Mark Abbott all but confirms Montreal 2012

No, you really don't understand sport. Seldom do American franchises make an operating profit, rather owners reap great profit from increasing value of a franchise. This is even true abroad.

Do you really think Chelsea, Man City, Man United, Real Madrid and a host of other "big" clubs actually make an operating profit each year?

There's a reason franchise entry fees have jumped over 200% in but a few years.

 

Thinking in economic terms, this is what should guide MLS expansion. MLS with the addition of Philly has most of the largest markets covered. Atlanta, Detroit and Phoenix are the largest media markets without MLS teams, followed by Tampa St Pete and Minneapolis. For TV money, which ultimately is the fuel for pro sports in the USA, MLS needs to find owners with deep pocklets in these markets.

U.S. TV Household Estimates Designated
Market Area (DMA) — Ranked by Households

Rank Designated Market Area (DMA) TV Households % of US
1 New York, NY 7,493,530 6.524
2 Los Angeles, CA 5,659,170 4.927
3 Chicago, IL 3,501,010 3.048
4 Philadelphia, PA 2,955,190 2.573
5 Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX 2,544,410 2.215
6 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA 2,503,400 2.179
7 Boston, MA (Manchester, NH) 2,410,180 2.098 [/B]
8 Atlanta, GA 2,387,520 2.079
9 Washington, DC (Hagerstown, MD) 2,335,040 2.033
10 Houston, TX 2,123,460 1.849
11 Detroit, MI 1,890,220 1.646
12 Phoenix, AZ 1,873,930 1.631
13 Seattle-Tacoma, WA 1,833,990 1.597
14 Tampa-St. Petersburg (Sarasota), FL 1,805,810 1.572
15 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 1,732,050 1.508
16 Denver, CO 1,539,380 1.340
17 Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL 1,538,090 1.339
18 Cleveland-Akron (Canton), OH 1,520,750 1.324
19 Orlando-Daytona Beach-Melbourne, FL 1,455,620 1.267
20 Sacramento-Stockton-Modesto, CA 1,404,580 1.223
21 St. Louis, MO 1,249,450 1.088
22 Portland, OR 1,188,770 1.035
23 Pittsburgh, PA 1,154,950 1.005
24 Charlotte, NC 1,147,910 1.000
25 Indianapolis, IN 1,119,760 0.975
26 Raleigh-Durham (Fayetteville), NC 1,107,820 0.964
27 Baltimore, MD 1,093,170 0.952
28 San Diego, CA 1,073,390 0.934
29 Nashville, TN 1,019,010 0.888
30 Hartford and New Haven, CT 1,010,630 0.880
31 Salt Lake City, UT 944,060 0.822
32 Kansas City, MO 941,360 0.820
33 Cincinnati, OH 918,670 0.800
34 Columbus, OH 904,030 0.787
35 Milwaukee, WI 901,790 0.785
36 Greenville-Spartanburg, SC-Asheville, NC-Anderson,SC 865,810 0.754
37 San Antonio, TX 830,000 0.723
38 West Palm Beach-Ft. Pierce, FL 776,080 0.676
39 Harrisburg-Lancaster-Lebanon-York, PA 743,420 0.647
40 Birmingham (Anniston and Tuscaloosa), AL 742,140 0.646


Ranking 2010
Ranking +/- Designated Market Area (DMA)
Numerically | Alphabetically Past Rankings

