I have zero problems with a place like Miami getting a friendly with a team such as Argentina. If you have a problem with it, check a couple of things: 1. It's a friendly 2. The USSF needs money 3. The USSF needs to hit as many areas of this country as it can, increase it's footprint 4. There most definitely was an atmosphere to that match, albeit not in the US favor However, when qualifying comes back around, there are going to be games that we need home field advantages. Where the crowd will most decidedly be pro US. So my question for everyone is this, where are those places and who are they valid for? As this will turn into a debate, please feel free to say what stadiums are not favorable versus certain countries. I'll get things going a bit, expand on what I say and throw in your own notions: Pro U.S. sites Columbus' Crew Stadium This place is our home stadium. It is my firm belief that we have a home field advantage against anyone at CCS. I'm also fairly confident when I say that there is no other stadium in this country that offers this bonus. Any and all meaningful matches with Mexico should be played here. Kansas City's Arrowhead Stadium I have no idea how many teams will this hold for, but Arrowhead was pro USA in the Costa Rica - US qualifier a few years back. Anti US sites Los Angeles If it's a meaningful match and we aren't playing Canada, don't play here. D.C.'s RFK I'm sure that this will draw heat. United is a well represented team in the stands, and they turn out in solid numbers for national games. However, most opposing teams have the home field advantage when they play us. I'm not sure what countries in our region we would have any advantage against in this stadium. New England's CMGI I question their homefield advantage as well. This is another one that I will draw heat for. But it stands to be questioned. They draw very well as well. The stands do offer better U.S. support than most, but more often than not, it's not an overall pro U.S. sentiment coming from the crowd NY/NJ Giants Stadium I question their ability to provide a homefield advantage agains a side we will need it against. Sure, they will have large crowds, but we need three points. We don't need to be fighting to quiet the crowd and to get three points. I'd love to throw Chicago somewhere in here, but USSF will never come to Chicago. So it doesn't even cross my mind.
Columbus is definetly are HOME.Even though alot of us do not live there at the most it would be a 10-12 hour drives for People in DC, New Engalnd, Ny fans.hour which is not bad at all plus chicago fans are close to that stadium it will encourage more fire fans to show up for the game.Now the only problem is for the west fans. But everyone please realize that the majority of support stems from The eastern cities as well as chicago and columbus. and that stadium is ideal. As much as i would love to drive 5 minutes to RFK i know that for a fact that we could get 25,000 US fans but there is nothing we can do about the 32,000 thousand seats availabe for Foreign fans..I am all for Us Qualifiers being in Columbus. and that each Supporters group be allocated a certain amount of tickets for the game that way we can sell only to US fans and have less of a rick to selling to foreign fans. PS. To everyone, when the US plays we need to make sure we there in full voice not just there to stare. We need to do as much as we can to give are team an advantage. First by wearing RED, why red because that is the color that has caught on, there is no time to change it so we should stick with it. Second we need to be loud, every time the opposing team has the ball we need to get louder, Bring drums, bring horns bring you whole house...
The lesson here is simple: If a stadium seats more than 25,000 people, it won't be a home field for the USA. The exception to this rule *may* be weeknight games. But our sample size isn't large enough to be sure. If you want more homefield advantages, then show up to more games. End of story. Sachin
Bingo! Even in the Ice Bowl Game against Mexico in Columbus, we couldn't get a 100% or close to it pro-USA crowd.
