There has to be a balance. It's not the size of the metropolitan area per se. It's also measurable enthusiasm for professional soccer in the region. The reason why Los Angeles went without a NFL team for over two decades is because Southern California is not a hotbed for spectator sports -- So Cal fans tend to be extremely lukewarm in their enthusiasm. On the other hand, the reason why there are so many "Big Four" sports teams located in the Great Lakes region and the Northeast Atlantic Coast region is precisely because those areas are hotbeds for spectator sports. MLS would be wise, in my opinion, to favor for candidate expansion cities in established sports hotbeds, like Detroit and Cincinnati, and emerging high tech/hipster areas like Nashville and Austin. That's not to say that there isn't a place for mid-major expansion candidates like Columbus, Indianapolis, Research Triangle North Carolina, Tidewater Virginia & even Rochester/Buffalo/Syracuse in the mix, of course. While the Green Bay Packers don't drive the needle, they have become a great asset for the NFL.
It's very large and still growing rapidly, and people there don't naturally follow teams in other markets, which are quite distant. Maricopa County is currently the fourth most populous in the country, behind Los Angeles, Cook, and Harris, which it may soon pass. It isn't a must-have market for a 28 team league, like Miami. And it's not quite Detroit, but it's still a should-have.
I disagree. Its growing but that isn't natural growth its from migration so lots of these folks have preexisting ties to teams in California. My brother went to a Charger game there a couple of years ago and it was filled with Chargers fans (almost akin to when the Chargers would play Denver...a good 60/40 split). Anyway my point is that these folks might have previous ties but more importantly they aren't from a demographic that would support MLS (older folks).
Phoenix Rising's existing stadium is expandable to meet MLS standards and they have the financing to build it out (air-conditioned at that). The regional media market is roughly the size of Detroit's. The downside is that their stadium is outside of Phoenix and not accessible by light rail system. On the other hand, it's close to 2 freeways and there's plenty of room for parking.
Ford Field checks all of the boxes meeting FIFA stadium guidelines. The field meets the minimum width requirements already, but the bid proposal to MLS includes stadium renovation which includes changing the first several rows to be retractable (increasing field width). Also, the FieldTurf at Ford Field is the same as about 7 teams in MLS currently use. Finally, the sightline slope at Ford Field in the lower level is 17 degrees, which is one of the best views in any stadium in the USA. Ford Field current dimensions: :
I'm not sure what you consider walking distance, but what about the SF Giants? I would argue AT&T Park is in walking distance of downtown...I do it all the time, only a 15 minute walk to Market Street.
San Francisco itself has a population a third of the size of Brooklyn. San Jose occupies the south if the metro area (I've been reminded) and the USL rights to the East Bay have just been acquired with the promise of a 15,000 SSS. The demographics of San Francisco are wrong, with a high average age and a relatively small Hispanic population (121,744) and the roads can turn into log jams, especially during each evening's reverse commute. Plus they have nowhere to play and the most expensive real estate for any city in the US @ $666 per sq foot. Finally I don't think there's anywhere they could build unless they're willing to sacrifice a golf course.
Curious, how did you find out that the bid includes renovating the first few rows to be retractable? Makes perfect sense and I would hope that the Expansion group would have included something like that but this is the first specifics on the issue that I've heard/read.
Depends on your definition of Downtown. I worked on Sansome and Market and it took about 20 minutes to walk.
Despite what everyone seems the think, the physical aspects of NFL stadiums are not the problem. That's why I pointed out the requirements. You can go the EPL or FA web site and find the requirements for EPL. You'd be hard pressed to find an NFL stadium that wouldn't work, or couldn't be made work with minor adjustments like you point out. The EPL had requirements on things like lighting, field heating, etc. The problem with most NFL fields is that the NFL team gets a huge chunk of the revenue at any event held in the stadium. This makes it hard to put a MLS team in an NFL stadium. This is why Paul Brown Stadium is a no go for Cincinnati. The only MLS teams in NFL stadiums are owned, at least in part, by the local NFL team owner.
Isn't this issue solved in Detroit by having the owners of Ford Field on the expansion group? Or am I missing something? I was under the impression that thats why the Ford family was brought on board.
I would think so, but who knows. Amongst the illuminati of the interwebs, there seems to be a religious devotion to SSS as requirement. Of course, we all are just guessing anyhow. Mumbles something about Sacramento being a sure thing. The only way to know for sure is when MLS actually welcomes Detroit into the league and lists stadium plans. So far, for better or worse, there has been no statement as to what is going on with Detroit, including stadium plans. Cincinnati is the one that has been reported by professional reporters as having stadium issues. In the mean time, we all wait with bated breath for any clues.
I thought Meg Whitman and the York family were out? Sacramento’s MLS Dreams Need Big Billionaires’ Backing After Jed York, Meg Whitman Pull Out http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/12/21/sacramento-republic-billionaires-needed/
The SI thing from about 2 weeks back that blew open the Sacramento financial problems also implied stadium issues in Cincinnati. But, lets face it, Cincinnati has always had stadium issues. The team has options for something like 30 years to play in Nippert. MLS doesn't seem to like Nippert. OH, and I forgot… why else would Lindner have put in that huge ass TV over the Bailey is not to show off to MLS.