1 1 New York, NY View Graph
2 2 Los Angeles, CA View Graph
3 3 Chicago, IL View Graph
4 4 Philadelphia, PA View Graph
5 5 Dallas - Ft. Worth, TX View Graph
6 6 San Francisco - Oakland - San Jose, CA View Graph
7 7 Boston, MA View Graph
8 8 Atlanta, GA View Graph
9 9 Washington, DC View Graph
10 10 Houston, TX View Graph
11 11 Detroit, MI View Graph
12 12 Phoenix, AZ View Graph
14 13 +1 Seattle - Tacoma, WA View Graph
13 14 -1 Tampa - St. Petersburg - Sarasota, FL View Graph
15 15 Minneapolis, MN View Graph
18 16 +2 Denver, CO View Graph
16 17 -1 Miami - Ft. Lauderdale, FL View Graph
17 18 -1 Cleveland - Akron, OH View Graph
19 19 Orlando - Daytona Beach - Melbourne, FL View Graph
20 20 Sacramento - Stockton - Modesto, CA View Graph
21 21 St. Louis, MO View Graph
22 22 Portland, OR View Graph
23 23 Pittsburgh, PA View Graph
24 24 Charlotte, NC View Graph
25 25 Indianapolis, IN View Graph
27 26 +1 Raleigh - Durham, NC View Graph
26 27 -1 Baltimore, MD View Graph
28 28 San Diego, CA View Graph
29 29 Nashville, TN View Graph
30 30 Hartford - New Haven, CT View Graph
33 31 +2 Salt Lake City, UT View Graph
31 32 -1 Kansas City, MO View Graph
34 33 +1 Cincinnati, OH View Graph
32 34 -2 Columbus, OH View Graph
35 35 Milwaukee, WI View Graph
36 36 Greenville - Spartanburg, SC / Asheville, NC / Anderson, SC View Graph
37 37 San Antonio, TX View Graph
38 38 West Palm Beach - Fort Pierce, FL View Graph

 

Well, there's a difference between making the roster and getting real minutes (Eylander, for instance, did not), and there's a difference between getting them for one season because you're an expansion team and need the bodies, and being a player that can really stick with a team (Le Toux going in the first available expansion draft--and that was a league MVP).

All in all, the Sounders got very little of their production from the USL players, and if a USL MVP is an MLS expansion-unprotected player, one shouldn't expect it to be too different for Portland, Vancouver, and Montreal.

 

Scott and Levesque both played quite a bit last year. Alonso, who is one of their key players, was also signed from USL (but for Charleston, not Seattle). Out of the top 11 in minutes played last year for Seattle, only 4 were taken in the expansion draft: Riley, Evans, Jaqua, and Marshall. Eylander may not have gotten real minutes, but he WAS the number 2 keeper and would have seen time had Keller gone down. The expansion draft seems like it was more important for building their depth than forming their core. The core of their team came from signings they made with allocation money.

The guys who are near the top end of talent in USL are MLS "bench player" equivalent in talent anyway, so why not give each expansion team fewer picks in the expansion draft and have them use their huge allocation pot and the core of their USL team to build the rest of their roster? That way, rather than redistributing MLS talent, interrupting everyone's locker room, team chemistry, and long-term planning, and weakening the talent pool, you're taking the best of USL and strengthening that way.

Plus, if Philly (in their first game) and Seattle are any indication, past your first 5 or 6 picks in the expansion draft, the guys you take are probably going to end up sitting on the bench a good deal of the season anyway. Realistically, they probably aren't much better than the better USL.

 

This was beat to death in the LA profit thread. But, only two teams made money on paper. That does not mean other teams did not make money.

What actually happened and what the financial statements show are two different things. There were likely several teams that actually made money last year but on paper they did not. This is common with many businesses in all industries, especially sports teams.

 

LOL! You compare cucumber with strawberry.

Anyway, here's why it's so stupid and dumb to think that 32 teams would be a good move :

- Before puting 32 teams PUT A 2ND DIVISION!!!
- You want a 62 matches calendar? (and don't say baseball blablabla we could make two leagues blablabla, it's football not baseball)
- We don't have a football culture in 95% of the 40 cities Jimbo posted. Houston has a population of 6 millions of people! yeah! It's like to say : Hey, we should put an hockey in Shanghai they are 19 millions!!!!!111 There's no correlation between city's population and a viable football market.

Anyway, I'm out!

