Hello. On a previous thread of mine, "Why doesn't the American sports public embrace soccer?" I postulated a plausible best case scenario which predicted a nearly equal footing with the major outdoor sports, baseball and football, in ten to twenty years. Some people replied to the thread including their prediction in this regard. We completely unbiased observers seem to agree on that time frame of ten to twenty years. The MLS has stated that it is looking to expand significantly over the next ten years, with the possibility of four new teams added by 2007, if not sooner. Each new franchise looking to enter the league is planning to have a new or renovated soccer-specific stadium (sss), seating between twenty and thirty thousand people, in place by their first year of competition. Most of the current MLS teams have an sss, are in the process of building an sss or have one in the planning stages, almost all seating between 20 and 35 thousand. Now, let's examine the attendance figures of the other two major "outdoor" team sports. MLB averaged slightly over 28,000 per game in attendance, with the Yankees at the top with about 42,000 per game. This is over an 81-game home schedule. The NFL averages just under 67,000 per game over an eight-game home schedule. Washington leads the league with an average of 80,500 per game. Let’s assume that soccer becomes that big of a sport here in, say, 20 years (quite an assumption, I admit, but not out of the realm of possibility, considering that Man U's 2003 U.S. Tour drew an average of over 67,000 people per game). Now, let’s split the difference between baseball's and football's attendance in roughly the same ratio as the MLS's home schedule splits the difference between baseball's and football's and we come up with a projected MLS per game average of roughly 53,000. It’s at this point that we begin to run into some possible numbers problems that could adversely affect the fans and future of soccer in this country. Running under the assumption that the above figures are (very) roughly correct, the vast majority of sss will hold far less than the projected number of people who will want to attend. This suggests one of two likely possibilities. (A). That once the owners start to sell out their sss, they will start to raise the ticket prices to maximize their gate receipts. Or… (B)That once the owners start to sell out their current sss, they will want to build a new, bigger sss to maximize their gate receipts and concession sales. The problem with scenario A is obvious. Higher ticket prices for fans leading to fan dissatisfaction (one of the problems plaguing hockey right now). Also, it could lead to the restriction of the growth and eventual decay of the sport’s fan base, as live soccer is the most attractive way to see the game and, therefore, the most effective means of fan recruitment. The problem with scenario (B) is a touch more complex, but just as detrimental to the league. To attempt to build a new stadium of the size that will be sufficient to accommodate the projected attendance, will be just as expensive, if not more, than the present costs for baseball and football stadiums (currently in the 300 to 700 million dollar range). To privately finance that amount would probably be prohibitive to owners who had committed funds to their 30,000 seaters just 10 to 20 years previously. And, nowadays, to ask for public financing for stadiums is an extremely hard sell and the surest way to damage the images of the clubs and the league itself. So, what’s your opinion? Is the current crop of soccer-specific stadiums going to suffice over the long haul, or are they another example of sports owner myopia? Posting from the home of the Metrodome, the primary example of sports stadium unplanned obsolescence, I remain That little old jersey collector Me
Not to be contrarian, but every time I see this thread (it has shown up before), I want to nominate it for some sort of missing the point award. You are debating a hypothetical 15 to 20 years in the future; what is the point? It's like you are bookmarking an "I told you so" for the year 2028. Let's get there with a profitable, growing league first, and worry about it then. That's not being myopic or short sighted, it's being realistic. Was anyone a fan of the league two years ago when, in January of 2002 the league contracted two teams, all of the teams were losing money, and it looked like there might not be a league in 5 years? Columbus looked like it might be holding the bag on a new stadium for a league that could be extinct. Take a look at some of the teams who play in oversized stadiums this year: Metrostars, Revolution, Wizards, Fire, DCUnited. All currently exist in NFL (or ex-NFL) stadiums that hold three or more times their current attendance, and all but the Revs are (afaik) are currently trying to build smaller, more intimate stadiums that hold 25-28k. If they overspent and built stadiums holding 45k, they would have