No I can't remember any coverage of Banat in the Phoenix market last year. The Arizona Sahuaros qualified for the USOC over the weekend, maybe somebody who's still down in the desert can comment on any coverage it got. (Anthony LaPaglia's Hollywood United also qualified, Banat did not).
Birmingham isn't a good candidate. While they have drawn from the region (Alabama, but also Atlanta, Nashville, and Memphis, which are all only a three hour drive or less away), there is no way an MLS team will be able to count on the 8 million people who live in those three metropolitan areas (2/3 in Atlanta alone). So you get the 1.1 million who live in the greater Birmingham area, and maybe a small number of people willing to drive 90 miles from Huntsville and/or Montgomery. Until MLS has the massive media presence that allows "regional" interest in teams to mature, it's a far smarter strategy to concentrate on the places where people live. ESPECIALLY considering that the kind of 300 mile+ round trip drive that "regional" fans of NFL teams make would cost $60 for gas alone, every game, 15+ times a year. That might include Atlanta, or Nashville, or the Triangle. I don't know. But proximity to the center of large populations is a no-brainer.
I think the key to generating real, lasting interest in the game on this continent is to employ one of two tactics: 1. Have good coverage of all major areas of the US - which at present means adding 1-2 southeast teams, 1 southwest team, and Vancouver - in order to raise national awareness as much as possible and broaden media coverage. 2. Purposefully Balkanize the league (is that the correct usage?) by having 3 clubs in southern Cali, 3 in the Pac NW, 3 in Texas, 3 in the upper NE, 3 in the Great Lakes/Midwest, 3 in Canada, and really push the rivalry angle to intensify media coverage at the regional level. Reason number 1 is why I didn't follow MLS until 2007. I tried to before then, but I am from Vancouver, and, try as I might, I couldn't get excited to cheer for the closest team (the SAN JOSE Earthquakes as my LOCAL team?! -- most Vancouverites couldn't find SJ on a map!) or a random team (MUTINY!) So after trying to engage myself in the League for the first two years, I gave up until a team popped up in VAN or SEA. Then came TFC. I hate TOR, but while they are the lone Canadian entrant in the league, the help develop CDN players. And next year SEA is in, which means I will get to watch TFC games on CBC and SEA games on...(KOMO, I hope)...which means I get to watch a lot of games! I know some people say national footprint doesn't matter, but I disagree. Greater footbrint means broader media reach, and a better perception of the league as a league to be taken seriously. Reason number 2 is personally preferable to me because I believe what makes soccer so wonderful is the ATMOSPHERE. You Balkanize (read: emphasize the 3-team rivalries in scheduling) the league into backyard scraps and make that a large part of what the League is (League sposored regional darby trophies with cash prizes, etc.), and it will get the supporters whipped up, lend itself to more travelling support, which will breed better atmosphere, and grab MUCH more regional media coverage. 2, and we get a better supporters league; 1, and we get a more respectable American sports league. Either could be be successful though I prefer 2 to 1. One prolem with MLS right now, in my opionion, is that they straddle this idea. Do you want LAG, CHV, SJ (although San Diego might even make for a more fiesty rivalry), and NYRB, NY2, NE? Or do you want LAG, SEA, DEN, MIA, ATL etc.? This haphazard approach to team placement isn't ideal, in my opinion. Yeah, yeah, I know: he doesn't control were the owner/operators want to put teams, but now that the league is stabilizing, and demand is increasing, he has the opportunity to mold this thing. I hope he chooses one or the other, for the betterment of the league. VANCOUVER in 2011!