 

Are you familiar with the term "Circular Logic"? Or maybe "Logique Circulaire"?

 

You can add Vancouver and New York.

 

I don't really get where you're missing this, nowhere did I argue there could be 32 teams, and the number of viable markets does not = the number of teams that should be in MLS, simply that there are many cities capable of supporting an MLS franchise.

What does a football culture mean?.

Can you really argue Salt Lake City has a "football culture"? They seem to be doing well for themselves. St. Louis has one of the nations biggest "football cultures", yet has no club. As long as an ownership group provides a constructive stadium plan and a solid ownership soccer can do well in many North American cities, as popular friendlies and international games in North Carolina, Baltimore and Nashville have shown. Am I arguing we need to expand to Dixie land anytime soon? Hell no, just this idea that only a few cities are viable candidates for MLS franchises in BS.

Fact is, the owners/Garber used that "we don't make money" thing as a negotiation tactic. Owners aren't plopping down 20+ million in franchise fees because they expect to turn a profit in their first few seasons, it's a long term investment. For instance, the league's two most valuable franchises like were not listed as profitable (NY, LA).

Seriously, do you think Real Madrid and Man United are making huge sums of money this season? Or Most NFL teams? You will seldom find a sports owner investing in a professional franchise to make a year to year profit.

 

Indeed. It's like folks who use words like "real" or "proper" when talking about anything soccer related.

 

To defend good old SLC... and to point out that makes a market viable for MLS can be deceiving, here's what SLC does have:

- the highest per capita participation in organized soccer in the U.S. - over 200,000 participants.
- Significant part of the population that has spent 2 years living in parts of the world where soccer rules. So, some exposure to established soccer cultures.
- a relatively significant portion (12%) of the population that is Latino (predominantly 1st/2nd generation immigrants) and is growing rapidly (estimated by 2020 to over 20%). link
- A USL2 team prior to RSL averaged 2-3k in attendance (which was among the USL2 league highs)
- Only college sports and an NBA team to compete with.

So, yes, it is a small market that may not have a "football culture" but there are things that made it fertile for an MLS team.

I think with an owner (and a stadium deal) there are many markets in the U.S. where MLS could be successful.

 

If I were soccer dictator for a day=

MLS PREMIER=
1/ Seattle
2/ San Jose
3/ LA
4/ Chivas
5/ SLC
6/ Col
7/ DAL
8/ HOU
9/ KC
10/ CHI
11/ CBUS
12/ TOR
13/NE
14/ NY
15/ DC
16/ PHIL


MLS -1
1/ VAN
2/ PORT
3/ MINN
4/ STL
5/ AUST
6/ CLEVE
7/ MONT
8/ ROCH
10/ P RICO
11/ MIAMI
12/ TAMPA
13/ CHARLESTON
14/ ATLANTA
15/ CAROLINA
16/ BALTIMORE

--Taking out all the political , ego problems, operational differences etc, we could have this quality 2 level pro league next year. It really more of a marketing approach, let the teams in MLS-1 still operate they way they have. Just have both leagues joint market.. With very little increase in what is done now, your marketing covers 32 areas, not just 16.
--I know its not going to fly, because promises have been made to PORT, VAN and what appears now MONT
--SO, just for fun, have MLS -Premier be 19 teams when MONT joins and MLS-1 13. Then, for a 1 time shot, play a season and relegate the botton 3 of MLS-P to MLS-1.
--Don't you think THAT would be quite a season of drama. !
-Single entity would 'protect' all MLS-1 teams as TV , revenue and expenses are still handled by the concept of single entity
---Keeps both leagues balanced schedules at 30 games
---Pretty much covers all the markets to date
---MLS Cup is upgraded to a full league cup 32-16-8-4-2-1, keeping the traditional single game MLS Cup
---This would be the plan at least for 5-8 years or so until ALL the Premier teams have their own SSS and most of the MLS-1 have a decent facility
and the overall quality of play comes up.
---Then, we can move on to MLS-2 and cover all those other markets that everyone throws out.. Some can be second teams in the larger cities, new or emerging markets, second shots at markets that failed the first time, or smaller markets that have had success in USL, PDL etc..
Just for kicks=

