Expansion based on metro area population

Please don't post whole articles. A paragraph or two along with the link is preferred. BigSoccer can get in trouble for the postings of whole articles.

And please don't quote the long-ass posts. Just snip the little bit you want to discuss.

 

The link crashes a PC for some reason. There is nothing illegal in posting a properly attributed news article with a link. But either way, no need to post further articles....

 

Talk about being set in your ways.

What are we back in the 70's? Most major cities have spent the better part of the last 20 years making their downtowns more than that doing whatever they can to encourage business development and bringing people back to the city.

Two things that I would love to know are which cities meet your crime ridden wasteland definition?

And which stadium deal you're trying to justify by saying that suburban is better than urban?

As a general rule, downtown should be the first option. But if that doesn't work then an MLS owner would be silly to turn down the free money that suburbs are throwing their way.

But be careful that you don't end up with a Dallas/Denver type arrangement, where no one can get to your games, b/c they're so far out in the burbs that it's not really worth the effort for most of the city.

 

This quote seems more apt for the time of the NASL (70's) than MLS (00's).

 

As for the attendances, it's interesting to note that excluding Beckham & his Gals (who would draw well in suburban Fargo), & two downtowners round out the top 3.

Also interesting to note that FC Frisco, Colorado & Chivas play in new suburban stadiums, but still draw at the bottom of the pack.

It will be interesting to see what happens over time as RSL & RBNY move into their suburban stadiums, KC moves to a new stadium just inside the city limits & the Dynamo build downtown. My guess, RSL & RBNY move up slightly, but KC & Houston have larger increases.

We also can't forget that Seattle (Qwest, 2009) & San Jose (Epicenter, 2010) are going to be downtown as well.

 

In short, owners are going to put a stadium where it makes the most business sense for them. It is ALL about business. And that is a good thing since it will help the league survive.

On another note, I was talking to some football/baseball fanatics the other day about the possibility of St. Louis getting a franchise and my experiences going to Fire games. They are in their 60's and have been to a few grandkids soccer games but that is about their experience. However, after our conversation they said they may have to try some games if St. Louis gets a team. They are sports people at heart and if they can get drawn to an MLS game without any prejudices it is a good thing for the sports future success.....

 

/agree

Ill hang out in my crime ridden wasteland any day rather than hang out at a Chili's.

 

Lol. I cant believe this article makes the same chilis joke. Someone posted this is new and analysis but its relevant here.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=487388&root=mls&cc=5901

original thread

https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=629519

 

Try visitng some cities in the USA, at night, right now. There are areas of some cities, today, which are virtual no-go zones at night and if you are unaware of this you haven't been there. Even if YOU would go that doesn't mean the average person or one with a family would go there. Yes, downtown entertainment centers are often policed well but those centers generally do not have land available to build a stadium. Once you get out of the center and into the (often) blighted warehouse districts where land is available you have lost the advantage of a downtown location, which is that adjacent entertainment. Combine this with the poor access to those locations and an urban location becomes less attractive. Face it, in America we like our cars and we like to drive to our entertainment. Thus, vehicle access becomes an important consideration when building a stadium in most cities of this country.

Also, do some research on the demographics of who attends MLS soccer games. Then see where those people live. Hint, for the most part they do not live downtown. Thus your theory about how easy it is for them to get to games is turned on its head. Suburbanites (the dem for MLS) have a harder time getting to a downtown game. With the kids going with them it makes any nearby entertainment, which is the usual draw for a downtown venue, less attractive as well. They have to go home and can't hang out with the kids at a bar. Same with the Hispanics people talk about as a big demographic base. Hispanic familes live where the rest of us do and that means the suburbs or fringe neighborhoods.

