That may be, but bear in mind Vancouver is currently playing in a crappy 5,700 seat suburban stadium in a city park. Far too often, fans are turned away at the gate due to fire code. Those fans generally don't come back. Other key problem: It's not downtown. Quite frankly, it's a piss poor location... so there's nothing to do before or after the match, so it's hard to make it a real night out. Parking is also pricey and limited. It's also nowhere near any of the other businesses which help other USL teams succeed, such as pubs, restaurants, etc. Look back to Vancouver's NASL days when they were situated in a much better location (Empire Stadium, RIP.) Back then Whitecaps were one of the NASL's best draws, peaking at 29,000+ per match in the 1980s. Make no mistake, a Vancouver MLS franchise at the new stadium site could easily compete for the best attendances in the league. It's a prime location in the heart of downtown Vancouver with heavy pedestrian traffic 24-7. It's also immediately adjacent to one of the largest public transit terminals on the west coast, and it is a stone's throw from dozens of pubs, restaurants and night clubs. Just watch when this thing gets built. Even in the USL, Vancouver will still draw a minimum of 12,000 per match at this site. Guaranteed. Add the hype of a new MLS franchise... that could very well push it to 20,000+ ********************** Also.... Do you want to know why Montreal's attendance is so high? Maybe its because season tickets for kids sell for a measly $20!!! That's less than $1.70 per game! Montreal's most expensive "gold" seating goes for $15. Meanwhile, Vancouver's crappiest "bronze" seats (steel bleachers facing the sun) start at $17!!! Vancouver is run as a business. Montreal, believe it or not, is currently a non-profit organization subsidized by the Quebec government. That's why the tickets are so cheap. Outside Vancouver's stadium you'll find scalpers making a killing on tickets sold at 150% of retail cost. Outside Montreal's stadium, you'll find staff handing out FREE tickets to tourists just before kick off. Mystery solved?
WOW! Man, all I can say is this man does his research. Assuming he's not pulling numbers out of his @$$. I'm from Seattle and as much as I dislike the Whitecaps, I say, God's Speed on that. Get a team up there asap. Thats the most solid argument I've heard for ANY city to recieve a team in a long time. Maybe ever. That definitely explains the Montreal phenom. Another reason getting a team up there would be great is it might actually motivate someone down here with some money to dump it on a team. If Whitecaps FC in MLS draw well, you can bet some eyes are gonna look up from their caramel machiado's at tully's and scratch their heads. There's tons of money in this town. i think people are too nervous to do any risky business yet since we were hit harder than most of the nation by the recession. i digress. get a team in vancouver, get one in portland and that would seal the deal for seattle. we have always been the pinnacle of the northwest in the eyes of the nation and we wanna keep it that way. seattle has good pride so we just need a kick in the balls to get us going. haha.
Re: Graber of MLS said his goal is to have.... I think 18 is a "magic number" because FIFA said that's the maximum they want a first division to have. With a single table and every team playing each other twice it makes for a 34 game season. Add in Open Cup, CONCACAF club competitions, play-offs, national team dates, interntional club friendlies and the all important all-star weekend and that doesn't leave much room on the calendar. I think they'll stick to 18.
Re: Graber of MLS said his goal is to have.... I'll give you 8 cities just in case some teams are moved. These are in the order of how well I think MLS will do in the markets. 1. Portland-WOuld instantly draw RSL-esque numbers. Plus they have Timber's Army, and those guys just kick ass. 2. Houston-Would actually draw better with Club America because it would get about 25-30% of the Mexican population, as well as the gringos because unlike LA, it is the only soccer team in town. Lots of stadium options as well. 3. Rochester-Would draw a minimum of 15k a night, but even if MLS' popularity shot up, they would find it hard to draw more than in the low 20's. Sponsorship is also a bit of a problem in a smaller market. 4. Vancuver-There owner loves soccer, and has proposed a spot on/around the waterfront. Coudl draw very well, and would be the only team in town when hockey season wasn't going on. Whitecaps draw well for USL, and I think their attendance is trending upwards. 5. St Louis-Great soccer tradition, and a good soccer community would be able to support an MLS team better than many current cities. The drawback is that there is no stadium in place, so they couldn't enter the league untill an sss is built, and getting an owner to build a stadium before they have really been able to analyze the market is going to be a tough sell. 6. Milwaukee-They support the Wave well, and there is some soccer tradition. If the stadium gets built then we would definatley see this team in MLS. It would creat a nice rivalry with the Fire, which would hopefully end that ridiculous one they have with FCD. 7. Toronto-Similar to Milwaukee in that they have to wait for an SSS, but in this case there is no real tradition of soccer in the minor leagues liek there is with the Wave. Toronto has struggled at times to support other franchises, and I'm not sure if soccer would be on the sports radar there, when they have 3 major teams, as well as the Argos who draw well. 8. Philadelphia-I think it is the 4th biggest market in the country, and they have very passionate sports fans, but I have my doubts about whether they would get any press attention while competing with the Phillies, sixers, and Eagles.