whiteisthecolour, the idea for saturating certain regions sounds like the old NHL. I think that is a good strategy for trying to be a middling league, but I don't think it is what the big money investors are hoping for. Soccer is an internationally popular sport. There is way too much potential for advertisers to merely ignore large portions of the continent like that. Larger national footprint also means more national TV coverage. I understand why it was hard for you to get into a 10-team fledgling league scattered around the country, but a 20-team mature league with high-profile players and a synergy with the international soccer world will be more appealing to the audience across the board. That is why I think that once another PNW team joins Seattle, and the league has its PNW geographic rivalry, MLS will cool it up here until it gets some of the other major markets taken care of, namely Atlanta and NYC. I predict that Vancouver and Montreal will both join MLS in 2011 to bring us to 18. Ives says NYC is a lock in the next 5 years, which means 2013. And I think by that time, the league will have wooed someone into Atlanta. That would leave St. Louis and Portland on the outside looking in. By that time, things will have heated up in other cities such as Twin Cities, Detroit, and Phoenix. Not to mention Miami still in the hunt with a mayor pushing a soccer stadium at the Orange Bowl site. Those cities are all in regions that MLS still doesn't exist: Florida, upper midwest, southwest. All major media markets. With two teams already in the PNW, I just don't see the logic in putting a third team in the PNW ahead of establishing a presence in entirely untapped regions with huge markets. Furthermore, once we are at 20 teams, the league will certainly have to take a breather. 20 teams by 2013 would mean the league doubled its size in less than 10 years. So I don't think we'd see #21 for another few years anyways. Also, growing past 20 teams would mean huge logistical changes. Suddenly, it would be difficult to play every team twice. Not saying that 20 teams is a huge barrier, just that 20 teams is a good place to stop for a while, and thus that can be considered to be a temporary limit. So MLS will want to choose those next 4 teams wisely. If we want to start attracting more Beckhams and Blancos, especially the younger versions, we need a financially lucrative TV deal. That means major markets and a larger national footprint. Shoring up the Canadian market with Montreal and Vancouver will be very smart. Getting NYC and Atlanta taken care of would be very smart. That would take MLS to the next level financially. - Paul
Remember, MLS is only 13 years old. Here is the relatively young Major League Baseball in 1930: AL ----- Philadelphia Athletics Washington Senators New York Yankees Cleveland Indians Detroit Tigers St. Louis Browns Chicago White Sox Boston Red Sox NL ------ St. Louis Cardinals Chicago Cubs New York Giants Brooklyn Dodgers Pittsburgh Pirates Boston Braves Cincinnati Reds Philadelphia Phillies 16 teams. Two in Chicago, two in St. Louis, three in New York, two in Boston, two in Philly (three in Pennsylvania). St. Louis was the "western" city. 1932: The 13th year of the niche "National Football League"... Chicago Bears Green Bay Packers Portsmouth Spartans (later became Detroit Lions) Boston Braves New York Giants Brooklyn Dodgers Chicago Cardinals Staten Island Stapletons Now, things were a lot of different back then obviously, but the core of both leagues was building relatively close rivalries. MLS seems to be going in that direction first before expanding across the entire country. Houston/Dallas LA/Chivas/San Jose Seattle/San Jose/maybe Portland/maybe Vancouver Toronto/RBNY/Columbus/New England/maybe NY2 KC/Chicago/Columbus/maybe St. Louis DC/Philly/New York/New England/maybe NY2 Colorado/Seattle/RSL
equus, back then barely anyone lived west of the Mississippi River. And you had to travel by train as there wasn't extensive air travel. In fact, a train trip from Boston to St. Louis was considered extreme in those days. Also, sports back then was all about promoting to the local market. There was barely a national media much less an international media. And what national media did exist was centered in the Northeast. Modern-day big-time leagues benefit from a large national footprint and lucrative TV deals. Without those two things, a league will always be seen as a minor league by advertisers. - Paul
Here are a few maps I worked on this semester for a GIS project. These look at 2 key demographics for mls; 18 to 34 y.o. white males and Hispanics. I looked at the three possible expansion cities; st. louis, miami, and philadelphia...I know the league chose philadelphia. Questions or confusion, just ask... St. Louis: http://www.flickr.com/photos/26742143@N05/2508196381/sizes/o/in/photostream/ Miami: http://www.flickr.com/photos/26742143@N05/2508196057/sizes/o/in/photostream/ Philadelphia: http://www.flickr.com/photos/26742143@N05/2509024338/sizes/o/in/photostream/
Here are the charts/tables Within 40 Km Buffer of Stadium: http://www.flickr.com/photos/26742143@N05/2508204395/in/photostream/ Entire Metro Area: http://www.flickr.com/photos/26742143@N05/2509035112/in/photostream/
Cool maps, I love that kinda stuff! Yes, there are "holes" in the MLS Nation. No offense, but ...so what? For example, why put a team in the Dakotas when there is no fan base there, just to fill a "hole"? MLS needs to continue to put teams where there is a fan base for soccer. Yes there are definitley some markets that could/would support a team. Slow and steady growth. STL needs to be next IMHO.
based on that map it would seem that Portland, Phoenix, Atlanta, and Miami should be the next teams. I doubt you are ever going to fill the void in Montana, the Dakotas, and nebraska.... Cool map.
