MLS franchise map (not yet a nationwide league)

The leagues in question weren't "building relatively close rivalries" by choice. The economics of cross-country travel dictated that major-pro sports entities of the eras in question weren't operating on truly national footprints. Further, there were fewer cities with the core population size necessary to qualify as "major league" markets.

 

I'm not, I'm quibbling that a rivalry is drawn by the fans from past defeats. It can't be manufactured. What gets the casual viewer to watch are good team playing good games.

Example 1) People watch BOS v NYY because over the last 10 years they are the two best teams in baseball. Over the lifespan of the rivalry, BOS has the stuffing knocked out of it, losing over 200 games to NYY, thats like 10 seasons. BOS finally has the means to fight NYY. But its not as interesting now that BOS has the championship, because they don't really strike me any different then NYY. The storyline isn't as compelling.

Example 2) IND v NE right now are two good teams with the two marquee quarterbacks. The "rivalry" was always about Brady v Manning (who is better?)... Now that they both won Super Bowls, you are correct, if both teams stunk, I could care less.

To be more specific to MLS, DC v NY is considered a heated rivalry, and the first season, it was a big deal. But as time moves on, I care more about CHI then NY, even though NY are our "geographic rivals". CHI has beaten us up time and time again. That frustration is what makes a rivalry.

What draws the casual viewers are good teams and good games. If they like the product and begin following a team, then they care about the rivalry... you can't just pick that up following one match.

 

Yeah, but in 1930, the center of population of the US was still in Ohio, and the economic center was probably in Pittsburgh. The south was just a disgusting area where white people hung black people for thinking. The west was hardly populated, and the airplane was something that a handful of people flew themselves around in, but the idea of commercial flights handling thousands of people was a distant dream. You'd have to be an idiot to put a franchise outside the core area of the country in 1930. It's just not comparable.

And as to your listing of rivalries, none of those teams are our rivals. We have a rivalry with Dallas, who are beneath us, but we still hate them. The rest of the league we just have disdain for, but we don't consider any of them rivals.

 

I don't think Cuban Americans are the key demographic you believe them to be.

 

Here is another way to put that map into perspective. Take a look at this table of census-based statistical areas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_primary_census_statistical_areas

Here are the areas ranked by population (in millions) that still don't have a team:

New York: 21.96 (NYC proper needs its own team to identity with; and the area can handle, and should have, two soccer teams)
Atlanta: 5.62
Miami: 5.41
Detroit: 5.40

Phoenix: 4.18
Twin Cities: 3.54
San Diego: 2.97
Cleveland: 2.90

St. Louis: 2.87
Tampa: 2.72
Orlando: 2.69
Pittsburgh: 2.45

Sacramento: 2.40
Charlotte: 2.28
Cincinnati: 2.18
Portland: 2.18

Indianapolis: 2.01
San Antonio: 1.99
Las Vegas: 1.88
Milwaukee: 1.74

That doesn't account for Vancouver and Montreal.

As you can see, there are huge population centers that still don't have teams. Unfortunately for PNW soccer fans, Portland is way down the list. As a comparison, a city like Las Vegas is growing much faster and has more room for growth. And the Seattle area has double the population (4.04), so that takes care of a big chunk of the PNW population right there.

I don't think it would be a smart expansion move to put three teams in the PNW while all these other cities in under-served regions are excluded. Fan displays on youtube videos is one thing. Market potential and advertising demographics is an entirely different ball game. It is also wise to ensure that the second level of soccer (be it USL or something else) has strong middle-tier markets like Portland and Rochester to keep the game going at that level. If we poach these middle-tier markets, we hurt the overall game by undermining the second level and locking out big markets from the highest level (and likely from any real exposure to soccer at all).

- Paul

 

Unfortunately for the unproven markets "ahead" of Portland, that city has shown love for the sport and for their team. They're also not saturated with sports from which to choose.

 

While I think that info is useful, it ignores a big factor IMHO: a soccer team in Portland would have little competition for entertainment dollars. There is only one other major sports team in down and the seasons do not particularly overlap. There is no major colleges in the city (Oregon is a bit of a drive in Eugene and nobody seems to follow Portland State) either competing for sports entertainment dollars.