Repeat after me: "It's not about markets, it's about owners." Step 1: Find an Investor Step 2: Welcome to MLS
I actually though tthe Blitzz drew extremely well for being in USL-2, or whatever they were in. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I always thought there number was over 3,000.
Perhaps you need to read Garber's state of the league speech. I think out of the eventual 18 teams in this league we're going to have 2 in Canada (Toronto and either Vancouver or Montreal) plus 4 teams in the US catered to Hispanics (Chivas USA, Club America Houston, team in Bridgeview, team in Harrison). So how many spots does that leave for other US cities without a team currently. ZERO. So Milwaukee, Rochester, etc. etc. better get their act together FAST. Hiring Peter Wilt was a fantastic start.
If you believe the league will stop at 18, then the formula for expansion becomes a bit more complicated than owner + stadium = franchise, because a "completed" 18 team MLS would no doubt want to be paid for a national television deal (that's where the big money lies for 'Major League' sports). In order to get a big TV deal, MLS must have a nationwide presence. I think the MLS fatcats realize this, and if they take the 18 limit seriously then expansion pretty much must include at least one team in the northwest and one team in the southeast. If MLS plans on stopping at 18, my guesses are: Seattle Portland Toronto Florida (somewhere) Milwaukee Houston * possibly Vancouver, Philadelphia, 2nd NY in place of one of these 6, as long as Florida and the Pac NW are still covered. That said, I don't think MLS is serious about a long-term 18-team limit. The size (both geographic and population) of the US make it fundamentally different from European leagues, and the league will likely not want to turn away more cash from deep-pocketed investors just b/c of a FIFA recommendation. We say 18 now b/c we aren't there yet, but realistically I think to have decent representation across the country and capitalize on big markets MLS will need 24 teams or so. Besides, the main reasoning behind the 18-team limit is to limit season lengths to 34 games (to prevent player fatigue). But that assumes a balanced schedule - something that is not really a part of sporting culture here in the United States. If we had 24 teams in, say, 2030, I'm sure that would be fine so long as we had a conference setup (like we do, well.... now) and unbalanced schedule (like we do, well.... now). For those reasons, I do think stadium+ownership group = expansion for the most part, because the league is not worried about 'filling up.' There are still plenty of expansion slots left to get nationwide representation and the 'geographic footprint' is a non-issue because there is not a true set team limit. Therefore, my conclusion is to scrap my own list from above and take the 18 team thing with a grain of salt.
I'd like to see MLS end up with 32 teams or so. To keep FIFA happy, the league could be split up into 2 conferences with minimal inter-conference play (similar to the way baseball is setup now).
Re: Graber of MLS said his goal is to have.... With all of this talk about Toronto and Vancouver has MLS gotten permission from FIFA to do this? Isn't there some law about a league being part of one FA only? I know that Cardiff has permission to play in the English FA, but has FIFA even weighed in on the issue of Toronto joining MLS?
Re: Graber of MLS said his goal is to have.... I believe that they wouldn't mind. And if I remember mytime on these boards correctly, FIFA even tried to get a team from LA into the Mexican league, just so there could be something prior to the WC 1994.
Re: Graber of MLS said his goal is to have.... i don't think that FIFA has said anything to the discourage the Old Firm in Scotland (Rangers and Celtic) from joining Premiership. the top club in Liectenstein plays in the Swiss League. P.S. sorry if i butchered the spelling of Liectenstein. i didnt feel like making sure it was right.
MLS should first finish stabilizing the league in the US b4 they want to land in Canada. i live near toronto and i went to the dinamo/ rangers game last month at the rogers centre and the place was empty. 18000 for 2 ethnically well represented sides in this country. mls should go to philly (for its loyal support in other sports+ it's fans), houston, seattle, and maybe rochester or portland. it's a american league let canada come later.
