Side argument: I don't think that a large, grass-field stadium nearby is a real consideration. We have never had a national stadium and for the most part we play all over the country. A central location with direct flights to the many stadiums we play at is the real consideration.
I'm not sure about the unique accounting of non-profits but organizations love capital projects for several reasons. Everyone loves a physical element of spend. There's a psychological component, but also donors love their names on crap. I've talked a lot with my college's development group and they say it's soooo much easier to get $100M for a building than $10M for a scholarship endowment. Tied to the above, it's a status symbol. Non-profit leaders can get paid a lot, but status and politics tend to play a lot more role in these folks' driving motivation than money compared to for profit workers. If you have a surplus, like US soccer, that is not coming from operating costs, you don't often want to spend cash in an ongoing basis that you don't have income for. Spending all the money on new coaches or running a youth league .... eventually the money runs out. What do you do then? Stop? Endowments are a thing, but you get to spend about 5% of the endowment annually as opposed all of it. It is an asset on the balance sheet. It's something you can borrow against, if necessary, or sell. It is less liquid, and selling a soccer training center doesn't really retain value like an office building or a more common asset, but it still has value. One more reason the location is important -- there's a more likely buyer for it in Atlanta than Carey. It's the same reason why transfer spends are so much higher than salaries -- salaries come out of operating, but transfer spends can be recouped in part when sold. The cash flow hits at the beginning, which is bad, but it usually opens up income for you. So while this is somewhat terrible finance, there is a benefit that US Soccer will get from reduced cash expenses and possibly even income (if a pro league rents it, for example). Some capital projects actually are NPV positive -- the Warriors built their arena for like $1B but are making money hand over fist with concerts, etc. A stadium in the right place and size might pay out, but a soccer training center won't. What it will do is create excess operating income that can be re-applied. So to a certain extent, US Soccer will get their training center + cash to invest in youth coaching, etc. in the form of reduced expenses. How much is the question. That last one may be the cincher that makes it good, when combined with the fundraising. If the money used that isn't fundraised is about $100M, then you'd probably want the expenses that you are saving to be at least $5M to feel good. $15M is probably closer to break even, but here's the scenario. A. Fund about $5M annually in scholarships with the Fund as an Endowment, have $100M or so left in 10-20 years. (conservative on return). B. Fund about $10M annually in endowments, but run out of cash in about 15 years. C. Have a training center + $5M in annual scholarships funded by reduced expenses + no money at the end. IF the savings are that high, you can see how C is the right move. If not, I wonder.
I think it is a nice upside, but not really anywhere near a key critera. I think a small grass field stadium nearby for youth matches would actually be a bigger plus.
Actually Carey does make sense......Steve Malik owns the Courage/NCFC. He's been trying to get into MLS for a long time. He donates some money to USSF for this facility, and they in turn grant his teams use of it. One less expense on the expansion to do list. Hypothetically speaking. It also helps him while in the USL Championship attract better players, etc. Helps the Courage become the place to be for aspiring USWNT players as well.... Hell might even spur renovations/expansion of the existing stadium there as well. Could be more at play here.
Kansas City wouldn't work, IMO for two major reasons: Airport Weather I agree with others. if you want Airport, weather, cost of living, etc. You're looking at really three cities IMO. Dallas or Atlanta Orlando I mean you could do others, but there's very few places in the US that offer truly international airports, generally good weather year round (interestingly Atlanta gets a lot more rain than DFW). Orlando you get Hurricanes and high Humidity and it's higher cost of living. Atlanta airport tops DFW for international but barely. Chicago is the king of airports for International, it and NYC. But weather a factor obviously and cost of living in NYC. the Cary, Raleigh,Durham triangle is a beautiful area, but flights are quite a bit tougher than a true international airport. Charlotte is a 2.5 hr drive and then you're stuck between a drive and a flight because while it's a 30 minute flight you have to clear customs, get bags, catch flight.
Exactly. Great post. A month or two I posted the audited financials for USSF. Cash isn't a big issue. I agree with you that it's probably a waste of money for USSF to spend that money, unless they factor in Youth Soccer which is again is kind of why I think DFW makes the most sense since US Youth Soccer is also HQ there. If they insist on building the center, that is. But like you, I'd prefer the money be spent on youth soccer and coaching improvement. Exactly like you said.
Malik is never getting into MLS now that Charlotte is in. At least not in Raleigh. What you say is possible, and I think I noted that it is the only reason for Carey -- if basically the Courage NCFC foot a huge part of the bill. But I don't know if he has that cash. And I would have real problems with the USSF favoring literally one NWSL team. The potential strength of the NWSL versus Europe is if we can build a league that is strong instead of just PSG or whatever.
Except that that money will eventually run out, and then what? Support for the youth and coaching programs ends?
So I'm confused by your post. Are you for a national training center? If so then that money runs out much faster. If you use that same cash for the youth and coaching then it lasts 20x longer and not only that, but it potentially grows the sport even more which produces more cash.
