Is Miami actually over the line? I remember them patting themselves on the back regarding some sort of county commission win, but they've been strangely quiet since then.
As noted, they're already playing some games at CitiField, because of scheduling conflicts (or so the Yankees claim), so clearly the Yankees aren't exactly holding NYCFC to an ironclad lease. It's apparently year-to-year as Yankee Stadium was always intended to be a temporary hone anyway.
Yes they are. 2025 https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...dium-clears-final-planning-hurdle-16-09-2022/ Link to April vote aporoving the lease. Two zoning votes followed in July & Sept. https://www.mlssoccer.com/news/inter-miami-get-stadium-approval-in-miami-freedom-park-project-vote
It is way the eff out of town and a terrible place to watch soccer. The worst situation the the league. Now, Kraft does not particularly care. He owns it all. But a DT stadium in Boston, or anywhere in the city, would be a massive upgrade. A Fire House wouod be awesome as well, but Soldier Field is in the city.
Kraft is also going to be renovating Gillette soon to. There are plans to close the open gap in the one endzone, and add more premium seats as well. Doubtful he's going to want to pay for those renovations AND a new soccer stadium closer to, if not within the City limits of Boston....
I just want to add a thought on the stadium situations. And how I believe thingshave changed amongst the owners, and hence, in Garber's approach. In the beginning, with terrible lease deals and not much control over revenue streams (parking, concessions, etc) MLS was in real danger of going under. There was not a huge amount of revenue from TV deals or corporate sponsors. SSS's meant controlling those revenue streams. It was life or death for many teams. The first goal for teams was to get control of those streams. Not saying it was "anywhere will do", but it was close. The Fairgrounds in Columbus. Carson in LA. Frisco outside of Dallas. Commerce City in Colorado. Bridgeview in Chicago. Harrison NJ. Then things went boom in Cascadia (and Toronto). And KC. And then Atlanta. Atmo. Sellouts. Downtown marches to matches. More about supporters, less about soccer moms. It wasn't just about surviving, it was about thriving. Now, some of this thriving was certainly NOT in SSS. Seattle & Atlanta come to mind. But it was revenue controlled by the owner, with massive ticket sales. Another way to thrive. With thriving soccer culture spreading in lots of places (Seattle, LA, KC, Portland, Toronto, RSL, etc) and 18k-20k now the norm, I think the dynamic started to shift amongst the owners. At one time, Anshuwitz, Hunt, and Kraft owned almost all the teams. The saved the league, for sure. But with revenue sharing, I think some of the owners who were more engaged (and who put more money in) started to resent some of the other owners taking a piece of their pie while not exactly putting forth much effort to maximize the profit in their market. I think those, "newer" owners had a lot to do with getting new ownership in DC & Chicago & Columbus. And the league being willing to help get the Fire out of Bridgeview. Passive ownership whilest collecting profit sharing from the others is now frowned upon by many owners. They want ownership in other cities to help grow the pie. For a while, expansion & expansion fees kept growing the pie. But that also means more slices, and COVID kind of brought that to a halt, or at least a pause. And it cannot go on forever. Now, growing the pie in every market becomes more of a focus. And the league has cleaned up some of it's most problematic and high profile ownership/stadium messes. New ownership in DC and a new stadium in the 3rd largest CSA in the country. Two new stadiums (and engaged ownership) in Columbus and Austin. New ownership in Chicago and out of the Bridgeview lease. Stadium deal done for NYCFC. Beckham over the line in Miami. Successful new entries in Nashville (with stadium) and Charlotte (huge money bomb) and now St. Louis (stadium). What's left? Who is underachieving the most? Which brings us back to the Revs. Boston is the 6th largest CSA in the country (NY, LA, DC, Chicago, SJ/SF/OAK). The first 3 are set. Chicago has work to do but is DT at least. But the Revs are in a worse situation. And one that has persisted the longest. Again, with Kraft controlling the streams, it is not about NE losing money. It is about NE failing to capitalize on the potential of that market. MLS Cups used to be played up there for a reason. Even in the cold and rain the environment was pulsating. Kraft is passive/neglectful with the Revs. And the other owners know it. He's had plenty of time (unlike the new owners in Chicago), he just does not care. As an added cherry, I think Garber would love it if, come World Cup 2026, he could show off a 30 team league with new stadiums in downtown Miami, NY (OK, 2027, but at least there will be stadium porn) Boston, and Chicago and two thriving teams each in NY & LA. With the hope being it would fuel another (final?) round of expansion and up the fee for it. If all the franchises are maximizing profit, it makes investment in the league more attractive. No slackers allowed. Sorry for the length. But I think the Revs get this done in 12-24 months (ducks).