the same problems playing games in front of half full stadiums with high costs that they do now, just on a slightly smaller scale, though with way more debt. All that in an attempt to guess on hypothetical attendance numbers 15 years from now? Your weather man can't tell you if it's going to rain on Tuesday, but you can see those gate receipts 20 years before they happen? If they are being short sighted on stadium size, why not just stay where they are and wait 20 years for the stadiums to get full? Because they can't expect the league to grow playing in the dull, three quarters empty, narrow stadiums they currently play in. They are building new stadiums of a smaller size because even at the new stadium's max capacity, it represents an increase of 50-100% of their current attendence averages. If they were all building 17,000 seat stadiums, I would agree with you, but they are not. Additionally, they are building relatively simple structures, ones that could be expanded in the space of an off season. They are not building more complicated stadiums like MLB or the NFL build these days. Look at LA. They used to play in the Rose Bowl, capacity about 100k. Clearly overkill. So they build their own stadium with a capacity of 27k. If need be, they can build a stand on the open end and increase capacity to 32k. Will prices outpace inflation? Likely. However, as soccer grows it will create more fans. I'm a lot more worried about the league expanding too fast than I am about them pricing out their market. If they prices climb too high and people stop going, they can lower prices to get more fans. It's revenue management 101, and it's a lot easier to do that than to unbuild the upper deck of a stadium once they find out it's going unused. Your post completely ignores the question of whether or not MLS owners, many of whom lose money on their teams at current, can afford to build a new stadium that is too large, only to wait 15 years for the ticket sales to rise to meet the capacity. My guess would be that they cannot. Take a look at Yankee stadium. Built in the 1920s, it had original plans for 100,000 capacity. They ended up not building all of it, and capacity was held to just under 60k, though they would just stuff more people into it if the game was big and you'd have crowds of 85k for some games (world series, etc). When it was re-modeled in the 1970s, the capacity was reduced by a few thousand seats. So, that stadium hasn't gotten bigger in the 80 odd years it's been around. If the MLS still plays in the stadiums they are building in 80 years....cool.
I don't know who the people are who "agree" that soccer can challenge football and baseball in ten to twenty years. I think they're being overly optimistic. jamison is right - God, this subject gets beaten to death. I got pilloried a couple of years ago for saying I didn't expect MLS would average 25,000-30,000 a game in my lifetime. I still don't see it. I'd love to see it, sure. Nice problem to have. I don't think the owners can't worry too much about what someone thinks might happen maybe way in the future when they're faced with what needs to happen right now for the league to be able to have a future. MLS is on a slow and (occasionally) steady growth curve. The societal forces that would have to drastically change for professional men's outdoor league soccer to all of a sudden become that popular are many and unlikely to shift so suddenly.
I think the "problems" that have been suggested would be good problems to have... and considering the growth of soccer within the past 15 years, I wouldn't be absolutely shocked if it continued to grow quite quickly for a generation or two. Considering that MLS attendance is now fairly competitive with the NBA and NHL (though fewer games and fewer cities), I wouldn't be shocked if once they refine the business model via SSS, they achieve profitability and put themselves in position for long-term growth.
We are years away from having to worry about MLS teams outgrowing their soccer-specific stadia. Even in the NASL, when soccer was at the peak of its "fad" popularity, there was only a small handful of teams who averaged over 25,000. And only the Cosmos managed to sustain it for more than two years running. We'll be just fine with the SSS.
the half-life on stadiums is only 20-30 years now anyway, so in 25 years they'll be ready to build new, bigger stadia anyway. there's no need to try and fit a perceived bill 30 years from now right now...
NO...NO...NO... and I repeat "NO" The problems of soccer as a sport in USA are not stadiums or soccer specific stadiums. The problem that we have are more related to a poor work on the promotional deparments of every soccer entity on this country all the way from the local leagues to USSF....And just as a token of this situation the city of Dallas Texas will have one of the most traditional rivalities on CONCACAF : Mexico/ USA on the Cotton Bowl, but what about promotional efforts... NADA!
