Yes. CUSA and the LAG "shared" a stadium, too. But that doesn't look to be the business option that MLS is perusing and utilizing in the near term in markets like NY and LA.
Of all the things Chivas USA did wrong, sharing a stadium with the Galaxy was not near the top of the list. Just a few of the problems, in no particular order: 1. They were called "Chivas USA", possibly the dumbest name in all of US sports. It sounds stupid. It translates to something stupider, and it has no local identity. Not to mention it directly off-put a good portion of the local population. 2. They were clearly second fiddle to the Mexican mothership. The reason this has not killed NYCFC is because the mothership (MCFC) is world-class and very well run, unlike Chivas Mexico has been. Also, NYCFC did not follow mistake #1 above. 3. The organization was a shitshow. 4. HDC was not convenient to the target demo (Chivas suppoerters) so that was bad. The Galaxy did not narrow down their target demo so much, that this problem has been mitigated for them at HDC.
In the eyes of MLS and its business, it (CUSA's failure to acquire, or overall disinterest in acquiring, their own/controlled venue) seems to be very near the top of the list, imo. In that sense, the franchises NYCFC and LAFC are both significant improvements on what CUSA operationally was. (And NYCFC will be even more operationally improved and successful as a business, most likely, if and when they are no longer a tenant at Yankee Stadium.)
when people talk about sharing a stadium.... Don't overlook the details. Giants and Jets share a stadium: HOWEVER, it's a 50-50 ownership. Which mean they both get revenue from it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetLife_Stadium LAG owned 100% while CUSA was a renter! That is a BIG difference. The keys to SSS success in MLS was finally owning the major controlling interest in revenue and the ABILITY to play the shell game of profit and loss. Seattle and NER although they are not equal partners have the same owner as their stadium partner. DCU although they don't share are actually worse off than SEA and NER because they don't own their stadium. There are so many points here that CANNOT be overlooked. Never forget "God is in the details" ** ** origin of phrase: http://grammarist.com/words/devil-is-in-the-details-vs-god-is-in-the-detail/
One match in league play yesterday saw 25,711 in the Bronx to watch the home team play the visiting Coloradans.
I was there, and while there may have been 23k tickets distributed, at no point were there 23k fans in the stadium. It was actually a doubleheader: the other game was a friendly between Chivas (Mexico) andUniversidad Catolica (Chile). So a good percentage of the attendees were there for the Chivas game instead of the ASG. Watching that game in a 60k seat stadium was pathetic and depressing.
Chivas USA and the Galaxy didn't share a stadium, CUSA rented the Galaxy's stadium. The Galaxy via AEG actually made money every time CUSA played there. They even had to cut AEG a check for their office space. It wasn't like they were both renting a municipally owned stadium or anything. HDC was clearly the Galaxy's home and CUSA was clearly a tenant. It was a weird situation.
Quick weekend summary Saturday NYCFC 25,711 Sunday SKC 19,098 Seattle 48,458 Dallas 13,824 DC 16,728 Philadelphia 18,091 Chicago 17,221 Orlando 27,768 Toronto 23,979 Houston 15,045 225,923 total attendance for the weekend......an average of 22,592
It can be and was both of those things. Agreed. And that specific "tenant (in a different franchise's MLS home) reality" is not something that NYCFC or LAFC or other franchise of the future of MLS is likely to repeat. MLS does actually learn from some of their business past/missteps, from time to time. MLS does well as a business as it gets more venues built and/or gains operational and business control of more real estate and facilities. (Adding CUSA never helped in that mission, in the way that adding LAFC specifically is doing so.)