... that'd be a good point if the teams had similar support. The Fusion while in Ft.Lauderdale for 4 years had a great looking field and the right stadium capacity. Yet the Mutts sold thousands more tickets per game despite not having a stadium of their own. Even with the Meadowlands lease costing the league a mint (plus RFK's and Soldier Field's), Metros, United and the Fire have potential for long term success while the situation for Miami would've needed a complete overhaul... I think Kenn's "obilgatory markets" are probably even more important for MLS than other leagues... the NFL benefits from the huge popularity of college and high school football, ditto for the NBA... Arena Football has no need to be "Major League" and can bounce around to any number of seldom-used metropolitan arenas without having to "push for a stadium." I remember NASL officials recognizing the need for "a national footprint." Right now, MLS needs to survive... whether it's by putting up with media coverage in Chicago where the Fire get about the same coverage as the minor league hockey team "Chicago Wolves," or by going to cities others may openly question (like Rochester and Tulsa). Let's take a look at another league that lacked a "national footprint" -- 1953-54 NBA (9 teams, none in "the south" or west of Minneapolis) New York Knickerbockers, Syracuse Nationals, Boston Celtics, Philadelphia Warriors, Baltimore Bullets, Minneapolis Lakers, Rochester Royals, Fort Wayne Pistons, Milwaukee Hawks 1963-64 NBA (9 teams, none in "the south" and still no team in Chicago) Boston Celtics, Cincinnati Royals, Philadelphia 76ers, New York Knickerbockers, San Francisco Warriors, St. Louis Hawks, Los Angeles Lakers, Baltimore Bullets, Detroit Pistons 1967-68 NBA expands to 12 teams (sound familiar???) Philadelphia 76ers, Boston Celtics, New York Knickerbockers, Detroit Pistons, Cincinnati Royals, Baltimore Bullets, St. Louis Hawks, Los Angeles Lakers, San Francisco Warriors, Chicago Bulls, Seattle SuperSonics, San Diego Rockets 1969-70 NBA expands to 14 teams New York Knickerbockers, Milwaukee Bucks, Baltimore Bullets, Philadelphia 76ers, Cincinnati Royals, Boston Celtics, Detroit Pistons, Atlanta Hawks, Los Angeles Lakers, Phoenix Suns, Chicago Bulls, Seattle SuperSonics, San Francisco Warriors, San Diego Rockets 1970-71 NBA expands to "16-18 teams," still none in Florida or Texas. New York Knickerbockers, Philadelphia 76ers, Boston Celtics, Buffalo Braves, Baltimore Bullets, Atlanta Hawks, Cincinnati Royals, Cleveland Cavaliers, Milwaukee Bucks, Chicago Bulls, Phoenix Suns, Detroit Pistons, Los Angeles Lakers, San Francisco Warriors, San Diego Rockets, Seattle SuperSonics, Portland Trail Blazers
This argument sounds pretty dodgy. The MetroStars have been going through a "complete overhaul" for years, and the end is not in sight. If the NBA could go w/out Chicago for so long, you're making a case for there not being obligatory markets. But the USA, and the sports and media landscape have changed dramatically. I think pro soccer in the US has a special challenge and a special opportunity. The founders of MLS knew they had to create the impression of a "Major League" to get any interest -- even if fans were still paying to see Jean Harbour and Chad Ashton. They were also trying to ride World Cup '94's coattails - and the US World Cup organizers absolutely felt they needed a national footprint for their event instead of staging a more logistically sane East Coast or West Coast World Cup. MLS considered Chicago an "obligatory" market. And incidentally, that's how they felt about Miami until all the other IO's got sick of Ken Horowitz' crap.
Kenn, do you mean the same thing when you say "obligatory markets" and "the basics"? Do you think MLS sees Boston, DC and Denver as obligatory, but not Atlanta or the San Francisco bay area? Would you make a case for that yourself? While this is a sincere question, I think we're all trying to make the shoe fit, to perceive some kind of consistent criteria when real history is more ragged. There's obviously some consideration of the map, some catch-as-catch-can with regard to ownership groups. And a lot of serendipity, for example: "We live in Denver, Dallas, and Kansas City so Denver, Dallas and Kansas City shall have charter teams." "The economy is bearish, so all of a sudden we're not so bullish about our long, long term venture investment in America's fifth major sport." "Ken Hortowitz is a serious pain in the ass, so let's fold Miami and one of our other struggling teams, to make scheduling easier." That's my impression, and I suspect if it looks like MLS is going to add another two teams in the North East in the next 3-5 years, they'll try to incite Northwest and the Southeast interests before helping along another smaller North Eastern market. Does that make sense? Interested in your take.
