This observation doesn't really fit in any of the other threads, I think. But I expect any discussion on it will end up sending it one way or another, so I'll give the mods more work and let them sort it out. With the pending announcement of the return of the Tampa Bay Rowdies (to USL-1 in '09), fully half of USL-1 will be in the southeast next year (6 out of 12 teams). I find it interesting that one of the huge arguments for MLS in Miami/Atlanta/Tampa has been that the league is entirely ignoring that part of the country. That's true. But it startled me to realize, when I looked at a map, that not only is the southeast well-served, but very well served.
Six out of 12 in the southeast? Technically true but I wouldn't call Puerto Rico part of "The South." (Heck, being an expat southerner, I wouldn't call Florida "The South" ). Also, one must take into account Seattle's situation is still unknown. Do we know the fate of the USL Sounders after this season? I'm wishing my Nashville team was still USL-1!
Supposedly, the USL franchise will move to Kitsap County, with plans to play in Poulsbo (according to the last I heard, which was several weeks ago), and be called the Kitsap Kidney Stones (well, not really ). Whether it will happen or not remains to be seen.
To me that says the myth the south will not support soccer is muted. Obviously owners have interest in the sport, and they wouldn't have those teams if the fan support wasn't there.
Don't forget Charlotte, Wilmington, and Richmond in USL-2. Professional soccer is well represented in the old South.
Pretending influencing factors from outside the Southeast were irrelevant, I see the following cities of the South as the biggest priority to MLS. I'm not saying they all should get or deserve a club, but instead suggesting these are the most relevant when simply looking at southeastern expansion. 1) Atlanta - Tie with Miami. Outside of Florida, holds the most cultural, political, financial clout of the south. 1) Miami - Tie with Atlanta. Ethnic pop a huge plus. Long term, it's definitely high priority. 3) Tampa - Good for USL at the moment but large cities elsewhere in the US and Canada keep it from being a priority otherwise. With two Florida cities on the list, Orlando and Jacksonville don't have much of a shot. 4) Charlotte - NC always seems to have strong soccer grassroots. Being the biggest city, definitely a good candidate. 5) Nashville - City on the rise. Significant population center but strong government and grassroots support is minimal. 6) Raleigh-Durham area - While similar in population to others midway on this list, it is much more dispersed. Stronger grassroots support than Charlotte? 7) Memphis - City bigger than Nashville but metro smaller. Of the two TN cities, its not on the upswing. Potential for USL? 8) Birmingham - Can they fill a 20,000 seat stadium better than others here above them? 9) New Orleans - Would be good for a covering a broad geographic range but definitely not on the shortlist. 10) Louisville - A city that never quite makes the cut for the big pro teams because the area is college basketball crazy.
At this point, I think MLS has a bare minimum of 2 million population for a city to be considered, or above Salt Lake on this list. Which puts the minimum cutoff at #6 above.
Just beating a dead horse.... Lists of cities are meaningless. It's all about ownership and facilities. MLS didn't "fail" in Florida. MLS ownership failed in Florida. The Mutiny (and Earthquakes - two of the three league owned teams) were the sacrificial lamb to clean up the mess left over by the launch of the league. The Fusion joined them, not because Florida is a bad market, but because their owner was undercapitalized. A mistake that MLS, LLC has been careful not to repeat. If an when properly capitalized owners appear with viable stadium plans, MLS will appear in any decent sized media market. Whether that's Minneapolis, MN or Atlanta, GA. From what I can tell, the majority of USL-1 and USL-2 ownership groups are not able to compete financially at the MLS level. And some markets - like Charleston - just aren't big enough. I'd even suggest that my own Raleigh-Durham market would be a risky move for MLS. It's definitely on the low end of the scale, especially when places like Miami, Atlanta, Detroit, Phoenix have yet to come into play. Then again, if an ownership group appears in Raleigh-Durham and not in those areas, anything is possible. If you want to track MLS expansion, track folks with money.
Before backlash gets too out of hand, I just posted the list simply to spark discussion about southeastern cities. I'm in no way trying to be taken too seriously...
I think an ideal situation for southern soccer would be a team in Miami and Atlanta with several USL 1 and 2 teams in other cities.
If they wanted to, the South could have a league all to themselves: Atlanta Silverbacks Miami FC Tampa Bay Rowdies Richmond Kickers Carolina Railhawks Charlottle Eagles Wilmington Hammerheads Charleston Battery Austin Aztex Puerto Rico Islanders plus Orlando Memphis Nashville Birmingham New Orleans El Paso Personally, I think Atlanta and Miami will get MLS teams, and USL-1 will eventually go regional. - Paul
I might consider a strong, mainly regional USL a step up from on franchise to service the South. It would exciting to get all the teams in the Carolinas in the same league, add Florida, Atlanta, and a half dozen others and I think it would be pretty good.