Putting a soccer team in a wide open market like Portland makes more sense to me than putting a team in a more crowded, but larger, city like Phoenix or St. Louis. Even with more people, there's only going to be so much disposible money to go around.

 

I think MLS has moved past the "just put butts in the seats" phase. In that phase, we were talking about putting teams in Oklahoma and Milwaukee because that's all that was out there. Times have changed dramatically. I think the season-ticket surge in expansion cities like Toronto, Seattle, and Philadelphia along with cities like Miami and St. Louis stepping up to subsidize brand-new stadiums for non-existing teams proves that MLS is now a seller no matter where it goes. When St. Louis comes into the league, the same thing will happen for them. Pretty much any big city will be able sell an MLS team locally if they have a stadium and an owner with LOTS OF MONEY. Soccer marketing is very mature now; and the sport is not as niche as it once was. What MLS at the league level needs to focus on now is media dollars and television exposure. Portland and other cities of its level (no offense, I love spending time in Portland) are not going to help MLS grow. They are nice in a "video game" pro/rel kind of way, but MLS can't grow itself based on that perspective. And if we want to start bringing in big-time players, we need to grow revenue from television and other media. We need the big markets.

- Paul

 

Please. MLS is by no means an easy sell in just any market.

 

I said "pretty much any big city". For example, I think MLS would rock it in the following big cities: Montreal, Vancouver, Detroit, Twin Cities, Miami (in the city, not Ft. Lauderdale), Phoenix (indoor stadium), Atlanta, Cleveland, Tampa (with an actual owner and good stadium situation). Again, the key is a good stadium situation and big pockets. Combine this with the positive trend the league is experiencing with TV exposure and general legitimacy in our society, and I think MLS is an easier sell these days. On top of that, a big city market only helps.

MLS is attracting investors who are interested primarily in the league. Look at an owner like Joe Roth. He merely wanted a team and wants to help the league and the sport grow. The league pointed him to Seattle. Philly's owner is not from Philly. People will come to the league looking to get in, looking to invest in the league (which is how it is set up anyways), and the league will likely try to set them up in bigger cities going forward. Furthermore, every big city now has an effort (on various levels) to attract an MLS team.

- Paul

 

Detroit? Cleveland? Sure there are supporters everywhere but there are probably "2nd tier" cities that would be wiser choices than those. I'm on the fence with Minneapolis. Seems the north central midwest is just as huge a hole as the southeast.

 

I agree with you, Marquis. Except you left out Detroit. 5 million people live in the metro area.

Also, I think the PNW is too small to have three teams. I think it would be cool for us all to be in MLS together, but it wouldn't be good for MLS. The second PNW team will either be Vancouver or Portland. Vancouver will beat out Portland because: 1) the ownership is wealthier, 2) it will shore up the Canadian market along with Montreal, 3) has much more regional reach than Portland, as it will reach into Alberta, 4) more international-focused (both European and Asian), 5) the Whitecaps have been pursuing this a lot longer than the current Timbers ownership, 6) Whitecaps have been fielding at team since 1986, 7) strong youth system tied to the Whitecaps.

Portland is a strong USL city. We need USL cities like that. There is no reason to mess up a good thing while simultaneously making it harder for MLS to get the larger markets with more media dollar potential.

- Paul

 

Honest question: When Tampa Bay and Miami were contracted to help salvage the league, why didn't MLS or Hunt or AEG bother to purchase/run Miami if it was the important market that everyone says it is now (I'm not disagreeing by the way, I feel it is.)

I have to respectfully disagree that MLS is past the "put butts in seats" phase. Isn't that what's it's all about? If it isn't then why build SSS? Just cut a pitch out of a empty lot, set up a scissor lift and tell ESPN and FSC to set up there. TV's still there...

