History of teams in MLS that were placed "because they'd be the best place" as opposed to "the best combination of ownership and stadium" Tampa - contracted San Jose - relocated Dallas - still in the league
If there was a team in Atlanta then it would miss every other market in the South. But I'm not gonna get in a fight about it. I'd support any city in the South that got a team and hope that they'd be successful. How did you come up with those teams? Are you sure it wasn't Columbus, DC United and New York that were the best place to go? Seems like you pulled those out of your ass. And yes of course there would have to be a good ownership situation and stadium plan. I thought everyone understood by now. Did I really need to type it out?
Most of the population of the South ignores soccer not just MLS. That's why there aren't any teams there. The only sport people in the South really care about is college football.
Your connection of Disney and MLS is right on the money, as is cities that avoid direct competition with MLB. I still feel MLS should be in Atlanta, when the time is right. Atlanta is a quirky situation where certain other conditions don't apply regarding fanbases. Wanna guess what the most popular NFL team is in Alabama and Mississippi? How about the most popular MLB club? If I'm wrong, so be it, but I really don't think I am.
But Atlanta is more "central" than either Charlotte or Orlando (which would almost have the same problem as Miami, unless you're in Jax or Tampa). Charlotte wouldn't be a bad market, though.
So the league sells more tickets than any other conference tournament this year, in a city that's decidedly SEC, still drew 158k total for their sessions and averaged about 27k per, all while in the current economic woes and watching the "host" team come off it's worst ACC campaign of recent note. And oh yeah, it's a 39k seat dome configuration and not the traditional 22k arenas in Winston Salem, Charlotte, etc. Verily, that's a sign Atlanta can't sell soccer. I've lived in Atlanta since '74 and have seen the Chiefs, Generals, Attack and Silverbacks. I don't pretend this city has the best or most devout fans for pro sports and have openly questioned the appeal of soccer here, but this "Atlanta sucks as a sports town" crap has become a self-perpetuating myth. For a city that doesn't have one of pro sports historic franchises (Yankees, Lakers, Packers, etc) (and in fact the largest part of all Atlanta franchises have featured abysmal management), the fan support is at least average, and the political support has been well above average. Seriously, I wish people would get over this or be honest and simply say they don't like Atlanta rather than hide it under some guise of "poor sports fans." *Rant over*
Disney wants nothing to do with pro soccer. We've already been through that with plans for USL. We are working on USL-1 for Orlando. And if the ownership group we want (FC Orlando) gets a team, then we will have the "best combination of ownership and stadium" that is being touted as the proper formula for MLS. They have plans for a soccer complex that will include a professional-grade 20,000-seat SSS. Do not underestimate Orlando because it is Orlando. They made that mistake with the NBA. Get the right owners, making the right decisions to produce an entertaining and successful product, and we will support the team.
Well said my man. Let me do a little substitution with your statement for a second: I've lived in Miami since '85(born) and have seen the Fusion, and Miami FC. I don't pretend this city has the best or most devout fans for pro sports and have openly questioned the appeal of soccer here, but this "Miami sucks as a sports town" crap has become a self-perpetuating myth. For a city that doesn't have one of pro sports historic franchises (Yankees, Lakers, Packers, etc) (and in fact the largest part of all Miami franchises have featured abysmal management), the fan support is at least average, and the political support has been well above average. Seriously, I wish people would get over this or be honest and simply say they don't like Miami rather than hide it under some guise of "poor sports fans. Unless the Braves, Thrashers, Hawks, Falcons, or hopefully once again in 2010, Silverbacks, are in town, any Atlanta fan is a friend of mine. Both our areas get a bad rap for being "poor sports markets" when it's simply not true. The best, no, and I don't think anyone in Miami or Atlanta would argue that. But we are both at least average sports towns. Hopefully both our USL franchises stick around and make the effort to grow and sustain a great fanbase so we can force Don Garber and MLS to come our way.
There have been several comments about Atlanta always being the name pointed to when talk of the south comes up. It is the same as New York being the name pointed to when talk of the US comes up. For those who are not from around here, Atlanta is the economic power of the south. There is no question about that. Birmingham, Charlotte, Raleigh, New Orleans, Greenville-Spartanburg, Mobile, Tampa, and Orlando do not even come close. Atlanta is the New York of the south, and if MLS wants two teams in New York then they need one in Atlanta. (For those of you who would argue, Miami is the LA of the south, think about it... and they do need a team too.)
