This may come as a shock to you, but a significant number of the people who aren't US fans are members of the "national soccer federation" or whatever, not to mention citizens of the United States of America. It would be illegal under US law to restrict people from buying tickets, particularly if they are citizens of the US, based on ethnic background, race, color, etc.
I see. But how is this illegal if membership of the USSF is open for everyone? It's merely a way to reward loyal members of the USSF. This system is used in The Netherlands. Unsold tickets are released on the open market. If you want to get them earlier you need to become a member.
If the "Swiss Nati" plays the turkish national team we face the same problem. As commonly known, Turkey has a really fanatical fanbase and because a lot of turks live in Switzerland there were some home matches where we were outnumbered by turkish fans. So they began to limit the ticket sale for important matches. For the deciding match for World Cup qualification against Turkey there were just a relatively small number of tickets available for people without a swiss passport (for the other tickets passport number was required). That worked quite well there and Switzerland got the qualification But I'm not sure if this would have worked at the Gold Cup. Were the 80'000 pro-mexicans all US citizens? If not, would have the support of pro-US fans been good enough to sell out the Rose Bowl?
I agree. If its important for us to have the 12th man (and it is) I think It would be smart to have any possible stadium in the NorthEast, possibly in NY?
And it'll be money wasted because Mexico fan will travel 8 hours to see his team and US fan won't travel across town. Not to mention, you exclude most of the US fan base, which would be sort of, well, stupid.
Well, there really is no "membership" in the USSF, for starters. I think that there is some sort of "Supporter's Club" that gives you early access to tickets, but since in the US, you can't deny someone membership in this club based on their ethnicity or citizenship status or national origin or their surname, the Mexican/Salvadoran/Guatemalan/Honduran immigrants, US citizens of origin from those countries, etc, have no problem forking over the fee to get on that priority list and get the early access. Why you ask? Well, they like soccer and most Americans couldn't care less. Same goes for Sams-Army & American Outlaws Nerdgroups. The second they, or the USSF tried to deny membership to someone based on ethnic origin or some other discriminatory practice, they'd get sued, rightfully, and get quickly bankrupted. This. Is. America. Soccer is not as popular here as is in the rest of the world. The sooner that foreigners come to grips with that, the better. The popularity of the sport has grown immensely and exponentially over the last 20 years, both in terms of the National team and Major League Soccer. But it's not the most popular sport in the nation and for the most part, our national psyche isn't wrapped up in how the National Soccer team does, or Hockey, or basketball, or pretty much most other Olympic sports. That pretty much died out with the end of the Cold War. The only thing that this would accomplish is the non-US fans that were too dumb to sign up for whatever "fan group" the Fed sets up, would have to wait in line. The staggering majority of the Mexico or Honduras or Salvadoran fans that show up to the games. And since you can buy tickets on line and do nothing more than show up at the venue and have some machine spit out your tickets, there really aren't any barriers to anyone over here.
It would be illegal under US law to restrict the sale of tickets based on citizenship, not to mention, damned near impossible to verify. Oh and the majority of US Citizens don't have passports. Hopping the car and driving two hours in any direction doesn't put the majority of us in another country. Most likely, they were, or were legal immigrants. You can't discriminate against legal immigrants. That's why Green Card holding players in MLS are treated the same as US citizens for the purposed of foreign player restrictions. It wouldn't have been enough to fill 10 sections.
Our country's too large to have a centralized nat stadium. I like the current set up where they travel around the country. That's the best way to do it IMO in a nation as large as ours.
All you have to do is require the members to purchase tickets for at least 3-5 games per year, otherwise they are dropped from the Supporters pool for the following year. Or, have a membership fee of $100 and not let anyone purchase advance game tickets who just signed up in the previous 3 months. This will eliminate a lot of the fans signing up just to get early dibs on USA games against the country they are loyal to.
