Then don't go. As a fan and as a parent, I enjoy taking my kids to live professional sports at an affordable price range in my home town. I then enjoy watching said minor leaguers move up (in all three sports available to me) to the majors on TV with my kids. I enjoy bonding with my kids in this way. Why does it matter who pays the players? Does anyone here honestly believe that a lower division player in an affiliate team isn't striving at least as hard as a lower division player on an unaffiliated team? That's ludicrous! They both have the same goal (presumably) of moving up. I'd rather know that Player X suiting up for my hometown minor league has a contract that provides him the opportunity to move up to my nearby regional MLS team where I can continue to watch him once he leaves vs Player Y who has a contract with an unaffiliated team in the same league and less professional stability.
So why do the independent teams massively outdraw the reserves? There is one independent team in each league that is outdrawn by any reserves at their level. This isn't just true in the U.S., either: Barcelona B, Real Madrid Castilla, Yong Ajax, etc. all draw a fraction of the average of whatever division they play in. People go to minor league baseball because baseball has a lot of fans. Soccer doesn't, comparatively, but people are generally attached to where they live. Nashville putting their minor leaguers in Memphis and Chattanooga is not going to make more Tennesseans care about SC, it's going to make them ignore the local development team.
How many of the reserves are in a different market? I agree that there is no reason to watch Swope Park in the same stadium as SKC or RBNY 2 at Red Bull Arena. But, if KC had its reserves playing in and branded as Omaha, I'm guessing that the attendance would be similar to the independent teams. How many affiliate teams are playing in nearby cities the size of Tulsa, Des Moines, and Birmingham? Which high-drawing independent teams are in the same market as an MLS team? Comparing a stadium-sharing affiliate to an independent team that's far removed from an MLS squad isn't valid. Most of this is for the same reason I mentioned above. I'm sure the relative lack of minor league culture compared to the US plays in as well. Baseball is more established, but that's exactly why soccer will copy it. Minor league baseball has a long history of success. That's why hockey adopted the same model (hockey is probably the best comparison to soccer anyway, considering its niche status). It's why the NBA created the NBAGL. The minor league affiliate system WORKS. The latter two sports have demonstrated that it works outside of baseball.
Lots of MiLB teams play in their parent team's metro area, they don't draw the pathetic numbers NYRBII or OCB do. But we have examples outside of the parent team's immediate metro area: RGV and Tacoma are 22nd and 27th in attendance, so... maybe something is different about soccer?
Here is how I became interested in the NHL. Omaha doesn't have an NHL team. It doesn't have an AHL team (AAA equivalent for hockey) or an ECHL team (AA). But it has a college team (Univ Nebr Omaha) and a good junior team. I heard about the college team on the news for a while and got curious. I went to a few games and got hooked. I became a passionate fan. And then I followed the players up the ladder (How about Jake Guentzel !), and that's how I the NHL got a new fan. The NHL's tv exposure is far behind NFL, MLB, & NBA. But the league hangs in there and is growing. When I lived in Texas I was amazed to see people going to watch junior hockey- high school aged kids really- like the Corpus Christi Ice Rays, Amarillo Bulls,etc. That's how hockey fans are born- even in a place that doesn't have frozen ponds. I think the parallel to American soccer is clear. If you are already a soccer fan, then none of this applies; you're probably getting up early to watch EPL. But to bring in new fans and grow the game, having a broad "minor league" is important. Whether the teams are directly affiliated with a MLS team is somewhat secondary. But the reason people in Omaha care about the Kansas City Royals is that the AAA team is in Omaha and people follow the players they get attached to. There are some Cub fans and Cardinal fans. But most people care about the Royals (and are a little depressed this season, but there was outright joy in Omaha when the Royals won the Series in 2015).
Tacoma is generally regarded as part of the Seattle Metropolitan area. It is roughly 34 miles between Seattle and Tacoma. There actually aren't that many MiLB teams playing in the same metro area as their parent clubs: Tacoma (Seattle), Lehigh Valley (Philadelphia), and Gwinnett (Atlanta) are the only exceptions in AAA Baseball. In AA you have three, all in the Eastern League: Reading (Philadelphia), Akron (Cleveland), and Altoona (Pittsburgh). Trenton (New York Yankees) is actually in the Philadelphia TV market, and is much closer to Philadelphia than the Bronx. Like most things associated with sports, winning cures many ills. RGV currently sits 13th in USLC West, after finishing 13th the year before. Edinburg itself is not a large city (<100,000) and is in a metro area of less than 1 million people. Tacoma is dead last right now in the West, and last year was 16th.
