MLS stadium funding dead after Prop 1 passes, Prop 2 fails KSDK Plan to publicly fund soccer stadium voted down: Prop 1 to fund MetroLink passes KMOV Essentially, that might be the end of St. Louis' MLS bid. We might now be down to 11 cities left in the MLS expansion race.
Meanwhile Sacramento is ready to put shovels in the ground to build a privately funded soccer stadium downtown, like, tomorrow.
I feel like Sacramento, then San Diego, are ready to be the next two expansions in that order. Detroit perhaps too if they're about to turn that jail site into a stadium instead. Unfortunate for St. Louis tho. Let's see if a plan B ever happens there.
Multi-millionaires have to stop begging the public for money to build their personal toys--in the current economic and political climate it will get shot down every time.
True. And that is true even when the terms were quite decent for a public-private partnership when compared to previous iterations.
A major consideration in expansion is geography. I do not believe California will get two of the next five spots. If any region gets two, I believe it will be the South. This is good news for Nashville and San Antonio, who in my opinion were the main competition in the same region as St Louis.
Dont think MLS will add two teams in cali at the same time most likely be Sac and Tampa/Cinc. 24. Sacramento 25. Tampa 26. Cincinnati 27. San Antonio 28. San Diego so what is the latest on SD and why have they moved up the lists so high when they dont have a stadium yet?
Actually in this case it would be 3 of the next 3 spots (LAFC, Sac, SD). Which does seem rather unlikely. That said, I don't think MLS is super concerned with maps right now. Cascadia, Atlanta, and imaginaryMiami were the map-fillers. I think right now they're going to take the best candidates. (Note: Cascadia and Atlanta were also the best candidates with solid business models and secure stadium plans too, not just map-fillers.)
Excellent point regarding LAFC. Geography is mentioned by Garber and the league as a consideration when talking expansion, which is why I think it is a consideration. For example: For another example: A desirable geographic location. Would San Diego and Sacramento both be considered in a desirable geographic location relative to other candidates? Granted, this is one of several considerations, but it is a consideration nonetheless.
...but it still works, so why not? All you have to do is look at the other big sports, especially football and MLB. Until folks do this consistently, and actually hold their politicians responsible for terrible deals, the attempts will continue to be made. Watching ESPN pass the buck on many of these extortion type deals...and then cry for the poor less fortunate types on more convenient, popular fronts is one of the reasons I stopped watching them a decade ago...even before the downturn. Hate the hypocrisy.
They've mentioned that the Central Time Zone is especially attractive to broadcasters. I believe St. Louis and San Antone are the only bidders ticking that box...
I thought this one while not the biggest money ask was especially sleazy. Tell the people living there they don't have to pay for it but tax things that other people outside the area use there. Also, taxing a ticket at the game is still a giveaway to the owners that people shouldnt have to pay. They are still giveaways to the rich owners paid by the average guy.
I expect this news really helps San Antonio. Looking at weak attendance in Columbus despite a great team I think means Cincinnati is a non-starter. I expect Sacramento and San Antonio are in the lead now, basically ready to go stadiums and fan-bases. San Diego and Tampa seem the most likely to me after that. And of course some decision about Miami/Beckham has to be made.
Depends on how they look at geography. The last round of expansion: 2015- NYCFC 2015- Orlando 2017- Atlanta 2017- Minny (originally Miami) Had everything gone according to plan back in 2013/14, three of the previous four expansion teams would have been in the South (which is/was underserved), and two from Florida. As the national map has filled up, the geographic "holes" everyone sees may not be as important to MLS as it pertains to media ratings, attendance, growth and sustained interest. MLS looks at the potential of a San Antonio or San Diego higher for sustained interest over a Nashville. The demographics and soccer metrics flesh out better. One thing I can tell you is that Spanish TV viewership is huuuge for MLS right now, with Sac, SD, SA and Tampa leading the way (Phoenix too, but don't think theyre a serious candidate).
Why don't they just take the money from the other group that offered it? Why was MLS turning their nose up at that group? If they want St. Louis, that was a blunder. This was highly predictable.
They can be, but taken to its logical extreme, this statement would imply that your home mortgage is some kind of giveaway. Which is to say, you have to look at the details.
They offered to join in with it and remove the need for public funding. I would call that aiding, not sabotaging.
Well, as I remember it, they were very publicly accusing them of proposing a bad deal for taxpayers, and used the media to inform them of their "no-strings gift". I'm certain MLS was furious with the move.
I'm a bit wary of MLS going Midwestern-heavy on expansion. If we're factoring in demographics, projected population growth 20+ years down the road (especially in urban centers MLS covets) and filling out holes on the map, wouldn't Phoenix (372 miles from LA) or Raleigh (278 miles from DC) tick those boxes better than any current Midwestern market? The cities that were the back-bone of the formation of MLB, the NHL, NFL, etc. won't necessarily be the best options to build a league around looking into the 2020s and beyond.