Kansas City is being labeled an expansion team. But it should be noted that the league is holding the door open for new ownership to bring the Royals back in 2023. Maybe whatever group that is looking to buy Real Salt Lake will also take on the Royals as well? So: 2021: Louisville and Kansas City (Utah Royals out) 2022: Angel City FC and Sacramento 2023: Utah Royals and Cincinnati?
Ownership has been transferred, but there is a mechanism for the Royals to be re-established in 2023 by new ownership. #NWSL https://t.co/mij8wvDzxo pic.twitter.com/ks2HIUkV3c— Meg Linehan (@itsmeglinehan) December 7, 2020
if the NWSL splits into two conferences, KC & Chicago/Louisville would be separated. EAST: SkyBlue, Washington, North Carolina, Orlando, Louisville, Chicago, (Cincinnati) WEST: OL Reign, Portland, Angel City FC, Houston, Kansas City, Sacramento, (Utah)
Interesting connection highlighted in the most recent EQZ article: https://equalizersoccer.com/2020/12...intestment-angel-city-los-angeles-connection/ While there were a lot of WoSo people complaining that investors were flocking to the LA team while Utah was in danger of folding, it turns out the that LA group did ultimately bring some investors on board as owners of another team. And those investors did "save" the Royals, though did so by moving them...
San Jose & Sacramento expansion teams? San Jose NWSL would play at the Earthquakes stadium. https://www.centerlinesoccer.com/20...l-team-coming-to-san-jose-earthquakes-stadium
Interesting wording in the article... It sounds like the SJ group is wanting to buy out the current expansion rights from the Sac group, which sounds more like buying a place in the queue than buying franchise territory? I'm really curious as to exactly what's going on. Franchise territory certainly seems like less of an issue if Oakland truly is still in the picture, as yet another Bay Area option.
The constant uncertainty of the Sacramento NWSL bid is odd. They were a sure thing two years ago, then it fell off, then was again a sure thing at the end of the 2020 season and now appears to have gotten sidetracked again.
Does Sacramento expansion preclude a team in San Jose, Oakland, or San Francisco? Does anyone know what kind of exclusion zone or territory Sacramento gets?
The only thing I've ever heard about NWSL territory rights was when there was talk about City Football Group trying to stake claim in NYC, and that somehow came up against Sky Blue's rights. Those were the early days of NWSL, though, and I would hope that NWSL is more open to their idea of derbies and near-derbies now....
From Italy I say: derbies are always addicting! I guess a local rivalry, as long as it involves an area with medium to high attendances, could only do good to NWSL. After all, although the teams involved don't exactly rest on the same geographical area, the so-called "Cascadia Derby" between Seattle and Portland was quite always a success, both because of the established support for the two teams and for the "historical rivalry" value: why not trying more of the same with actually closer clubs?
https://blog.sfgate.com/soccer/2021/01/12/nwsl-adds-sacramento-team-oakland-san-jose-possible/ Oakland is now out due to the territorial rights as mentioned in this article. San Jose still in play.
Derbies are fun and all, but you still have to pay the bills. Most NWSL teams struggle to find local sponsorships in their solo markets, creating competition for those all-so-important dollars isn't a recipe for success. If NWSL teams were all averaging over 10k or 15k a game we might be having a different conversation, but they don't. One could debate just how important the Bay Area footprint of potential sponsorship is to Sacramento, but that's the NWSL's decision.
I wonder if they used a 75 mile radius to define the territory. That would put Oakland in the territory but not San Jose. I think Oakland is likely for the USL women's league if that ever happens.
I don't see San Jose getting one in the next five years or even longer, especially if there are MLS clubs with their own stadiums that would want a team. Plus there is the extent of what kind of impact it might have on Sacramento to have a team that close in their early stages of growth as they attempt to build their fan base. I am sure the league has concerns about that when considering San Jose as a choice for right now. Of course, if the ownership of the MLS Earthquakes would show some serious interest. it could help push the timeline up some, should the leagues popularity continue to grow. I do think that there will eventually be four teams in California: LA, Sacramento, San Jose, and San Diego. Right now with their stadium almost completed, Cincinnati would most likely be a stronger candidate for 2023. It would also allow the league to place a team in each conference. should they have one set up by then. Cincinnati(East) and Utah(West). For 2024 or 2025, with MLS stadiums coming on line for Austin and Minnesota, they could be candidates for the West. While in the East could we see a renewed interest from Atlanta, or could it be Nashville, St. Louis, or Miami. All will have their new stadiums completed by then. Something to keep an eye on for future expansion, is that at the top of the list for future MLS expansion are Las Vegas and Phoenix.
The San Jose group said they plan to use the Earthquakes' stadium. Plus there's former USWNT members linked to the ownership group as well. I doubt that wouldl get turned away. "A potential ownership group that includes Uber executive Jennifer Vescio and unnamed former U.S. Women’s National Team players..."
FCD's support of their own women's team is fickle at best, and they've never (outwardly) expressed interest in NWSL. (Their coach did, but that means nothing, especially when he admitted in the same breath that ownership had never talked about it.)
MLS' FC Dallas is always in the bottom in terms of attendance. There's a good dozen other cities that should have a team before Dallas.
To be fair, I wouldn't use one team's attendance numbers to judge the potential of a new team. As we've previously seen with Kansas City, how a team is owned & operated has a huge effect on attendance, regardless of the size of the city or of other in-market teams; ownership change tanked FCKC's attendance numbers, and SKC nearby draws just fine (Seattle is an even starker difference between MLS and NWSL). On the other side of the coin, POR and UTA are middling in MLS attendance but break NWSL attendance, while I believe the Courage has outdrawn NCFC before. Basically, it's not fair to rule out a city (or bank on a city) as a possibility just because of the attendance of an existing team there.
I know they said they could use Earthquake stadium, but it is still less riskier when the owners are in control of their stadiums. They need to be careful getting too many independents all at once simply because they have star power, and/or a lot of money. Let's see how well the Angel FC and the Kansas City model does for a while, before adding anymore.
Only because their stadium is in Frisco. And not in actual Dallas area. It’s like Dallas Cowboys stadium in Arlington instead of Dallas. Frisco is growing fast but getting to it is kind of hard because from Dallas you have to drive far and there are few quick routes to Frisco.