*For now. I seem to recall a few natural grass NFL stadiums switching over to turf over the past decade or so. They're using the hashtag #CharlotteMLS2021 so it looks like team 30 will hit the field before Sacramento and St. Louis.
Or just the stupid MLS euro copy cat PC name like Charlotte United because we are sooo concerned about standing on our own we have to copy some other superior l league’s naming standard. [emoji15]
Most of the "teams" may not be profitable, but a lot of income generated from soccer/stadium activity, and put down as another entity for bookkeeping purposes, makes the entire enterprise profitable. Though $325 million is an awful large chunk of change.
https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2019...mls-heres-all-time-team-hailing-soccer-hotbed The All-Carolinas Team
and people wonder why the Fire got the hell out of Bridgeview. They got $0 for anything outside of their own game days. Still, I'm happy the barrier to entry his high, maybe ever overvalued, at this point. seems like you'd *in theory* have less chance of an absentee owner who's just going to sit on his investment, or a guy like Sugarman in Philly or who has seemed to be in over his head, or Checketts in SL who actually was.
Adding player entrances to midfield (presently there are only corner entrances) and updating locker rooms.
Well, but he's buying it from the existing owners, so he is writing them a check. Expansion fees are pumping cash into the league in a way that isn't going to continue to be the case, that much is true. The question would be whether these fees are papering over a business model that isn't sustainable without them, and if operating capital will dry up in their absence. I don't see much reason to fear that, but the proof will be in the pudding I guess. No one believes Garber for a second when he claims expansion is done, but with the new TV deal starting in 2022, a new labor agreement coming, and both of those presumably building toward SUM's crown jewel in 2026, it wouldn't surprise me for this to go on the back burner for a few years.
I live about 30 minutes from the stadium, so excited about the team. I wish that they would get their own right-sized stadium, but that was never going to happen in the near future, so hopefully they are able to make the best of the situation. The lower bowl holds 34,037 seats, so I figure that is the attendance goal. I know that they want to channel Atlanta and Tepper is worth $12 Billion, so he can invest heavily to make it happen, but Atlanta is still twice as big and the stadiums are the same size. Pretty sure MLS didn't really like the stadium plan, but Tepper paid an extra $75-100 million for MLS to look the other way. Tepper also owns it, so it makes sense financial for him to have one stadium for both NFL and MLS. The location is prime though right downtown on the side of downtown next to the growing Southend area. Easy train ride or even walk for a big demographic that they are trying to pull and also easy to get in and out of by car, so if you were going to build a new stadium it would be there.
Best to swallow before putting a fork full of more food into your mouth... I also like he he keeps repeating "5 new teams joining in the next three years", which probably confuses the normal people, but it stays on message that Austin isn't a "new" team, just one that currently isn't playing.
Well I have to say today was all a lot of fun. I really sense that the people that are in, are "in". The one thing that does concern me though is that everyone on the team side of things seemed to be pretty anglophone. Charlotte (and Raleigh-Durham) both have extremely large, fast growing, upwardly mobile, Latinx communities with over the air Spanish language TV and radio as well as print media. Now this wasn't a press conference, so it could turn out that I missed that part of the organization, but I think engaging that part of the market is crucial. I will say there were two different supporters group in attendance, The Mint City Collective and Pancho Villa's Army. I've got a couple of hours to kill until the fan rally, which doesn't start until 6pm. I hope to be home by 11-11:30 tonight. I came, I saw, I took a bunch of photos, and I got the t-shirt (and scarf).
I wasn't discussing the merits of single-entity or the perception of a pyramid scheme. Those are straw man arguments. I also wasn't searching for what has stayed the same (investors buying a stake in MLS and SUM). I'm trying to get a rational explanation based on facts of what HAS changed over the course of two years to justify Nashville SC paying $150M in December, 2017, and Charlotte paying $325M in December, 2019. Either the previous expansion fees were way too low (which would also require some justification) or MLS simply chooses the richest ownership groups knowing that the league can set an arbitrary fee that the new owners are easily able to meet. Otherwise little else makes sense: Has league attendance grown? (It hasn't. The 2019 season saw the lowest average attendance since 2014). Have TV ratings been soaring? (They haven't. Average ESPN TV audience in 2010: 253,000; average ESPN TV audience 2019: 246,000). Has the CBA been negotiated? (It hasn't. Unresolved, with a real possibility of a work stoppage). Is US Soccer at its highest point in decades. (Arguably at its lowest point. Boardroom issues like low morale and lawsuits have even managed to overshadow on-field issues like the WC miss). Is there any indication that the next TV deal will be much bigger, even when bundled with RSNs and NWSL? (Not when ESPN has acknowledged they overpaid for NBA and NFL packages. My guess is it will be around $150M/yr which would come out to $5M per team). Is MLS the torchbearer for soccer in the US? (Nope. MLS isn't even the main beneficiary from the growth of soccer in the US). Again, I'm not faulting MLS for taking as much money as they can while they expand, but it's undeniable that these fees have made up a large chunk of overall revenue. Despite what the league says, if the next TV rights deal is a miss, what alternative does MLS have for sustainable revenue growth other than more expansion?