Seriously, I don't think geography plays into it that much. I mean, they'd like to put another team in New York, for crying out loud. Got the entrance fee? Got a stadium? Good. Welcome aboard. And comparing the sports landscape of today to anything that happened pre-1990 or so is just silly. I love when people point out what the NFL averaged in its first ten years of existence or something, forgetting that, oh, by the way, things were a whole lot different then.
Dodgy, eh? I agree with your general idea, just not the point you were making comparing the Fusion to the Metrostars... Ticket revenues mean something, big market or small... a team in Ft Lauderdale at a soccer-friendly stadium just didn't cut it... Miami 1998--10,284 fans per game Miami 1999-- 8,689 fans per game Miami 2000-- 7,460 fans per game Miami 2001-- 11,177 fans per game MetroStars 1998--16,520 fans per game MetroStars 1999--14,706 fans per game MetroStars 2000--17,621 (12,544 mean attendance) MetroStars 2001--20,806 fans per game (kenn.com) My comparison of MLS to NBA stats should tell you that in the 50s, the NBA needed to be in large, dominant northeastern media markets, then could be in smaller markets that weren't so far away as to have prohibitive travel costs (both Rochester AND Syracuse?... AND Ft Wayne, Indiana???)... my point with those stats is that it took decades for the NBA to get to MLS's magic number of "16-18 teams." Times change... MLS will need to change with the times, as well... My take on "obilgatory markets" would be that MLS needs to be in at least 3-5 of the top 10 media markets in the country... NY, Chicago and LA are easily the top 3 markets so I'd theorize that MLS must be in at least 2 of these 3 markets for the good of the sport. Beyond that, pick at least 2 or 3 more teams from the top 10 markets of Philly, DC, Detroit, Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, Boston-- and THAT, in my opinion is all you must have for a successful 16-18 team league. Beyond that, may the best organization win. Denver keeps their team because they now have a committed owner, stadium and organization that went from worst to first in ticket sales a few years back... Salt Lake City gets a team over Houston because of Checketts committment and, despite a horrible first season, they're near the top in attendance and are pinning down a stadium deal in Sandy... KC and SJ are in "last gasp" positions. With solid organizations, I'd take Rochester and Tulsa over Atlanta and Philly, media markets be damned... and I think MLS officials will look at it the same way. In the next decade or two, maybe everything changes... if it doesn't, I'd be surprised.
Most of this makes sense, but on the Metros/Fusion point: I don't necessarily believe NY's numbers. The trend in Ft Laud was picking up considerably. The trend in NY looks like sh!t - I mean, if you based your decision on NY's last 4 years, what are those attendance figures? Can you believe them? And whereas Horowitz wanted his numbers to look bad while he was crying for a refund, NY has done a lot of positive spinning and bluffing. Compare the cost of playing in Giant's Stadium vs. Lockhart. Or paying Lothar Mattheus vs Popeye Herrera. I can't imagine NY's numbers, at the end of the day, looked better than Miami's. I think the NY market was considered all-important, Subotnik/AEG trumped Horowitz, and the league was in a downsizing frame of mind.
Well, I think the upward trend in Ft Laud had more to do with having a REALLY exciting team. I'm sure the Metros lost much more money than Miami... I'm sure DC and Chicago did too... Hey, contract 3 teams in New York City, Chicago and DC and you've slashed league losses much more than voting Tampa and Miami off the island... And then you've just cut off your nose to spite your face.
wow, interesting argument. I love this forum. . anyways, i agree with who said that rochester and tulsa get a team rather than atlanta because of the media market. I am from Atlanta and the Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC) does not give soccer any coverage, maybe a sentence or two but thats usually it. It's all about football and the boring, gay, loser team of atlanta hawks....i went to only one of their games and wow......i fell asleep. MLS is more entertaining than most of these NBA games its just that the NBA teams have their own stadiums clue.....so if Rochester gets a team, their coverage would just double or triple. In atlanta, i think they would just ignore the team and basically be shutdown pretty soon. i dont know, who knows what the future holds for MLS. Does having MLS teams in the northeast market have a better chance of surviving than teams in the southeast or midwest?? i think so because of A) media coverage B) diff ethnic groups there C) soccer and sports in general are more popular and accepted
I think it depends more on the metro area than the region; though I'm starting to get the impression that the south outside of Texas, south Florida and maybe Virginia generally do not like soccer. I'm also not sure about ethnic groups. For example, Rochester and Salt Lake City aren't exactly the most diverse metropolitan areas out there, yet they support soccer reasonably well. As for part C (which ties in with part A), that's debatable. At times the Metros are virtually ignored by the media in New York, but NYC is a big sports town and they do have a lot of people who follow soccer, just not American soccer.