If there are teams from the Southeast IMO they should be North Carolina (Charlotte or Raleigh) Orlando or Tampa (lets see how they do first in USL in terms of fan support and ownership) Atlanta and Miami aren't great sports cities and they are already congested with sports/entertainment options
I play pickup soccer at least twice a week with a group of guys here in Atlanta. These aren't armchair fans. They're guys who've played together, drank together and talked soccer together. Most in their 30s and 40s who grew up with the game, who's kids play, and who follow the Premier League passionately. Aside from a few "Oh wells" no one had a serious thought about a) the Silverbacks "taking the season off" or b) Blank withdrawing his bid. If these committed fans can't get passionate about MLS, I don't know who will. I'd looooooove to see a team here, and if I was a gambling man, I'd say that Blank will make it happen, but an MLS just isn't on the radar here in Atlanta. We're expected to get a women's team in year two of their league, and maybe their presence will change attitudes, but I'm not holding my breath. That said, the Thrashers weren't on a lot of radars, and Atlanta landed them. Their consistant suck-itude has more to do with their sideshow status here, than their fame base, which freakishly loyal.
Atlanta and Miami are much bigger TV markets, and have more people from which to draw regionally than the cities you mentioned.
As other MLS franchises have shown it's not an exact apples to apples comparison, however, and that's critical. Blanks involvement has been little and late, and hardly worth serious attention from knowledgable fans. The USL sides, meanwhile, are a different beast. The Ruckus couldn't further endear folks to soccer in that dilapidated HS stadium in Dekalb County, and the move to Doraville (?) hasn't yielded the financial turn around desired for the Silverbacks. Atlantans, like fans in many big cities, perceive a stigma around minor league teams, thus it's top flight or nothing. And since MLS is around... Conversely, Atlanta has been involved in pro soccer a fair bit and moreso than some other communities around the country. I'd wager their pro-soccer history (NASL, USL, indoor & womens) matches or surpasses that of at least Houston (pre MLS), or Phoenix, San Diego and others often mentioned as candidates in the expansion debate. If the franchise were known to be top flight, involve games with known personalities and TV dates, and feature quality facilities and ownership it would garner far more respect than something like the Silverbacks. Again, I'm not saying Atlanta has proven its worth for MLS, just debunking the notion that Atlanta is worthless as some people would imply. The collective ineptitude of management shown by the Hawks, Falcons and Thrashers over the years is mind-boggling. I love hockey and the Thrashers, but agree that was a surprise catch. I wouldn't object to seeing the franchise relocated or contracted provided other, less-worthy southern franchises (Miami, Phoenix...) were similarly folded and more teams were placed in Canada.
We will just have to wait til 2013 and see which USL-1 Southeast team has $40 million for expansion a SSS and large fanbase.
The Ruckus/Silverbacks (same team, different names) always had the problem of being taken seriously, and with the ownership problems they have had, it's no wonder. Atlanta will support minor league sports, but they have to be well-run, and at least try to get people to come out. People showed up for the Knights and Force, they show up for the Glads, and they will definitely show up for the G-Braves. No soccer team in this town, except for the Chiefs and the Attack, has had any decent ownership (the Attack only moved because they got really crappy dates their second year, and couldn't make any money). They tried hard, but playing in substandard facilities (and I am including Silverbacks Park (no restrooms/concessions, too close to the expressway (noise, fumes)); Adams was the only good place they played, and the field was too small (like DMS/Hallford), and even it left much to be desired), not sending the team on a road trip (which cost the third Ruckus owner his team, which then was run by the league, until it was bought by Latham and Glustrom and re-named the Silverbacks), and having almost a complete turnover every year, all while doing next to nothing to market or advertise the team, will spell doom every time, and I mean every time. A committed USL owner in Atlanta could draw 5,000 a game, and a committed MLS owner could get at least what the Crew/Wizards/FC Dallas get, of not more. But the bottom line is that the fans have to believe in you. the Ruckus/'Backs, I don't think, ever had that.
Not so much. There are plenty of soccer pockets in and around Atlanta, but it's very segmented. Seriously, I think you guys either forget or don't know how friggin' huge the Hispanic population is in areas. Whether they would follow an MLS team is another question, but let me tell you that there would be interest. The club teams at Silverbacks Park are quite popular, and I have seen plenty of pick-up soccer games at county parks, even on baseball fields. Arthur Blank was getting his ducks in a row, but the economy going kaboom really set him back. It's kind of amazing that MLS just announced expansion, but I guess it's really got backing in Portland and Vancouver. By the way, how long until the USL First Division ceases to exist? The Silverbacks are probably toast, Seattle is gone, Portland and Vancouver will be gone soon. The only good thing I see is the league can cut back on expenses by not having those cross-country trips. There will be three teams playing, but they won't have any cross-country trips.
