Not sure that an Ajax supported team would attract people because of the brand name. Would it start a trend of mid level Europrean clubs associating with the A-League. That would be nice.
A couple of questions: 1. What separates the A-League and the PSL in terms of requirments and costs? I have a vague idea but does anyone know the exact requirements for A-League membership and/or the PSL. Is it simply the amount of the entrance fee? 2. For any resident sports marketing experts, is there some sort of formula to determine how much of a marketing budget is required to bring in x number of fans? Or is sports marketing a hit or miss endeavor? Or does it require a different approach in different cities? It would be cool to get an average attendance of 5 - 6,000.
A-League entrance fee: $350,000 plus an additional $15K per season PSL/D3: $150,000 plus about $8K per year. Budgets for D3 can be as high as $500K, which would be triple what Cinci had this year. I'm sure Indi's budget was lower as well. 2. John Spoelstra says you should get at least a 4:1 return on every advertising $ spent. The problem is most teams don't break 5 digits when it comes to their advertising budgets.
I did this on another board... I think regionalization should be at least a consideration. Rather than having a couple of conferences with cross-country travel, USL should divide the A-League into at least three, or maybe four (if they had 20 teams) "independent leagues;" independent of each other, but all under the USL umbrella. As it stands now, it would look like this: Northwestern League: Calgary Edmonton Seattle Portland Vancouver Northern League: Milwaukee Minnesota Montreal Rochester Toronto Southern League: Atlanta Charleston El Paso (it'd be a real stretch, but they're screwed on travel wherever they go) VA Beach Add Birmingham, Memphis, or maybe even New Orleans or Orlando to the Southern League (only two, though), and create a Southwestern/Western League with El Paso (moved from Southern), OKC/Tulsa (if MLS doesn't get 'em), Salt Lake, and perhaps Fresno, San Antonio, or Austin. Then, you'd have: Southern League: Atlanta Charleston VA Beach B'ham/Memphis* NO/Orlando (replacing EP)* Western/Southwestern League: El Paso Austin/San Antonio* Salt Lake City* OKC/Tulsa* Fresno* *= new team Keep it intra-league, and have the champs from each square off for the national championship (kind of like the WSL and ASL did until they "officially" merged). If there were only three "leagues," the team with best record would get a bye and play the winner from the other two. These leagues (or whatever you call them) would form Division 1, and you could do the same thing with PSL and PDL, if deemed feasible. The key is to keep travel costs down. It would allow teams to keep more money, and not lose big from travelling, and would also help build rivalries. You'd need six new teams, but if EP dropped down/folded (heaven forbid!), you'd only need two, in the South, to make it all even (three five-team leagues, and you'd add only one team if EP stayed), and there was no Western league (perhaps ATL, CHAS, VAB, EP, BHM/NO). Have I gotten you all sufficiently confused? It wouldn't have to happen all at once, a la the NASL; it could be structured this way at first, and teams could be added over time (two/three a year, for a couple or three years maybe, or, just add one team to the Southern League, and just keep it that way, with 15 teams). It should at least be considered.
I'll respond as I did on the other board. If these "leagues" are seperate from each other I assume they would only play against teams in their league. Playing against the same 4 opponents over and over would be tiresome. It would work if these league went to 8 team league. Then they could play a 28 game balanced schedule each team playing the other teams 2 home and 2 away per season. Getting back to the point made about Seattle playing in a huge stadium, they have plenty of alternatives to choose from. They choose to play at Seahawks, so I assume the costs there are not so much more than elsewhere. Considering that the move hasn't greatly increased attendance, one can only assume they like the deal they have there.
DavidP, As an A-League fan, I don't want to see my team play in a 5-team league. BORING! It was already boring enough this season to have Vancouver, Portland, and Calgary come to Seahawks Stadium 3 times each, and read about the 9 other road games against these same teams. I would have loved to see some games against Montreal, Toronto, Rochester, Syracuse, Charleston, Virginia Beach, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Charlotte, or Richmond. Here is what our boring schedule looked like this season: Vancouver: 6 games Portland: 6 games Calgary: 6 games El Paso: 4 games Milwaukee: 2 games Minnesota: 2 games Indiana: 2 games We played 7 teams out of a 19-team league. What the hell! How can I follow a league when I only get to see 7 teams in person? All you guys out east already seem like a whole other league as it is. You talk about all these good players, but I haven't seen any of them play! You might as well be making it all up as far as I'm concerned. Why make it worse and split us all up for good? And how does playing against the same 4 teams 6 times each spur any kind of competitive growth for the players? Your idea would lead to stagnation in playing quality, which is horribble for the overall development of the American soccer player. C'mon, people. I'd like to see the A-League be able to save some money, too, but these ideas for small regional leagues will take it further down the ladder not further up. Be patient, we are building a great base of strong and stable teams with experienced front offices. - Paul
Yes, 8 team divisions is the way. Sort of like playing in Scotland. Have they committed to playing in the stadium next year?
