All your examples with the exception of Sporting are NFL franchises. That's the NFL. They're all sorts of geographical crazy. You can say the same about the Cowboys, the 49ers, etc.. They'll give a team to any small town willing to offer tax dollars while keeping the most marketable name. C'mon now. Now as for Sporting Kansas City, great example because that is MLS. They play in Sporting Park, which is in KANSAS CITY, Kansas. Any other city in the state of Kansas, and that name would not make sense.
For those not aware: http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2015/10/section_of_turnpike_shut_following_fatal_crash_is.html This caused major delays up until today.
Most fans in the city don't drive, from my understanding its just a midweek game thing. If you live anywhere in the city not near a path train then it takes a long time to get home from the stadium.
You may not like to hear it but that's a true statement. The most highly attended MLS game the Red Bulls had was the NYCFC games.
It's a true statement that the only times the Red Bulls have ever had a full house were games against NYCFC?
For this past season, yeah. The Red Bulls got over 25K for both matches against NYCFC, not even the Chelsea match got bigger crowds.
Sure did, I was a Metrostars fan from 96. And you have to understand that the existence of NYCFC is an indictment on how badly the Red Bulls have done in connecting with NYC. If you should be mad at anything its not NYCFC because they've finally brought a team to NYC that fans can root for and have raised the profile of the league in the city more then the Red Bulls ever have. I really wish Red Bull would do more marketing and spend you know money on the team because they'd get more then 14K for a Wednesday game if they did.
I'm the one wasting my time, talking to one person speaking pidgin, and a waffler trying to lecture somebody with www.redbullout.com in their signature on the failings of Red Bull ownership. I refuted a typical NYCFC attendance fetishist's obviously false claim--stereotypically oblivious to NYCFC's own trainwreck nature--that RBNY only gets a full house for NYCFC games; good luck finding where I patted ownership on the back for their attendance achievements.
I believe you're having a reading issue as this thread is about MLS attendance. Hence all the talk about it, Red Bulls have had a good year attendance wise but after 10 years of existence I still come across people who don't either know they exist (as a soccer team) or know they have an arena (a nice one to boot). They need to market the TEAM more in NYC and you'll get more people. I've been to RBA and its nice but everything you hear and see in NYC media is mostly about the team in blue.
Methinks we're straying from the theme of the thread, more importantly into something that won't be solved here.
There is such an easy solution here. RB sells NY1 franchise to someone with money. That team becomes "NY Metro '96" and co-builds and shares a great new venue in the 5 buroughs with NYCFC. Cosmos buy the old RBA and become the primary tenant and join MLS as NY3. There's no reason (other than money needed) to get these things done by 2022, or 2024 at the latest.
I come to this late and as an outsider (which is never a good thing going into a discussion) but what is the issue here? isn't attendance up at RB Arena this year?.....even though they are spending less (but getting more) on the team? Is the notion that things were better (attendance wise) when RB spent more but won less?
The issue, as I see it, is about the perception of being in Harrison. That was "bad enough" when that was the best MLS could do in the market. But now that there is a City team in NYC (temp venue and tbd plans for a new venue all pending), that makes the location reality for RBA "look" even worse and "additionally non-ideal" (in some real and perceived ways). 2015 (and the new neighbor) changed things for NYRB. No, those changes aren't all bad, and some of them are just "relative perceptions" anyway. Will be interesting to see if the "expansion excitement" for NYCFC holds in 2016 and 2017, and how the multi-team dynamic plays out in that market in the years ahead.
Note, a similar evolving perception may play out in Carson as LAFC get their "city-center" venue and likely become a true and viable competitor to LAG (in ways that CUSA never were nor could be as a second-tenants and renters in that exact same "outer" location in the LA market). Honestly, these (overall attendance growth trends in the biggest markets for MLS) are good "problems/issues" for the league to have and manage.
One of the main differences is that LAFC is limiting themselves severely by building a stadium smaller than Stubhub Center, and right next to a venue that's too big for them. To me that actually screams small-time more than being in Carson.