MLS franchise map (not yet a nationwide league)

Sideshow, I get those arguments. Portland makes sense in the current (or more properly, the recently past) context. But it won't grow the league. Also, the USL club is supported well exactly because there are no other summer sport options than minor league baseball. The Timbers practically already are the only game in town. And Portland fans are more comfortable with the idea of minor leagues than larger cities like Seattle where the Sounders had trouble shaking the minor league image (not helped by an owner who refused, rightly or wrongly, not to market the team). MLS will provide a bump in Portland, but it's not going to be dramatic enough to say "they will outdraw other larger cities".

Minnesota, Detroit, and Atlanta are huge potential markets for MLS, imho. You may be right about Tampa, but I still think the Mutiny were doing pretty well without an owner (thus little marketing) and a ridiculous stadium situation. And I don't think the competing sports argument is really valid. Toronto and Seattle both have baseball teams to compete against, but that didn't stop the season ticket surge. Also, Seattle is a model for how existing sports teams can be leveraged to make soccer a success. Arthur Blank in Atlanta could be like Paul Allen in Seattle. Oakland Athletics are doing it in San Jose. Kroenke in Denver. Kraft in New England, although he might be a case against. The thing is, other pro sports teams in a city is not necessarily a bad thing. For one, its only baseball that soccer directly competes against. Second, the existence of other sports can be a sign of a strong potential support. Third, those teams can be leveraged for marketing and corporate sponsorships.

I'm thinking about growth, which includes growing the fan base, growing the media reach, and growing the revenue potential. I am not sure if a city on the level of Portland brings a lot to the table in those cases. We'd have to sacrifice a lot in order to get what Portland does bring: which is a supporters group.

- Paul

 

Honestly, I don't really know what you mean by that. I think Portland will grow the league compared to many other candidates because it (1) will will bring in more revenue and (2) will bring in more fans. I think situations surrounding the market allow for that that don't exist
Now, these are just my opinions and may have nothing to do with reality, but that is

The size of the market means crap if it doesn't result in more money.

And this supports my point. And right now it's "minor league soccer" versus "minor league baseball". With MLS, the point favors soccer even more. I think an MLS Timbers team would have good support. Good support is a very big deal for an MLS club.

That sounds like a nice little dig at Portland coming from a Seattle person. But all it screams to me is "they already are willing to support minor league teams, so a major league team would probably have even greater support than you'd expect based on the population". Toronto and Seattle already reflect that people are much more willing to spend more on major league teams versus minor league ones -- if you already have a good base who supports the minor league version (and will surely jump to the major league team) then when you add in all the snobs who will only support a major league product, you'd have a great basis for selling tickets and (here's the big thing again) making money.

IMHO -- take it FWIW -- I think the culture and situation in Portland is such that it would outdraw other large cities. That's exactly why I think they'd be a good choice for expansion.

Huge in what sense? Being a big city only matters if the team makes more revenue (via selling tickets or sponsorship, etc.). I'm not convinced that an MLS team in any of those three cities will be all that successful given that it would be lost

You may be right about Tampa, but I still think the Mutiny were doing pretty well without an owner (thus little marketing) and a ridiculous stadium situation.

It's valid if it's valid. As I said, RSL has a much stornger attendance than you'd expect based on market size and I think it is definitely helped by the lack of sporting competition. I'd imagine coverage of the team there outpaces coverage of other MLS teams considering they are the only "major" sport in town over the summer. That's a good situation to have.

Anyway, I think Seattle and Toronto have stronger roots in soccer that have been effectively channeled to the MLS teams. I don't really know if you can say the same thing about any of the other cities you mention (maybe Minnesota, though).

Okay, I'll grant that as a valid point. But it all really depends on what owners get involved. That's always a key factor, but is somewhat independent of market size. That said, I don't think you can completely ignore the fact that the Timbers and Beavers ownership would likely be involved and that means they'd have some established infrastructure in place in terms of marketing/sales.