Birmingham I was sitting about halfway up in the middle of the field. Possibly my opinion was skewed by my section.
i wholeheartedly agree that more people need to show up... but we aren't talking about friendlies, so home field advantages deserve talk and i am 100% dissappointed in the replies in this thread... no one has come out to say that any other field can offer a home field advantage against another opponent... everyone is pretty much leaving it at what i said... that shouldn't be the case when it comes to qualifiers, it's incredibly important to place the match somewhere that will have a crowd that will be more vocal for the u.s. sure, there are only a couple of places that are even a possibility for some of the teams, but that's ok... we aren't talking about friendlies and ticket sales we are simpy discussing home field advantages surely the razor (well, the old 'boro) or another place has held the home field advantage against certain opponents... what where they though? qualifiers are about making money, but they are about making money by making the world cup... so home field is far more important than getting a few extra thousand butts there we need to win to get the big payoff at the world cup
Home field advantage does not begin or end by the selection of a stadium. To truly get the pro-US crowd, we need to stack the deck (due of course to certain laws which most FIFA members do not possess and a demographic base which is unlike most countries on the planet). Use supporters' groups for ticket sales, create "season tickets" which can be purchased directly from the USSF (if a fan from one of our CONCACAF opponents wants a ticket bad enough, make him pay for all the matches), require "away fans" (even if they live in the US) to buy tickets through their federation (i.e. having tickets for them available only through this mechanism), tighter controls on number of tickets in one transaction and group sales....the list could go on. We might not be able to choose more than a few stadiums (Columbus, Foxboro, Seattle) which would give us a advantage at the outset (based on location and size), but uniform sales strategy would give us a better chance of not having a repeat of 9/1/01.
As much as I would like to put Seattle down as a pro-US city, there just isn't a stadium that is the right size for a meaningful US game. The US vs. Hondo game last march was probably 65-35 US favor (I could be wrong, but I think it was at least 50-50), but if it were a qualifier than the 10,000 plus extra seats would have surely gone mainly to Hondo;s. Seahawk Stadium is way too big, same problem as CMGI or RFK would have. It's too bad that Memorial is rundown and has astroturf. It that place ever get renovated and got a new wider grass surface, it would be right up there with C-Bus. However, Civic Stadium, or whatever sponsor has their name on it now, in Portland is a good venue. Worked well for the France 98 qualifier vs. Costa Rica. That's probably the best current option for the West coast as of now.
IMHO, the ridiculous USSF strategy of ethnic friendlies is directly related to the struggles we have filling stadiums for important qualifiers. I don't think we can separate the two issues if we ever want to build a pro-US fan base. Hosting matches like US v. Mex in LA will never, ever, ever add to the pro-US fan base, in LA, or anywhere in the US when people see the crowd on TV or read about the behavior in the stands. A long term strategy of friendlies, in smaller venues, with opponents chosen without regard to whatever ethnic minority lives in the area, is the only way to build a fan base, especially among the supposedly vast numbers of soccer playing kids in the US. The USSF has sold out US fans in search of the almighty peso with a never ending stream of Mexico matches in the Southwest, or Argentina in Miami, or El Salvador in RFK, etc. A tough decision has to be made by them to break away and cater to American fans. I would schedule friendly matches in some non-traditional areas, like St. Louis, Minneapolis, or St. Lake City in 20K stadiums. Pick an opponent like Denmark or Morocco. Set ticket prices at $5 for every kids soccer team within 50 miles. Let the parents bring the kids to match environment that is pro-US, with no tamales or cerveza flying through the air. They might actually enjoy it, and come back. For qualifiers, I would absolutely abandon the coasts. People talk about Foxboro like it is a Mecca, but it doesn't usually sell out, and there is always a sizeable portion of the crowd for the other team. If we have to hold every match in Columbus, so be it. A smaller stadium like that, where the USSF can pre-sell to US fans, is a must. At this time, there simply aren't enough US fans to fill large stadiums. If there ever are "soccer-only" stadiums in other MLS cities (do not hold your breath), they would be naturals. For now, there isn't, and the Home Depot Center will be off limits for any Spanish speaking CONCACAF opponent. Building that in SCal is a farce. The most important match we will ever host there will be v. Barbuda in the first round of qualifying. And I predict it won't sell out.