Just to expand on that, NASL teams that averaged over 25k for a season: 1...New York Cosmos......1978..47,856 2...New York Cosmos......1979..46,690 3...New York Cosmos......1980..42,754 4...New York Cosmos......1981..34,857 5...New York Cosmos......1977..34,150 6...Minnesota Kicks......1977..32,771 7...Minnesota Kicks......1978..30,860 8...Vancouver Whitecaps..1983..29,164 9...New York Cosmos......1982..28,743 10..Tampa Bay Rowdies....1979..28,546 11..Tampa Bay Rowdies....1980..28,345 12..New York Cosmos......1983..27,242 13..Vancouver Whitecaps..1980..26,834
you're right, i think the only possible thing would be for the US to win the world cup. and even then I think we'd almost have to win it on our own shores for it to matter to Joe Sixpack. thinking back about WC 2002, if the US boys would have put together 3 more wins and stole the trophy, it still wouldn't have made that big of a dent on american consciousness (this is all IMHO). USA just winning one game in 94 seemed like it was a bigger deal than the 2002 boys making the final 8 at K/J. and maybe historically speaking it was. so basically i don't see another "explosion" to the game until the US does well in the WC (maybe wins it or makes the final) ON US shores. and that probably won't happen until 2018 at the earliest. so until then the best thing we can do is get all our MLS teams into their own stadiums, not overextend ourselves $$$-wise and try to build a solid base....all in anticipation of the next explosion. (yes, i refer to MLS as if I am truly invested in it, isn't it great? well, emotionally i am)
Is having too many fans a problem? I don't think so. Now not having enough fans, that's a problem and one the league has to deal with now. If a MLS team had a 25,000 SSS and it was obvious it wasn't big enough, and there were people beating at the gates to get in, then the MLS team would do what every successful sports team in the US does---rape and pillage the coffers of the nearest municipality. It's an American tradition. MLS just needs to grow the league to point where they can threaten to move a team and it really scares people.
I believe the stadiums have been built with expansion in mind. For instance, much of the the Burn's Frisco stadium will be dug out from the ground. This will make it much less expensive to add a level of seating above it. I believe that Crew stadium is designed with relatively cheap expansion in mind. I am guessing it would be far cheaper to add 10-15k in seats to the SSS's in existence or that are planned, than to finance a new stadium. I do not see this as a concern.
well, that's because: 1. it was viewed as a fluke 2. there was nothing to immediately reap the benefits of that run (MLS didn't start for another 2 years -- any momentum clearly lost) well, i think both of these things will be clearly different should it happen again circa 2018...
True - but there's still a disconnect in this country between the international level and the club/league level in terms of interest. MLS may have been able to capitalize a bit more on the 94 success had they kicked in 1995, but, then again, they didn't have their ducks in a row in time to launch then. It might have turned out worse all the way around. Now, if they had been ready to go in 1995, maybe it would have been different. But, given the clear chasm between interest in the national teams and interest in the domestic league (and I'm not sure if there's a similar disconnect in other countries, but it wouldn't surprise me, even if the domestic league does well), I'm not sure a league can reap immediate benefits from the success of a national team. At least, it seems as though such spikes may be high, but they're short-lived. By sometime in the fall of 1999, the buzz about women's soccer had dropped considerably. I think the spike of interest in J/K dissipated in a shorter period. I think there are some cumulative effects of continued success, especially if the connection that "Hey, these guys actually play here 30 times a year!" can be hammered home again and again. Every little bit of success can build on the last, as long as you don't experience a setback like France 98. If we continue to do well in international competitions, I think there will be benefits for all soccer in this country. That, and MLS continuing to hang around, shutting up those who said it would never survive, and building stadiums, providing longer-term security. Those things are all good, but no one of them individually will be the magic bullet, I don't think. I'd rather have steady sustained growth than a "Pele Effect" that shoots us very high and brings us back to Earth in a short period. Again, it'll be a nice problem to have, if it happens. But I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about our stadiums being outdated before all but two of them are even built.
Thanks to Kenn for identifying the "small handful" of NASL teams breaking 25K--even smaller than I thought (I thought Seattle had a 25+K year in 1976, the year they had the novelty of the Kingdome working to their advantage (and the year they finished in the black (I think)) but, obviously, I was wrong. As I recall, a new stadium may have bumped the numbers, but...how sad is it Vancouver just misses a 30K average in 1983 and is defunct a year later? (IIRC, Vancouver bailed on the NASL after the 1984 season, before the league itself folded.)