Or in Carson, CA? https://www.dignityhealthsportspark...enter-and-soccer-specific-stadium-in-los-ange
The $100M is left over surplus from the 2016 Copa America Centenario. In other words, it's not from year to year operating income. That money is a fixed pool. Once it's spent, it's spent. If the USSF spends it on coaching and youth camps....how long does it last exactly? If they spend it on tangible infrastructure, that physical building becomes an asset that has a value. I'm against a national training center. IMO it's a vanity, luxury project. They don't need it when there are already 26 world/high class soccer specific training facilities spread throughout the USA. That said, I can understand some of the USSF's reasoning behind wanting one.
What better spot than a neighborhood called Eagle's Landing? https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/384-424-McCurry-Rd-Stockbridge-GA-30281/2061149842_zpid/ Plenty of land. I-75 Frontage. Nice water features for landscaping. Chipotle across the street. 20-30 minutes to the airport.
According to this Oct 2022 article, the busiest airport for passenger traffic, by a big margin. (I don't know if "passenger traffic" is the relevant factor...)
I think Atlanta is definitely the busiest airport. I think New York probably has the most direct flights to the most different locations. Pretty much every international carrier flys to New York if they fly anywhere in the US.
https://simpleflying.com/usa-top-international-airports-december-2022/ Airports by international flights as of DEC 2022 JFK 6,666 Miami 6,425 LA 4,181 Newark 3,811 Houston 3,259 Chicago 3,086 DFW 3,009 Ft. Lauderdale 2,636 Atlanta 2,600 San Francisco 2,492
So we already have national training centers in Kansas City and LA... just need one in Atlanta to cover all regions.
Domestic flights often have a hub based on an airports headquarters. Atlanta has Delta and DFW has American. So domestic flights can be juiced a bit. If you add JFK and Newark and Miami and FT Lauderdale you get an even bigger domination by those two area for domestic flights. S Florida is nice year round though while NY.NJ is not. This changes my mind a bit from rating Atlanta, DFW, Orlando as the top spots (I'm especially surprised Orlando isn't in the top 10 here) and moves southern Florida to the top spot. I'd also imagine if you expand central to where all of our players play and then Miami would be the most central since we have so many in Europe but also some in S America. Not sure if there's actually any land available for a complex though.
The problem with Miami will be land and land costs I'd think. Not to mention cost in general. Plus it's not really central at all. But little Havana is a good time
Any major hub in the United States is fine for MLS guys. But a dfw location makes it under three hour flight from just about anywhere in the country. Again my top three would be DFW, Atlanta, Orlando but DFW easily most central for the US
One of the things that is good (or bad depending on your perspective) about Atlanta is that there are no natural borders compared to coastal cities. This makes land costs in certain areas (primarily now only south of the city) cheaper than a city like Miami that is bound by the ocean and the Everglades. This does cause sprawl as well unfortunately. The city's core has become much dense in the last 20 years but, the city is pretty spread out. Due to all the land available I believe we generally have less push back on projects this size then Miami for example would have. Just look at how long it took Inter Miami to get approval for their stadium complex.
A training center would be much easier to get approval for than a stadium. The reason I like Miami is warm weather, an airport that has lots of direct flights from Europe, and easy access to lots of CONCACAF countries for road trips (so it’d be a good staging ground). We’re playing the next Nations League game in Orlando specifically to reduce travel time and the same applies to Miami. On the other hand Miami might be underwater at some point the way things are going. Orlando has many of the same advantages except a smaller airport with less direct flights from Europe. Downsides of Atlanta is it’s a bit colder in the winter months and you don’t have a good grass field nearby if you wanted to play friendlies there.
I mainly meant it seems easier to get larger land requirement projects done in Atlanta then other cities that are more land constrained. I don't know US Soccer's plans but, I don't think they should or are considering this location to be for friendlies. I think they need to have USMNT/USWNT friendlies spread out across the country. Atlanta has a lot of grass fields for youth team friendlies though, <5000 attendance.
Actually the MAIN problem with Miami would be that it will be underwater in a few decades, and there's nothing that can be done about it since the water seeps in through the porous bedrock. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-miami I met in South Florida who seemed at all concerned about sea-level rise the same question: What could be done? More than a quarter of the Netherlands is below sea level and those areas are home to millions of people, so low-elevation living is certainly possible. But the geology of South Florida is peculiarly intractable. Building a dike on porous limestone is like putting a fence on top of a tunnel: it alters the route of travel, but not necessarily the amount. “You can’t build levees on the coast and stop the water” is the way Jayantha Obeysekera put it. “The water would just come underground.” Some people told me that they thought the only realistic response for South Florida was retreat.
I think the friendly component is probably the factor worthy of least consideration. I’m mostly think of January camp friendlies. Though it’d be odd to base the team there and have them travel to and back from different stadiums around the country. Especially since most those venues have fairly good facilities themselves. Which has less to do with the site location and more to do with the idea that this isn’t the best use of money. There’s plenty of very high quality MLS training facilities as it is.