Heh, that's a pretty good analogy. Maybe that's why the rest of Georgia hates the Atlanta area yet never minds taking our tax dollars to pave roads with 1/50 the traffic. Anywho, as a media dude, your point is backed up on Atlanta and Miami being the biggest media markets in the country without an MLS team. If I can even mention newspapers without one collapsing, the AJC and Miami Herald are also two of the top 10 or 15 in circulation in the country, even though the AJC wouldn't cover a team unless it owned it or the team folded. On a side note, next person to pull this "Atlanta's not a good sports town" crap needs a kick in the pills. Considering the shoddy ownership of every team that isn't the Falcons, we do pretty well. The Falcons have gotten huge attendance every season since Blank bought the team except for the post-Vick pre-Ryan season. The Thrashers and Hawks are owned by 15 people who are always in court (plus the Thrashers just suck very hard). The Braves keep trying to compete in a sport where they're outspent 2-1 by others. When Ted Turner owned the team, it was the toast of the town. Sell the Yankees to some bidness group and see how long they're the big ticket.
I don't think the USL will ever go away, honestly. But with the major Northwest markets gone, USL-1 should re-invent itself, and go with two D-1 leagues (east and west), of about six teams each (North and South divisions in each), and the league champs play in the final (no inter-league play). If they can't do that (which is more likely), then cut back to the East and Midwest (sorry, Victoria), with Rochester, NYC, Montreal (as long as they're in), Charleston, Carolina, Miami, Austin, Cleveland, Minnesota, and PR; that's ten teams. Have two divisions of five teams each (North: Cleveland, MN, MTL, NYC, Rochester; South: Austin, Carolina, Charleston, Miami, PR), and the division champs play in the final (no other playoffs). Keep it that way for at least five years, until there are more viable markets, but never expand past about 14 teams, unless there is an East and West league, and then no more than 16, and use the first model I mentioned (it'd be two leagues of 8 teams a piece, divided by the Mississippi River). I also think that if the 'Backs don't return, and Blank either gets rebuffed by MLS, or doesn't try again, that ATL needs to get back into the USL (maybe Blank could buy Akers Mill SS and put a stadium and team there, or talk DeKalb Schools into letting him refurb Adams).
The best franchise location in the South East is not Atlanta, it is in either Charlotte or the Raleigh Durham area. Charlotte has over 150k more residents and Raleigh Durham has nearly 80k more. Plus, Cary is a great soccer city just outside of Raleigh with another 120k residents. I live is SC and couldn't care less about any MLS team, therefore I find myself more interested in following the EPL which I watched prior to MLS. And Florida is not the south, it is south Jersey.
I think you're confusing the metropolitan areas with the literal city limits, the former being more important to defining a media market. To wit, according to the Census Bureau, Atlanta is the 9th largest metro area at just under 5.5M people in 2007. Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord clocks in at about 1.6M for the same year, while Raleigh-Cary has about 1.04M. Both states, meanwhile, are around the 9M mark. Yes, the City of Atlanta proper only has about 400k residents, but it's also a decidedly small area within a very large metro region. That being said... This part I wouldn't necessarily disagree with. Both of those communities do have a fair rapport with soccer culture, and perhaps more importantly they're closer to existing MLS markets DC and Columbus and neither has a major league pro-team in the summer to compete with. I've often suspected that either could mirror the feel and support of Columbus, and bridge the gap between soccer-loving northeast and the cfb-loving southeast. I wouldn't object, and if Atlanta isn't given the right conditions and ownership I'd rather MLS go to a market where the franchise would be loved, if not as large. The question would be whether or not the local revenue potential in a place like Raleigh would be enough to sustain the franchise.
And the big component of "revenue potential" is the corporate and sponsorship side. The Carolina Hurricanes, Durham Bulls, and UNC, Duke, and NC State athletic departments are suck up a lot of corporate/sponsorship dollars in the Raleigh-Durham region. While the Courage did okay, and the Mudcats and RailHawks both do okay, I'm not sure there's room - especially in this economy - for something with the demands of an MLS side.