MLS-2
1/ San Antonio
2/ New York 2
3/ Chicago 2
4/ Phoenix
5/ Oklahoma
6/ Edmonton
7/ Ottawa
8/ Birmingham
9/ Nashville
10/ El Paso
11/ Albuquerque
12/ San Diego
13/ Hartford
14/ Hamilton
15/ Sacramento or Fresno
16/ Michigan
-By this point, soccer dominates the American/Canadian sports scene, the USA wins its second world cup in the row, defeating Canada both times in the final !!!

 

Yeah, and its going to suck for revenue from TV and sponsors when NY, LA, or Chicago end up having a massive injury crisis/poor coaching/bad officiating and get permanently relegated to MLS-2.

 

Wow this makes... absolutely no sense. So not only are you suggesting relegation for a season, but you're suggusting relegation with no possibility of regaining entry to the top league? That is probably the worst idea ever. Let's say Toronto, Seattle, and LA were relegated. Now what? You have some of your best supported teams out of the top league. Good job.

Additionally, what is the difference between the leagues? Is the salary cap lower for the lower league? If so, it's pretty much just a minor league, and your marketing for MLS isn't really going to cover both, since different people go to "minor league" games than "major league" games. If the salary cap is the same for both leagues (since you talk about single entity covering costs and revenue still between the leagues) why call them MLS 1 and 2? Why not just have an MLS east and MLS west. That way you have a balanced schedule (no intra league play) save transportation cost, save poor games due to jetlag, increase traveling support, and still have everyone thinking they are watching the top league. The playoffs also take on more meaning due to having to play teams you haven't played before in the regular season, and the conference championship means something different than it does today. Frankly, other than "other people do it" I don't see a reason to artificially create a lower league. Sure, having minor leagues (like USL) is good for development, but they don't have to be linked to MLS to do this. If there are enough big markets to support teams, I say keep expanding and strengthen the conferences until there is no intra conference play. It's really the only way forward when you have a landmass (and population) that USA/Canada have.

Edit: If you set up the leagues like this, you could also adjust league schedules for weather. The North Eastern dominated league would start later, while the south/western dominated league would be able to take time off during the hottest months.

 

Unfortunately this thread has deviated GREATLY from the original topic. Perhaps a move to the MLS Commissioner forum is in order?

 

This dog just won't hunt. USL Sounders Scott, Eylander Le Toux and Levesque gave them a total of 2299 minutes, 2 goals, 4 assists. The expansion draft players players[FONT=&quot] Jaqua,[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Evans[/FONT][FONT=&quot], Sturgis[/FONT][FONT=&quot], Wahl, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]King[/FONT][FONT=&quot], and Vagenas[/FONT] gave them 7078 minutes, 12 goals, 11 assists.

I do legitimately go back and forth on whether Alonso 'counts,' and it's not a trivial point, since he's probably the second-best D-mid in the league after Shalrie Joseph. But since he didn't come from the same team, how is he different than Mac Kandji? The Red Bulls didn't own a USL team, but they could spot him. (Plus, what took the Alonso signing from solid [like Kandji's] to brilliant was that he was a free agent [unlike Kandji, who required a transfer fee]. It's not quite the same coup if signing Alonso cost them the chance to acquire, say, a Jhon Kennedy Hurtado or a Leo Gonzalez.)

