Decent article. MLS has set it's foundations, and while not complete, they are starting to target the next step. Some weak stuff about having big teams in major markets. It didn't address the fact that the league needs to put a better product on the field (both players and officials). I did laugh at this comment: LA and Vancouver. Seriously? I guess the ESPN guy didn't watch his own channel and missed the recent LA and SJ Game. Seattle - Vancouver. Yes. LA and Vancouver - No.
one thing the league needs to do is spread itself to non-MLS markets. the NFL (and other leagues) are so popular because even if you don't live in an NFL city you have/watch an NFL team or teams. that is even more important for MLS since there will be less "MLS cities" than there are in other sports (I don't see the league ever going to 30-32 teams). i think that this problem and the development hole between 18-22 might able to be solved together by having teams field D2/D3 teams in nearby but non MLS MSAs? i know it increases the cost of such MLS TEAM-B in the D2/D3 leagues idea but there has to be some way to address both of these problems together. i am thinking that a city in which the Sounders-B play would be pretty likely to watch the Sounders too. maybe it isn't logistically practical but it is something i'd at least explore if i were MLS. Vancouver Whitecaps B - Calgary ED Seattle Sounders B - Spokane WA Portland Timbers B - Eugene/Bend OR SJ Earthquakes B - Fresno/Bakersfield CA LA Galaxy B - Las Vegas NV Chivas USA B - San Diego CA Real Salt Lake B - Phoenix AZ Colorado Rapids B - Albuquerque NM FC Dallas B - Oklahoma City OK Houston Dynamo B - New Orleans LA Sporting KC B - St Louis MO Chicago Fire B - Indianapolis IN/Milwaukee WI Columbus Crew B - Louisville KY DC United B - Baltimore MD/VA Beach VA/Charlotte NC Toronto FC B - Winnipeg SK Montreal Impact B - Quebec City QE Philadelphia Union B - Buffalo NY RB New York - Syracuse NY NE Revolution - Providence RI all markets where each MLS team could "expand" to ... either with a B-Team or by just focusing marketing and playing a game or so per season there? something. and none of these markets has any significant D2/D3 team that you would be harming (a few exceptions like Charlotte were included since their D3 team is pathetic and draws 500 a game).
This minor league letup would require cooperation between MLS and D2 That's the only problem I see. The idea is excellent. We really really need the young guys to be playing week in and week out Ten games a year is nothing. Almost zero growth.
maybe it could be worked sort of like minor league baseball where each MLS team picks a city (list above) and then buys the naming rights/helps fund the D2 team in that city but the team is owned by some local ownership. sort of like what Seattle has done with Seattle U23 (formerly PDL Tacoma Tide). the difference is the D2 MLS TEAM-B would play at a higher level, play a fuller schedule and be in bigger markets (and more distant markets, as Tacoma is so close it is already in Seattle's normal footprint) so the league can expand it's reach. you double the markets your main MLS team brands are in you significantly increase the potential TV viewers. So the MLS team funds the D2 branded "B" version of itself, which adds considerably to the stability of D2, MLS teams can send all or some of their reserves to play in that squad (and recall them at will), and they and MLS get to market to a whole new set of cities and hopefully grow the TV viewer pool beyond the 19-20 MLS cities to double that number. the trouble would be finding 19 local owners who were competent and trusted by the MLS team to be partners in those 19 markets. tho i'd imagine that if you knew you were going to get serious financial backing (plus a known brand) from an MLS team it would make investing in a D2 team less risky and more desirable. so these 19-20 MLS-B teams in alternate markets are added to the existing (future expansion) 10+ non-MLS branded D2 teams so that you have a very healthy pool of teams to design a regionalized D2 with 30+ teams.
The problem with a D2 setup as above is that there are still totally ignored MAJOR markets that will need teams to embrace MLS. Detroit, Atlanta, Florida (somewhere in the state), St. Louis etc. are all markets that aren't going to give a crap about a second division (read: minor league) team. Why would St. Louis fans show up to support KC's farm team when they're already a bigger market? I may not ever see 30 team in MLS, but I see 25 or 26 with multiple conferences easily.
well the model above A. can accommodate future MLS expansion (i left out detroit, atlanta, san antonio, orlando, minneapolis from the 2ndary markets for just that reason assuming they would eventually be MLS and have their own 2ndary market D2 B Team) and B. there is still flexibility to pick other markets ... (so for SKC you could pick something other than St Louis if you think St Louis is too big a market for it to work ... tho imho St Louis won't ever be an MLS city so it is sort of in limbo land ... but if you don't like that particular 2ndary city for SKC pick another) without changing the overall premise.