Hello. Looks like it’s time for me to weigh in again. I appreciate the feedback on this subject, considering how often, I’m informed, this subject has been covered. (If you look at the number of posts I have made on this board, it’s pretty apparent that I’m a relative newbie to bigsoccer.com. You don’t really expect me to have read every thread ever posted, do you ? Anyway, on to your responses…) First off, I freely admit that I have an optimistic view on the growth of soccer fandom in this country. I also admit that I do not have absolute proof that this will happen. However, I have seen various pieces of evidence indicating that under favorable circumstances, MLS soccer could see an attendance boom within the next twenty years. (I have touched on this subject in other posts on this board and usldiscussions.com. If anyone wants to debate this point more fully, it probably should be done in a new thread. I hope somebody starts one.) I have stated what these favorable circumstances would be in a thread I started, currently residing in “Soccer Journal”, titled, “Why doesn’t the American sports public embrace soccer?” These circumstances are, briefly, as follows: 1. The U.S. Men’s National Team winning, or at least reaching the finals of the WC. (and not necessarily only on U.S. soil, Asprilla9. Lance Armstrong hasn’t become an American sports superstar by winning The Tour de France only when it’s being held in East Rutherford, New Jersey. ) 2. An American striker or attacking midfielder becoming a superstar in one of the Top European Leagues. 3. The MLS bringing that American superstar back to the league and opening its wallet to keep most of it’s stars, while luring a handful or two of European stars over here at the same time. If all of the above happens within the next 10 to 20 years, and I see no reason why it couldn’t, I believe that we will be looking at a sharp increase in attendance. (Once again, while this is an integral part of the discussion, it would be a good idea to create a parallel thread for DETAILED debate on this point.) I do want to address the attempt to base attendance figures based on NASL figures. While those figures certainly are a piece of the puzzle, they are not the only, or even prime, piece. The NASL was formed without a backdrop of ANY real success by the USA in world soccer. Its biggest domestic star was Kyle Rote Jr., hardly a star on the world scene. All it had was the handful of international stars and a few international superstars. And having just that, some teams were able to draw over 30,000 a game. Imagine what the draw would have been if the USA had been a soccer power with home-grown superstars. Why, it’s even conceivable that attendance and ad revenue would have been great enough to compensate for the lousy management that killed the league. (But, just barely conceivable.) As far as predicting future attendance, it’s not as fruitless or uncommon as jamison would have us believe. Every major corporation on the face of the planet does projections on future income, expansion plans and, most importantly to this discussion, facility needs. As a local example, Best Buy Inc. recently built a four building, 1.5 million square-foot corporate campus for $160 million. I assure you, they have designed it to be functional for more than twenty years. Best Buy also purchased a new warehouse and distribution center in Indiana. The new building is much larger than necessary for immediate needs. However, with their plans for new stores, they’ll eventually wind up utilizing the building fully. But they bought based on sales projections. And while sales projections are not completely accurate, they are a handy tool that companies use to help plan business strategy, including the most advantageous allocation of financial resources. And the relative truism here is that whatever you’re planning on building, the longer you wait to build it, the more expensive it’s going to be. Building a 50,000 seater now is going to be cheaper than building a 25,000 seater now and adding another 25,000 seats later. And it will be much cheaper than building that 50,000 seater 20 years from now. The Metrodome in Minneapolis seats about 66 thousand for football and soccer. It was built 20 years ago for about $56 million. The latest proposed stadium for the Minnesota Vikings will seat about 68 thousand. Projected price tag? About $700 million. It is generally better to erect buildings to be functional for more than twenty years. To not do so is economically wasteful for all parties involved. Let’s examine why the MLS is, as jamison pointed out, moving from “oversized’ stadiums and into their own sss. The key words are “their own”. Don’t get sucked into that wheeze that half-filled stadiums repel fans. There isn’t a Major League Baseball team that doesn’t play the vast majority of its games in a stadium two-thirds full or less and play many games in stadiums less than half-full. But, you’ll notice that baseball owners are not asking for new stadiums that seat only 30,000 or so, even though average per-game attendance is at slightly over 29,000. Most ball parks seat between 40,000 and 55,000. The extra seating is for the big games. And if the circumstances I’ve enumerated above do come to be, those MLS big games will fill 50 or even 60 thousand seat sss. The reason that MLS teams are building their sss is control. In