Well said, Michael. It is a slap in the face of American fans to cater to ethnic groups hostile to the US. A Mexican friendly in Pasadena is OK once a year to make money. The rest of the time we should be developing our fan base, not Argentina or Japan's fan base. Foxboro has never sold out a US game. We have quibbled about the Mexico WCQ in 1997 so if people want to deny the empty seats were there so be it. The rest of the games did not sell out and may never sell out, despite the work the Revs front office put into marketing WCQ tickets to our opponents ("good seats are still available"). I am always talking about TV ratings but they are never going to improve without a strategy something like Michael's. The Argentina game drew a .04 rating. Fly fishing the same day got .08. What American fan would get excited about Argentina North in Miami? It looks like hell on TV. We barely qualified last time and we will need every point we can get this time. American fans want to support the national team but let's face it, only a small number actually travel to games. Put qualifiers in parts of the country that disadvantage our opponents and make it easier for American patriots to attend. Putting Honduras in DC, Jamaica in DC, Trinidad in Boston, Barbados in Boston and so on is suicidal. We lucked out last time. Don't count on it this time.
How does the makeup of the fans at the game affect TV ratings? That's just silly. Andfly fishing always does ratings like that. Were those programs against each other? If not, it's a specious argument designed to create hysteria like you always try to do. We made money. We played a good team. We did better than them in the World Cup. Some people want to chalk our success up to luck. I cal them the bad Americans - the ones who don't believe in our boys. Thank God we're a country that embraces the differences in people for the most part instead of trying to be one race, one belief. I would hate to live in a place that didn't welcome those from other places to celebrate their cultures.
St. Patrick, you have some good ideas, but keep in mind that the USSF was sued for civil rights violations after the debacle in DC on September 1, 2001. Humberto Martinez is seeking 2 million dollars as well as an injunction for each member of the class, which could number tens of thousands of people. I doubt that the USSF will be slammed with a multibillion dollar judgment, but I would not be surprised with a consent decree which makes it easier for disloyal Americans or resident aliens to get tickets to qualifiers. (Martinez himself is an American fan but a consent decree would certainly benefit people who do not support the USMNT). So next time the Hondurans may not only have 70 per cent of the tickets. They may be shooting for 90 per cent and efforts to stop this may be impossible to implement.
Does anyone think it would be possible to have a pro-USA crowd in Los Angeles at the Home Depot? Would the fact that there are only 23,000 seats, combined with some targeted pre-sales (LA Galaxy season ticket holder, Sam's army) lead to a pro-USA crowd in LA? Or is it hopeless to ever get to see a meaningful USA match in LA? Mike
I don't want this to sound personal, because you are simply the millionth person to use this argument, but this is the most ridiculous nonsense I have ever read. For starters, we are talking about soccer, not some diversity training session. Secondly, it pisses me off just as much to see Ireland play in Boston, and I'm sure one day the geniuses at USSF will have a Norway match in Minnesota. I can't remember if we have played Italy at Giants Stadium, but if so, I'm sure I was fuming about that too. Has nothing to do with the race/culture of the opponent. What does all this talk of "celebration of cultures" have to do with winning games on US soil, which would be immensely helped by pro-US crowds? It would be the happiest day of my life if I could sit in a stadium filled with Mexican Americans who were booing the Mexican national anthem, showering El Tri with urine, and cheering the US on to victory. My position has always been that the policies of the USSF will never lead to this, just as certainly as they will never lead to pro-American crowd of any stripe in our larger stadiums. We have to admit that we have failed to increase our fan base, and look hard at the reasons why and remedies for it. Embracing cultures is going to get you a stream of Mexico matches at Home Depot. How exactly does that help the US? Sorry, I had to unload there. Thank you.
Are you sure? What about the Mexico WCQ match in 1997? And, even if you're right, this is a bit unfair. The final qualifer against El Salvador in November of 1997 was scheduled at Foxboro and had 40K+ in 30 degree weather (when the US had already qualified). Plus, where else could the US draw 20-30K on weeknights against teams like T&T and Barbados? Foxboro's record may not be perfect, but it certainly has been strong.