Bright, The reason that you don't see more of some of those other teams is because of the cost involved with traveling across the country. That's exactly why the leagues should be regionalized. Why the big difference in franchise fees between A-League and PSL? Is Wilmington's franchise worth $200,000 less than Atlanta or Richmond? What are the A-League teams getting for that extra $200,000? Try explaining that to an investor. Okay, if the leagues aren't joined then they should at least inter-schedule. In GA we have 5 different classifications for high school sports, A-AAAAA. It's very common for teams from different classifications to play one another. They also do this at the college level. In soccer D1 plays D2, in football 1A plays 1AA and so on. Why wouldn't the USL adopt a similar policy? Seattle could play home and away against California, San Diego and Utah, that's six games and three new teams to play. I’ve only seen the PDL championships on FSW, but from what I hear about those teams they may give you a good game as well. Maybe each team should play a 16 game “league” schedule and fill in the rest with other USL teams in their region and have the option of playing home and away with some of the teams from other regions that can afford it. A leaner A-League would be much more attractive but we need to be realistic about what most of these teams are up against. How many of the teams that are averaging over 4000 per game can or would want to absorb the costs involved with flying across the county multiple times a season?
Seattle is unfortunately geogaphically-challenged, then, because Portland and Vancouver are the only other major cities within sensible driving distance. Any other city will have to be reached by plane. Is going to Montreal or Rochester once a year that much more expensive than going to Calgary or El Paso? Or Salt Lake City or San Diego in your fantasy league? The small amount of money saved on travel (and I'd like to see some hard numbers to back up this hypothesis) doesn't balance out the overall suckiness of the kind of league you all envision, both in player quality (as we watch the players deteriorate by playing the same small amount of teams over and over) and level of professionalism of a supposed Division Two national league. Also, how are you supposed to keep all these regional leagues on the same level? Inevitably, one of the leagues will be better, and one of the leagues will be filled with a bunch of Indianas and Cincinnatis. It's natural evolution, and the better players will migrate to the better league. Then you have all the best teams stuck in one region of the country. On top of that, have you ever considered that some of the current crappy teams are keeping the other teams down? As we get rid of the crappy teams, the better teams left over will exhibit higher overall quality of play and a better economic sense in the front office of how to run a league. And this is a much better foundation from which to make money than we have now. Let the league evolve, and you will have teams that can afford to travel across the country once in a while. We can still have an unbalanced schedule based on western and eastern conferences. This is slow growth, but it is forward-thinking, and will create a much better foundation for soccer than what you propose. If we go with your strategy of regional leagues, the A-League will be diluted with 40 teams who all won't be on the same financial level, it will become a crappy league built on a shaky financial foundation. Don't dilute what is being built! - Paul
I responded to Krammerhead's reply on the other board. 8 teams per league would work out just fine. I'll say it here as I did there, good idea. With three leagues, that'd be 24 teams, 32 if there were four. Is that too many, or just right? To answer Bright's question, the name of the game is keeping costs down, especially in travel. What good does it do to have a cross-country schedule when it nearly bankrupts the team? I'm sure even Rochester couldn't afford too many trips to Seattle, Portland, or Vancouver during the year, and playing them three times in two weeks, to get those games out of the way would be not only tiresome, but expensive, as they'd have to stay gone for at least two weeks to get all the games in. Keep in mind that the A-League is, for all intents and purposes, minor league. A lower division team in England could have as much money as a man U. or Liverpool, but have a few bad years on the field that force them to play down. A-league teams, for the most part, aren't in that category. There's no upward movement, and not even Rochester operates with an MLS-sized budget (or do they?). As for player stagnation, small leagues in other sports, such as baseball and hockey, don't seem to have a problem with it. The more you play, the better you get, and then you move up. Regionalization would help ensure that there was still a game to be played. But eight team leagues would work. As I said on the other board, I was going with the premise that 32 teams might be too many. But hey, if we can support them, tally ho!
