90:00 Commentary: Is MLS for sale?

I think lots of empty seats aren't the killer everyone thinks they are, though of couse they aren't good. This is where MLS finds itself once more in the unfair NFL comparisson. MLB games typically aren't sold out, and no one seems to bat an eye. I think most people know that NFL-sized stadiums typically have many empty seats for non-NFL events.

Decent field turf also doesn't really come across as a negative when you're watching TV, unless it's really awful turf like in Salt lake City. Football lines, on the other hand, are another story. There's no pretending they aren't there, unless you're one of Bigsoccer's small but loud minority who, for whatever reason, take pride in not caring about them. (Yes, we've all seen rugby lines at Old Trafford. No, that's not the same thing)

 

I can tell you from experience that Soldier Field looked just fine once you got up to about 18 or 19k. Anything over that, and SF was just fine. And, no, you don't spend the entire game looking up at the empty upper deck, nor do the TV cameras dwell on it.

Qwest has more seats, but the Sounders look like they're well on their way to having crowds at least in that range most of the time, so I really, really, really wouldn't worry about how bad it looks on TV.

 

I misread what you were asking.

 

do you have anything that can't easily be read as just an employee pumping up his "great" employer(s)?

not that I think the ownership combination in Seattle isn't "pretty potent," but I would appreciate seeing some "outside/neutral" analysis or commentary on this.

Tod Leiweke doesn't seem like an unbaised voice in this discussion of just "how great" the Seattle MLS ownership is and will be.

 

I'll grant it isn't a slam dunk. The Krafts and Hunts aren't exactly paupers, and they too obviously have vast experience with other leagues, yet if reports are to be believed they are the leaders of the "slow and steady" crowd. Still, while having economic muscle doesn't mean the owners will flex it, you can be certain those without the vast resources won't have the means to even consider it.

I also think all those reservations in Seattle are the best thing that could have happended to MLS. Obviously neither Toronto nor Seattle drew very well in the USL, yet people in both markets responded instantly to MLS. The reason is simple, I think: those are markets that know better and the fans weren't especially interested in minor league soccer. All MLS has to do is look at the contrast in attendance to realize that if it doesn't make good on the difference, interest will inevitiably wane. The Seattle ownership group understands the issue, and they have set the bar of expecatations pretty high. Now they must know they have to deliver.

There's another ray of hope in the Toronto and Seattle examples too -- both of these markets have shown that they can sell a lot of tickets for an even better product, meaning there are more fans out there for these teams to capture. Because they have higher expecatations, those fans will be a much tougher sell, but I beleive that they are there. Just as they are there in New York, Chicago, and indeed in most large MLS markets.

 

I'm afraid I don't see the connection.

If I said "And Smith, who has been a farmer for 35 years, is the perfect person to teach geometry," would that make any sense?

What am I missing here?

 

I think it's perfectly valid to criticize owners for decisions which are not only bad for soccer but bad for the bottom line in the medium or long term.

Keeping Clavijo on is just such a decision. Are the negative articles in the local press, canceled season tickets, unhappy players and dim playoff prospects really worth the extra $200K-$300K it would take to hire a decent MLS head coach?

How much revenue would one home playoff game generate for the Rapids in their new stadium? Certainly more than enough to pay off the new coach and then some, I'd imagine.

It's the kind of "nose despite the face" decision that this league's owners should be beyond by now.

Two of the biggest culprits in this sort of skinflint decision-making are two of its billionaire owners, Kraft and Kroenke. Phil Anschutz and Mateschitz have at least shown a passion and willingness to win and a vision for the game in this country, pushing the the league's murky rules to their breaking point in order to achieve a competitive advantage for their team.

So, when you see "billionaire owner" attached to an MLS team, it means nothing in terms of commitment to the on-the-field product or presentation of the game. Watching the Revs down a goal with no decent offensive options in the final 20 minutes of MLS Cup and $300K+ unused under the salary cap is enough to make one vomit. From the fans' standpoint, this is a totally valid critique.

 

Based on your opinion.

And you know what opinions are like.