First, that's not the claim I'm making, the point I'm making is that you can't stock a team going entirely without an expansion draft, even if you own an MLS team. Even if my two lists above were somewhere close to equal, which they are not, you take away those expansion draft players and force their minutes onto USL guys, and you've got a team that's badly unbalanced and probably too

Also, I wouldn't say it's quite true. While I'm arguing you 'need' players like Riley, I'm mostly arguing that not because he's that good, but because of what you'll have to field if you don't have him, Brad Evans actually was a core player for the Sounders. And he's what you really can't find in the USL--a proven MLS difference maker who's actually American, young, affordable, and most importantly, could seriously contribute to the team for years. I don't know of any team that's ever contended whose only American difference maker was on max cap.

Third, a more minor point, the straight calculation of production often misses the fact that expansion draft choices are tradeable and USL callups are not. In the event, Khano Smith was traded for some small portion of the allocation money the Sounders used on all those impressive foreign signings. My bet is they got enough money for that to erase a salary the size of Alonso's.

The USL All-Star team might be, but an individual USL team is not realistically going to have much more than the Sounders did, and that's just not enough to stock a competent team, even if you hit a home run on the foreign market, which most expansion teams won't. Real Salt Lake was chock full of guys who had been A-Leauge/USL all-stars at one point, and they were still atrocious

Now, an argument for fewer picks is a bird of a different feather, and that I could easily see. Seems to me after the couple 'layup' picks in every draft, then you are down to some really marginal players who are interchangeable with the better USL guys.

 

I think we're in agreement. It's not necessary to completely scrap the expansion draft, I just think we need to somehow limit how it affects established teams. To me, it would be pretty effective to just cut the number of picks per team in half, since you're not getting a whole lot of production out of many of your ED picks anyway. With that kind of draft, the 2011 iteration would be far less disastrous on existing teams (as would the subsequent 2012 iteration).

Take the league's allocation money, use it to bring more talent into the league from elsewhere. Grabbing talented USL or foreign players helps enrich the league talent pool. Shuffling guys around in the ED and forcing established teams that DON'T have that huge pot of allocation money to do the scouting outside of the league seems far less effective.

 

I think a strong division 2 soccer league in the US is very important. In fact, I think promotion/relegation would be a great thing for soccer in this country.

Having said that, it won't happen. Not for many years. You cannot have promotion/relegation with a division 2 league that may promote a club with a stadium that seats $1,500 or $5,000. It is simply bad business for MLS and would make MLS look bad.

So, we're talking many, many years down the road.

Also, aren't we ignoring the fact that FIFA will not permit the US to have a league with 32 teams, like someone suggested? And, I also disagree with removing Canadian teams from MLS. They are fantastic markets with great fans and removing them would hurt the league and also probably kill any quality soccer league from existing in Canada, as the country cannot support it on its own. And, MLS would be definitely worth a little less without Toronto in the fold.

I am excited for Vancouver and Montreal. If more US teams want soccer, they're going to need to do their part to connect with, nurture, and expose the soccer fans in their market to a club that they can get behind. In fact, soccer fan culture should be nurtured as a culture that supports ownership of your club, through thick or thin.

I was on Dallas boards reading fans saying people in Dallas only like the Cowboys or teams that win. Well, that mentality needs to change. And, supporters' groups are an ideal candidate to help make the change. We need some strong, inspiring leaders who can verbalize the inner passions of all people who love soccer and who can connect them in the cause of growing the sport and having pride in it, whether your club is Division IV or Division I.

 

It would be horrific. In the countries where pro/rel is successful, the major markets have multiple teams. You will never have an EPL season without a team in London, Liverpool, Birmingham, or Manchester. You'll never have an SPL season without a team in Glasgow. You'll never have an Argentina season without a team in Buenos Aires, A Mexican season without a team in Monterrey, Guadalajara, or Mexico City.

The investment necessary to build MLS up will preclude any later change to a structure where those investments are nullified by sporting concerns.

 

That is not a fact. Ignoring that assumption is the correct thing to do.

 

You are correct.