I realize most of you are young and view this from your perspective. However, while the younger 20ish fan is an important part of the MLS support base, they are not today the financial prime supporters of the MLS. Take most fan groups. HUGE fans, but they sit in the cheap seats, often sneak in their refreshments (see it in Chicago all of the time) and generally scrimp financially in other areas which don't benefit the team's bottom line. They are rowdy and cost the team 3-4 times the security as the more expensive seats. The suburban family of four will generally buy lots more gear, sit in more expensive seats and hit the snack bars to feed the kids. They are also the prime demographic for advertising revenue which is what draws TV deals. They have a much bigger revenue impact per person than the fan group attendees and those are the basic facts. This is where the NASL lost out. They had fans but they were the soccer addicts which generally hadn't the resources to pay the team's way. The MLS is reaching into a more lucrative group of fans and a group that will add generational loyalty for the future. (Generational loyalty is a huge concern in MLB right now if you do some research. They have lots of fans now but youth baseball participation is in a slump). Yes, hopefully, the 20ish fan groups will get older, wealthier, get married and bring their kids out to the games. That is a good thing for the future, but the MLS needs money NOW and if all they had to rely on for revenue was the young single person in school or at their first jobs the MLS would go broke fast. Not to sound harsh but those are the realities of a business and the MLS is first and foremost a business.

All of this is basic business and marketing. Cheap land makes it more likely an investor group can go out and build that stadium. People go to games for the experience and you get a lot better experience at a full soccer specific stadium than you will at a half empty football stadium. Better access to the prime soccer demographic means the fan is more likely to come to the game and more importantly more likely to be a season ticket holders. Think all you want that the dream of every team owner is a downtown location but that really isn't the case in the current environment the MLS finds itself. Otherwise, the majority of the new stadiums would be in the city center rather than on the fringes and in the suburbs like they are now. If those smaller stadiums start routinely filling up the owner raises ticket prices without any marginal cost growth and it is pure profit and profit is what drives professional sports of any kind.

 

This guy has not been to any of the MLS games I have been to. Go to KC, Columbus or the Fire and the people you see there are young (often NOT living in the city by the way) but in larger numbers there are the Hispanic and families which also do not live in the cities (even though demographically speaking a suburbanite is classified as an urban dweller). Sure, go to NYC and you will find a lot of more inner urban dwellers but contrary to the average NY'rs idea the rest of the country is NOT like NYC. And DC? He is clueless if he thinks those fans come from the city of Washington. The DC metro area is huge and I would not hesitate to bet the vast majority of the fans at DC United are living in outlying areas (the suburbs people) and not in Washington proper.

This is what happens when urban reporters who know squat about business write articles about business. BTW, before the challenge come, I hold an MBA and am ABD on my DBA. My dissertation is on economic development, not exactly a topic unrelated to the subject matter.

Moreover, who does he thinks go to games in foreign country's? I lived in Germany for 12 years, I have been to those games and IT IS NOT A BUNCH of 20 somethings (of course, the police lined up outside where I worked on game day were largely there for the 20 something crowd!)! The groups at a German game (which I have been to) are the whole spectrum of ages. There are families, blue collar, white collar, young people, old people. My German friends of all ages from kids to grandparents watched and attended the games and were targeted by advertisors which is where the teams make huge amounts of money. Moreover he better do some research. Europeans marry at much older ages and have many fewer kids so European business demographics are different than ours and what works there may or will not work here. Heck, the average German and other Europeans live with their parents well into their 20's or even 30's do you guys want to do that? If you look at average attendence in many South American countries the MLS already beats them! Should the MLS emulate that?

Making the comparison he is trying to make is flawed and he might know that if he wasn't a sports reporter. This guy should take some business courses and until then limit his comments to the sports aspect of the game. Virtually all entertainment industries chase the family demographic and not just the MLS so are all business enterprises in America stupid? Shees....

 

I dont think anyone is arguing that such areas dont exist. The difference is what certain people consider dangerous enough to be "no-go". Homeless guys in the street dont make anything "no-go" for me. People with guns on the other hand...

I'm just going to use an example that I'm comfortable with here. Minute Maid Park (Formerly Enron Field) was built not too many years ago in an area of downtown Houston that used to be riddled with warehouses and was a "blighted" district. They built it anyway, families still came, and now the whole area is pretty much revitalized. Theres still homeless people between the light rail and the stadium and under the freeway but I think most people feel comfortable when there are 30000 other people going to the same game you are. The mere fact that you are putting a stadium and bringing another 15-25k fans with you, turns that area from a "no-go" zone into a "yes lets go there" zone. And its all walkable distance to most everything in downtown, which isnt small by any means, depending on how much you like to walk.