Great post, one way to summarize is that the league under Garber has always kinda kept trundling along making progress issue by issue the best they can. Not every problem is immediately solvable, but they know what the problems are and they're chipping away wherever the opportunity presents itself. Foxborough is one of the most obvious, longest-lingering problems on the board. Which is to say, I am sure they're not blind to it and they're trying. Getting rid of Hauptman and getting out of Bridgeview in Chicago seemed impossible, it wasn't. Getting an NYCFC SSS in city limits seemed impossible, it wasn't. If Messi can happen surely that cuts the Gordian Knot in Miami. Fixing the Revs situation seems impossible. It probably isn't.
Another thing is that Garber/MLS want their footprint to match or exceed that of the other major pro sports leagues in North America. This latest round of expansion has gotten them to 29 (almost 30). Which is an amazing achievement and some seriously rapid growth. 20 years ago MLS had just contracted and had 10 teams, TEN! Up until 19 years ago (2004) we still had 10. MLS doubled in size in just 11 years, expanding to 20 teams by 2015. With +8 teams in just 7 years (2005-2011). After a pause in 2016, MLS had added 9 more teams in the last 7 years (2017-2023), adding at least one team every year. Still, with 29 teams, MLS sits one behind MLB and the NBA, and three behind the NHL and NFL. Getting that Sacramento egg off Garber's face will be important before the World Cup. As will solving any market underperformances (Boston, Chicago). I am sure MLS will want everything shiny prior to WC 2026 and use that as a springboard for more (and more expensive) expansion. No way they stop at 30.
I’ve written this before elsewhere on these boards, but it bears repeating: getting a soccer-specific stadium built for the New England Revolution within the City of Boston proper is a tall order. First, Robert Kraft already privately-financed construction of Gillette Stadium, including reimbursing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for infrastructure improvements the state made to roadways and utilities surrounding the facility. Whether he, or his heirs, are going to have the stomach to foot the bill for development of another sports edifice is open to debate. Further, insofar as Boston is concerned, we’re talking about a municipality of less than 49 square miles in land area, with - according to the Boston Redevelopment Authority - 26% being state property, 14% being city property, 2% being held by educational and medical institutions, and 8% controlled by other tax-exempt entities. Overall, 36% is currently dedicated to residential development, with 16% set aside as public open space. Additionally, 77% of available land parcels in the city are classed as residential. In other words, what land there is that’s available to be developed in Boston proper is either earmarked for residential development or sits in close proximity to existing residential neighborhoods. That makes for a whole hell of a lot of NIMBYism. Factor in the historical resistance of both City of Boston and Commonwealth of Massachusetts politicians to invest public dollars towards the construction of facilities to be used by professional sports franchises and the odds of the Revolution setting up shop in Boston proper seem to be slim and none. There’s been rumor of a stadium for the Revolution potentially comprising part of a proposed mixed-use development on a 95-acre former ExxonMobil tank farm in the neighboring City of Everett, but whether that will ever come to pass - and how soon - is anyone’s guess.
Yes, I absolutely prefer a downtown stadium in Boston. But there's nothing wrong with the atmosphere at or distance to Gillette Stadium that a multi-season dominant regular trophy lifting team wouldn't fix. Those of us going back to 1996 remember the random games with 30k in attendance. The interest is there. And it hasn't gone away, it's just mostly disappointed. Basically having the stadium in Foxboro is similar to guaranteeing that every game at (insert downtown stadium city here) is played in rain or bitter cold. That's going to kill the casuals and walk up, but if it were the "thing to do" then suddenly the distance to Foxboro or the rain downtown doesn't matter so much. The distance from downtown to Sporting Park didn't stop the team from having a 7 or 8 year string of sellouts, but the team perpetually disappointing on the field - did. KC is in its longest MLS Cup Final drought in club history.
Agreed. I don't see a 4th club in Canada as Ottawa or Quebec aren't big enough markets. But San Diego and Phoenix sure are. The obstacles there are suitable venues but a person or group who can write a big enough check can solve those easily enough. Likewise markets such as Detroit, Pittsburgh, or Las Vegas. San Antonio is big enough but probably off limits.
San Diego have Snapdragon Stadium until a permanent stadium is found and Phoenix's owners have the land, the permissions and the financing.
Distance from downtown is a flawed metric without taking into account transit options and number of households without a car. Boston and KC are different cities when it comes to car culture- almost everyone in KC drives and not being able to get somewhere via transit isn’t going to be an attendance killer there. Boston, on the other hand, has something like 30% of households without access to a vehicle, so having a stadium outside of downtown (which in most cities is easily accessible without a car) is going to limit people’s ability to get to a game, and for less popular teams (obviously the Patriots survive and thrive in the same location), that’s going to affect attendance. Just like Chicago, where SeatGeek was ‘only’ 12-15 miles from downtown and a stone’s throw away from city limits, being conveniently accessible to fast and reliable mass transit options is a real benefit. Winning, as always, helps, but if a team only draws well when they’re winning they’ll probably be in trouble at some point in a league as large as MLS.