One: that's why I'd tend to give more value to cities without MLB teams

Two: Those other teams can also be a big sign of potential competition for entertainment dollars, especially in not gigantic markets. It's one thing to have an extra team in a city like LA or Chicago where there are tons of people, but the people to teams ratio in Minneapolis compared to Portland is much more in favor of Portland. I mean, Minneapolis might have 50% more people than Portland but it has 300% more major sports teams.

Three: they can only be leveraged for sponsorship if they have the same ownership group. Otherwise, it's competition for sponsorship, which makes it tougher.

I guess I just don't agree. I think part of the big problem is that I think Portland is really underrepresented in sports teams and I think that's a big reason to pursue them -- I think that the upside to capturing a relatively untapped city like Portland is huge. Whereas the upside for congested markets is much less.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that Portland is as big as, or bigger than, a number of already existing MLS markets -- Columbus, KC, Denver, Salt Lake City -- and a bigger than a lot of cities that have multiple major sports teams -- Charlotte, Milwaukee, Indianapolis, Buffalo, Nashville, New Orleans (and Cincinnati and Cleveland depending on the measure). I don't get how those cities can survive and even prosper with multiple teams but Portland can't add an MLS team to a single NBA team.

Let me just put it this way. I'm not saying "we need a team in Portland". I'm simply saying there's enough going for Portland not to exclude them specifically because of their market size. If the right offer comes up in Portland (owner, stadium plan) then they should be chosen. Just like if the right plan comes up in Atlanta or Minnesota or or Miami or Montreal, whatever. I just don't see any particular reason to de facto exclude Portland as an option, as you seem wanting to do.

 

What would be some decent soccer markets in the South? I think it is unfortunate that there isn't a single team in the South, but then again, I feel as though there might not be such a big market and to start in other regions is more plausible. Some of the southern markets I could think of would be Atlanta, Nashville, Jacksonville, and somewhere in VA or NC. Thoughts?

 

Not a dig. I was providing context for the Timbers support versus what we would see in most other cities for a minor league team. I think it is commendable that Portland supports its local teams like that. Unfortunately, other larger cities have been trained to only care about major league sports. That's not a dig. Just a cultural reality. Rochester was getting 12,000/game. Should Rochester have an MLS team?

The ceiling is low, though, because the overall market is small. BTW, below you rank Portland ahead of Charlotte. Charlotte is slightly bigger and growing quickly. Denver is also much bigger than Portland. Portland is comparable to KC and Columbus, but those cities have more outlying communities to draw from while Portland's reach is limited.

Fair point. Again, though, the ceiling is limited in a smaller market. In other words, growth is limited. And I don't think MLS can pragmatically grow beyond 24 teams. That is my own personal opinion, though, not anything the league has said. So I see 8 slots left. A city the size of Portland should have one of those slots? What will we say about that 10 years from now?

(There may have been more to your last sentence, but it wasn't there, so I may be missing some of your context.) You are absolutely correct. I don't think a city on the level of Portland has the corporate community and sponsorship potential of the larger cities, though.

That does help. But again, you are focusing on the attendance. What RSL also brings to the league is cable TV connections and an owner with deep ties to other major sports leagues. Synergy. The ownership group in Portland (at this time) does not have any of that. Merritt Paulson was a mid-level exec in the NBA, so that does help a bit. But that doesn't compare to Dave Checketts' group. SLC also has the Mormon appeal, and there are Mormons all over the world.

I think Minnesota has strong roots, too. Also, along the lines of synergy with other sports leagues, the new Minnesota Vikings owner, Zygi Wilf, has talked about getting involved with MLS. They need a new stadium for the Vikes, so an MLS stadium may come out of that, too. Zygi Wif also happens to be a big commercial real estate mogul.

Not only are they likely, they are the ONLY owners thus far publicly involved. It's just Merritt Paulson right now. He says he has other investors, and we may hear about them when he makes a public presentation of his MLS bid in June.