Which is pretty much how I would portray folding the Fusion and the Mutiny. Someone else might consider propping up the bigger losers as bad business. As the SF Bay Blackhawks' deceased former owner once said " I always knew I could make it work in Slippery Rock..."
I'm going to guess DC in many seasons didn't lose much money...I remember quotes from Kevin Payne that the team wasn't far from breaking even despite the stadium costs and minimal revenue sources...plus an important statistic would be total revenue...meaning the team could break even in the right facility. And in that regard I would guess DC made two or three times the total revenue of each Florida team. Better attendance even with higher ticket prices, merchandise sales and local sponsors...now if they could just get some of the beer money they will be profitable
I sure wouldn't, at least for the Mutiny. They had very little long-term upside. No owner, no stadium, not a very big market, so no reason to think attendance will ever top the table in the future, not even a significant ISA. The team wasn't particularly cheap to operate, and was bound to be among the lower revenue producers in the league. Perhaps, if one is only comparing Miami and SJ, then that would be a decisive point (after all, we are still trying to settle that franchise after all these years), but then, I was always of the opinion that the league folded Miami, a much less costly team to operate, to spare the embarassment of folding a defending champion. Had Miami beaten SJ in the playoff series, they might still be here.
I always thought that was a funny quote, having grown up near Slippery Rock or as we liked to refer to Slimey Pebble.
This post may waft away like a fart in the wind, but is there any chance that Rochester is the "Midwestern City" Garber has said will be announced in 60 days? A lot of New Yorkers think New Jersey is a western state.
I highly doubt it. I have a feeling that Rochester needs ALexi Lalas to become MLS commish for them to get an MLS team.
Just saw on American Soccer that Rhinos owners are bringing Cary NC into USL 1. Doesn't look like they are interested in MLS at all.
Where do you get that from? It's entirely possible they could be setting up for when Rochester no longer has a USL1 team. They could sell their franchise rights to Rochester (though it was rumoured they'd move them to Buffalo or Syracuse or something) and still have a presence in USL, especially one that could potentially be profitable, as Cary has a nice stadium and I'm sure they got a nice deal. If it's a money-loser then it would make it a bit harder for them to go to MLS. If it's not, it shouldn't be. These are not stupid businessmen we're talking about here. Latest Emerald City Gazette has a Q and A with Frank DuRoss about his interest in MLS for Rochester.
I'd like to see Rochester with a team...they could be the "Green Bay" of the league. It seems like you have: - A stadium plan - Loyal Fan Base - Decent Ownership that seems to know what they are doing - Other teams in the general area of the country (with Toronto and possibly Philly coming on board, that would be 5 teams within a couple of hundred miles). The way the MLS is going to work is start with good foundations in areas where fans care about soccer. We keep talking about media centers. One of the largest media centers in the country in Long Island, NY...and they should NEVER put a team there because unless they are the Yankees or Mets, no one cares (this pains me to say being an unbelievable Islander fan). As long as the MLS doesn't pull an NASL and start opening up the floodgates to over the hill European stars, a team in Rochester can survive and probably do well. Just my 2 cents.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/socce...ter-fans_x.htm I know, I know.......show me the money... Maybe someone else with money will see this article?
Your link doesn't work....but is this the link? http://www.usatoday.com/sports/soccer/worldcup/2006-06-12-rochester-fans_x.htm
Jeez... this debate is still going on? How many times to you Rochester-ers need to be turned down by the prettiest girl in school before you stop asking her to the dance? Rochester's been clamoring to get into MLS since the leagues inception. It hasn't happened yet and it's getting less & less likely by the minute. I mean, they built a damn soccer stadium & the most recent quote I've seen from Don Garber referencing Rochester's chances at getting in the MLS is "We have no plans for expansion into Rochester". In the same article he speaks glowingly of the potential of about a dozen other markets. I mean, how much more blunt can the guy say it before some people get the point?
It's less about MLS not wanting Rochester as it is Rochester's owners not being able or willing to meet MLS' current asking price.