What I see? The need presence in the South. And I still think in particular order (but with no dates)... STL/POR MTL/VAN NY2 ATL
I'm not dismissing the effect TV has on modern day sports leagues. What I'm saying is that regardless of league or time period, the core regional/local rivalry and passion from its fans is what helps sustain the league and gives it potential. Just look at the response you guys have had for a club that's never hit the field yet! MLS now has those national TV deals, but when you expose the league to its core, it's all about those rivals. That passion helped keep the league alive when national TV wasn't a player. Take Dallas-Houston. Would it be as heated a match or as well attended or watched if it was Houston/Little Rock? There are quality teams other than the Red Sox and Yankees, but it's the natural rivalry between the two that makes it so compelling for their fans as well as the neutral fan. Heck, I'm impressed with your Seattle/Portland rivalry and I'm 3000 miles away, and that's in the second division of pro soccer! Philly was chosen because it's a top TV market. But a secondary reason is that you have built-in natural rivals all up the Eastern corridor. That's why I think Vancouver, Portland, Montreal, NY2 and St. Louis are top choices for future expansions (if they pony up the fee and have the SSS plan) because they already have natural rivals in MLS. Atlanta? I'd love to see it, but who would their geographic rivals be? Columbus? Houston? DC? Those are far away clubs. If Tampa Bay and Miami had survived it might have made more sense now for Atlanta. Anecdote: Of the states that visit my site in the sig below, the most visits from states that don't have an MLS team are Iowa and Georgia.
Phoenix kind of falls within the LA media market. Las Vegas even more-so than Phoenix. Not saying Phoenix isn't a distinct market, but I don't think it is as important to have as Atlanta, which is a huge regional media market. Also, NYC being the preeminent media market and financial center in the world (maybe London tops it) means it needs to have a team. Also, I think Vancouver coming in as the second PNW solves the rivalry issue for us and simultaneously shores up the Canadian market. Two birds with one stone. Canada isn't featured on the OP's map, so we don't see the huge coverage a Vancouver team would have throughout BC and Alberta. I agree with you on Miami. It is a very unique market unlike any in the US. Pretty much the gateway to the Caribbean and South America. - Paul
I am exactly opposite of your thinking here. TV is where the money is. That is why it was such a big deal whern ESPN dropped the NHL. TV is the best exposure for a national audience. Once on TV, if the games are good on the pitch, people will watch. Rivalries mean nothing to someone not in them. Why would I have a vested interest in BOS/NYY rivalry? The story of BOS not winning was what was compelling... now who really cares? Onto the next team (CHC) that hasn't won in forever? Let's face it, there will be one more CAN team, not two. Either you make VAN rivals with SEA, or MTL with TOR. If its VAN, you get STL. If its MTL, you get POR. You will get a team in the south, ATL because its makes long term business sense to have a team in the largest metro area in the South, with the 4th largest TV market, ATL. NY2 will happen for the exact same reason, large market of people, large TV audience.
Well I was just saying Miami looked good based on the map, not necessarily on the market dynamics. I'd grant you that the city is unique, but I also think it is a big variable. The demographic profile of the city is certainly one of a kind. There are arguments that the Latin American demographic would support MLS in droves, but I believe much of this is Cuban and PR populations that may be more receptive to baseball. Because of the unique variables in the market, I see Miami as a gamble where MLS could win big this time around, or lose everything (metaphorically) if once again, fans don't turn out for footie in Florida. But it sure would make the map look nice.
That gaping hole in the Upper Midwest would be pretty easily filled by a team in the Twin Cities. No bias here, of course...
This map shows the presence of pro soccer leagues in the US with circles showing the number of matches in 2008 by metro.