Good point. Portland is also growing. So yes the lack of major league sports saturation is an upside. But is again only one aspect of the equation. While the larger markets have the downside of major league sports saturation, that saturation can also be leveraged. And they have the upside of more corporate dollars, greater media reach, and higher international visibility.

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

Denver is much larger.

Portland is pretty much equal to Charlotte (which is slightly larger and growing faster), Columbus, KC, and Indianapolis.

SLC is smaller but growing at about the same pace or a little faster.

I don't think those are the cities to compare it to, though. We should compare it to a second team in New York, Atlanta, Detroit, Twin Cities, Miami, Tampa, Phoenix, Cleveland, St. Louis, Vancouver, and Montreal.

Well, the only reason I am wanting to exclude them during the next round of expansion is because 1) I see stronger markets out there that are already in play (Montreal, Vancouver, St. Louis, New York), and 2) I have my own league limit of 24 teams in mind. I do think that once we get to 20 teams, then Portland may be a better market than it is now. We will see if the population growth trends have held up and if their economic situation is doing any better. We will see if deeper pocketed ownership has popped up there (which it may have already depending on what we see from Merritt Paulson next month). We will also have had a more time to assess the impact of MLS's general overall growth on the country and society at large. Leaving Portland out for now just gives the larger markets a chance. What I am really concerned about it the danger of unnecessarily excluding larger markets by including a market that is too small.

- Paul

 

I beg to differ with your use of "small". Portland is a lot closer in size to many of the potential cities you espouse than you are indicating. While a few of the potential MLS cities are very large (Atlanta, Miami, Detroit), many of the others are much smaller so it seems silly to put them in one monolithic category of "large" and then relegate Portland to "small".

Hell, if you consider Portland as "small" compared to Tampa, Minneapolis, and even Phoenix then why not eliminate every city instead of NYC-2. The difference between half of NYC and, say, Detroit is larger than the difference between Detroit and Harve, Montana. You make it sound like the couple hundred of thousand people advantage that St. Louis has over Portland is unassailable, but despite the millions of people difference between (say) Atlanta and Minneapolis puts them in the same tier? Huh?

I guess I have a problem with your gradation. You are putting some arbitrary cutoff line that says "Cleveland and Tampa are big cities" and "Portland is not" even though Tampa is a hell of a lot more similar to Portland in size than it is to Atlanta or Miami. Atlanta and Miami should have an advantage over Tampa and Cleveland for that reason. Just like Tampa and Cleveland should have a (much much smaller) advantage over Portland due to population. But I don't get how you can arbitrarily say that Tampa is "big enough" but Portland is "not".

Incidentally, isn't Vancouver no larger than Portland anyway? Shouldn't that exclude it by your criteria?

I was using the MSA rankings rather than the primary census statistical areas ranking you referenced. The difference is your numbers add in some additonal outlying areas that can be considered their own small markets. And Portland is growing as well (certainly much more than Rust Belt cities like Detroit and Minneapolis). But, whatever.

Portland has outlying areas that it can draw on too. For example, the Eugene-Springfield area isn't included for Portland in the table you reference.

Not if (1) the city continues to grow in population and (2) the team can capture a significant share of the market populace. Put simply, I really think Portland can capture a greater percentage of their local population (and that population's entertainment dollars) than other cities with saturated sports markets. If an MLS Timbers can capture the imagination of the city as being of the "major" and "loved" teams, then its upside is much higher than the 5th major league team in a slightly larger metro area. And if you can get in now -- before one of the remaining big 3 sports (most likely MLB FWIW) moves into Portland than the MLS team would have an advantage of being established and having built its fan base prior to the "bigger" sports team taking root.

Well, I disagree anyway (I think MLS will get to ~30 teams like other US leagues anyway) but even so I don't see why Portland can't be one of 24 teams. That's 8 more teams than currently and I do believe that Portland could be among the 8 best options for MLS.