As someone pointed out before, minor league soccer attendance is a bad way to judge a town's MLS support. Take a huge look at Real Salt Lake. You throw a bunch of ad dollars behind it, find a decent stadium (the USL team here plays in a high school stadium, Real plays in a Division 1-A college stadium), and put way better players out there and people will come. You don't see Jason Kreis and Clint Mathis, not to mention visitors like Freddy Adu, Landon Donovan, Eddie Johnson, etc. in the USL.
It appears that Houston and Toronto are in good shape to get teams. The other four could look something like this: Vancouver Philly Rochester and Another shot at Florida Plus, I wouldn't rule out the Quakes and Wiz getting moved at this point. Either way, it will be interesting to see what move MLS takes.
Re: 24 to 30 (or 32 with 4 - 8 team divisions) I hate the way MLB is setup and the NFL for that matter. The NFL doesn't bother me as much because they only play 16 games, and so teams wouldn't play each other that much anyway if it was East-West. But MLB annoys me way more because they talk about how interleague play sucks and whatever, but what they don't realize is that a Dbacks-Royals game is possibly just as bad as a Reds-Brewers game. It is not interleagues fault. My point is, I would not want MLS to become this stupid and for soccer fans in this country to complain about all the same things that MLB fans talk about today. But I would not be against a 30 team league with 3 divisions with 5 teams in one conference and the other one just like it. I would like to keep the East-West format and every team playing every team or at least playing every team except one division from the other conference. But I would do anything for MLS to be a 30 team league (even 24 seems about right), and if it means we have limited interleague play at that point, then I am all for it. Even the NHL is doing something similar with each team not playing one division that year and alternating it each year from now on. -Von
Best Sporting Cities 2005 - Sporting News As with everything in this country, you don't capture the South, you won't win. MLS is no exception... And Tampa might have failed using the conjecture from the link above. Miami is not a Southern city. And no way do I thinlk they'll pick Charlotte (28) over Atlanta (9) (which is not to say BOTH cities won't get a team) as a 1st pick in the South. If my own gut is correct, they'll go over 18 to 24, NY2 is 19th, ATL is 20th. That is with I/O & SSS
Nashville or Charlotte would be seemingly good southeastern locations. 30th and 28th, respectively, in the nation in terms of markets. At least one southeastern team is a neccesity, and these two seem likely frontrunners, since Atlanta doesn't look feasible.
I think our main problem is an ownership group. It'll be interesting to see how Silverbacks Park does next year when it opens in a much better area for soccer people. I'm glad that I finally saw more information on it during the USL broadcast on FSC because I had no idea what was up. It's opening next season and will seat 5,000. There are fields arleady in use for Silverbacks club teams and I have read that they are immensely popular. In fact the county I live in is replacing a lot of softball/baseball fields with soccer fields. But anyways, the ownership group is the main deal. With all the corporate types in the area I'm sure that sponsorship and some sort of stadium deal could be worked out slightly easier than the Harrison deal. Home Depot is based here and they obviously support MLS. Bernie Marcus (one of the HD founders) is about to have his big fish tank so maybe he could pony up some dough for a team. As big as it is, we could have the Atlanta Mariners and they could play in SCUBA gear. But I do bet you are right about the timeframe. It'll probably be in the range of 17-20th team in the league. I just hope that MLS doesn't get too antsy at the derby situation. I think New York and LA can handle it. Chicago, maybe. Anybody else is a nada. On Tampa: for some reason Malcolm Glazer wants to piss off a lot of Englishmen by buying Manchester U. I wouldn't be shocked if he would invest in a Tampa team. Thing is the "ethnic" part of the triumvirate of MLS isn't really the greatest in Florida. The Hispanic population is more Cuban than Mexican. On average Cubans are baseball folks more than soccer. Other way around for Mexico. You're also severely limited by that thing called the ocean as far as fans in surrounding areas. I think Florida could support teams when it gets to the 20s and MLS is more widespread but I selfishly see the Carolinas or Atlanta getting a team first.
i'm sorry but tampa already had a team and they failed, y would mls want to go back there anytime soon. it be wiser to expand to the nw, to seattle, vancouver (maybe), portland... then maybe add st louis to have a team in central usa ( maybe move the wiz), i really don understand mls w/ allowing chivas in la, tat area is paked w/ three teams now in close driving distance, i really wonder about the harrison project, it would have been smarter puttin the team in nyc, unlike nj where nobody exept the jets, giants fels the love...look at nj nets.. look at tat team n look at the attendance.. i know they will be movin soon to brooklyn but thats what mls should also have done. mls needs a team near minneapolis, minn., houston ,and philly.........