Then let's just move the Packers (69th TV market) to LA (2nd)...why are the Sonics (14th) moving to Oklahoma City (45th) instead of a higher ranked market like St. Louis or Pittsburgh (21-22)? Because the people there showed they would support the team when the Hornets had to play there after Katrina, plus it's the only game in town. That's why Portland would make a good MLS city. Good support for soccer already, natural rivalry within driving distance with SSFC, and little to no competition for the entertainment dollar.

 

Miami and Tampa both had bad stadium situations. Tampa had to rent from Glazer, and "Miami" had a small high-school-esque stadium in Fort Lauderdale. Furthermore, as AEG and Hunt were already helping by buying other teams, the league had to prioritize. Fast-forward to today, and the mayor of Miami is talking about subsidizing a soccer stadium at the Orange Bowl site.

I was referring to the past tendency to want to go to any city that showed any amount of interest in MLS. Back then, we heard about Milwaukee and Oklahoma compiling season ticket pledges or Rochester drawing 12,000/game. There weren't many cities trying for an MLS team. And we didn't have much TV exposure back then. So the logic of the day was to just focus on growing attendance and don't worry about TV. TV will come when we show some staying power.

The league wisely held steady and didn't bite on these smaller markets. Now, we have new bigger markets in the league (Toronto, Seattle, Philly), TV is here, and the league is taking off. Thankfully we have room today for these big markets and didn't saddle the league with Rochester, Oklahoma, or Milwaukee (no offense to those cities). Now we can use TV exposure and social/cultural legitimacy as our means to promote the league, and thus put even more butts in those seats and simultaneously make enough money to attract star players which will put even more butts in those seats.

That remains to be seen. And the only reason it might happen is because of arena/stadium issues. Which at this point are solvable because big bucks local ownership is stepping up.

- Paul

 

I totally agree with you 110%. The rivalries wouldn't mean as much, and I would miss having another team close by. However, the Portland-Seattle rivalry is very one-sided. And I kind of feel like Portland rides the coat-tails of Seattle on that one, which makes me all the more upset when it has to be all about negativity. Not sure what your numbers would be like without the "hate Seattle" hook. Seattle and Vancouver were both doing fine until 2001 without a Portland rivalry. And their respective histories have a lot more to do with each other than with Portland.

- Paul

 

Well, you just threw Portland under the bus about three posts earlier (saying they would not be the right move for MLS), so I can kinda see why Oregonians might want to hate on pretentious Seattlites.

Before Seattle got a MLS franchise it seemed like there was a lot of solidarity in the PNW with fans wanting all three teams to go up together. Guess that didn't last too long, huh?

Personally I would like to see both cities join MLS because they are both places I would like to travel to for away matches, or even relocate to at some point. Atlanta? Detroit? St. Louis? Not so much.

 

IIRC, TFC got exclusive rights to Canada for a certain period with the award of a franchise. That would keep Vancouver out until that time runs out.

 

I am trying to keep the emotional argument and the "logical" argument separate.

Yeah, emotionally I want Portland in MLS. I like having all three teams up here with history. I feel very proud of that, not just for the region but for American soccer as a whole. I also feel like "bring in the real soccer cities, screw everyone else who's been piling on us all these years." Emotionally, I also loathe some of the antics from some of the TA leadership, and I don't like being objectified like that. Sometimes I am like "we'll get back at them on the field" and sometimes I am like "I wish they would go away, this isn't anywhere near fun". And emotionally, I am one of those loons who likes the idea of Cascadia separatism; I even want a Cascadian national team. It would be cool if all three cities could supply such a team with players. So I have some emotional perspective on the issue.

Logically, I am trying to see it as what is good for MLS, what is good for the growth of soccer. I've done a few city lists myself, and I've always put Portland on that list. But then I have to leave off other cities like Detroit or Minnesota or Miami or Tampa. Emotionally, it's a no-brainer. But when I sit down and think about it, it is not clear-cut like that. Also, the context in which to analyze how MLS should grow keeps changing. Now that the league has hit its highest point in popularity and we finally see the potential to be a truly world class league with world class players, I am looking at our list of potential cities in a different way. I could be insular and think "I want our threesome in MLS". Or I could be more broad-minded and think "Which cities are going to bring MLS the bucks we need to be a world-beater?"