Again, I'm not saying it has to be among the teams, I just totally disagree with your outright exclusion.

Yes, a city like Portland could certainly have one of those teams. The metro area already has 2 million people and is getting larger. It's not a small market. You're really overexaggerating the difference in size between cities.

Again, you keep making out the difference in city sizes to be much greater than what they really are. Portland is not a small city. And companies like Nike and Columbia Sportwear are not small companies.

Who knows what the final ownership group might be in Portland? What does that have to do specifically with the market? If Phil Knight suddenly joins the ownership group, would that make Portland okay for you? If so, then this aspect your argument against Portland is misplaced because it is not about the city or metro area.

I think it's well established that the reason St. Louis hasn't been picked yet is due to their ownership. If the ownership can get more substantial, then St. Louis might get tapped. None of that has to do with the viability of St. Louis as a market.

I agree that Portland's potential ownership would have to be improved before they get a team. That says nothing about Portland itself.

That's a heck of lot of suppositions there. And, again, says nothing about the market itself.

So, what you are saying is that Portland might yet meet your nebulous "synergistic" requirements? Gotcha.

It's one aspect, yes. Just like overall metro population is one aspect -- an aspect I think you are focusing on too firmly.

A bunch of the cities you have been promoting don't have any more international value or media reach than Portland. Tampa? Detroit? Even Minneapolis. These aren't world cities.

Well, I disagree that the population advantage in some of those cities is rally an asset (I mean, places like Cleveland and Tampa really aren't much larger than Portland). Some of those cities have noted problems with supporting sports teams (Phoenix, Tampa, Miami, Atlanta) and adding a soccer team to the list might only make that worse. That said, I have no specific problem with these cities -- I just wouldn't exclude Portland from the list.

It's all gonna come down to stadium plan and ownership. If Portland has them, they'll get considering and likely accepted. If they don't have them, they won't. I think that's as true with Portland as it is with any other those teams on the list. And Portland already has some advantages -- an established soccer base and team, a relatively virgin market, and a potential stadium site in a key location (assuming PGE can be used).

Markets "in play" might fall in and out. Vancouver, for example, still can't get the SSS built. Once that gets worked out, they'll be high on the list. But if it doesn't get worked out, they won't. Same thing with St. Louis and their ownership. It's all about the total package that is there.

I doubt MLS feels the same way as you. I'm sure they'd rather take a "smaller market" with a great situation and revenue potential over a "larger market" with poorer credentials.

I just don't think your opinion that Portland should be de facto excluded right now holds up. The fact that they are planning on making a presentation for expansion to MLS likely means that Garber and company don't agree with you either.

 

Using the CSA's (which include nearby communities that people commute from) is a better measure of a market's population than mere MSA's.

Yes, you can include the rest of the Willamette Valley to measure Portland's market, I suppose, but people from Eugene do not commute to Portland. That is why Eugene is not included in a Portland CSA. However, people from Akron do commute to Cleveland, and that is why it is included in the Cleveland CSA.

And sure, if you want to rank the non-MLS cities by CSA population, then we can go NYC, Atlanta, Miami, Detroit, Phoenix, Twin Cities, San Diego, Cleveland, St. Louis, Tampa. Portland is a relatively small market compared to these cities. It has 600,000 less people than Tampa's CSA. Add Montreal to the list for good measure.

I agree Cleveland doesn't need to come in as I think Columbus already takes a bit of their market along with some of Cincinnati. And okay, I am not advocating for Tampa, but the comparison is useful as it puts Portland in a larger context. St. Louis fills a big hole geographically and also reaches into Iowa and Arkansas, so I think St. Louis as a market definitely beats Portland. Portland, in contrast, is pretty limited in the outlying communities it can draw from. Seattle reaches pretty far south, past Olympia. All Portland has exclusively is the rest of the Willamette Valley. That isn't that much more population to draw from, and it definitely isn't a big help for media or advertising purposes.