I had the chance to see both in person and remember if not completely full, awfully close to it both times. 53,000 something for US-ES in 97. 57,000 something for US-Mex in 97, may have been 58K. If I had the exact no. handy I'd post it.
We have had discussions about Foxboro a zillion times. I think we can agree that Boston fans like having games nearby and generally are not receptive to the suggestion that other cities get games. Foxboro was half empty for the Barbados and Trinidad qualifiers, in spite of Revs marketing efforts to get fans from our opponent to buy tickets. Contrast that with the real sacrifices made by Columbus Crew officials to get a home field advantage for the Mexico game. If the Mexico game had been in DC or Foxboro we would not have qualified for the World Cup. We needed every single point. I suggest that we need a homefield advantage to qualify and that Foxboro is not a good place for that, as we never (or rarely) sell out and the crowds tend to be pretty quiet outside the Sam's Army section. At the Holland friendly in May even that was a bust. The Dutch fans made more noise than the Boston fans. The USSF has pursued an ethnic marketing strategy plus DC and Foxboro, DC and Foxboro, DC and Foxboro. We have not grown our fan base and TV ratings are stuck near zero. Qualifying starts a year from now and is we get the same ethnic strategy we may not qualify. It will be that close.
So are the anti-coast people resigned to having every game in Columbus? If there is any strategy for decreasing fan interest, it would have to be holding every game in the same place, selling tickets to the same fans. I am optimistic. I think there is a growing group of fans who were inspired by the US showing at the World Cup that will come out for Qualifiers. They weren't in Miami or Ft. Lauderdale, but I think that's a marketing and Florida sports problem. We have to find a way to allow them to see games, which means playing all over the country and making the USNT a national team. Getting back to the topic, where else can the US play and get an advantage. I don't know how wide it is and, god knows, the Packer board of directors would probably never allow it, but post-renovation Lambeau Field could work.
I think it's going to be several decades before you start seeing overwhelmingly pro U.S. crowds at our stadiums. It's just a matter of logic. Besides the hardcore native support, most football fans in this country are immigrants or first generation. If you have some guy who just emmigrated from Mexico or El Salvador a year or two ago, he'll obviously support his native land. But give it a generation or two, when you get 2nd or 3rd generation hispanics, who have no ties to the motherland, you might see michael greene's fantasy of Mexican-Americans pissing on El Tri come true. But then again, you have to factor in those who would be lost to Americanization, and our country's stigma towards soccer. Just like you have people who emigrated about 100 years ago from footy mad Europe, have had grand children, and great grand children who could care less about soccer, I'm afraid you might see these children of Hispanic immigrants go the same way, leaving us in the same old rut. But what do I know? And as far as stadiums go, the next Hex will most likely be pretty identical to the last, save for TnT, and possibly Jamaica. So here's where I think they should put the Qualifiers. Mexico- I second Jmeissen's nomination for holding all meaningful El Tri matches at Hunt Park. One of the few places in the country we can count on vocal US support against the Mexis. Costa Rica- KC proved to be a good venue to play the ticos, and maybe Seattle, if USA-Honduras last March proved to be any indication of what a match versus CR in the Pacific Northwest. Honduras- Again, like CR, either the Midwest or Seattle Jamaica- Foxboro, Midwest, or Seattle. Definitley not RFK or New York TnT- Anywhere. Canada(possibly)- Again, anywhere you'd like. Probably the only country where we'd have a legitimate shot of having a pro-US crowd at their place.
We might not make it to the hex. We barely made it last time. We need all the help we can get. You can count on hostile crowds in most places and bad refs.
I don't disagree with you, but there's one missing link that escapes your argument. Those people care more. The USSF can try all they want, but the people who support those teams care more than the people who support the US. We get a dozen chances to see our team. They get one or two a year to see theirs. That doesn' make any of us bad people. It's just a reality. I don't know the solution. I doubt there is one in such a multi-cultural country. I just disagree with calling Americans and fans of other teams names for their decisions on whether to go to games or who to cheer for.