In regards to the map itself, I'd say spread the Dynamo out a bit more down towards the Rio, maybe a bit towards NO. With the Academy down South and fans in NO, I'd imagine its more spread out. Of course, it's not that strong yet... Otherwise, great map
Agreed. Minnesota is a traditionally strong soccer market with one of the longest running existing professional soccer teams in the nation (19 seasons since 1990). Twin Cities is also a regional hub like Atlanta. - Paul
That is an interesting map. What would be even more interesting (to me) is to take the data there (no. of matches) with TV market, metro population and average attendance to each match. If only to see interest with market.
I fail to see how my posts have me dismissing the importance of TV. It's most definitely not. "TV is the best exposure for a national audience. Once on TV, if the games are good on the pitch, people will watch." Yes, but you can't dismiss the rivalries. If the Kansas City Royals and the New York Yankees put on a clinic of how to play a baseball game and battle it out to the bottom of the ninth, it's not going to draw a TV audience that a sloppy Yankees-Red Sox or Cubs-Cardinals game will. So if the Pats and Colts are playing in the regular season you're not going to watch as a neutral fan because they've both won Super Bowls? The closest MLS club to me is Columbus and that's three hours away, but the true derbies/rivalry games (CLB-TFC doesn't count, yet.) are the ones that really get me to make sure I tune in, like NE/NY, Superclasico, Houston/FC Dallas, etc. Everything's just pumped up more by the teams and the supporters.
I'm not sure that this represents the general sports fan without a home team. The reason people tune in for Yankees-Red Sox games is because of the really good players and the fact that both teams are in classic American sports cities. I think what most fans want to see is good players. I don't think the general fan will be interested in watching two teams from small cities with bad players, no matter how close the two cities are geographically. Furthermore, a rivalry develops primarily from the play on the field. Rivalries like Chicago-Dallas, NY-DC, Seattle-Vancouver, NE-Houston, LA-SJ. Those are the kinds of soccer rivalries that already exist because of great on-field drama and great players. - Paul
Fantastic info Kansasfan. Those market demos make Miami look like the end-all be-all MLS market. I agree that you can't paint Latinos with a such a broad brush, i.e. expect them all to be footy-mad, but Miami blows St. Louis out of the water in the stats department. Miami also has a few other things in it's corner: good climate for soccer year-round fills a regional void in the MLS footprint a high-profile, internationally-known market and a nice travel destination would presumably add a little MLS presence to the Carribean As someone who grew up in the Twin City metro, I'm with you on that, and if someone with money expresses interest in buying a MLS franchise and contributing substantially towards a SSS, I'm sure MLS would be interested. However, right now, it looks like MSP will remain a strong USL market. +++++++++ Anyway, in an attempt to make a more serious post, here are my thoughts. The way MLS has been going lately, it seems like the smaller markets are receiving the least attention (when was the last time Garber mentioned Rochester for example? cities like Cleveland and Milwaukee and Tulsa and Oklahoma City and San Antonio have not received the same kind of promotion from the Commish as have the larger markets - not since 2004 at least), and the biggest markets population-wise and rich-investor/Fortune-500-corporate-sponsor-wise are now getting all of the MLS love. It really seems like Don G has been on a mission to line up the biggest markets, particularly NYC2, Philadelphia, Toronto, Houston, the SF Bay Area, and Atlanta (always saying "it's a when, not an if"), and so far he's been very successful. Meanwhile, the USL has lost a few markets to MLS and stands to potentially lose a few more to future MLS expansion teams. The future for the USL may be in filling the bill in mid-size and smaller markets, and in larger markets that, for whatever reason (missing ownership, lack of suport from local government, or just a plain numbers game), did not make it into MLS during the initial expansion phase. Looking at these maps it's pretty clear that MLS will not be able to cover every region and every great inter-city rivalry without ballooning to 30+ teams. While we can all dream about a gigantic league like that with numerous divisions and conferences, it seems much more practical (and more in tune with soccer around the world for that matter) for the North American market to instead be divided between different soccer divisions. Places like the deep South, just to pick a random example, may be a better fit with a 2nd tier pro league like the USL, or with a Southern regional league that could cater specifically to Southern fans (they could call themselves NASoCCeR ). MLS, as the top flight of soccer, will probably continue to trend towards the largest and flashiest markets as it tries to make an impact in the (bi-)national consciousness and (bi-)national media and sponsors. As far as what cities will end up getting teams 17-20, I think it will come down to a wider range of factors than just geography. MLS is very interested in: 1) Ownership groups and what they can bring to the table: financial resources ($$$) sports business expertise (including synergies and shared operations with other sports teams) connections to and an understanding of the local market business relationships, and the abillity to get a SSS built with the support of local government 2) Playing venue: Appropriate size (15k-30k) Appropriate presentation & amenities (natural grass, football lines, modern) Good access to or control of playing dates and revenue streams (ability to make money on operations) 3) And of course Market Potential: good market demographics & large population good attendance for recent high-profile soccer friendlies & TV viewership ratings potential for strong corporate support regional rivalry with other MLS teams adds to MLS geographic footprint (i.e. gives folks in an under-served region a team to support and a reason to follow MLS) is a market MLS will want to be in in 20-30 years, and is a market MLS will want to be in knowing that there is a limited number of new markets the league can add So, certainly geography is a part of any decision, but it's just one factor. The other factors are often overlooked on BigSoccer since most of these threads start off with a post about why my city deserves to get the next MLS team.