In the interest of developing the game, there shouldn't be a national stadium. The country is much too large and travel is much too expensive. If there's an issue of managing support ratios, just plan accordingly. Don't host a USA vs Mexico friendly in LA or Chicago, do it elsewhere. It isn't about choosing one particular venue that covers every potential matchup. Now, the USSF may intentionally schedule match-ups where US fans are outnumerbed, in the interest of ticket sales. That may result in a loss for the team, but a gain in $$$$ There really ought to be a balance, though. Schedule some friendlies for $$$ and some in the interest of the players and supporters. The former sustains the fed and its projects, the latter grows support and interest.
I'm leaning towards either St. Louis or Kansas City. I am leaning away from Large SANCTUARY CITIES like Houston, Dallas, Chicago, LA, and New York because they draw more people who root for the opposition than for the USA. Kansas City, on the other hand, is not a sanctuary city. Kansas City has already shown a great pro-USA, sell-out crowd at the new LIVESTRONG Sporting Park and that was against a team that is not a big draw - Guadalupe. Another fact about KC is they don't have a cluttered sports landscape. One baseball team, one football team, one MLS soccer team and that's it so international matches get a bigger share of local sports fans' attention. IMO, let's just make it LIVESTRONG Sporting Park in KC and leave it at that for 5 years and see how that goes.
Easy enough It's already $55.00, do you think $100 is going to discourage people that So much for encouraging new domestic fans to purchase advance tickets. It won't do dick.
Wellthis is why it makes it tricky to find a national location for us then If this was Italy or something then we could build opne in a tiny ass town and still have mucho revenue but since this country is so large and not soccer centered...we have a dillema
That we can't restrict ticket sales so as to make sure its a pro US crowd in the USA. Home crowd, home game, home team makes it more special. When you have an overwhelming visitor fan element it kinda kills it for the home team fans.
Since I don't see Finley Stadium in Chattanooga getting this designation any time soon, I'll second LP Field in Nashville.
I think you solve the Pasadena problem by creating an away fans section and not allowing non-US fans into the home section. It's done every match day in almost every country in the world. If you book a match in a non-cavernous venue like Livestrong or Crew stadium, you still get a sellout for a WCQ with 80% US fans and there are no "discrimination issues". We've never tried it here. Maybe we should. I'm sick of being outnumbered at home.
Let's have a discussion. I can't buy tickets from the Sounders' away allocation in Vancouver if I am a Whitecaps fan (I don't have access). Georgetown only allotted 240 tickets this year to Syracuse for their home basketball game against the Orangemen. They did not put tickets up for sale to the general public at all. In most stadiums, I cannot buy single game tickets in club/skybox seats unless I am a member, even if they are available and can afford the ticket. I can't buy tickets in student sections at college games if I'm not a student in most venues. I cannot get access to tickets in a stadium in the handicapped areas if I am able-bodied. I know some of these examples are pushing the envelope, but my point is that access to seats in stadiums is restricted to exclusive parties every day in this country. And I realize that under the scenario I described to which you responded, on gameday if somebody in a Mexico shirt has a valid ticket in the US section and is not let in, you have a potential legal mess on your hands. But I don't believe it would be illegal to give the away fans an allocation and our fans in membership groups the rest and then open the unsold seats to the general public on game day to everyone at minimum. Your thoughts?
Since when does a series of false equivalences equate a "discussion". So? Vancouver artificially limits access to an event in high demand so that their fans will have access as away fans at Seattle, by mutual agreement So? Georgetown artificially limits access to an event that it's in high demand. So? There is no inherent "right" to purchase something that has been limited to an already restricted membership based on a legal restriction. IOW - Cost of Membership. Just because someone is a student of university X, their ability to purchase a ticket in the section is not limited by who they root for. Actually, you can. Provided you're attending with a person that requires additional accommodation so as to enjoy the game, you can buy the seat next to the open wheelchair slot. But if you go down there and just plop yourself down there, you just look like a dick and risk removal. The stadium is required, by law to provide such accommodation. They're provided to, either in essence or in fact, minority groups, who would not otherwise have access. The examples are the exact opposite of "restricting". You'd have a point, if the USSF, had venue control over this recent tournament. They did not. CONCACAF did, and CONCACAF was under no obligation to create a "home" atmosphere. They sold tickets to make a profit. I can't speak for Matt, but I wish people had a better grasp on reality and facts around here.