Vancouver is a little larger than Portland. It also has reach into the rest of BC and into Alberta. And it helps with the general Canadian market: Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto together shore up the entire Canadian media market, which accounts for over 30 million people. Also, Greg Kerfoot is mega-rich and has been working his deal for the waterfront stadium for a few years now. He's greased the wheels pretty well and all government institutions are on his side now except for the federal Port Authority. BC Place is undergoing renovations, so the Whitecaps will have a temporary home starting in 2011 while the SSS is figured out. If the waterfront stadium doesn't work out for some reason, Kerfoot has the money to build a stadium wherever he wants. There will be other communities or even other plots of land within Vancouver available. He is just trying to get the juiciest stadium deal possible: a waterfront stadium in downtown Vancouver. It isn't his only option. So Vancouver certainly trumps Portland head-to-head.

Nike and adidas won't invest in a Portland MLS team. And even if they were allowed to by MLS, they just don't need to. And I believe owning a team would violate their basic marketing strategy, which is to put their mark on as many teams as possible. So no Nike or adidas. It is unfortunate but true.

Yes, Portland has a corporate base, but how does it stack up to the cities I listed in the third paragraph? Certainly doesn't stack up to NYC, Atlanta, Detroit, Phoenix, Twin Cities, or Montreal.

World cities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city
- NYC, Montreal, Atlanta, Miami, and Minneapolis are world cities.
- Cleveland, Detroit, and Vancouver have "some evidence of world city formation".
- Heck, Kansas City and Columbus have "minimal evidence of world city formation".
- Portland is not on the list.

And just to clarify the way I see the current expansion context: I believe that 24 teams is a logistical limit. Past 24, and we start to see some pretty ridiculous scheduling issues, like not playing certain teams at all or playing most teams only once. Not to say that can't be worked out, but that is very different from the way MLS has been going about things, and it is very different from the way any league in the world does things. So while we may go past 24, I don't think it is likely. And if we did go past 24, there would likely be a substantial pause.

In addition to the number 24, I also believe that getting to 20 will be a good place to pause and take a breath. If MLS adds 2 teams in 2011 and then another 2 in 2013, we will have doubled the size of the league in 8 seasons. I don't see team #21 coming in until 2015 at the very earliest, and probably more like 2016 or later. So 20 teams is also a temporary limit.

In that context, we already have Montreal, Vancouver, NYC, and St. Louis who are certain candidates. Portland is a certain candidate, too, but they do not measure up to those four candidates. We also have the mayor in Miami proposing to build a brand new stadium on the Orange Bowl site. We've had NFL owners sniffing in Atlanta and Twin Cities.

Keep in mind that in Portland we have an old (though it is old in a cool way) stadium that is currently configured for baseball. It needs to be renovated, after already having undergone renovations in 2001 for the sake of the baseball team. The Timbers owner is asking the city to foot the bill for that. The Timbers owner is also on the hook for the baseball team which he is not allowed to move or fold as per the agreement made with the city in 2001 for the renovations. So he must build a stadium for the baseball team. This takes time. The city has to help with land, and he may ask them to to foot the bill for this stadium, too. This is on top of the $40 million expansion fee. If the baseball stadium deal works out and they can start building at the earliest possible date, the baseball team will still have to play in PGE Park for 2009 and 2010. And then it has to be renovated. So Portland may be able to fast-track to 2011, but 2012 is more likely the earliest they could come in without sharing with a baseball team in a non-renovated PGE Park. Also keep in mind that Portland is feeling the recession unlike up here in Seattle; their government isn't usually too keen on corporate subsidies; and the last set of renovations to PGE Park ended up being a bad deal for the city with them being owned money, so they have that in the back of their heads as Paulson goes to ask for yet another set of renovations.

How does that measure up to Vancouver, who has BC Place available? Or Montreal who has Stade Saputo available which can more easily be upgraded (that's the plan) than PGE Park, which has to wait until the baseball team vacates? Or St. Louis who has a stadium sitting on the runway ready to take off when MLS says "you are a go"? The Mets are already talking about a new soccer stadium next to Citi Field. Miami has a new soccer stadium waiting to be built, just needs an owner.