The Hole in the Southeast will remain for a very long time, Im afraid. More than one thread here at BS has spoken about the underlying reasons. I think a MIami FC would be fanstastic once the salary cap rises with the right ownership. So I think Vancouver and Montreal are next. Then perhaps St Louis Portland. (Maybe San Diego if someone is smart....ahem Chivas?) So we are talking continental, not just national, to put it in perspective. And that's ok. MLS needs atmosphere like Toronto, not Crew stadium, and more Canadian teams guarantees that. Phoenix and Las Vegas are too hot. To makes things ideal there for the fans and tv would cost too much money. Las Vegas is a transient town. No soccer history, too risky too boot. Phoenix is sport saturated already, and the Latino population is not going to support a team that sucks. See Chivas. A team in Minnesota would be great. But again there is no sugardaddy there.
Beyond Atlanta, I often hear Raleigh and Birmingham touted as possible Southern expansion markets for MLS. Certainly, Raleigh-Durham has its strengths: Nielsen ranks the media market as the 28th-largest in the United States, the metro area population is growing at a 30% clip, college soccer is well-supported in the region and the NHL's Carolina Hurricanes are the only major-pro sports competition in the marketplace. As for Birmingham, there would be no major-pro sports competition in the market and the US national teams have drawn decent crowds in the market. That said, neither market strikes me as being nearly attractive enough to warrant serious consideration. The Raleigh-Cary, NC MSA (which includes Durham and Chapel Hill) is just the 49th-largest in the country. Not only is it outstripped by in-state rival #35 Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC (growing at a healthy 23% pace itself), it is smaller than Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News (#34), Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro (#39), Louisville-Jefferson County (#42), Richmond (#43), Memphis (#41) and Birmingham (#47) in the Southern Tier. Raleigh's core-city population is smaller than that of Memphis, Charlotte, Louisville, Nashville and Virginia Beach. The Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, Louisville-Jefferson County, Richmond and Birmingham markets all have less major-pro competition than Raleigh-Cary. As stated previously, Raleigh's strong-suit is it's #28 media market... and that's smaller than Charlotte's #25. As for Birmingham, aside from drawing solid crowds for the aforementioned national team matches and having no major-pro sports competition, I don't see a lot to get excited about. We're talking about the #40 Nielsen media market MSA, the #47 MSA and the #76 core city population. I'm sure folks will point to Salt Lake City's presence in MLS as proof that Birmingham could succeed, but I'm of a mind that markets the size of Salt Lake City are the exception and not the rule when building a pro sports venture's national profile. Short of potentially being over-the-top enthusiastic for an NFL franchise, Birmingham strikes me as being a top-tier minor-pro sports town. Also, substantial corporate presence - or, lack thereof - won't be ignored when targeting franchise sites. An adequate corporate base from which to draw partners/sponsors for a franchise is of crucial importance. The fact that Raleigh and Birmingham are each home to the headquarters of just one Fortune 500 company, while cities such as Atlanta (9 Fortune 500 headquarters), Charlotte (7), Richmond (6) and Memphis (3) are home to more, can certainly factor into the decision-making process. Bottom line? I think that Major League Soccer would be best served by filling the league's lack of presence in the Southeast with franchises in Atlanta, Charlotte and one or two teams in Florida (from amongst Miami, Tampa-St. Petersburg and Orlando).