OK, all you financial geniuses out there, work with me for a minute. Let's say, for the sake of argument: In 2005 FC Dallas averages about 18k/game until the end of the decade. Chivas averages about 25k/game at the HDC until the end of the decade. SLC averages about 20k/game at RES. In 2006 Seattle joins the league with a favorable lease and averages 15k/game until the end of the decade. Rochester joins the league with Pae-Tec Park and averages 18k/game until the end of the decade. The Metros move to 60-90 Stadium and average 25k/game until the end of the decade. Chicago moves to Bridgeview and averages 20k/game until the end of the decade. The league signs a TV contract w/ Univision similar to what the NHL has in structure, with one nationally broadcast game per week. In 2007 The league signs a TV contract w/ ESPN similar to what the NHL has in structure, with two nationally broadcast games per week. Colorado moves to Crapids Field and averages 20k/game until the end of the decade. SLC moves to the Temple and averages 20k/game until the end of the decade. San Jose moves to (insert joke here) and averages 18k/game until the end of the decade. DC moves to Virginia and averages 20k/game until the end of the decade. In 2008 Kansas City moves into The Big Wiz and averages 18k/game until the end of the decade. DC is purchased from Anschutz for $40 million. FCD is purchased from Hunt for $35 million. In 2009 Houston joins the league for $20 million with and averages 20k/game. Philadelphia joins the league for $20 million with a favorable lease and averages 20k/game. What does this do for the league finances? At what point to we get into the black, and how far can the salary cap be stretched so that we remain so? I know this is a rosy picture I'm painting, but these guys seem determined to build some houses for their teams. With the increased attendances that seem to be part and parcel of that, it looks to an economic amateur like the league is flirting with financial viability (if not necessarily EPL-esque "wealth").
Indeed. Although 18K/year in Rochester I think is a big of a stretch. If you're looking for precise financials, good luck. It goes without saying that your best case scenario above would push MLS into the black, allowing for: 1) Expansion of the salary cap to 3-4x current levels, allowing for purchase of higher-priced global talent 2) Roster expansion & creation of a reserve team system 3) A SIGNIFICANT marketing budget With the revenue that MLS has made this year (Howard/DMB/Convey/Vergara $$/Checketts $$) I'm hopeful that the salary cap could be increased by at least $500K/team for next year & an increase in the minimum salary.
25k for Chivas and 20k for Utah are stretches, too, IMHO. I think obviously the league is moving towards much better days financially. I just think people tend to err on the wrong side of the equation when guesstimating future attendance. I mean, LA's doing great, but they ain't averaging 25k.
Well if you listen to Vergara Chivas USA will be selling out every home game. [sarcasm]There is such a demand in LA for Chivas that he spent millions to put a second team there. People will stand outside the stadium just to hear the roar or the crowd. TV and radio numbers will skyrocket! It'll be 27K+ every home game for Chivas USA and then a sellout everywhere they travel to because Chivas USA will represent the Latino man and they will come out to support it![/sarcasm]
Yeah, the probably are stretches - though I don't think either is out of the question. Vergara has a history of success and, well, there's really not a lot to do in Utah. Am I wrong in assuming that moving out of Giants Stadium is the true catalyst for growth for MLS? It seems like if that's off the books, the league will be a much better investment.