sentence, because clearly you're a complete idiot, but I'll do you the service of breaking down your post one section at a time. , MLS was alive an kicking for more than a decade before TFC ever kicked their first ball. They'd be alive and kicking without TFC right now too. Is the league stronger for having TFC? Yes. Is TFC the reason why the league is still alive? Of course not. And Dallas. So two of the three profitable teams are based in the U.S. With Seattles season ticket numbers and a revenue controlled venue, they'll turn a profit in year one. Philly will enter the league in their own stadium and it's looking like their season ticket numbers will be pretty solid. They are already signing up corporate sponsors. All signs that they will turn a profit in year one. RSL has a good chance to turn a profit this season, their first in their new building. So I don't think there is magic fairy dust up in Canadda that makes your teams ultra profitable. It's just that TFC joined the league after the model had already been figured out. You mean like Portland and Seattle? Or the Northeast Corridor? I mean, Philly, NY, and Washington fans clearly have no history of rivalry in sports. And while the Chivas USA/LA Galaxy rivalry was manufactured by the league, it has actually grown into a very intense rivalry in a very short period of time. That intensity will only grow with time. Unless of course you count the potential added TV revenue from a U.S. national TV deal. Oh, and U.S. based corporate sponsors that potentially can be added to the league's portfolio by expandin in the U.S. You know, two things that Canadian teams can't offer. See above. Considering that Vancouver isn't in a revenue controlled stadium, and they'll be paying rent, I question how profitable they can be. Montreal plays in the equivalent of a high school football stadium and Saputo charges high school football ticket prices too. The team is operated as a non-profit. Saputo himself has stated that in order to upgrade Stade Saputo he would need to jack up ticket prices to the point he'd price out the majority of his customers. So I'm not so sure that the USL model in Montreal would translate to MLS. So lets not make gross assumptions based on national pride. Lets look at facts.
Lets talk support. Highest attended NHL team in the League. Oldest league. Alouettes, may have been lost twice but during the 90s the whole city was doing horribly now that its back to normal, they get 20k each game. Expos, they only lost all support cause they canceled the finals when it was Maple Leaf/Expos, what kind of league do you want to be in when they cancel the final if you and your biggest rival is in it. After that they were dead and there is no way you can say they didnt have support over their long history. Just because they left after, what, 40 yrs? And if you want to take old-school hockey like the Marrons, what about Ottawa's original team? What happened to them. Oh thats right Montreal beat them and then they disappeared. Oh and soccer support? Highest attended matches in the U-20, over 200k tickets sold, 13k tickets sold for each Impact game. Highest attended team in the league for a decade. Its a bunch of crap you are spewing.
You missed my point. I guess I was being sarcastic... The point was put forward that Ottawa could only support a NHL team and that they could not support the CFL (lost it twice) or soccer as opposed to Montreal. My point is Ottawa is very different now and the potential owners for both CFL and MLS in Ottawa are top notch. That if you went to any city (and I used Montreal in this example because the Ottawa-nay nay person was saying how great Montreal was and how bad Ottawa was) you could make a point that they are a bad sportstown. A few factual corrections on your post; (montreal actualy second in attendance, but that is due to the outdoor game in Chicago... For Baseball I believe you are talking about the Blue Jays and not the Maple Leafs, and they did not cancel it because it was the Blue Jays and Expos in the World Series (although it could have been) as the season was not even over yet... Ottawa Senators (original) did not leave Ottawa because Montreal beat them, rather they were bought by an American owner who moved them). Don't take my post as Anti-Montreal, rather as a response for an Anti-Ottawa. Hockey/Football/Soccer wise montreal has excellent support. there is no doubt in my mind that Montreal could support MLS. Ottawa has excellent hockey support, packed the Soccer U20 (less people than Montreal because brazil wasn't playing here and our stadium is half your size) and has the largest minor football association in Canada. Ottawa would support NHL, MLS and CFL well if given the chance (MLS and CFL owners are top notch, in the past the CFL owners were the worst in the history of mankind).