And the dream of "mathematically alive for a playoff spot" equaling the magical notion of "winning" in commercial and financial terms is a dead end. Yes, the NFL does it somehow. America has a psychotic addiction to professional football, it's not extrapolatable to anything else, including the other massively watched and profitable legacy American sports leagues.
This seems very stupid. Playing in a college football stadium where they don't control the revenue? Doesn't that go against every trend MLS has been pushing over the last 20 years? Why is MLS so obsessed with that market? Meanwhile, Detroit and Phoenix are huge markets with no momentum?
Detroit hasn't been a huge market for 20 years. It's a large metro area but it's still shrinking and financially is still a mess outside of a small urban core. Phoenix is literally mentioned in the section you quoted.
Snapdragon would be temporary but it would be a better temporary solution than Yankee or Lockhart Stadiums. I don't know what the hold up is with Phoenix. They have the land, the financing and the go ahead for a stadium on Native American land. It's not downtown but I don't think that's necessary in Phoenix. Qatar WC demonstrated that pitch cooling technology can work.
There are plenty of bigger markets on the board: Detroit, Phoenix, San Diego, Tampa Bay, Cleveland, Las Vegas, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Sacramento, Raleigh, Baltimore, SF/Oakland, San Antonio, and Milwaukee are all over 2 million. With some twice that. And there a plenty if smaller markets that support teams: OKC, Memphis, New Orleans, Buffalo, etc. El Paso, Louisville, or something in the Rio Grande Valley or New Mexico would not shock me either. Ownership and deep pocketed ownership and a stadium plan are diffetent issues. But markets that can support pro-sports teams, we got those. A dozen easily, 20 if you push it.
You're nuts. Detroit is the 13th largest CSA in USA/Can (NY, LA, DC/Balt, Chicago, SJ/SF/Oak, Boston, Dallas, Houston, Philly, Atlanta, Miami, Toronto). It is not shrinking, though the growth is slow. Phoenix isn't growing that fast either (+2.05%). It is the largest CSA in MLS territoty without an MLS team, over 400k more than Phoenix. It has over 5.4 million people. Behind those two, the next largest CSA without a team is Cleveland at around 3.6 mil. And those numbers don't count Windsor, and it's 422k CMA on the Canadian side. Detroit/Windsor is 800k+ clear of Phoenix and pushing 5.9 mil. Though to be fair, if you add Tijuana to SD, you are over 5 mil from SD/TJ as well. Though the border situation there and in Detroit is not the same. Growth rates are one thing, but Detroit/Windsor is twice as big as some of these other cities. Biggest CSA's without a team + growth rate ('20 to '21). 1. Detroit + Windsor: 5,847,372 (Win +6%) 2. SD + TJ: 5,543,922 (TJ +23.21%) 3. Detroit: 5,424,742 (+0.59%) 4. Phoenix: 4,999,734 (+2.05) ----------- 5. Cleveland: 3,615,968 (-0.50%) 6. SD (MSA): 3,286,069 (-0.38%) 7. Tampa Bay (MSA): 3,219,514 (+1.39%) ----------- 8. Sacramento: 2.697,399 (+0.62%) 9. Pittsburgh: 2,6367,506 (-0.74%) 10. San Antonio: 2,620,224 (+1.70%) 11. Indianapolis: 2,507,944 (+0.62%) 12. Las Vegas: 2,345,926 (+1.25%) 13. Raleigh/Durham: 2,144,608 (+1.81%) 14. Milwaukee: 2,044,438 (-0.43%) I did not include MSA's that are subsumed in larger CSA's that already have a team: Riverside (4.6 mil), SF/Oak (4.6 mil), Baltimore (2.8 mil). I think Baltimore or SF/Oak could support a team, though the area already has one. That is it over 2 mil. Though I do not think 2 million is some magical number. There are areas with less than that that support teams (Jacksonville, New Orleans, Memphis, OKC, Buffalo) or could (Virginia Beach, Louisville, Hartford, El Paso, Albequerque in the 1-2 mil range).
I can understand San Diego or Las Vegas with them moving Nashville back to the East. The southern states rivalry makes more sense to me. Also Saint Louis and KC seem like a natural but let them play. Also if you move to three divisions then Las Vegas or San Diego help shape the West for ten teams.
I feel like Chicago should move to the Western Conference. They have more natural rivals there with SKC,SLC, & MNU.