MLS stopped expansion for now. They will eventually go to 32 team. If #30 cost more than 300 million, waiting after 2022 then 31 and 32 could be close to 400 or over 400 million. I know it has being discussed before but does anyone think MLS would sell the 3 Canadian (or one or two) franchise to other US based cities? Is it more profitable for MLS to have a team in Vancouver than say in any of Las Vegas San Diego, San Antonio, New Orleans?
I am pretty sure what has changed is Tepper was willing to pay $325 Million to jump in line and have MLS overlook issues with the playing in huge NFL stadium that was build 20 years ago for football. Other than that nothing.
Everybody from North Carolina outside Johnathan Amon. I don't think SC has ever produced a player that had a career in MLS that spanned across multiple seasons with over 25 total appearances. Pretty remarkable for a 20+ year old league and a state with over 4 Million people.
Counterpoints: The 2019 avg. was a mere 800 persons off the league's all time high. For 5 years in a row the league has averaged over 21k per match. In 2019 every team but 1 averaged above 14k. MLS averaged that as a league in 2000. I'd say that's progress. The league average has grown even while the number of teams increases, meaning attendance hasn't been diluted but is in fact growing healthier. I don't have the historical averages at hand to see if you're cherry picking but it still stands that the MLS average has at least stayed the same despite adding significant volumes of televised content. So, again, the product isn't being diluted but is holding strong even as it garners more game times that put it up against the entrenched Big 4 leagues in the US. Meanwhile online viewing is growing and viewership among Latinos is growing. This isn't a soccer thing but a US sports thing. It hasn't killed the league yet and no one wants it to do so. This is simply going to be a facet of how the business works every few years. Why? ... "Mo' money means mo' problems!" The reason these have any weight at all is because there is more money, publicity, and opportunity in the league, so everyone wants to get these deals right to continue the progress. Measure twice, cut once. MLS isn't responsible for the state of US soccer or the USSF. To the extent that it does contribute to the strength of the USMNT give the league some time to see through the first generation from their academies. It was only with the onset of the last media deal that even some MLS teams could foster true academies and that even role players on the main team were paid enough to play soccer full-time. Prior to that many bench players needed a 2nd job. Yet people wonder why MLS wasn't churning out stars for ManU?! Comparing apples to grapefruit, here. Depending on your source ESPN overpaid by a billion. MLS is seeking way less and will be working with the league in advance so as to avoid worst-case scenarios. MLS may not be the NBA but their broadcast partners would rather not see it die, either. Context matters. The sport's history in this nation and our unique position with regard to other leagues, notably LMX, means MLS has a lot more obstacles than other sports leagues in the US and many other footie leagues around the world. But what's your aim? If the presumption is to see MLS held as a competitive and marketing peer to La Liga or Serie A then I suggest a reset on your perspective. If it's something closer to more competitive with LMX and producing some talent like the Eredivisie then that's still possible in the near term. Remember what pro soccer in the US was like before MLS? Everything was minor league, there was no real option for TV, only a handful of teams and those were constantly changing because they couldn't stay afloat, and it was tough for players to make a living in the sport. Compare that with today and it's night and day. This is a freakin' Nirvana for those of us who saw the aftermath of the original NASL's collapse. Does MLS have a lot of work to do? Most definitely, and it will never stand alongside the major European leagues in my lifetime. But that doesn't mean it's not working or won't get better. The league has made titanic strides in the past 15 years, so they've earned a high degree of trust with their decision making and their potential to keep this growing. Says I, anyway. Cheers.
Club valuations have changed over the past couple years. Look at how much it took to buy out Chicago (valuation was at 400 million). Or the fact that someone just paid 100 million for a 20% share of Cincy (makes franchise value around 500 million). People value MLS franchises at 300+ million right now so that is what you are seeing the going rate for a franchise is. Market value dictates what you can sell something for and MLS franchise fees are no different. A bunch of rich people seem to think that there is value in these franchises so they are willing to now pay that amount. Years ago there wasn't that sort of demand so the prices were lower. You also have to factor in that part of that money is to pay for the dilution of SUM shares. The more people that are in the pot the more that you need to pay to offset that dilution.