I was speaking more to the theory that "How can they let this guy in the league, can't they see he's going to be a bad owner?" when the fact is they do a hell of a lot more due diligence than you or I can do with our limited resources. The decision to let someone into your LLC has a huge impact on everybody in the LLC and when you're talking about the sums of money that are on the line here, well, I'm sorry, Average Bigsoccer Poster's opinion of Paul Allen's intentions makes for nice exercise for them, but it's largely irrelevant.

Remember how Vergara was going to be so bad for the league, how he was just looking for a brand extension, how he didn't care about American soccer, how he was going to cut and run at the first opportunity and what a bad idea it was to have an MLS team be a farm team for a Mexican or Costa Rican club?

 

To me its very obvious if you look at recent expansion what trumps everything is an owner with deep pockets and yes everything is for sale. Look no further then the league allowing a corporation to name a team after itself(Red Bull). The league will never allow itself to let in a person like Horowitz again who was only worth 40-50 million and couldnt stomach the losses. Look at what is going on in St. Louis. They have everything in place including a SSS plan but lack an owner with deep pockets so they havent gotten a team yet. Seattle had none of that yet got in because they have an owner that is one of the richest people in the world. The writer brings up valid concerns about turf, football lines and one of the most underrated scheduling. People who say "well if the Seahawks are playing sunday then soccer can play on Saturday" are missing the point. There isnt enough turn around time fixing the field for both sports so all the configurations will be in place for the Seahawks and not soccer so expect football lines, etc. This has been a major problem for teams like the Revs and Red Bull for years. I would expect many fall games to be pushed to midweek because of this which is not optimal for attendance.

 

I did not know that 90:00 was actually a credible magazine. I have read it a few times and it is terrible.

Who cares what these challenges for Seattle are? We have a team in the Pacific Northwest with an owner with deep pockets. Last I checked, they are getting an insane amount of deposits for season tickets too. I think Seattle is the least of the league's concerns. This writer is just trying to get attention by saying something outlandish.

As for the lines...Giants Stadium can and has been turned around in under 24 hours. The problem is paying for the labor. We'll have to wait and see what happens with that. Instead, I love how everyone jumps to conclusions, including this 90:00 writer who has no clue.

 

By getting Paul Allen on board, they're also getting a guy who may become another Uncle Phil.

If a franchise here or there gets deep into red and its owners begin to have doubts, the guy has enough money to step in and save the day.

The sale of the SSS concept was pure MLS bullsh!t.

What it wanted but couldn't really say publicly were the stadiums built with public funds - aka the taxpayers' money - that it would be able to control and/or get virtually rent-free. And, since the league couldn't get an NFL sized stadium built for $1B, it went for the smaller venues - sufficient enough for most of its matches - in the $150M-$250M range.

But it only went to this program when its inferior brand of soccer couldn't draw well in the Rose Bowl, the Giants Stadium, Soldier Field, the OSU stadium, the Cotton Bowl, etc.

Of course, one could question whether MLS could sell 30,000 -35,000 seats regularly even if it did offer quality soccer. Surely, the league strived to that level but it - with all of its billionaires on board and all - it couldn't accomplish that task.

Subsequently, the 20,000-25,000 SSS's became it.

A 25,000 seater still has enough room left to up the cap, the quality of play and the revenues at the same time.

But they did understand that they had to increase their market share in the US sports world or forever remain a minor league. Now, they're trying to become a "major minor". It's a step.

MLS has the Midwest covered.

But it has nothing in the Northwest. From a marketing POV, it hopes that the Seattle franchise draws people not only from the city itself but from the neighboring states.

St. Louis has KC to the west, Chicago to the North and Columbus to the East. There's nothing compelling about putting a team there.

PS. The Quest Field was rated by the NFL players to be the best FieldTurf surface around. One should be able to play soccer on it well enough.

 

And this is a problem because.......?

Such is the way of sports these days. What exactly would you like to trump money? (not Trump Money, that helped sink the USFL).

And that seems perfectly reasonable to me. As it probably does to most people who don't have their St.Louis Whiner hats on.

And because of his relationship with Qwest and the Seahawks, which will likely allow Seattle's MLS team to be in decent shape financially. Which is kind of the whole point.