sharing a stadium, they don’t control scheduling and, more importantly, revenue. In owning their own stadium, they get all the revenue. Parking , scheduling, concessions, facility rental, advertising space, luxury boxes, etc. are all controlled by the team. And the reason that they are building 30,000 seaters are not atmosphere, but money. A thirty thousand seat stadium is all the owners can afford to build on their own, without public financing. (To jamison: As to whether MLS owners could really afford to build larger sss,… well, all of them are multi-millionaires and two of them are multi-billionaires. My guess would be that they can. And by the way, (afaik) the reason that New England is not trying to build a new stadium is that their owner, Robert Kraft, already owns the stadium they play in.) And the owners know that they can’t muster the political backing to obtain public financing in the face of opposition from the general public, which is generally against “funding stadiums for millionaire players and billionaire owners”. So, the owners build their own small stadiums to get more revenue now and gamble that the tenor of the times will change and that they’ll be able to wrangle public financing for larger stadiums later, as Denver_Mugamp foresees in his appropriately cynical post. Sadly, my state, Minnesota is a perfect example of the folly of settling for the cheap, fast stadium. Structurally, the Metrodome is in excellent shape. But, because of its location and design, it limits revenue streams for its tenants. When this became apparent, the Twins and Vikings thought that getting financing for their own stadiums would be a breeze. This has been proven to be far from the case. So, if we’re looking at significant growth in attendance over ten to twenty years, as I believe we are, then we are looking at: a. Inflated ticket prices due to limited seat availability, which will do far more to discourage fan growth than half-empty stadiums, or… b. Owners asking municipalities for money to fund stadiums that, in twenty years will cost anywhere from 2 to 5 times more to build than they would now, with the accompanying threats to move the team, etc. Neither of these looks very appealing, to my point of view. And a factual note to jamison: Your capacity figures on Yankee stadium throughout it’s history are way off. http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/american/yankee.htm As you can see by reading the above webpage, capacity wasn’t held to just under 60K. When you had crowds of 85K it was in a stadium that seated 82K. And during those halcyon days of 1927, the Yankees averaged 15,020 per game. It appears that having a few extra seats didn’t hurt the Yankees long term financial situation too much. These days the Yankees average about 42K per game in their stadium which seats 57.5K. Oh, and in 2001, George Steinbrenner had reached an agreement with then Mayor Rudy G. for a new, LARGER, retractable-roof stadium(price tag: $800 million) for the Yankees funded by George and the city which was nixed by 9-11. Yankee stadium makes a poor argument for small stadiums. Having just gotten back from watching soccer at Creighton U’s new, half-built sss (and, hey, it’s got TERRACES), I remain That little old jersey collector Me
Actually, just to clarify, those of us who are NASL-niks don't put a lot of future predictive stock in the hands of the NASL figures - a lot of the time, I just post them for amplification. There are a lot of urban legends circulating here about the NASL, mostly by people who weren't around for it, and a lot of the time, it's just to set the record straight. NASL figures are interesting sometimes, mostly in a historical context, but their predictive abilities aren't so great, IMHO. What is interesting is that Division I men's outdoor soccer 25 years ago drew about 15,000 a game, and here we are today, drawing about 15,000 a game. (a) That's not entirely correct - the Red Sox (100.2% of capacity), Giants (97.1%), Cubs (94.4%), Mariners (84.5%), Angels (83.9%), and Yankees (77.7%) all played the "vast majority" of their games in a stadium 3/4 full or more in 2003. 10 of the 30 teams played to around 50% or less in 2003. Plus, it's baseball, which is in the DNA. It's a bad analogy because of the intrinsic hold baseball has on Americans, and also because.... (b) In our sport, a half-filled (or less) stadium detracts from the atmosphere and most definitely is a repellant to the enjoyment level of the paying customers. That, and the control of revenue streams, are the two biggest reasons for SSS's. Thanks. We've never had that discussion before. Money is the primary reason. But our sport needs to be played in an intimate atmosphere to be appreciated, on those days when it's not 69,000 people in Reliant Stadium for USA/Houston. There's a public component to the financing for the stadiums in Frisco, Rochester, and Bridgeview. Obviously, if it's your own money, it's more expensive to build a 40,000-seat stadium than a 30,000-seat stadium, but I think you're overstating the case. It does us no good to build stadiums hoping that one day we'll have big crowds on a regular basis when right now (and for the forseeable future), we need to control the atmosphere and make the supply of tickets reasonable. Can, probably (though it's so much more complicated than just whipping out the checkbook - that's another