I've been thinking about this relationship with D2. Obviously getting involved in D2 or women's soccer is not a good way to make money, but if it helps create this national brand that they want perhaps it would pay off in the long term. Would it benefit MLS and the various lower division leagues to rebrand under a single umbrella? No pro-rel, of course, but would rebranding the second division to MLS2 and, perhaps, working with the lower division leagues in some way (without actually making them partners in MLS) help stabilize the lower divisions while expanding the national brand of MLS? Farm teams could also play in these lower divisions, but you could keep already existing small market teams as independent organizations. Such a setup would also allow for a sort of testing ground for new markets. There would be no competitive pro-rel, but if a team in St. Louis or Atlanta or Miami or San Antonio did well in MLS2 it could be a springboard to MLS (assuming the proper ownership). I'm sure the finances don't make sense, but I've always thought that the simple act of branding could grow interest in these more niche products. I never watched the women's leagues, but if I saw the DC United women playing the Columbus Crew women's team I'd probably have a passing interest. If the second division champion was acknowledge on the MLS home page as an official MLS champion (somewhat like the youth teams now) it would somehow be more interesting to me. I don't know if there's still indoor soccer being played but brand that too. Or find a way to brand college soccer with the MLS name. Basically make MLS and soccer synonymous in the US.
Completely agree with that. What would/could greatly help MLS build their "national brand" (and really it is an international North American brand at the minimum) would be a set "national tv" time slot for appointment/consistent viewing. I know that's easy to suggest and difficult to implement especially given the crowded real estate on many national broadcaster partners' schedules across a year. But the league needs a "Game of the Week" that is in a set time on a set day and on a set broadcast partner. Is that Sunday (or Monday) nights on NBCSN (or ESPN2)? Is that Friday on ESPN2 (or NBCSN)? Is it some combination of those options? Whatever the case, MLS would greatly benefit, imo, from presenting a "national product" and a game that occurs "every week" at a known time/channel. However, the current reality is difficult to avoid:
I've had a relatively inexpensive idea that should have been done years ago. MLS and adidas have now started a line of generic uniforms that mimic MLS teams' unis and have the MLS patch on the sleeve. Every rec youth soccer organization in the country should have these uniforms and teams named after MLS clubs to expose kids playing and their parents to the pro soccer league right under their noses. For too long we've had youth rec soccer teams named after NFL or NBA teams (Cowboys/Lions/Raptors/Heat), or cutesy names that have nothing to do with the game (Stealers/Ballers/Crushers). Major League Baseball, the NBA and the NFL have done this for decades. Our baseball teams were always named after a real MLB team, and we even wore replica uniforms or officially logoed generic uniforms and hats. The kids identify with the pro team and the parents help facilitate that interest. My kid was on the Diamondbacks this season in baseball, as far away geographically and interest-wise as we can get, but he asks to watch D-Backs games on TV, plays as the D-Backs on video games and asked if we could go to a Diamondbacks game just due to him being on a rookie league team with the same name. Kids and adults could be in Montana, Mississippi or Maine and still be brand aware of MLS teams and maybe will start stopping on MLS games on their TV, buy team merchandise to support their own youth teams, etc. It's a no brainer.
sounds like a good idea. i guess you would have a way for youth teams to apply/order Adidas MLS youth kits at some sort of discount (and very competitive with other manufacturers/vendors) to enhance penetration using the whole programme as some sort of loss leader which MLS/Adidas bears the expense of jointly? Adidas gets more of their stuff on kids who might turn into brand loyal customers later and MLS gets kids and their parents in far flung non-MLS cities exposed and curious and maybe attracted to their product and maybe watching it on TV (which MLS desperately needs)
I can remember playing youth soccer in the NASL era and our teams were named after NASL teams. We had the Whitecaps, Sting, Sockers, etc. (though oddly for being a Puget Sound league no Sounders). IIRC correctly most of our teams also followed the colors of the teams they were named after except I remember the Sockers (which is the team I was on) who were purple.
I saw a little kid (5 or 6, maybe) running through the grocery store with a rec-league t-shirt jersey that said Seattle on it. I seem to remember seeing Barcelona, Arsenal, etc. as well.
It's really the other way around. The NFL, because it is hugely popular, is widely demanded (and therefore widely available) in non-league markets. That kinda sets up the post I made in the daily news thread on the topic, which was: I'm sort of critical of the league's focus on national ratings at this juncture. I still think it's a bit too soon. There are other hurdles to clear first. One is to get the local deals right, so that a local deal that pays the club and garners a significant following inside of MLS markets is the rule and not the exception. The other is to get people watching the championship game. You clear those hurdles first, and the wall of national TV ratings for regular season games might become scalable. Right now, we're putting the third hurdle in front of the first. Heck, the National Hockey League (as pointed out in the article) never managed to cross the threshhold of getting neutral fans to watch regular season games (though I disagree with the guy who thought it was because they were a 'johnny come lately'; I'm pretty sure that in fact the NHL is actually older than the NBA. In fact, now that I've wiki'd it, it turns out the NHL is slightly older than the NFL too). The minor league point has come up in a different context (player development) before, and while it has advantages on that spectrum, I think it would make a negligible difference to the league's popularity in non-league markets, and I think it might well weaken the appeal of lower-division soccer, part of which is its independence.