We could have a 16-team league with 4 divisions and two conferences, like we do now. You play the 3 other teams in your division twice at home and twice away for 6 away games that are deemed very close by, some might even be within driving distance. You play the 4 teams in the other division in your conference once at home and once away. These teams probably aren't within driving distance, but they aren't on the other side of the continent either. So that is 4 so-so away games. Then you play 4 out of the 8 teams in the other conference away (the other 4 at home). That is 4 cross-country games, worse for the teams on the coasts but maybe not so bad for the mid-continent teams. Does that really look so bad for travel costs? That looks like a real league to me. A league that a fan can actually get into. You know, getting fans into the league is also the "name of the game". In your version, we'd be playing against Eugene, Yakima, Spokane, Abbotsford, and the Kent/Auburn F150's. Heh. The key is to identify the teams who can hang, and get rid of those who can't. Right now we have about 8 strong teams, and the others are coming along or can be replaced by stronger teams from D3. - Paul
Your idea is what helped kill the IHL. They got too big, got too spread out, and they folded like a house of cards. They tried to be a low-budget NHL, and it put 'em in the ground. And yes, it is cheaper to travel shorter distances. To make a sensible road trip, Seattle would have to go East, and not only play Rochester, but also Toronto, Montreal, Syracuse (oops, left them out of my first table--sorry! ), and maybe pick up Richmond (oops again! only need three more teams in the East & South!) and VA Beach. Not only does that include plane fare, but hotels, food, laundry, and incidental expenses. Do that more than once a season (it'd be at least a two-week trip, if not more), and you're in a world o' hurt, no matter if you're a Rochester or a Cinci! Remember, this is A-League, not the NFL. And less money spent on travel means more available to spend on good players. The Indys and Cincis, which shouldn't be there anyway (so-called "minimum standards," you know), but if they were, they'd benefit by not having to spend as much money travelling, thus putting it into personnel (players). There will aways be good teams and crappy teams, that's just the way it is. Regionalization won't propagate bad teams, just as spending onesself into oblivion with travel costs won't propagate good teams. If there's only a couple of teams that can do it, what kind of league would that be?
Here's the new league lineup, after I inadvertently left out a couple of teams (doh!): Northwest: Calgary Edmonton Portland Seattle Vancouver North: Milwaukee Minnesota Montreal Rochester Syracuse (sorry! ) Toronto South: Atlanta Charleston El Paso Richmond (apologies as well) VA Beach Possible Adds: NW: Boise SLC Sac'to North: Ottawa W. Pennsylvania (Harrisburg, perhaps) South: Birmingham Memphis New Orleans (help span the bridge to EP) Comments?
The NHL is in 30 markets. MLS is only in 10 markets right now, and by FIFA mandate cannot get any bigger than 18 teams. There will be room for an American 2nd division to exist and average more than 3,000 people per game. I don't think it will rival MLS financially, but it can be bigger and more financially successful than the A-League is right now. The A-League needs to be poised to grow, because the growth potential is there market-wise. And when I say crappy, I mean it in terms of finances and management, not results on the field. This is a good discussion. - Paul
Maybe not quite as bad, but it could still make for the road trip from financial hell. And as of now, there are no mid-continent teams (Indy, Cinci, and Pitt are gone), except for Minnesota and Milwaukee. Not my version. They 'd be doing the same thing in their own level. Who would last one season, then fall on the shores of wrecked franchises, who promoted up, and couldn't hang.
Yes, the A-League needs to grow, but the money may not be there to be a nationwide league. And that's okay. In order to do that, the A-League would need owners with MLS-size money (and they should anyway) to be able to pull it off. When you're small-time stuff, it costs a lot to send 20+ players, plus coaches and staff around, even on a bus. The money's simply not there. You can have the best management team in the world, and still go under if the money's not there. But you can also put together a winner with not much money. But do you travel, or have a good team? One day, even Seattle or Rochester may have to face that choice (I hope not!). Regional leagues can still be good leagues, with great players, because the money that would be eaten up in travel expense can go to getting the best eleven they can get their hands on. And when Rochester's best eleven are playing Montreal's, or Minnesota's, or Syracuse's best eleven, you know it'll be a good game, and people will come out to see it.
Another factor that needs to be addressed is when professional teams play two games in a weekend. Not only does this lead to a poor product, but also for those teams that happen to get two home games in a weekend, the attendance numbers will drop for at least one of the nights. Someone asked about travel costs earlier. I think its pretty expensive for a flight from Richmond to Milwaukee, then a bus to Minnesota and then bus back to Milwaukee and fly home to Richmond. That would be much more expensive than a bus to Wilmington. We have a huge geographical challenge to tackle, and to be honest i don't think we can win it. Let's look at the success of Rochester and now Syracuse. Do you think the fans from the two teams travel to watch their team on the road? In Connecticut we would have fans travel 2 hours to Long Island, sometimes in New York or Westchester, and the Western Mass derbys were fantastic for both clubs. That's how we build this puppy, local rivalries which the media tends to enjoy. Especially as the league grows and we have the opportunity for promotion and relegation within the individual regions. This really is good stuff. Keep it up.