fallacy of Bigsoccer). But the trick to stadiums is not to whip out the checkbook, it's to get the municipality to make its citizens pony up for you, and then give you control of the stadium. Luckily for them, NFL and MLB teams (and, occasionally, NBA teams) are popular enough to convince municipalities that it would be in their best interests to dip into their citizens' pockets (usually convincing them of the notion that it's an economic windfall for the city, and convincing the citizens that they stand to lose their status as a "big league city" if the team picks up and goes elsewhere). Building stadiums by themselves is not a profitable enterprise, else team owners would just do it. I can think of a very few recent stadiums built with 100% private funding (the Giants' ballpark in San Francisco and what was Joe Robbie Stadium in Miami come to mind). Soccer teams are not, by and large, popular enough yet to hoodwink the populace (Columbus-area voters defeated a Crew stadium referendum three times, did they not?) I'm not sure I agree with you on that. Half-empty stadiums is an aesthetics issue, while inflated ticket prices (supply and demand, though) are an economics issue. One could argue (and many have) that when tickets are harder to come by, they are seen as more valuable, that the event has more cachet, that it's the "cool" thing to do. I don't think I'd go so far as to say "far more to discourage." Ticket prices are like anything else - they're set by supply and demand. Welcome, uchlem. Glad to have you.
Welcome to the board, I am a relatively new poster myself. I agree that building a larger stadium in 20 years is far more expensive, but for stadium expansion, it makes more financial sense. First the cost of running the smaller stadium is less until you need more seats. Not a huge amount, but MLS is counting pennies right now. This brings me to a second point. MLS is trying to think long term but does have some very immediate financial needs, which means cost savings whenever possible. Outlaying the additional capital for possible attendance 20 years from now is something MLS is probably not equipped to do. Additionally, a stadium expansion is efficient because of existing infrastructure, especially if the stadium is built with expansion in mind. Also, if done correctly, recapitalization for expansion 10 years after a stadium is built can have financial benefits. I know this is a number game, but it is the game our financial world plays.
As Kenn pointed out, those of us who like to drop NASL figures like to do so more to provide a historical reference than as any indicator of future performance. However, I think in this instance the comparison is particularly relevant: soccer, at its peak in the U.S. (albeit in fad form) could not even approach 30,000. The league average was in the 12,000 to 14,000 range, and only the Cosmos regularly broke the 30,000 mark. But I'm more interested in the assumptions you draw when you "imagine what the draw would have been if the USA had been a soccer power with home-grown superstars." This is a tough analogy to make, because there is no frame of reference--the U.S. has never been a soccer power, and we have always been short on home grown superstars. It is interesting that you think international success and the emergence of top native talent will result in a surge in attendance. But I don't think you can support the assumption. Frankly, I don't think the "top native talent" angle will be the automatic draw you think it is. For one thing, Rote was never a domestic soccer star in the sense I think you meant. He was the face of the NASL pre-Pele, but more for his successes on ABC's "Superstars" tournament than the fact he led the NASL in scoring in 1973. In any event, people were not coming out to see him (or the other American stars of the era--Rigby, Davis, Mausser, Moyers, Pederson, etc.). They were coming for Cryuff, Beckenbauer, and the other (albeit older) legends. One thing the NASL did prove is that fans will come out to see superstars, regardless of where they are from. On the other hand, I do not believe attendance in the EPL has dropped by any significant amount because of the proliferation of foreign stars. Good soccer is good soccer. On the other hand, I do think a "Miracle on Ice" event would go a long way towards helping MLS to the extent it would enmesh soccer into the sports landscape. But not in the attendance range you suggest. What has often confused me when this topic is addressed is the automatic assumption that, because MLS is an outdoor sport, it must draw over a certain number or be deemed a failure. The NHL and NBA have done quite nicely with 18,000 per game type averages. Why is this considered too "small" for MLS? I guess, even assuming MLS is being short-sided, it is a necessary evil at this point--the league wants to try to recreate the excitement of an English league match. They tried to create the effect by placing big curtains over the upper decks of stadiums, but that didn't work. The only way to do it is to play in smaller parks. If they outgrow them in 20 years, then good for MLS. Of course, one can hope that this growth will mean soccer has enough clout to extort sweet, publicly-financed stadium deals from local governments. Then your concerns are kind of moot, eh? *sigh* We can only hope. I enjoy your topics, though. Keep them coming.