If SKC suddently became "Barca B" (it's not that crazy since we've had 5 or 6 players from Barca B come to SKC either directly or indirectly) ... not sure it would matter. When we bring in players that suck, we boo and talk about how bad they are to our friends ... when they excel, we say they're AMAZING. I don't care where that player comes from ... or what language he speaks ... they're the team I support and I don't care who pays the bills or where the players come from. Very few SKC players come from KC (although a few do) and I don't think that would really change if Barca paid the bills, they'd still want the best local KC talent if they could get them. I don't see NYRB or NYCFC being bottom of the league because they're "development teams for the parent team" or anything, so I don't see why that would be the case for SKC either. Really, nothing changes except for who pays the bills (which doesn't really matter to me ... unless I become an partial owner myself ... which isn't likely).
One thing is ... there's another option in the city those reserve teams play in ... the 1st team ... that's not the case in OKC or Tulsa or Sacramento ... there isn't a higher soccer option in that market. That's why I'm all for the reserve teams staying IN the same market as the 1st team ... it doesn't take away a market that may support it more.
If I am understanding the conversation correctly, I agree with this point. For example, I think if SPR leaves "the Cavernous Confines" of CMP and goes back to Swope Park (which will mean going League1 because of USLC seating requirements) I think they will get back their 1500-2000 fans they had before because of cost, ease of location, family friendly entertainment, etc. At the same time, I think the Omaha USL1 team is going to be a leader in USL1 attendance next year because they have a great organization behind them (the Storm Chasers AAA baseball team) and because it will be the only pro soccer team in the area. (I also believe that if the Omaha team was connected to SKC it would draw soccer fans in the 1.2 million Omaha/Lincoln metro areas to SKC, but then again SKC isn't hurting at the turnstiles and that's water under the bridge now.)
I agree with this. The real question is, would there be a drastic difference if SKC moved Swope Park to Omaha ... would that draw drastically worse than if there was a Omaha financed team in Omaha? I doubt the numbers would be drastically different. But I'm a big fan of having BOTH in League 1. I just think about RGV Toros ... I don't think their attendance would go up or down significantly if Houston moved their USL team to Houston and the current owner/operator partner of Houston added a "new" team to USLC based in the same stadium. I just don't think there's that many people in that location that refuse to go due to Houston paying the wages ... and I also don't think that many people would stop showing up if Houston stopped paying the wages and RGV "Basketball" owners kept a team at the same level. Similar to SKC/Omaha ... in an ideal world, there are teams in Houston AND RGV (and have a regional rivalry).
That's a good question. In Omaha we have been "conditioned" after 50 years of having the KC Royals AAA team (and a few years of sharing the KC Kings NBA team) into automatically looking to KC. So I think a SKC affiliate team would have had some extra cachet; it would be a very familiar relationship. But could it make us complacent? ...like "If we get in trouble, SKC will bail us out". Having an independent team might make it more "ours": it's up to us; no one to blame but us if it doesn't work; if we want to keep this team we better go buy some tickets and scarf! In the end, because OmahaUSL has put together a good organization to run the club, I think it will be successful even without a connection to SKC.
I agree ... I'd rather see an independent Omaha team in USL Championship that gets a loan or two from time to time from SKC for players between the SPR (LeagueOne) team and SKC team (thinking Kuzain or last year Busio). There are enough SKC fans in Omaha that would enjoy seeing a player or two go through Omaha, but I'd rather the bulk of the team be "Omaha" players, and not SKC/SPR players. Ultimately, it's entertainment, and independents need to put an entertaining product on the field.
This sums it up perfectly: I don't think most people have any issue with affiliations or loan relationships, etc. Or even being a feeder team. But that's really different to being a development squad. So to answer the question, I don't care who is paying the players' salaries, but I do care about what the team's priorities are, and a reserves team's are going to be very different than an independent's.
And yet...minor league baseball is a fine experience that millions of people pay for every year because they...wait for it...enjoy baseball. I have never understood why our sport is so goddamned special that you have to have some grander meaning attached to it at the very local level. I can see not going to a B team's games when they're in the varsity's market. But if you're in Omaha, where the hell does anyone get off being such a snob that your support of the team hinges on what it's trying to do? Who ********ing cares?
Besides baseball being a completely different game (it's much more an individual sport: batters try to hit the ball, pitchers try to get them out, etc.), would you maintain this positive outlook for watching development soccer teams at $20/ticket?