Except "the writer" apparently didn't realize that Qwest's football lines aren't permanent. So that's not a valid concern, except where the following point comes into play:

No, there's enough time. It depends on how hard you want to work at it and how much money you want to spend on it. It took 36 hours and $40,000 to convert RFK from baseball to soccer and vice versa. I'm sure that if Allen wants to spend the jack and have people working OT on Saturday nights, they could play MLS games on a field devoid of football markings.

But we don't know yet if he will or he won't. But let's all assume that he won't because it makes negative arguments that much stronger.

I'd like someone to do two things for me:
1 - Count the number of fall games in NY, NE, CHI (prior to TP), COL (prior to DSGP) and KC that have actually been moved to another date to accomodate NFL games. My guess is it's not "many fall games" per team, nor do I expect Seattle to have to move "many fall games" because of the Seahawks when the Seahawks need 10 dates in 21 weeks and the conflict area is only about 10 weeks.
2 - Count the number of MLS games played last year on fields with visible football lines.

That would be great. I'd just like to see exactly how overreactionary some people are being.

 

No, what they did say publicly (very publicly) was that they were interested in partnerships (like Frisco and like Bridgeview was originally before Bridgeview just stepped up and paid for the whole nut) that would allow properly-sized stadiums to be constructed so that the MLS team could capture and control sufficient revenue to be financially successful.

Hey, if you can get someone to build and give you a stadium, great. But I don't believe there was any Machiavellian scheming, nor did they honestly expect people to just give them big ass stadiums when they had an unproven product.

How many soccer teams in the world need an NFL sized stadium? What would make anyone think that, looking at the history of men's outdoor league soccer in this country, you'd need or want a stadium that size?

And what's been in the $150-$250M range, exactly? CCS was $25 million. HDC is part of a larger complex. TP was $98 million.

They must play a pretty inferior brand of soccer in most countries in the world, then. Because MLS did draw pretty well in the Rose Bowl and Soldier Field, but couldn't make money that way because of the leases. And, oh, by the way, CCS was built when it was, as quickly as it was because Ohio Stadium was undergoing renovations that would have left the Crew homeless.

How many leagues can?

Just like your Clint Mathis trade rant, you're way off on this one.

 

Regardless of how your feel about Qwest stadium and Seattle, I think we should all pray for the success of Red Bull Park and MLS in the New Jersey and New York area. With Red Bull, you have a club who seems willing to spend on the sport so fans can see and experience in the way it is intended.

If they are successful, it may be the only thing that makes billionaires and millionaires in this league posture to show they care more about the sport than the money, too.

Largely, the desire for profit, whether in the now or future, is short-term thinking - essentially the idea of quantity. The desire for substance is long-term thinking - essentially the idea of quality.

In the US, it's all short-term thinking. It's not about earning pay-offs over time. It's about the immediate impact. Comedies are rarely funny because they're just riddled with punch-line after punch-line - which diminishes the joke of previous or subsequent zingers... or we're thrown so many sexual innuendos that don't require effort to earn the laugh... all ultimately creating less of a high or empowerment to enjoy. TV is just bombarding people with thousands of images and commercials every few minutes in an effort to entertain. Many of my foreign friends who come to the US find US television and culture jarring at first because so much is thrown at you at once and you don't really learn to appreciate things - just instant gratification. Camera angles are constantly flickering on the screen, training children not to know how to just sit and focus on one thing for long periods of time. Marketing departments research how to manipulate the public to their will.

It's no wonder that places like the internet are changing the landscape with independent ideas, videos, shows, etc. People are yearning for more substance and less BS. This article posted wasn't BS like someone suggested. It had many valid points and concerns.

Some people have said MLS is a business, not a charity. Well, it seems to me that Red Bull isn't treating it as much as a business as other owners, but seeing the idea of 'substance' or 'transcending culture' and willing to fight the long-term battle.

Again, hopefully if Red Bull's approach succeeds, this will make those wealthy people posture to try and prove they're just as committed to soccer.

 

They got these "partnerships", so obviously they did not bite off more than they could chew with that.

They followed a well accepted US model of getting something for nothing. That's a model for every sports league.

A) Comparably sized countries that have soccer as a "major sport" certainly benefit from large arenas. Even smaller countries - since there aren't that many of them with a 300M population - have sold out NFL size stadiums as a rule.

