Yeah, I guess you're right. It's telling because DC United is NOT seeking their own SSS stadium. If they were doing that, it might throw your argument out the window. I say we just abandon SSS for any stadium we can find. Hey, maybe DC United can go play at Camden Yards! That's a great idea! Oh, wait, I forgot, they're not actually looking to build their OWN stadium because RFK is such a great venue for soccer and NFL stadiums are appropriate for MLS. Yeah, I forgot. DOWN TO SSS! NO MORE I TELL YE! DOWN WITH SSS!
I would guess that any organization that's intelligent enough to start the most successful professional soccer league in US history would know how to structure their owner/investor agreements. I doubt that MLS expects to receive a share of "profit" from the teams since that would be too hard to track and subject to abuse. Instead, I believe the league takes a percentage of ticket sales and other revenue that's easily verifiable. In return, the league distributes income that it receives for the overall organization such as TV and sponsorships like from Adidas. I'm not sure if income like concessions and parking are shared with the league. (Parking is free in Commerce City so MLS would be losing out.)
I rather doubt that this is the case, though I'll admit I'm probably not as close to the situation as you are. Why? The DCU ownership has to demonstrate that a venue can be a means to make it worth the district's time to include it in any redevelopment. [READ: Have events @ a hypothetical DCU Stadium, so that jobs can be created and taxes can be generated.] So, with the MLS schedule [currently] running from ~March through October, I'd imagine there being plenty of events, of every form and fashion. Currently, DCU could have but ~20 to ~35 or perhaps 45 events. [DCU home games, + playoff/cup games + WUSAII games] A schedule such as this leaves a hypothetical DCU stadium unused [and therefore, not generating revenue or much-needed jobs in SE] for 195 days out of the ~240 or so from March through October. So unless a hypothetical DCU Stadium will have a retractable dome to enable use from November through February, I'd imagine the DCU ownership telling the fans one thing ["we won't have any events during the season..."], but in practice doing the opposite. [Cramming each and every spare minute with every type of event known to mankind.] The ownership of DCU/a stadium would benefit from more events. The District would benefit from more events. The League indirectly would benefit from more events. There is simply too much motivation for the opposite to occur, IMHO.
If United could somehow control stadium revenue/scheduling without paying for upkeep of a crumbling stadium, RFK wouldn't be such a bad place to play. Atmosphere isn't the problem. The field, now that the Nats are gone, isn't the problem. It's $$$. RFK is everything the Sounders fans say Qwest will be, just with natural grass and no football lines. (OTOH, I'm sure the neighborhood around Qwest has more to offer than the neighborhood around RFK.)
Yes, in an ideal world, DC United has complete control of RFK and it needs little upkeep for its infrastructure. But that is not the case, so the club is looking to get its own stadium. Even during this co-tenancy period with the Nats, still a great place to see a soccer game. And now that RFK is back to being soccer specific, even better.
Klecko, I don't doubt that DC United, if they had their own SSS, would put other events in there. Of course they want to make money and also endear themselves to the community. That said, there are a lot of things you can do that don't tear up the field. And more importantly is the timing. --it's a new turf that hasn't settled yet (the players said you still had some parts that slipped when you stepped on them) --the team doesn't know the field. They've walked it once, practiced on it once and played one game on it. --the Pros vs. Joes thing will certainly have some impact on the field. --the presence of that event makes RFK unavailable for the team to practice on the field --DC United had no control over what parts of the field were used (for instance you can do lots of things on the "field" that don't put you on the "playing field" b/c of the baseball dimensions and seats that were taken out of the soccer stadium to allow for an outfield). None of that is a catastrophe. But there is a difference between doing all of this post season. Or when the field is set and the team has played on it 40 times (practice and games). Or when some of the activities are set up on areas that aren't on the playing surface. Versus how it was handled now.
I agree that if DCU had control over the venue, they might not have scheduled this event so close to having a new surface installed. But this illustrates what this [or any other] venue is all about: having a full calendar. While its unfortunate that DCU won't get much of an opportunity to acquaint themselves with the pitch, money talks, and you-know-what walks.
Exactly right. When Garber talks about a SSS, he is clearly talking about controlling the venue. Note his comment to the Columbus Dispatch: (Emphasis Mine). For the MLS economic model to work, control over the stadium is the key. Link: http://www.columbusdispatch.com/dispatch/contentbe/dispatch/2006/06/30/20060630-G1-01.html
Despite what SideshowBob believes about "Seattle fans", each and every Seattle poster that has posted about this issue has constantly emphasized that control is the preeminent issue with the stadiums MLS teams play in. No one has seen any documentation about the deal that has been done or is still in the works, but sources close to some fans have said that the deal includes handing over control of part of the event calendar to the MLS team. This includes non-MLS dates. Yet people insist that this isn't good enough, that the very existence of an NFL team in the stadium somehow magically prevents the MLS team from making a profit, that an "SSS" (whatever that is supposed to be, and wherever that is supposed to be located) somehow magically will be more profitable than playing at Qwest Field ... and they go even further to strawman the hell out of the situation by equating Qwest Field to Giants Stadium or equating our ownership group to Bob Kraft. So can we all agree that the bottom line is control over the stadium, and hence control over revenue streams? As we state this to be self-fricking-evident, can we also see the bigger picture where a large stadium like Qwest Field, given control over numerous dates, is actually a very lucractive situation for an MLS owner? Tack on $0 in rent, tack on a partner in the MLS ownership group that is also part of the primary operating group, tack on a money-bags Hollywood guy whose sole interest is the soccer team and can act as a counter-balance to the (presumed and also strawman) argument that Paul Allen is only interested in the Seahawks, tack on a civic stadium authority whose charter includes accomodating an MLS team, tack on the downtown location of Qwest Field ... and suddenly you can see how this situation has the potential to make the MLS team scads of money. Take off the "SSS or die!" blinders, and you can see how a variety of situations can be extremely profitable for an MLS team. While new limited-capacity stadiums have recently worked for some MLS teams, that is no indication that that is the only way profitability can be had, or even that that is some mecca for profitability. Those schooled in logical fallacies correct me if I am wrong. Can we also conceive of a reality where an MLS team playing in Qwest Field is not only profitable, but also more profitable than any potential "SSS" that BS posters dream of having us build for them in the greater Seattle area? Yes, it is possible. And not only is it possible, it is likely the very reason why a new stadium is not in the works to begin with. - Paul
Yes, but it is both revenue streams, as you note, and dates when the schedule is formulated. The Fire had to conform their schedule to the Bears at Soldier Field. I suspect the Patriots get first choice of dates at Gillette, and the Seahawks probably will at Qwest. The devil will be in the details though. If Qwest can do a quick turnover of the field and allow the Seattle team to maximize the number of Saturday games (assuming, like most MLS cities, Seattle draws better on the weekend), it won't be a big deal. If Seattle ends up with more mid-week games or long road trips, it will hurt them.
