Interview with Peter Wilt

Pete Wilt states "If you look at what right now is on the horizon and on the radar screen, it is not inconceivable that within three or four years we will have new appropriately-sized stadiums under MLS control in six of the ten markets. In three other markets we will have leases with NFL stadiums that are very positive and will create profitable situations for those three teams (Colorado, New England, and Chicago). And that would leave nine of the ten teams in a profitable position.

San Jose is still a wonderful stadium seating-size wise, it’s a great market, the team is wonderful. So even that one isn’t the end of the world either."

Interesting what Pete says about San Jose. They don't sound like they are even close to profitable. I think MLS might look at San Jose as a loser but they'll keep it cause they want to be in the Northern California market.

 

I read this as PW saying that everyone else will either have a new SSS or a good lease in a new football stadium, except SJ. And SJ has a decent setting already.

It will suck if the Quakes are the only team without a new stadium. But I've said all along that SJ is a great soccer market even if all the BS analysts who look only at the attendance, and know nothing of the market say otherwise. It's comforting that someone in MLS is in agreement, and hopefully, most others are also.

 

I hear people say over and over again "San Jose is a great market" ... We're still waiting for that 'market' to put asses in the seats....that is the bottom line my friend!

 

My favorite part:

"We haven’t resorted to a lot of gimmicks to attract fans. We’ve tried to put the product, put soccer, out front as the reason why people should come to our games. There was pressure in our first year to add canned music from outside our own office. We resisted that, and that was a good decision. The same with cheerleaders. There’s always pressure to hire dance teams and cheerleaders, but that sort of thing takes away from the purity of the sport."

There's a lesson to be learned here.

 

There's a reason why Peter Wilt is the best general manager in MLS. For me, it is the fact that he went for a more traditional feel. Just for that, he has to be commended. While the other teams went out and continuously fumbled the ball, Wilt just kept with something that was not broken.

Also, the fact that he does not rely on double headers in my mind means that Chicago has one of the larger core attendence groups in the league that consistently show up.

Sure the Metros have a higher average, but we pad those numbers greatly. Same with DC United last year. A 56 K boost in one game? Of course you're going to look good, and seem as if you have dropped this year when attendence is 15% lower.

 

Not an idiot, this man:

"Our logo was developed at a time when a lot of teams were going with cartoon type logos... I wanted something that would hold its own with one of the Original Six NHL logos."

Say what you mean, Pete.

Sakewicz could learn a lot from him.

Andy Swift in Dallas does a pretty good job also, with a lot less autonomy, I would say.

 

Great article with many insights. Thanks for the links!

 

Damn. There goes my job as official 'cheerleader screener' for the Chicago Fire.

 

Where does this pressure come from?

Who would come up the GM and say "I have this great idea, let's play KC and The Sunshine Band during the game." Who does that?

Who says - "You know what soccer needs, cheerleaders and t-shirt cannons DURING the game." Who would say that?

And even worse, who in some position of power in MLS would listen? And if they are that stupid, how did they rise to the point of being able to make those decisions?

Besides Dan Counce, of course.

 

Does this mean we're going to have to start adding standard deviation and kurtosis to the attendance threads?

Later,
COZ <-- stat geek

 

I am one for "Soccer people should run the business side of a team and hire young people to do the foot work. Why in the world New England goes for Football people to run the soccer team?.

 

Wilt confirmed what many of us have been guessing for a while: even at current attendance levels, a number of teams would be immediately profitable with soccer-specific stadiums. I just wish that some of us could keep that in mind when they say "we need to get 17k by 2003 or the league will go bust" (or whatever figure they've pulled out of their @sses...)

 

Sort of. I think what he states also points to the need for growth-and a specific one at that: one that is built on a fanbase that is passionate about the teams, not a manufactured one. I take from his views something that I have always worried about MLS: whether it can win what amounts to a war of attrition, ie, can it in its current condtion maintain and grow a viable enough fanbase to get across what I think many view (rightly or wrongly) as the "finish line:" the building/use of soccer-specific stadia. It's one thing to argue that that model would allow MLS to be a viable and profitable league. Fair enough. But can it hang on long enough to get to that point without some growth? Can it make with its attendance staying flat? To borrow from Wilt himself, there is only so much, "stuff" you can throw against the wall.

Also, you have to wonder about his views in the context of the rest of the league. He saying all the right things, and I've always looked at the Fire with a certain degree of envy. But is he a lone voice in the wilderness?

Good interview.

 

This confirms it? Come on, building a stadium from stratch takes a lot of money & ties up a lot of capital. And soccer specfic doesn't guarantee attendance in itself. WOuld a smaller stadium help with atmosphere? yes. Is coming up with $25-50 million JUST for a stadium a trivial matter? NO. I'll beleive it when I see it happen. Until then, I think the leagues going to have to prove itself profitable before owners run around building such stadiums.

 

Umm, so by what market standards does SJ not suck? Or at least a dimension by which the team will survive and become profitable? I'm curious.

 

You can amortize the cost of the stadium - it doesn't cost you 50 million up front.

 

Uh yeah this confirms it. Seriously, did you actually read my post or just the first line?

My point: It does NOT matter whether an SSS guaratees attendance-- our current level of attendance would be enough, in the proper stadia, to turn a profit.
What Wilt said: building the Arlington Stadium would have made the Fire instantly profitable. He didn't say "Oh it would increase attendance, so then we'd make a profit." He said "instantly"-- which I take to mean that at the Fire's current level of support. I'm pretty sure Wilt has a decent grasp on the costs of building the stadium as well.

Now whether the teams can actually get it done is another story...

 

Fine Ray, but what I said was that Wilt confirmed that, at least for the Fire, an MLS team with its current level of support would be profitable in its own stadium.
Your point is a separate one: that perhaps MLS won't make it long enough to build SSSs (or get better stadium deals) without growth. Fair enough-- but that's a much more shadowy point than the one I'm trying to make. If MLS can get those stadiums built and get the deals in place that Wilt mentioned within the next four years (the remaining years of the investors' funding committment), then yeah, MLS can survive without growth because at the end of those four years, it will be profitable. Maybe it won't be the league you want (which for me would involve significant growth), but it will be there.

IF not, or if Wilt is wrong about the numbers (and sure, we should be skeptical because he IS trying to sell us something-- but at the same time realize he's got much better data than we do), then yeah, obviously we need to grow.

 

That's a pretty amobitious statement from Wilt conisdering there is only ONE stadium currently under construction.

The rest are in the "photo-shop" stage.

 

too true, too true-- I think that's the part where Wilt is trying to sell you something.

 

Ding! Ding! You are correct sir!

 

Let's see here......with your own crib to play in, you no longer have to pay stadium rent ($50K per game? $60K per game?), you gain control of non-ticket revenues (concessions, parking....another $50K per game?) and probably increase attendance to boot......... That's a net revenue change of $100k per game...over a 14 game home season would be what? $1.5 million-ish? That is NOT insignificant....and doesn't include additional games, plus rent and concessions from non-soccer events.....and I think my numbers might be a bit conservative..........

 

&ltaccountant humour&gtwell, the metros could amortize the cost of their stadium, but the galaxy are going to have to depreciate victoria street&lt/accountant humour&gt