Bright, all the A-League is now is small regional leagues disguised as divisions. If we seperated the league into 8 team "seperate leagues" you'd still play 7 different opponents and the schedule would be balanced to boot, so you'd only play each opponent 4 times. It wouldn't be so different to what we have now. I don't think the talent pool would be diluted, or it would hurt the growth of the players. After all nobody cares that minor league baseball in North America is a whole system of small regional leagues. It doesn't seem to hurt the growth of the baseball players. Why would it be any different for soccer? Lets face it players aren't going to start migrating to the top regional league, the money just isn't there to entice players to leave home. For example if you took a look at most teams rosters you'll find that most players on the team are homegrown. Vancouver has 20 players on the roster who were raised in BC. I assume most other teams are represented by a huge number of homegrown players as well. They aren't going to start leaving home to play in another regional league because it is "better". As for how to follow the "league" better well with only 8 teams in your league it would be a whole lot easier! As it is now I follow the league by listening to as many webcasts as I can, regarless ow who's playing. Those with FSW can watch the game of the week. You have to make the effort if you want to follow the league. Getting back to the Seattle stadium situation, it seems that the Sounders will be back at Seahawks next season judging by comments on another discussion board.
Krammerhead, You are suggesting that we try to get 32 teams together in one league. I am saying that 16 teams playing nationally/continentally will be better. So basically, you are saying that teams will save money by not having to travel by air to 8 cities outside of your region. This amount of saved money will somehow allow the league to sustain 32 teams at a level of competition deserving of division two status. However, with 32 teams, you obviously have a dilution of player talent and front office management expertise compared to 16 teams. Is the money saved really worth the dilution of the product? We don't even have a good idea of how much money really will be saved, it is just some kind of vague notion. In a regional league, a team like Seattle would still be travelling by air to San Diego, Utah, Arizona, Calgary, Edmonton, and whatever other cities people deem to be in our region. This still costs money. How much less money does it cost compared to travelling to the east coast for some of these games? It just doesn't make sense to me. And hotels cost the same no matter where you are staying. A regional league will only save enough money to warrant it if the travel is by bus, and there are no hotels involved. Right now, Seattle only does this with Vancouver and Portland. There are no other possible cities with which this can happen, unless you want us to play against teams in the smaller cities in the region. Do these cities have the population and market to sustain a division two team? Reality. <----- Heh. Let's try a compromise verison: A 16 team league split into 2 8-team East and West regional leagues. Does the reduction in travel costs really look that great for teams in Minnesota or Texas or Edmonton? - Paul
I do try to follow the league as much as possible. But it is vicariously through the message boards and the telecasts on FSW. I don't actually get to see over half the league in person, and I even have season tickets to the Sounders. That sucks. But that is me. How about other soccer fans? We have to consider the appeal of the league to the general soccer fan. Will an 8-team regional league appeal to them at all in the first place to cause them to even want to follow it? Your product has to be attractive enough to make money, too. - Paul
I think Bright brought up a very good point "is there enough managerial talent to spread out among 32 teams" Honestly, no there isn't, but the USL isn't helping in any way to develop this front office talent or making their learning curve much shorter. The fact that the league doesn't do any marketing or create any league wide sponsorships makes it tough on every team to be successful. I think the players will step up to the level of play. Hopefully some U20's will step into the A-league and develop into bonafide stars and the level of play will actually improve all around in a year or so. Right now those double match weekends are lowering the level of play substantially.
Actually I'm not suggesting any such thing, I just added my 2 cents to someone elses proposal on having seperate 5 team leagues. I suggested it would work better with 8 team seperate leagues, as you could play a balanced 28 game schedule. I'm not proposing we do that, just engaging in discussion on things that could work. Besides you don' have to have 4 seperate leagues, there could be 3 or 2. It's just discussion.
I dislike the double-game weekends, too. And it usually involved playing the same team back-to-back, which is even more unnerving. For fans and players. Allowing the league to stabilize with strong organizations will lead to more soccer-specific stadiums or situations where the teams can control dates at stadiums. This is another reason not to break into regional leagues at this level and dilute what we are building. Then we can have a schedule spread out over a longer portion of the year without all these back-to-back games. It will really help the players develop better if they can play for 7-8 months instead of just 4-5 months. I know we can't have that right now at this moment, but it isn't too far off. Steady growth. - Paul
As far as league-wide sponsorships goes, I don't think the league does much of anything in a centralized manner. Maybe a salary-cap would be a good thing. But then they would have to bargain with a player's union, and that could get ugly. Anyways, I think most of the teams are on their own to do as thou will. I like how someone mentioned that the USL should get rid of the A-League and PSL brands, and just go with USL Div 1, USL Div 2, etc. It would simplify marketing efforts if everything was marketed under one umbrella. Plus, "A-League" doesn't sound so good anymore. Not to beat a dead horse, but maybe when the league solidifies with a set of strong organizations, some centralized marketing strategies can be put in place. - Paul