I am not trying to be a "condescending Seattlite". It may come off that way, but to be honest Seattle is just a bigger city right now than Portland. That's just the way things shook out historically. And I understand that that contributes a lot to the chip-on-the-shoulder hate-fest that sometimes percolates out of Portland. But let's take England for example. Look at how some of the close geographic derbies are broken apart because one of the teams is in a lower league. It sucks, but it is economics. Does anyone get upset because Millwall or QPR aren't in the Premier League? How about when Sheffield Wednesday and Sheffield United get separated? Or Sunderland goes down?

So, emotionally, I can be "I want my derby, and I want it now." But pragmatically, is that what is really going to help MLS? We'd be locking out a lot of big cities with potentially big money. I am not sure if that is what we want to do at this juncture.

And that is not to say that Portland couldn't eventually come into the league. But should they come in now? What impact would they have on the league outside of appeasing hardcore supporters who are into the romance of derbies? We could be growing supporters and soccer culture in other cities. The seeds of it are already there. Just because the teams and supporters groups are small doesn't mean they won't be able to grow as big as Portland's if they were in MLS. Look at Toronto and Seattle. Low attendance and small supporters groups. Now that they are in MLS, they became monsters. Even Pittsburgh and Cleveland have supporters groups for their USL-2 teams. Think of what a Detroit or Twin Cities group would be like. Portland has done a good job supporting their team, and they did it in a USL context (of course helped by having two successful teams already in the league nearby). But that kind of success in the stands is not exclusive to Portland, and it can be emulated in other cities. Furthermore, these other cities have so many other positives that Portland, due to the accidents of history, just can't match: larger population, more media access, more money in the community, government with funds to finance sports, etc.

Just trying to be clear on where I stand. Thanks.

- Paul

 

See, I disagree with your conclusion. I think you are putting way too much value on simply metro population stats without looking at it more globally. Personally, I think Portland would be a better choice for MLS than the likes of Detroit or Minneapolis and Tampa and I'd put Phoenix on the list too (I think Miami might be better). For starters, I think Portland is more soccer friendly to begin with, with a well supported USL team and a general "outdoorsy", open minded populace (many of whom are transplants and "open to new things"). Not only do the Timbers tend to draw well for USL, but so have international games IIRC (compare to, say, Tampa which just drew crap for the Olympic qualifying).

Secondly, I don't think you can dismiss the lack of other sports competition. It's a huge factor. People in Portland who want to see a top level sport will go and see the MLS team. People in the other cities have MLB teams and NFL teams in the later part of the year. Even with greater population of other cities, there's only a finite amount of disposible income to go around -- if there are 3 or 4 other major league teams that are being spent on, that's less money for MLS. Furthermore, being the only game in town would mean more media coverage which will help to capture more fans. Being the 4th or 5th team in town tends to make MLS teams kind of fall into obscurity (it certainly happens here in DC where DCU has been by far the most successful local team in the past decade).

Furthermore, I just don't think we are talking about population sizes of individual cities that will make a huge difference in terms of national ratings. Only a small fraction of people in a given metro area watch MLS anyway, based on national numbers. That extra million of so people in a different city might sound like a lot, but it's only will likely be a few thousand people watching on TV -- every little bit helps, but we're not talking enough to base a city choice on.

In fact, I think the best comparison for Portland is... Salt Lake City. Similar size, similar lack of other sports. In fact, Salt Lake City metro is a good bit smaller than Portland. And yet they have had a decently supported club, especially given the utter lack of success. Portland would even have more to build on, with a history of the Timbers.

Of course, the ultimate thing is (1) stadium situation and (2) ownership situation. Those are going to trump the actual specifics of a city to be frank. If Portland's ownership group can get additional well capitalized partners and they can convert PGE Park (which then own) to a SSS, I don't see why MLS would ignore that. Certainly not over less advanced bids from other cities who's only selling point seems to be "the city is bigger".