 

I agree but once soccer becomes popular enough, we can have multiple teams in a city. Do not forget it is currently done, just not often in the NHL/NFL/MLB, basically only in NYC and LA. But I mean don't forget we are close to matching the attendance for the NHL and NBA (like 15% lower but not that far). If we start exceeding theirs which I think could easily be possible in 10-20 years, then a lot more people are going to want into the league, look already at the number of applicants to pay $40M there were.

Now right now there is no point to cannibalize one's market due to a hard salary cap but if it becomes a soft cap, say based on revenue of the team like in the NBA, then there would be more incentive to have more teams in the same area, or atleast less reason for current owners to worry. Because if it's a hard cap and thus a parity league, why would anyone want to risk allowing a competitor into their market when 5 yrs from now either of you could be winning the championship and fans are obviously partial to a winner.

Yet in a soft cap, an established team would not worry as much because their revenue base would be much larger than any potential expansion team and thus the cap they have much higher so that they could ensure they stay competitively above their home team rivals. Because everyone love derbies except when your team is losing. Obviously in the long-term a newer team could get lucky at some points, gain some success, and use this to establish themselves better and raise their cap but it is definitely much harder for them to be successful with a soft-cap than a hard one in an establish market.

And the point where we are talking about there being over 30 teams in the USA (since typically that is the cut off for the major leagues in terms of viability for the one city/ one team model), then I believe this is the point where the marginal profit from expanding to a new smaller market of less than 2 million, say Oklahoma City, will not be as much as just merely expanding into a current established metropolitan cities such as NYC, Chicago, Philly, etc... When a city has a larger potential fan base in a demographic either untargeted or underutilized for an established team than would be present in say a small city, that's when we will be able to realize such a future and I would agree, derbies should come before pro/rel, because the smaller cities will feel grateful to have even a crack at possibly being the first division, look at how oklahoma felt to get into the NBA, while in larger markets they will not really make anything of it and will probably only support 1st div teams.

But I really think pro/rel could be even better in the USA than Europe because currently due to the small size of european nations, they usually always have a top 4 or top 6 in their top division based in their 3 or 4 largest cities, which are so much larger than all the other cities. However in the USA, I find there are a larger number of equally sized metropolitan cities (the 2nd tiers ones after LA/NYC/Chicago) that would ensure, it wouldn't be a top 4 in the USA but like a top 10, which would make for a much more competitive pro/rel system. Plus I find the only way to garner any interest in div2 and especially lower is by allowing the champion to move up because that is the only thing exciting about a div 2 championship.

I hope that if the success of the current expansion teams and older, reforming teams such as NYRB continues, then we will easily see a system where 40 owners want to step up and have a team in 10-20 years time. Implying that at the point of reduced marginal profitability for these smaller markets we will start to see derbies and thus the pro/rel will become more viable.

I'm already rooting for a 2nd Montreal team.

 

Do realize that NHL and NBA tickets are more expensive than MLS tickets and that the teams play around 40 home games as opposed to 15 in MLS? Comparing average attendance is not very meaningful when the total attendance and the money generated by ticket sales is much higher in the NHL and NBA.

 

In a couple hundred years.

So you want to bypass dozens of metro areas large enough to support an MLS team just to start doubling up so that pro/rel can be justified? And it's not like there are two teams in London or Mexico City or Madrid, or even Glasgow. You really need to get to four or five teams each in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles before you even consider pro/rel. It's just not going to happen.

 

Relatively recent comments on pro/rel by Garber and Gulati.

August 2009:
http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/17...european-teams

"The MLS is hoping to eventually introduce a system of relegation and promotion, said Garber, although at present it was too young and financially fragile to do so."

October 2009:
http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/1...-sunil-gulati/

Questions about promotion/relegation, schedule — they are second-half issues. We will need to be more mature. Maybe 10 years down the road with a couple more southern teams, maybe one dome, more passionate fans. Is it the next year or two? No.

10 years... Gulati sounds like a very optimistic guy...