I understand nativism, and I understand the purpose of your post, but some states/cities are exempt from being considered "the south" because of the size and scope of their major markets. I think those states are Texas, Florida, Georgia (Atlanta only), and North Carolina (Major soccer following here but still considered south...at least in Region III). I do agree though that New Orleans would not be an easy market at all, in fact imo it would fail. Also, about the NASCAR thing, the markets who are deep into that would not be considered for an MLS franchise. You're thinking of small market/country south, not metropolitan south (Houston, Dallas, SA, Austin, Orlando, Miami, Tampa, Atlanta, Charlotte, etc.)
Well, the major cities are where any MLS team would be located right? Chicago Fire Juniors in Louisiana has 3000 players and is the largest branch of the Chicago Fire Juniors (they also have branches in Mississippi, Michigan, and Chicago). Despite the fact that New Orleans lost about ten high school programs due to Katrina, Louisiana has seen growth in boys high school soccer over the past decade. The New Orleans area is considered an undiscovered hotbed for soccer talent. It is hardly considered a way to tire the children out in New Orleans. The Baton Rouge and Lafayette areas are also growing in soccer participation.
Hmm . . . not sure I agree entirely. You are right in that this world cup did not boost attendance or viewership in MLS in any appreciable way that we are aware of at present. However, hosting he World Cup would be a slightly different animal and to be honest it is hard to know how it would impact MLS overall. Remember the league was formed based on hosting the WC (well actually required). To me, the casual American fan is often swayed by actually experiencing a sporting event. Remember that first soccer match, that first college football game, that first Saturday at the ball park . . . I tend to think that actually hosting would indeed have an impact. Now, it won't change the quality of play. And I am not talking about a waterfall of fans, but even an extra thousand average at each game is HUGE growth for almost any league.
Gun down all those eurosnob bastards. That'd go a long way to solving a lot of our problems Wrong. MLS hasn't had the ability to increase the cap in such a way. When the Dynamo joined the league in 2006, MLS was a very different animal than it is now. Go back just 3 years earlier, and it was even more strange. The differences between today and yesteryear are stadiums of or own and sponsorships (both league-wide and team based). Much of that didn't exist back then and only now are we getting comfortable to spread our wings a bit, but we ain't ready for the plunge just yet. If you figure out how to do that, you can have Garber's $3M/yr salary. Considering just how brilliant of a man he is, I doubt you know a way. Do you truly realize just how much money you are talking about? Nice to know that you are so skilled at spending other people's money, and not making any of it back. You're like that trophy wife old horn dogs get. Just about totally useless. Won't happen so long as the competition in Europe is better (and it will be for the next, oh, century or better). Case in point is Stuart Holden. Oh, do tell. Sure, just like it'd be awesome if I could bang Jewel every night. Neither one will ever happen. Define: care. 4 different networks have paid good money to show our games. I'd say that means they care. If you are talking about production value, then you are onto something. And what does that mean, besides being able to pat ourselves on the back? I would. Maybe in a few years with Montreal, Portland, Vancouver in the league, plus new stadiums in KC and SJ (the HOU stadium won't affect the overall attendance much). So you know where that unicorn who shits rainbows is, do you? So you think MLS is close to averaging a World Cup game rating in the US? Wanna share whatever you're smoking with the rest of the class? Your point? Participation /= viewership Ummmm....yey? No more unreasonable than the Republicans wish to kick out everyone who isn't White AngloSaxon Protestant....and rich, of course, out of the US.
This is the biggest BS line that gets thrown in the direction of those of us who urge the league to spend more money on talent in this league. I'm a fan of the New Orleans Saints, and have been since I was a child. I spent money on Saints merchandise, Saints tickets, etc... my whole life, and as a dedicated fan, I always thought I had the right to speak my mind on how I thought Tom Benson should spend the money to improve the team. The same principle applies here, even though I don't live in an MLS market I spend money on MLS merchandise; I have purchased MLS Direct Kick when I had satellite; I've paid money to view games on the internet; I support its sponsors, and I've even purchased MLS Cup tickets in the past, so yes, I feel I absolutely have every right to speak my mind to urge the league to spend money to improve talent. Other people's money? BullSh*t! I've invested in this league. I spend my hard earned money on it, and if I feel like speaking about how that money should be spent, I have every right to.
If you could convince another million people or so to do the same, you'd have the point. Even then, the league may not have the revenue to justify that type of spending. You're talking about a HUGE increase in spending without finding a way to pay for that. When the next TV deals are signed, I doubt they'll be for significantly more than what we get (no where near what you suggest). Ticket sales aren't going to drastically change and sponsorships will slowly go up, but not fast enough to keep pace. Show me where that money would come from in the next 10 years, and you'll have everyone's attention.
When is MLS going to sell international broadcast rights to Sky? There must be some demand for fair-to-middlin (With all your fav players from past years!) soccer on TV in England during the off-season. Right? I understand these international rights are all the rage in the EPL. We ought to get us some by 2020. Seriously, though, if you want MLS to grow leaps and bounds it's going to have to come through TV money. Even if the league averages 20,000 people per game in the stands, at an average ticket price of $30, that only comes to and MLS share (assuming teams remit 30% of gate) of $73 million, which divided up among 24 teams is only $3 million. A substantial increase in TV revenues would be necessary to increase the available funds for a salary cap -- like $48 million/year. These numbers are wobbly, since teams could possibly "afford" to share more than 30% of gate if they were averaging 20k people for 17 games at $30 apiece, and doing the same calculation with current attendance and TV deal gives me a number lower than the current salary cap. But I don't think that it would change the basic calculus. You need more TV revenue to raise the salary budget. So any discussion about where the league would be in 2020 should include how much money the league is making from broadcast rights -- and if you don't think that those are going to increase much from 2010, you should probably temper your expectations about what the league looks like in 10 years. Personally, I have no idea. I'll defer to people who have a clue about sports broadcasting. My expectation is that some of the old, established teams find a way to perform like the better expansion teams, some of the current expansion teams have found their "new team smell" to have worn off -- but are still doing well, there are no more than 24 teams in the league, and MLS academy players feature prominently in the league and the U-23 National Team and are starting to be sold to Europe regularly in the $3-5 million range. The salary cap is at about $4.5 million (5%/year increase). And RSL has rebranded as Real FC Barcelona Utah, just to piss off the haters.
I think we actually need a Big Soccer second division where all the dimwits for pro/rel can be .... well....relegated. They could each start a new thread each day and the rest of us could enjoy some peace.
Why does every other pro sports league in the US thrive without pro/rel? Is there some kind of voodoo hex on the sport of soccer that it just won't thrive without pro-rel?
You lost me with the A League. Do you mean the Australian league? Uhhh, it doesn't have pro/rel either and won't before hell freezes over. And as far for it being time to leave the nipple, suit yourself, but don't speak for all of us.
any updates? I don't know if this is old; http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/news/454125/a-league-plans-for-promotion-relegation
i think the MLS boards should have another sub-division just like it has news &analysis, general, you be the don, etc. It should be pro/rel: the debate continues.