This is true. Canadians don't buy anything from companies based in America. It's actually against the law, therefore any US-based company would have absolutely no interest in advertising in Canada.
Thats not the law at all. There is no law in Canada or the USA that says Canadians cannot buy goods from a company based in America. Now you might have to pay a duty to bring it back into the country but that applies on goods bought anywhere. It also applies to Americans buying goods in Canada. There are some online companies who simply prefer not to deal with the issue and won't sell to Canada (or America). The bigger ones will open up a Canadian (or American) subsidiary company. But there is no law.
It's not a big secret that Garber want's more Canadian businesses to throw down sponsorship money and he also wants a Canadian TV deal. He has no promisses of getting either if he expands into Canada. On the other hand, U.S. based businesses are more inclined to throw donwn sponsorship money if the league has a larger footprint in the U.S. Any spillover they get into Canada is gravy, but given the fact that there already are multiple national TV deals in place in the U.S., a U.S. based corporation is going to get a lot more excited about the added exposure in Portland, St. Louis, or Miami through television rather than the added exposure in Ottawa or Vancouver through signage at the stadium. It's not rocket science.
i'm glad you've polled the marketing branches at all the major us companies regarding their desire to advertise their product in Canada. All 12 of us Canadians usually get ignored, so this is a plus. seriously, though, you're making all of Canada out to be a tiny market that plaes in comparison to any single state. Guess what - Vancouver draws quite a few people too. when it's all said and done, will adidas really think they're getting screwed because a bunch of canadians are seeing their product rather than portland? or miami? we buy things too, damnit! (and our economy isn't as volatile as yours right now) I am, however, concerned about this gravy spillover you speak of.
I'm not saying Canadians don't buy stuff. But the exposure gained by a U.S. based corporation through the addition of another TV market in an already national TV deal does outweigh what a Canadian city can offer. It doesn't take an MBA (which I have) to figure that out. That's not a knock on Canada, it's just a reality of the current situation.
Yes. Right. For example, say I am in Marketing for a mid sized American consumer brands company in 2011 launching a campaign for a product that we happen to sell in US and Canada. I approach MLS and say "Tell me about your properties". They say we have 16 clubs in the US and 2 in Canada and we're happy to do a leage wide deal with you. I'm thinking, ok, so MLS gives me some measure of exposure in the US, but I'm going to have to figure out something else in Canada, because those two markets aren't enough to help me address my needs. Then I prepare my counter offer to MLS saying, "I like the exposure you give our brand in the US, but those two Canadian cities . . . they don't help us too much so I'd like you to remove those from your pricing quote." Oh you won't do that. Well honestly, we needed a bit more presence in St. Louis, Miami and Portland for our US campaign anyway, so we're going to talk to some other properties. Thanks anyway MLS. So that's just one example why the country thing is relevant to advertising and sponsorship. Then consider the fact that many potential advertisers do not sell in Canada, or if they do, they have entirely different campaigns, perhaps at different times of the year. From this standpoint, it would be better for MLS to be a more complete package in the US than to be spread across geographies. That said, I am not personally anti-Canadian expansion, I just understand the advertising side of the argument.
Fair enough - that's another reasonable way to approach it. On either side of the border it's about critical mass.
this is true. my only counter-argument (which isn't really one) would be that most of, if not all, the major brands advertising with the mls sell in canada, and therefore have something to gain from expansion to Canada. something we will probably never get to know, though, is, is the gain from expanding, say, to vancouver, equal to or greater than the added exposure in portland, miami, etc? you guys says yes, i hope otherwise a quick google search didn't turn up any lists of major mls advertisers. mind you, i'm in class right now so i haven't put a lot of time into it. i'm mindful of my own biases though, and not overly knowledgeable about advertising in the us. it could be that i'm overemphasizing the value of advertising in Canada - i don't know. either way, i just want to make sure that Canada doesn't get written off entirely because, we're, well, Canada (not saying you guys specifically do this)