The NFL schedule is easy. DC United had to put up with baseball and its 81 home games. Football has 8 regular season games, no more than 2 preseason and we are talking about starting around mid-August. Usually in the NFL, it is home, away, home, away, etc. There is also the bye week. So the schedule is very workable. No different than Milan and Inter sharing the San Siro. Actually, probably easier.
Yeah, I don't really understand why people think this is such a huge issue. The Seahawks play 10 home dates a year, including the preseason. It isn't the Seahawks that have the pull, it's the juggernaut that is the NFL.
In the pre season, Seattle has alway had a Saturday and Thursday home schedule @ Qwest. e all know the other games perhaps 4 home dates will be on Sunday or Monday. Not so difficult to schedule around.
Seattle fans have convinced me. I will fight anyone who thinks we should build stadiums for soccer because we have plenty of RFK's and Qwests around for the milking. I will seriously fight you if you even mention the term SSS. They are dead to me just as you will be. No more SSS ever! No more! They're bad, done, no good, overrated! A waste of money! Sign me up for Madison Square Garden where you can put a great little soccer team! I'm not through compromising soccer! Qwest is just the beginning.
It is not just one model fits all. Each location has its own quirks with available real estate, costs, government red tape, etc. Small to mid-size stadiums may be good for league games but limits teams with bigger ones. A lot depends on the size of the city. There is a big difference between Chicago and Columbus. Now in Chicago, they have Soldier's Field to fall back on if necessary. Not the most ideal situation though but can handle a big game. If the ownership group in Seattle has interest and control over Qwest, it works. Similar to what there is in New England. Not the same situation as Giant Stadium, where not only is there lack of control but during the NFL season, there are two football tenants. Each team has to evaluate what is best for its market, what it can acquire in land, what is best for its team. What works in Dallas may not be the same in Houston.
The NBA got by when Jordan sold-out markets with poor attendance. And, those places mostly seat less than 20K! So, what happened to the poor people without tickets? Oh well, you need to learn to buy early! That's call creating demand, which doesn't happen by draping forty-plus thousand seats in a tarp and claiming there are really only 30K seats available. Wait a minute. What am I saying? No SSS! NFL Stadiums all the way! College football! Heck, volleyball courts! Can soccer be played on a ping pong table? What the heck, Let's do it! Screw the SSS. Nobody loves a sport more than when it has plenty of empty seats in a stadium - or, better yet, seats covered by a tarp.
Your analogy is off. A better analogy would be to compare what American human beings need to survive and what Chinese humans need to survive. You'd probably find that the only things they need are love, air, water, food. But, you'd find that ALL humans need this, just as ALL soccer needs the same things to survive - and some of them include not being subject to NFL lines and a fruitless attempt to create demand with a smokescreen.
Whatever. DC United has used the lower bowl of RFK for the past few years. This season, it has had to open the upper bowl. It has never been a problem. The places that have a small SSS are not filling out all of the seats. So there is more to it than just creating demand with less seats. If you need to have a small stadium almost full to enjoy the game, then it probably does not say much about your team. Eventually, DC United will move to its own stadium. RFK will be missed, even if it is old. Many of us have memories there that go back before MLS days. But down here, we go to see the team. We don't need a stadium for an excuse.
So can MLS teams survive if there are high school football lines on the pitch? Do you have a point to make or is this just an exercise with your keyboard?
High School football lines are far less present than NFL lines. However, the answer is 'MLS will not thrive if it doesn't rid itself of these as well'. The reason is simple - MLS will never establish itself as a quality league, nor soccer as a world class sport in the eyes of the typical American public with those lines plaguing fields. MLS will also not win over the ethnic populations whose countries already do it right. MLS will stagnate and then decline. Don't let the fact that this has been the best year in MLS cloud the reality that soccer is still fighting an uphill battle. Yes, it is making great strides. And, why? Because they're getting out of enormous stadiums. They're separating themselves from football markings. They're claiming their own identity by being the 'title tenant' of their facilities. And, don't talk to me about RFK because I've put my blood, sweat, and tears into that stadium while supporting DC United (and international matches) there. DC United and RFK were my first. And, you never forget your first.
Hey if they expanded Ingersol Stadium it would be perfect! (no one from outside Oly will know what the heck I am talking about).
Ingersoll has a long jump runway and triple jump runway inside the dimensions of the field. You'd have to go with South Sound or Tumwater stadium. But they play little league football in both those places. There are still some really cool dirt fields at Nisqually though......