I disagree. Theres a reason why every major city has public transportation and is improving their public transportation. The reason is people DO NOT want to drive cars everywhere. Everyone likes to drive on open roads, in the country, out to rural places, etc. No one likes to drive in cities. Theres traffic, the roads ******** up your ride, parking can be an issue, etc.

Well most people in general dont live "downtown". Thats a word usually saved for business districts. However, I think most people do live in urban areas (read: high population density) and most of those areas allow for reasonably good transporation to and from other highly visited parts of the city. Otherwise, the transportation authority isnt doing a very good job. And even if the demographic now isnt urban dwellers, that doesnt mean thats the way it should be. Right now, MLS is not in good shape and it wont get in good shape without changing the demographic away from suburban america and families.

The ESPN article hit on something truthful here. Things that become popular in America in general become popular by the single youths dwelling is high density areas, new york, los angeles, chicago. When they make it "cool", children, older parents, etc take notice and follow suit. One only has to point at the fashion and technology industries to realize this.

Everything you said here I agree with. But suburbanites should not be the target demographic for a number of reasons but primarily because more people are not suburbanites than are suburbanites. Even from a marketing perspective, its far easier to concentrate marketing on a small, higly populated region, than to the less dense, larger area around it.

Also I think it's worht pointing out that families and suburbanites shouldnt be confused together. While the ratio of families to single people in the suburbs is probably quite high, I still think there are far more families (pure numbers) in urban areas.

Prove it. I would argue that young people have more disposable income to buy gear and alcohol. Families on the other hand, dont get drunk at games. And I think everyone knows that alcohol sales are the most profitable part of the concessions. As for the security, that sounds like bullshit to me. In fact, the more expensive seats require more security because they have to make sure you paid for that expensive seat at every single aisle. Whereas with general admission, they just have to watch for anything illegal and can do that from afar.

Oh yeah? How many 18-30 yr old males do you have in your family? Exactly. These are the people who watch sports. This is dem that advertisers expect to reach through sports. Not kids and not soccer moms.

Sure, generational loyalty is important. People bring their kids to the games and then the kids growing up to love the game, that whole cycle is a big deal. Eveything after that just doesnt make any sense at all. Do the other big sport businesses do as you are claiming. Do they focus more on the suburban family? They dont. Why? Because they dont need to. Those people will watch the games on there TV's and be content. They will where there jerseys and watch the young people at the game have the fun that they used to have. Ill just take an example from both the NBA and MLB. In this years playoffs, TBS (i think) had Dane Cook promoting October playoffs. Do your kids know who Dane Cook is? Have they seen Dane Cook tour? The answer is no they havnt because hes vulgar. The NBA this past year ( or the year before I dont remember) had Jeremy Piven promoting playoffs. I know your kids dont know who he is or even watch Entourage. Why? Again because its not appropriate for kids.

In conclusion, yes maybe suburban families generate more revenue for teams than urban singles. But they will do it regardless of whether MLS targets them or builds stadiums near them, as they do with other sports. In addition, families sitting watching soccer does not incite the same amount of passion that and over all "coolness" that having that core young urban group. If every game was a bunch of soccer moms sitting down not being into the game, even the families would stop going. Therefore its more important for MLS to attract young crowds that make families want to be there.

Again we disagree on what the demographic should be.

No one is going to agree with you on this. There is nothing you can do to convince me that any owner would rather have a suburban location than an urban one. Even disregarding what we think about the demographics, there are simply more people (and YES more FAMILIES) closer to a central location than to a suburban one. The reason they arent in the city center is for the reason you listed, its more expensive to build there, not because they wouldnt want to. If the same deal were given for the suburbans and for downtown, every owner would take downtown, no question. And yes, maybe not in MLS, but the majority of new sports stadiums ARE being built in central, urban, locations.

Okay and Columbus and KC are real rockin places let me tell you /end sarcasm. As for DC, your right, most of the people at RFK probably dont live in DC proper. Why though, do the majority of the fans push for a central urban location? Oh yeah, for reasons I already talked about.

Mmm, it doesnt take an MBA to be logical. We'll not even go into how worthless having any degree in "business" truly is. Dissertation on "economic development" eh? Sounds pretty uh... general and vague.