So I see more than four cities that I believe should and could be in before Portland to take us to 20. At that point, we rest. And at that point, in 2013, the entire landscape will have changed again. I optimistically predict that MLS will be even more popular and enticing to investors than it is now. At that point, maybe Portland will be a better choice than it is now, or maybe it won't. I don't know. I just don't think now is the time for MLS to pull the trigger on Portland.

I will say this, however. Now may be the ONLY time for Portland to get in. Merritt Paulson seems to agree as he is on record as saying he doesn't want to pay for the expansion fee if it goes up. He is cool with $40 million now. But what will it be for teams 19 and 20? What it be in 2015-2016 for team 21?

So if I was a Portland expansion partisan which admittedly I was a short time ago, I'd be very anxious to see them in MLS ASAP. Otherwise, from a more pragmatic league-focused level, I'd prefer Montreal, Vancouver, NYC, and St. Louis for now, with Atlanta and Miami close runners up. And then we have Detroit and Minneapolis who I believe will eventually be prepared for an MLS bid, as well.

- Paul

 

It drew extremely well considering there was ZERO advertising or marketing for that event. Make meaningful comparisons, please - like the USA-Ecuador game. Tampa has drawn large crowds for international soccer, but you can't expect the Tampa Bay area soccer fans to show up on game day due to their psychic abilities.

 

That reminds me: When USMNT or Womens WC games were held in Portland, they drew a lot of people from Seattle. And at the time when USMNT qualifiers were held in Portland, Seattle had no suitably-sized stadium for what those games would draw, as the USMNT audience was strictly niche. It was either enormous Kingdome or decrepit and narrow Memorial Stadium.

- Paul

 

Some interesting observations in a series of thoughtful posts.

Right now, if I am sitting in the offices at MLS headquarters, I think the toughest question to answer is what is the formula for success when you look at expansion cities.

I think you start by looking at what's working now to identify some common themes.

If you look at attendance and you define success as the ability to put 20,000 or so people in the stands on a regular basis, you are talking about LA, Toronto, Washington DC and Chicago. Those teams drew 20,000 people to six or more regular season games last year. Right behind them you have Houston and Salt Lake City, who, Beckham games or special events aside, consistently draw pretty well.

What do these have in common?

Five of the six are large cities and large media markets. Only half of them have their own stadium. Some are built around very active fan supporters groups, others, like Salt Lake City, seem to attract families and take advantage of limited competition from other professional sports.

I'm not sure there is "one model" for success, but with Seattle and Philly it will be interesting to see if a clearer picture is emerging.

 

I think that this is right on... though, I think that those who believe that expanding into a geographic area will necessarily improve the marketability of the TV package (it might) must consider the fact that the new funds will be split more ways (because of the new team)... In other words, just expanding because it improves the "footprint" is not a great idea... also, market size, by itself, is not a great determinant...

I think that TV can be our friend in terms of figuring out where to expand... look at the ratings for the ESPN and Telefutura broadcasts of MLS and, to a lesser extent, the USMNT... people who are interested in looking at out-of-market MLS games will, almost assuredly, be even more interested when they have a local team... Houston, for example, had the best viewership for MLS games of all cities without a team (back before the Dynamo)... I think that the good support could have been predicted from that fact alone... Someone who never even bothers to flick on the TV for a game is unlikely to ever become a real die hard supporter (yeah, they may go to a game or two and, yeah, a small percentage might catch the bug, but that is not something to count on)...

Of course, all of this begs the question as to the current MLS TV ratings leaders amongst those metro areas without a team (you then factor in size, location, etc)... if I was going to put my lottery winnings on the line to purchase a team, I would be real interested in seeing that map/table because I think they would tell me where to look into...