AT&T Park is about a mile from Westfield SF right on Market, which I consider the eastern-ish border of Downtown SF. I did that walk before, a casual, no-pressure walk, and I remember it to be about 25 minutes or so. If you walk quickly no doubt you can do it in 15-20 with a bit of jaywalking, but a mile is quite a bit away, and I remember it has more than 6-7 blocks to cross. SAP Center is no more than a 4-minute walk to the western edge of Downtown SJ if you walk at the same brisk pace that you did for AT&T to Market Street. It's less than half a mile of walk with only 2-3 blocks to cross. Mind you, AT&T Park does not suffer at all being a mile away from Downtown SF, as its own neighborhood is very vibrant and got lots of things to do as well.
I read about MLS stadium requirements/preferences over the years and have come to these conclusions: 1) It has to be owned fully or partially by the ownership of the new team. 2) Preferred to be in the same city namesake as the team, and as close as possible to public transit and freeways. If it's in Downtown area, great, but not a dealbreaker if it isn't. 3) SSS is preferred, but NFL stadium, especially in large markets, that can be made to work with soccer (dropped curtains, etc) will be OK as well. In the case of Detroit, their stadium would meet all the 3 pts above. Being a roofed stadium they are able to incorporate curtain drops that can hide the extra upper seats away, enabling a more intimate atmosphere (though still not anywhere as good as a true SSS). I'm afraid to say this, but we may see Detroit sooner than we'd all like...
Unfortunately, that confirms it. I've been combing the web for any tidbits for any details, and I've read tons of conflicting reports about the investment group. Whitman in, Whitman out, Whitman in again, Whitman out. York in, York only in has stadium investor, York out. Well, that just sucks. I guess, Sacramento's pain will be Cincinnati's gain. It really, really sucks, because we've literally checked all possible boxes - shovel ready stadium project, large media market with only one other major league team, and we're second to none in soccer support and passion. But I guess we've been screwed by Whitman and York's wishy washy non commitment. It's ridiculous, because if you say you're an investor, invest, period. This in/out bullcrap is the absolute worst thing to do. The only positive is that California has the highest concentration of billionaires in the nation (including in the Bay Area with tech, and Central Valley with Ag), and Nagle said in that video that they're already in discussions with some. And Garber has said that if we can get the investors, we're an optimum choice. And all the leg work has been done. All some billionaire(s) have to do is show up with money, and Boom! Instant MLS team (all the leg work has been done). One can only hope.
The other thing about Whitman and York - I read somewhere else that MLS said they wanted the money (expansion fee) up front, and Whitman and York said "no", because their investment was contingent on Republic receiving the allocation. If this is the case, it's more than reasonable. I know I wouldn't be willing to part ways with my money unless I knew I was getting what I was investing in. Sort of a chicken/egg thing. And it's unreasonable for MLS to have this requirement.
That's what escrow was created for. Dump the money into the escrow account, and MLS gets the money when the requirements have been met. Heck, you can even set up milestones where part of the money is released as the milestone is accomplished.
As the RealBilbo has stated above, it's not unreasonable for MLS to have this agreement. I mean, what is MLS going to do? Not give back the money if they don't let Sac into the league? Put the money into an escrow account, like RealBilbo says, and let the league know you got the cash. If the league doesn't let you in, you take it back. Duh. At this point, it's just York and Whitman not putting their money where their mouths are. But I have a feeling that it is not even their faults--they most likely just wanted to be minority investors and now suddenly have been asked by Nagle to step up and front the expansion fees. If I were York and Whitman I'd be "GTFO Nagle!" If anything, the whole situation is starting to look like Nagle has strung along MLS, York, Whitman, the entire Sac fan base and the MLS fan base as well.
Yes, an escrow account would be reasonable. While I consider the Nagle angle (Whitman/York being minority investors, Nagle wanting them to front the expansion fee) a very distinct possibility, there is no proof of that. At this point, we don't know what has gone on between Nagle and the others, and MLS. But we know something crappy has gone on. The possibilities: 1. MLS being unclear about requirements and/or moving the goal posts. 2. Nagle wanting to call the shots, but wanting Whitman/York to foot the bills. 3. Whitman/York being non-committal, being in, then out, not putting their money where their mouths are. 4. Some combination of the above. From what I can tell with various tidbits I've found here and elsewhere, York was always going to be stadium only, and Whitman only wanted to be a minority investor, and possibly Nagle wanted more from them, while maintaining control as "lead investor". Plus, MLS wanted money up front (escrow account, possibly), and none of the Republic investors wanted to put money up front. But what really ticks me off is that none of this was handled well ahead of time. Was MLS always clear about their investor requirements? Was Nagle just ignoring requirements and figured the Republic bid would be so strong (it is, in every other aspect), that MLS would be okay with it. But if York and Whitman were crystal clear with their intentions earlier in the year, and if MLS was clear with their requirements, why weren't more investors sought out well ahead of time? Ugh!!!! It makes my head spin!