Or maybe hes just realizing that the European way doesnt translate over directly without saying it. Maybe hes saying that the passion and atmosphere at European games is most readily being shown (in America) by the young urban dweller.

Just because someone is a sports reporter doesnt mean they dont anything about the business aspect of sports. He probably knows more then you about it, even with a Masters of Bullshit Administration.

 

Whoa... call me lazy, but there is no way that I'm going to read those last three posts.

 

I agree with most of your post but have a nit on this one. I think that the worst place to drive is the suburbs. Either they have too little infrastructure to handle the traffic on the roads, which makes you sit in massive traffic jams. Or they have these massive intersections with turn-only lanes and lights where they aren't warranted, making you sit for a long time at the intersection for no reason.

It is rare that I have found a suburb that gets traffic right. Cities, usually, do a better job at it in my experience.

 

I think you're right in some cases. If you're driving through the suburbs proper it can be a headache. If you are passing through it's not so bad, because normally you are on an interstate. St. Louis is kinda screwy though. When you drive around downtown there is a light on almost every block. It gets tiresome quick. When I worked courier routes I just took to running all the lights.

 

Without going into the details of previous posts, I'll also say this:

Downtown locations are, in almost all circumstances, more accessible to a greater number of potential fans than are stadiums in suburbs or exurbs. Build on the eastern side of a metro area and the fans to the west get screwed, build to the north and the south gets the shaft, etc. That's not an exact science, but the point remains.

I'll take the Philly area as a first example: if you build a stadium in Center City, the fans from South Jersey, the PA suburbs, and the Delaware fans (maybe to a lesser extent), all have similar, reasonable access to the stadium. If you were to build a stadium in West Chester, the people in Delaware and the PA suburbs (west of Philly) would be close to th stadium; fans in Jersey and the northern PA susburbs less so. If you were to build in Camden, fans in Jersey would be thrilled, but fans from PA would have to cross the physical and mental barrier of the Delaware River; going farther into South Jersey would only exacerbate the situation.

Chester isn't a bad location - there's public transportation nearby, it's on a major interstate with relatively easy road access from the PA suburbs west and south of Philly, Delaware, and much of South Jersey. The folks north of Philly and, to some extent, in certain areas of South Jersey get the short end of the stick. For that reason, the location isn't ideal.

Same goes for DC: build in the city or somewhere in a close suburb (Arlington, Alexandria, Silver Spring) and more people have better access to the stadium. But start moving further out (Reston, Herndon, Beltsville, Laurel, Springfield) and fans from the other side of the metro area will be much less likely to attend, as would many of the city dwellers (a good number of whom don't own cars - Metro access to a stadium being another issue altogether).

So the location of a stadium and its accessibility to fans throughout the metro area is something that needs to be considered. And it's *not* very often that a suburb is smack in the middle of a metro area!

 

A downtown/urban location is ideal, however, the price of real estate generally puts it out of reach. So, your alternatives are generally;

• Build the stadium in a blighted, urban area where property values are low and tax dollars for rehabilitation are sometimes available.
• Build the stadium in a suburban area where large tracts of land are generally available for far less money.

If you do the former, you may scare off many potential fans. Your team may play to a three quarters empty stadium while the up and coming neighborhood makes its way up.
If you do the latter, you may make it inaccessable for many potential fans.
Given the economics of soccer in America, it's usually the latter that occurs. If MLS was generating NFL money, there wouldn't be a problem. But, it's not. So, I think MLS needs to build the SSSs wherever it can afford to. Only by controlling the revenue streams, can MLS continue to grow and prosper. And only by having teams playing in SSSs can this happen.

 

Miami should be the next expansion city based on population , but more important on futbol (soccer) fans population. We found a huge european community plus south and central americans. Plus turism all year round therefore it makes a lot of sense to have a Team Here.

When we had the miami fusion was really fun, there was a buzz going on and more and more people was going to the games. There were some small groups organizing the same ways it happens in Brazil , Argentina, Mexico, Ecuador, Colombia, Chile... but everything ended so fast when the MLS cut the FuSION. They needed a little bit more time and that would have been the best franchise in the MLS.

Since then the futbol-fan pupolation has grown even more so I am sure now it's the time to do it again.