Do the Omaha Stormchasers charge $20/ticket? That seems a bit much ... I mean, a premium ticket sure, but not the run of the mill ticket. You go to sports in towns like Omaha and other places because you want to watch the sport live and not "better" play on TV ... those Omaha baseball fans can stay at home and watch MLB or go out and enjoy an evening watching THEIR minor league team (development or not). Same would be true for soccer.
Just my opinion, but I would rather watch a club that is affiliated with an MLS club that might have some prospects that could factor in MLS or USMNT down the road than a bunch of journeymen pros. I can see the lack of interest if it is based in an MLS city and/or the team is so over matched that they get drilled every week, but if North Texas Soccer Club was based near me, I would much rather watch them than the independent USL club that is staffed with people who will never do more than be the last player on the bench in MLS.
No, that's the point. E.g. the Lookouts most expensive ticket is $9 and general admission is $6. Red Bull II is $16 + fees. Atlanta United 2 is $15-$35. NTSC is $15 (+ $3 fee). OCB (who don't even bother to report attendance anymore, it's so low) are the same as NTSC. The only one I've seen that's completely different is Timbers 2 who have $1 tickets in the supporters section (most of their tickets are $1 or $2 - almost all $8 or less).
So I am willing to buy into the argument that one of the reasons that the reserves teams' attendances are so low is that they play in the same metro area as their parent team. But we have three notable exceptions that we can use as possible evidence that fans seem to prefer independent teams: Bethlehem Steel RGV Toros FC Tucson We can't use this season for Bethlehem since they've been playing in Chester, but last season they only averaged 1,795. RGV draws... ok, I guess. They are outdrawing 5 independent teams, but those 5 teams are the ones you kind of wince at when you see their numbers. They're also a tough one to really gauge, since they also happen to be fairly awful. You could look at their attendance as trending horribly downward, but you have to take that with a grain of salt because A) they've been consistently bad B) they were massively called out for attendance inflation and seem to have adjusted their formula. Their GA price is $9, so maybe that helps keep them from a completely empty stadium, as well. FC Tucson, despite tickets being $10 each are only outdrawing TFC II (who literally announced a double digit attendance last week) and OCB, who are averaging 188 and 206, respectively. But, anyway, you may want to see an MLS reserve side, but this definitely seems to be the minority opinion.
I don't think you can really make comparisons based off two teams that play out of large towns like Allentown and Edinburg and compare their attendance to teams that play in legitimate cities and make any conclusions that fans prefer to watch clubs that are not affiliated with MLS clubs. Bethlehem Steel outdrew Penn FC in 2018 and both of those clubs are in working class medium sized cities in Pennsylvania. Seems closer to an apples to apples to me than any other comparison. FC Tuscon is affiliated with a USL Team. Don't think they are a legitimate example. In order to make a fair comparison you would need more MLS affiliates in cities where fans can't easily access the MLS teams games in large enough cities where the comparison is legitimate. I think if you did that you would find that their is no real difference as long as the club is putting a decent product on the field and long-term if prospects with name recognition start playing for those teams then it is a net plus. Righht now their are not enough prospects with much name recognition to really matter either way. Anecdotal but my brother who has never attended a USL game went to see the Richmond Kickers play North Texas only because he wanted to see the young players like Pepi on NTSC. Not saying their are many people like him and NTSC and Seattle are really the only clubs with enough prospects for any sort of cache.
So this means there either wouldn't be the equivalent of AA or A in soccer and would only be as many lower division teams as MLS teams? I mean, ok. Eventually, I'm sure, some L1 owner will try this and we can put this to the test.
To be fair ... I didn't get your point with regards to pricing. If the MLS team is paying for the players, who cares what the costs of the tickets are? Why would the cost of the ticket be related to any "positive outlook" on development teams?
Minor League Baseball teams typically have 70 dates to fill. A USL team might have 20 between the regular season, US Open Cup, and any postseason games. A soccer team should be able to charge more per game because of the relative scarcity of games.
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking here. The reason MiLB is so cheap is because the players are paid for by somebody else, and usually so is the stadium. It's possible we are seeing that somewhat with RGV and their $9 GA tickets (and definitely Timbers 2), but ATL2 and RBII are charging as much as an independent team.
Hardly anyone is getting sellouts every game, which massively undermines this argument. I don't think it really makes a ton of sense, anyway: do the Everett Aquasox charge more than the Raniers because they play half as many games? The tickets are worth what people will pay for them. For the reserves sides, that seems to be far less than asking price.