...Of course, this is only regarding the fan interest side of things... and you still need the billionaire owner and the SSS

 

I guess it all comes down to what MLS and the owners deem a success. I go back to Green Bay because it's so apt a comparison. A metro population just over 250,000, yet there's a waiting list a mile long just to get season tickets and those tickets are passed down through generations.

Lambeau Field originally held 32,500 and now holds 72K and change. The town's identity is through that team and they have fans from all over Wisconsin, the country and the world.

By all measures on and off the field they've been successful, and without being in a large media market (even if you lump them in with Milwaukee.) A Portland or a similar sized city with a passionate fanbase could do the same thing.

 

Some good posts in this thread. I would think the expansion question comes down to this for the league: What is more important to the league a) a packed stadium in a small tv market that faces little competition from other sports but won't do much for national nielson ratings long term that will get the league larger tv contracts or b) a team in a major metro area that faces enormous competition for the entertainment dollar and media exposure and who's success in the stands is 50/50 because of theses factors but if successful can get the league the Neilson ratings they are looking for. The real money in sports is in tv contracts. I would love to be a fly on the wall at an MLS board of directors meeting to see what they value more.

 

I think there may be another factor.... i don't think that having a team in a big metro/viewing region necessarily boosts the TV contract if the team is invisible in that market and if the TV presentation from that place makes it look like no one cares... I grant that if the league did not have a team in the NY market, it probably would lower broadcast rights fees (and, maybe, they still would not be getting any rights fees at all), but I doubt that broadcasts from a seemingly empty and dead Meadowlands has really added to the enthusiasm of broadcasters (and the viewing public) very much (much less, added many $$$ to the rights fees)...

While I would agree that there are some markets that just must be covered, there are very few of these, and the TV presentation does become a very important factor in creating buzz around the TV presentation... full stadiums in Salt Lake (at least after they get a proper field) do add value to the TV rights...

Of course, best of all worlds is a full and rockin' stadium in a big market, no doubt...

 

Here is what is needed for a new MLS franchise to be awarded:

1. Franchise fee of a reported $30 million
2. SSS plans or owner/operator-owned private stadium for control of revenue streams.
3. Franchise location in suitable growth market.
4. Local ownership or mega-corporation ownership to verify long-term interest in growth and success of franchise.
5. Local TV/Media deals as required by franchise agreement.

There are many markets in the US which would meet the requirements with suitable ownership, but MLS is no longer in a state where they are required to take any and all offers. For evidence of this fact, see San Antonio's attempt to break their agreement with MLS and charge rent for the Alamodome; MLS waved goodbye to them without a second thought. Also, see MLS's move from San Jose to Houston following San Jose's refusal to make a sensible arrangement over the construction of a SSS. MLS didn't have to stay in San Jose because there were plenty of other cities who would enjoy the boost in quality of life and tourism dollars provided by a professional sports team.
MLS franchises are immediately profitable enterprises under the right conditions. (See Toronto, Los Angeles Galaxy, Seattle, etc.) Currently, MLS has a successful formula for future growth under Don Garber's planning and they are bringing the older franchises in established big markets into line under his vision. Hence, LA's success, New York's purchase by Red Bull and the stadium they will be opening next season in a big media blitz and new designated player and DC's advancing stadium plans and lucrative shirt sponsorship deal.
MLS is doing very well. Thank you very much.

 

Green Bay is a total anachronism, though. Every other NFL team that began in towns of that size moved. They held out, and now they benefit from the success of the league as a whole, success generated by going to big markets and striking lucrative TV and sponsorship deals. If Green Bay was an expansion candidate today, there is no way NFL would even think of expanding there. Look at all the college football and high school football hotbeds in Texas and Ohio. Are people saying that NFL should expand to those cities?

Green Bay happened, and it is cool. You can't force something like that again. Not worth the risk and sacrifice of larger markets, first of all. And it won't come with the decades of tradition and community ties that the Packers have.

- Paul

 

Maybe they get high on oil fumes. I'm guessing the energy industry pushes Dallas and Houston that high.