B) The "soccer past" in the US is negligible. You're surely not going to make projections into the future on the fact that there was nothing of note in the past.

C) As to MLS, it began from the "This is not going to be another NASL" premise and, as a result, it became a glorified A-league for a major portion of its existence. Now, it is trying to strike a balance between being fiscally responsible while not putting crap on the field ... 'cos it's hard to build a fan base this way.

And what is Red Bull Park running?

At $200K per game, the totals amounted to ~ $3M for the season's 15 home matches.

If they had averaged "real" 25,000 paying fans per match, a $30 average ticket would give them over $11M in ticket revenues over the same 15 matches, without parking and concessions.

There's enough of a gap between $3M and $11M to make a decent deal that's profitable for both sides.

The problem for MLS was that it had 10,000 paying fans (if even that) at $20/pop.

That made the NFL stadiums unaffordable.

As if building the Crew stadium was the only option. (though, for the record, I mind the Crew crappy play more than its stadium, which is actually fine)

Most of the Big 5 leagues have about a dozen teams that fill out large stadiums. Beside that, you're running into the demographics. If you have a team in a 200,000 town, then you're unlikely to draw 40K to your matches.

Is MLS made up of cities with a 200,000 pop?

No. Just like your "ESPN wouldn't buy the Euro'08" rights, you are wrong.

 

Whoever wrote MLS would have wanted, for one minute, NFL sized stadiums at 1 Billion Dollars, is clearly wrong. I don't believe MLS, after the first couple seasons, truly believed they could be packing 50,000+ seat stadiums.

In fact, perhaps the idea of a SSS was a bit of circumstance with Columbus Crew. Maybe there was a bit of luck involved in it. But, at the same time, no one on Big Soccer can intelligently argue that SSS aren't essential to the fruition of MLS as a league and soccer as a sport. I'll tell you right now, I am less likely to watch games on TV that are played at Gilette, Arrowhead, Giants Stadium (but I also try to attend because it's my local club). And, if Seattle looks the way I suspect it might for MLS, I may also choose to watch fewer games played in Seattle.

And, I know I'm not alone in this. And, I hope that these realities will impress upon and put pressure on sponsors, owners, and MLS to get SSS for every MLS team. I'm of the mind that large NFL stadiums, even ones built with soccer-in-mind, are negative - especially if they are thought of as viable in the long-term for the needs of soccer and MLS.

 

*sigh*

 

Kenn,

If they are as committed to doing all that with the stadium then good for them but I'll believe it when I see it.

 

I think that this needs a bit of correction (lest we start confusing one billionaire with another)... Paul Allen has, to this point demonstrated virtually NO commitment to soccer... he has not put one nickel into the team... his "buy in" is to provide the stadium rent free to the team (a stadium that he did not pay to build)... now, this is not trivial and was essential for any business model, but this is like letting someone run a vegetable stand on your property in return for 50% ownership... it costs you nothing, but it does not make you a farmer... his "commitment" also has to be considered in the context of the gift that this billionaire was given by the taxpayers (part of the reason that he got this was his promise to bring in soccer)...

so, basically, it costs him nothing to fulfill a commitment and in exchange he gets a large slice of a team (? half) that is worth on the order of $30-$40 million... not a bad deal...

He may turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to soccer in the northwest, but that remains entirely to be seen.

 

When did I say that?

There are five, supposedly, leagues in the world that average 30k a game in soccer. To think that just because we have population centers larger than a lot of European cities that have major clubs, that we can draw the same completely ignores the other factors that keep soccer where it is in this country.

It's complete idiocy to think that MLS should just be drawing 30k or more a game just based on population. Just like it's idiocy to say there's no history of the sport in the US from which to base reasonable conclusions about attendance expectations. If you choose not to see the factors that lead most of us to believe where the ceiling is for MLS attendance, that's your issue.

And I have no idea what most of your other rants are about. The fact that RBP is running into the multi millions of dollars doesn't mean they all are. Because, if you look at what the other stadiums cost, they're not in the $150M - $250M "range," which is what I was objecting to.

Now, explain to us again how MLS ignored its own rules with regards to Mathis when he was traded in a clearly defined (if ad hoc) timeframe that allows trades.

Thanks.