I see this system working well for the Southeast: MLS 2-3 teams: Atlanta, A Florida team, and one of a second Florida/Carolina/Tennessee USL 1 4-6 teams: Two additional FLA Teams, Any current USL Carolina's not in MLS, Tennessee, Alabama and/or a second Georgia Team (Augusta, Savannah, etc.) USL 2 6-8 teams: Smaller southern cities, any of the above with out and MLS, USL1 team.
I would mess myself for a MLS team here in North Carolina. I would prefer Raleigh, but would be happy with a team here... I'd like -North State FC -Queen City FC (if in Charlotte) -Raleigh Rebels (if in Raleigh)
Here's what I see could eventually be the case: MLS - Atlanta, Miami, Raleigh/Durham (possibly Tampa) USL-1 - Tampa, Birmingham, Nashville, Orlando (possibly Jacksonville) USL-2 - Tallahassee, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Little Rock, Daytona (possibly Montgomery, Savannah, Knoxville)
in the north we kinda have the same situation but a little different. We dont have a lot of USL teams we have the Thunder and two teams previously in Milwaukee. Just like the south there are no MLS teams. Honestly i think MLS wants more teams in the southest than in the north, which is probably a good idea but by at least 2015 i think Atlanta or Miami (or another city in Florida) will have a team and by 2020 the other city along with a one or two teams in the north and maybe on more in the south. You can't forget about other areas where teams are lacking as well. MLS wants to be a nationwide league but you cant extend yourelf too fast and as always you need resources (owners) which as it seems now no owners have stepped forward for the south or north, which is a shame.
You've got CHicago and Columbus, it may not be Minnesota - but those two are pretty close. Heck most of the league is in the North.
Telling someone from Minnesota they should deal with it and cheer for Columbus is like telling Sounders fans they didn't need in and just cheer for the Quakes. Yeah the "North" has more teams than the "South" but those terms are very tricky. We're talking about the southeast here - specifically east of Texas and south of the Ohio River. Frankly the north Midwest, as zoobawa was referring to, has just as many deserving cities as the southeast. If we talk about Atlanta, Tampa, or Charlotte needing a team, it's not unreasonable for someone to suggest Detroit, Minneapolis, or Indianapolis (if you strictly mean in terms of pop.). The only counter argument is they got Chicago, but it is inevitable a southeastern club will sprout up. And we'll still want (deserve?) more southern teams but so will the just as barren central north. But dangit I still want a southern team.
St Paul to Chicago: 6 hr 29 m Birmingham to Columbus, 8 hr 47m Atlanta or B'ham or Nashville would work. I still think Atlanta is saturated, and Nashville is probably as well.
I still think Charlotte should get a team and renovate Knights Stadium in Fort Mill to a SSS. Right now it has 10K seats but seems like it could easily be expanded. If they can field a competitive team in the first few years people will jump on the bandwagon.
Its so tough to speculate on whats going to happen in the SE. It depends so much on what MLS wants to be. If it wants to be a 20 team league, then the timing might not be right for the SE. We could hope for Atlanta or a Florida team, but thats iffy. If it wants to be a 24 team league, then we could probably get an Atlanta and a Florida team. A third team in Carolina or a second Florida or another Southern city if real iffy. If it wants to be an American soccer league with 30 or more teams, then I think we could have upwards of 4 teams. For personal reasons, I think I'd like to see a 20 team MLS and 2 really strong USL divisions mostly in the South. I'm sure many cities in the South could handle a MLS team, but USL might be a better fit. For example, the triangle has a really good population base, but its spread out between Durham, Chapel Hill, and Raleigh. Even though they're fairly close to each other, they might be a bit too spread out to support a team based in any one of the cities and basing the team near the airport might be the worst of compromises. The area is soccer rich and intense rivalries could be further nurtured while keeping the costs down for USL. I'd love to see USL stretching from Baltimore to Miami to Austin or El Paso with a few outliers in the north east and the midwest. I have no idea if it would work, but it would bring on some of the most intense regional soccer. Time will tell what MLS wants to be and USL will take whats left to make it work. This just seems to be one of the better outcomes of the impending MLS "promoting" or gutting of USL1.
To be quite honest, it would be better served in Northwest Arkansas. We already have a minor league baseball...this county (Washington) has over 350,000 residents which is more than Little Rock and it's growing much faster. It also has a large influx of hispanic-americans.
You may be right, but there's a lot of land in N. Little Rock that can be used to build a small SSS for a team. UALR could then use it for some of their athletic teams as well. Finally, it would probably be more of a sell to USL to have a team in a capital city than in NW Arkansas, where it is perceived to be a bit too "boonie", no offense (I know the state well - my dad's side of the family is all from Little Rock and just south on 30)