- Paul

 

Seeing how the league seemingly never really wanted Rochester it makes me think they would rather have the big tv market rather then the "Green Bay Packers" type situation. Because basically thats what Rochester was. The thing is a place like NY, Boston, Miami, or Atlanta just have a far bigger upside and potential then a Rochester despite all the barriers of local competition that face them. I would assume that makes getting tv contracts and sponsorship easier because of the potential eyeballs in those areas vs. a Rochester.

 

Vancouver's SSS plans are awesome, but I think Portland has a chance of being special if done right. A downtown stadium in Portland would seriously trump a brand new SSS if Kerfoot ends up having to put it out in nowheresville.

If they spend some serious money renovating PGE Park and bringing it up to the standards of a modern stadium, it could be a real jewel. MLS needs to prioritize centralized, urban stadiums if it is serious about attracting a progressive, urban crowd to it's matches. PGE would be transit-, bike- and pedestrian-accessible, and it would also have an old timey feel to it - something that does not exist in any of the beautiful but somewhat cookie-cutter MLS venues. I think the stadium and location could be a huge plus for the Portland bid as long as they don't skimp on the details. Portland has some serious competition from other, richer investors, so they need to think world-class if they plan to be successful.

I don't think the Vikings owner is actually all that interested in soccer (correct me if I'm wrong.) I think he was just looking for a gimmick to improve support for public financing for a new stadium.

You could be right, but I think it is really all about what group/city can make the most attractive bid to MLS. Maybe now is the best chance for Portland, but 10 years from now could also end up being the right time too. It really all comes down to what they are able to put together in terms of money and other intangibles in the ownership group (connections, business savvy, etc.) and the facility.

I also think that folks are underestimating the value of local rivalries with large traveling supporters groups. MLS is decades away from being an easy sell as a national league. In order to get there, MLS needs to do whatever it can to promote local rivalries to spur fan interest.

In SJ, it was never a question what the biggest matches of the year would be. Attendance at the LA match would always blow the doors off of anything else, and this has nothing to do with star players. Don't be fooled by the tremendously successful efforts at selling season ticket deposits in Seattle. To sustain interest over the long term when the newness factor has worn off and when the team is performing poorly on the pitch, you need to have other selling points, and while the Portland/Seattle rivalry may be a little one-sided, it still seems to be a big consideration and a real reason why USL has been so successful in the PNW. Places like Atlanta and Miami just aren't going to have this in their favor.

Add in the lack of competition from other major league sports, and the atmosphere created by the Portland supporters and high-speed gas-powered chainsaws, and I think Portland looks like a good option for MLS.

 

Agreed. Doesn't RBNY have ridiculously low local TV ratings? I dimly recall reading an article mentioning that their TV viewership is measured in the hundreds of households (I think the figure for this specific game was around 800 households), but I can't find it now.

From the wiki page: "this roster generally denotes cities in which there are offices of certain multinational companies providing financial and consulting services rather than other cultural, political, and economic centres".

So yeah, who cares? At best, it means there's some money sloshing around in those cities. It doesn't mean, say, Atlanta is a better MLS market than Philadelphia or Seattle.

 

Multinational companies in cities with money sloshing around is a feather in the cap for any MLS market. MLS wants to push the international angle of soccer now. That means not only making commercials that say "Football. Futbol. Soccer", but also partnering with big-wig international companies, especially media or sports-related companies. And on a more fundamental level, corporate money is good for sponsorships. We want to raise the salary cap and bring in better players? We need money, and thus we need these types of markets.

- Paul

 

Right, of course. My only point was, that list just measures one narrow thing: how many multinational financial/consulting firms are located in a particular city. Yes, that's a great plus for any of those cities. But (to take your example) it doesn't measure the presence of "media or sports-related companies", for instance. Hard to believe Portland wouldn't make the list if Nike was included. And taking into account all the major tech companies in Seattle, they'd be higher, too.