Remember, Steve, the NBA and NHL draw a significantly smaller percentage of their overall revenue from tickets than MLS does. The NBA percentage has to be much smaller than the NHL, which is the major sport most reliant on ticket sales. I think there are some people who, whether consciously or subconsciously, just want MLS to outdraw one of those sports so they can feel better about themselves. As I've pointed out before, I don't think there is a "magic number" of attendance at which MLS is profitable, and if there is, we can only guess at what it is. Let's do this, can we? Let's get these things built first, and then prove we can fill them to capacity consistently for a while, before we consider making them bigger.
Without going into the detail that Kenn did, I'd like to bring up a couple of points. As to baseball, look at the teams that have built parks in the recent glut of new stadiums in the early 90s. Camden Yards holds 48k, Memorial Stadium held 54k. Jacobs Field 43k, Cleveland Stadium 70k. Old Comiskey? 52k. New Comiskey? 44k. All smaller than their predecessors. Yes, some of those were mixed use football stadiums, but the list goes on. Large, multi-purpose stadiums being replaced by smaller, more intimate parks that can generate more revenue with less cost. You want to say that in 20, 30 years MLS teams will have outgrown their stadium capacities, ok. You have that crystal ball. The Mets, playing a way more popular sport in a town many times more populous than every MLS metropolitan area save one haven't outgrown their stadium in the 39 years since they built it. In the last 3 years, they've talked about building a new park, that holds 44k (down significantly from 54K), and I think they plan to keep that for more than 20 years as well. If you want to get the baseball people who know more about sports, stadium finance and 20 year attendance projections than you or I on the horn and ask them how "economically wastefull for all involved" their projects have been, feel free. Milwaukee built Miller park to hold 43k and it was still a financial disaster (their old park held 53k). How large would you have had them build that one? I could sit here and argue your post all night, but I don't think that solves the problem of convincing you that you are wrong, so I'm not going to bother. I think your assumption that MLS numbers could outstrip stadium capacity is possible, but the premise that they should build big now in anticipation of something 20 years away- sitting there that whole time with empty seats!- is bad business. It just is. Your analogy to Best Buy assumes that MLS and Best Buy are in the same relative shape financially. I submit that they are not. This is more akin to Ted's TV Hut. MLS teams generally lose money, and have for their history. Since 1996, there have been 88 team-seasons. Of those, how many have ended in profit? 2? 3? It's less than 10, likely less than 5. If MLS were less secretive in their dealings we might know for sure, but from the data I've seen it's 3 or less, based on best estimates (LA made money last year, Columbus was rumored to be close two years ago). If you are making money in 5 of every 88 attempts, how bullish would any common sense business be on future revenue prospects? What would IBM's stock price be if they made money 5 of every 88 years? Kinda low? Also, your post blindly ignores the fact that a Metrostar stadium capacity of 28k represents a pretty significant increase over their last year home average of 15,822. Building a 50k seat stadium is laughable, Phil Anschutz' billions or not. And, if you want to get into ownership dollars, Ken Horowitz owned the Miami Fusion and he was a millionaire too. How many games did they win last season? Dallas in a crap park drew 8k a game. They build a 24k stadium....how is that NOT planning for future growth? That 3 times last year's numbers! Say a more normal figure for them is 12k, that's still twice as many seats as they normally fill. Listen, you want to say that MLS is undercutting capacity estimates for games 20 years from now, ok. No one can really dispute that (or prove it, I might add), because it's 20 years from now. I'm going to stick with my reality-based, historical attendance-based estimate that the MLS teams building stadiums in th 23-28k size range are doing what is in their best financial interest at the present time. You can stick with your guess at numbers 20 years from now and your claim that a company that's losing money should over-spend now to save money later, while ignoring that they might not be in business then. If it turns out that 20 years from now they need more seats, that's a much better problem to have than having a team folding under it's debt in year 6 of their shiny new white elephant.