Usually in little league, they don't let anybody use the name of the most popular local team, because there'd be fights and no fair way to do it. I am surprised that the league has taken as long as it has to have cheap quasi-branded apparel for youth leagues. It's a cheap (maybe even break-even) marketing mechanism that helps build loyalty.
It's not quite what you had in mind and someone else could probably go more in depth, but I know some clubs in Kansas City are partnering with SKC. I believe it is the Blue Valley Soccer Club (one of the larger soccer clubs in the metro area) that now has the SC patch (below) on their premier jerseys.
I think this is an interesting point of possible discussion for the "national brand." In Dallas, I played for the Royals in Little League, the Steelers for football, and the Gators (colors were orange and blue) for soccer. It didn't exactly make me a fan, but it definitely got our parents buying random Royals, Steelers, and Florida memorabilia for our games, and it left with me a certain amount of interest in those teams, even though in Dallas we had all those sports covered (Rangers, Cowboys, Burn/Sidekicks). It's not the best idea, but it one thing to consider. I think it'd be worth it to have the youth teams maybe in NPSL or PDL, as some teams have done.
Am I the only person who is concerned to learn that MLS is just. now making moves to manage their brand? It's been almost two decades! This should have been a priority since 1994. A brand is all Major League Soccer is. They say if you don't brand yourself, someone else will. Well, so far other people have branded the league as poor quality, uninteresting and irrelevant.
It's hard to keep people interested if what you are advertising doesn't excite the fans at the games. That is why they waited. MLS is now to a level where even some Eurosnobs admit it is kind of interesting.
MLS has had enough trouble finding competent owners for the top league. The margins are smaller for women/D2/indoor but there isn't a lot of upside. You're going to have to find owners willing to lose money in MLS-I or WMLS or else the brand could actually be tarnished by folding teams.
Agreed. MLS 1.0 couldn't legitimately have a worthy/interesting "brand" (and it was folding teams and operating just a ten-team league). But in recent years -- with solid expansion, new appropriate venues, and the DP initiative especially -- it does seem like MLS is really ready to focus on the product and promote their brand. Struggling through infancy and awkward adolescence, the league might actually now be a confident teen (or perhaps even a young adult) ready to put itself out there and perhaps start playing the field a bit and ideally capitalizing on its "good" looks and improved confidence and social awareness and status.
And yet, on any given weekend during the EPL season the BBC will describe 30 to 40% of the games ("matches") as boring, listless, or tiresome. What's that league's problem?
Not sure what the EPL's problem is. (Although 6-7 or a league's ten games per match day not being "boring, listless, or tiresome" seem like a fairly good and positive success rate for any soccer league. After all, it is a sport overall that is difficult to regularly create a lot of in-game excitement -- especially across the course of a long season. And I do think you're confusing a bit the idea of a league "brand" with the reality of the 90-minute product that the league has on the field 10 times across the country each week of the season. The "matches" are only a part of the overall "brand" and its success. And yes, the matches are a significant part of that brand.) But I can point to a lot of cultural, historical, marketplace and sporting differences between England and the USA(/Canada) -- and why the EPL just might have a "better brand" (nationally and internationally) than would MLS (at this point -- or ever). To me, the challenge for MLS is to create/promote a "brand" that is different than any of its competitors in some ways. Be those competitors EPL, La Liga, UEFACL, FMF, or any foreign soccer option or be those competitors other domestic professional leagues (NHL, MLB, NBA, NFL, MLL, Nascar) or NCAA sports. There will always be other "brands" and sporting products out there (and they have long since been established and are very successful for the most part). MLS trying to compare itself (or just being compared) to every other sports/league "brand" option out there is a tough equation. But the league establishing its own brand and making a product that is unique and important in some (growing) ways, is a real key for MLS. The league (and the observers here and elsewhere) could forever fight and analyze the uphill climb of how MLS is not like the EPL or the NFL (for example, as unhelpful or as unrelated as those examples may be), but the key for MLS is to create a brand and tell its consumers what the league (on its own) is -- and why the consumers/fans should and do care about it. And, imo, the league is much more likely to find success doing that (promoting the "national MLS brand") in years 17-25, than it would have been in years 1-8 or years 9-16 of the league's existence.