A fair point...which, indirectly, raises the other big issue: can MLS (or any pro sport) survive without a major TV deal? I'll briefly mention the original MISL in the mid to late 1980s, outdrawing both the NHL and NBA in quite a few markets but, because of the lack of TV money, never really close to being profitable. Ultimately, I agree with you--let's just build them first, and worry about the "good problem" of outgrowing them later.
Survive, yeah. I wouldn't call what the NHL has been getting a "major" TV deal in relative terms. MLS has survived eight years and three weeks without a "major" TV deal. Arena Football never had a really decent TV deal until last year (and, while it's apparently making money for both sides, there is talk that they'll pull it off NBC because the ratings aren't high enough - imagine that, ratings matter, too). Can you survive on $24,000 a year? People do it. I've done it on less, and more recently than you'd think. TV revenue is great, it's fantastic. I wish we had a bunch of it. I doubt it's very likely that a straight rights fee deal will come MLS' way anytime soon. Under the right circumstances, a sharing deal that generates a bit more revenue might be possible for MLS, but the people who make those decisions at the network level, I think, would have to see a lot more interest in the league, expressed not only in TV viewers, but in attendance, merchandise, and the elevation of the league to something people really talk about and debate and plan their lives around and really live (outside Bigsoccer, I mean). Right now, MLS is still sitting at the kids' table at Thanksgiving dinner when it comes to TV. I hope there comes a time when we can prove that a revenue-producing TV deal makes sense for someone, somewhere. But it's going to be a struggle, not only because of the challenges league soccer has traditionally had at getting people to watch it on TV, but also because of the intrinsic challenges in terms of advertising opportunities a game with no timeouts presents.
Stadium Visitors in the USA are unlike those in Europe, because of the great distances between clubs you only get a few hundred AWAY team supporters at the very most to games. Where as in Europe several thousand turn up to a game. I agree with you that the top flight success is what gets the sport onto the T.V, But what gets the specators into the stadiums is Ground level support from Youth Organisers. If your Lucky enough to have a MLS, A-League, College, PDL team in your town the youth Coaches and tournament directors should be working with these to arrange team visits, discounts, common links, cross over events. League / City Finals on before the main event. A Club practise with a player/coach sell the dream, show the skills on the fields and then get the kids to practise it show boat it. Get kids to a high level game, get them along to watch their future, find the best teams a couple of years ahead of you and get the kids to watch and believe. Then the SSS of 30,000 will be filled with the memories, that's when father takes son and so on. Why is 30,000 ok ? Arsenal is Just building a 60,000 stadium after living in a 38,500 seater 50,000+ standing staduim since 1921. Man Utd is just adding again to go from 67,000 to 75,000. ( note Man Utd is the richest sports club in the world) and been around for over a 100 years. So I don't think you being shortsighted in sss. But what I think you're being shortsighted is in how many you need and how big soccer can be if you don't have a franchies league like the MLS NFL and other american sports. Some questions I like the US soccer controllers to consider is Could you have more than 1 top team per city/state? could you do a repeat of Milan 2 teams 1 stadium in America? Could you have a X Utd & X City ? How many Cities do you have over a million people in ? How many teams in a league? FIFA wants 16 or 18, How many could the US have ? How many top leagues in Europe? after all population and size are about the same. Why are we only seeing 20 USA teams??
You're not seeing only 20 top-flight teams. There's only 10 in MLS. You could write a book about the differences between sports in Europe and in the US, but remember that soccer is only the 5th most-popular sport in the country. You talk as if the demand for soccer in the US is identical to that in Europe but it's just not true. It is an emerging sport, not established by any means. The league says they've lost $350 million in the last 8 years. This may or may not be true. But it shows the difficulty in establishing top-flight professional soccer in the US. You need to do a bit more research on US sports before posting.