"Ideally, we want 18,000 to 27,000-seat stadiums in MLS," said Garber. "That's the appropriate size. But we'd rather be closer to 18,000 because of the intimacy those stadiums have." From this article about Vancouver: http://www.canada.com/globaltv/bc/story.html?id=4db679a1-f503-4b12-95ec-6b7605145e46&k=42608 I think its a little shortsighted to build closer to 18K. What does Garber know that I don't? Probably a lot... but I think its a little small.Maybe 18K is enough in some markets, but lots of markets can handle more, even expansion markets like Toronto or the may places where the average is around 17k or 18k. Perhaps in KC or San Jose 18K is enough but in DC or LA or NY or New England (hopefully by some point they'll need a bigger one)
supply and demand economics. right now, MLS can draw NHL/NBA numbers but can't charge premium ticket prices or count on the season ticket or game presale tickets the way the other two leagues do.
well, according to the quote he does say 18,000-27000. and then he says "closer to 18" which does not imply all new stadia should be 18,000. so I'm not sure what the point of this thread is he gives a lot of leeway there for different circumstances of teams.
I think Garber is thinking that you first guarantee sellouts for your 18k for a couple of years. Generate ticket scarcity and make people feel special that they managed to get a ticket to the game. Ensure that the stadiums will have that "this place is packed" feeling that comes from a good sellout. Then, you build up a waiting list of 2k-3k season ticket holders, and expand the stadiums by 5k-6k. IMO, it's better to start small and build on 5k in capacity every 10 years or so, then to overestimate and cheapen your product. Granted some markets should start at the 22-25k range right now.
18,000 and only say, 12,000 shows up won't look that sparse on TV compared to now. Could it be MLS downsizing the stadiums a bit? A bit of irony as Garber mentions about intimacy of stadiums, yet the stadia in Seattle, New England, etc.
I think in Seattle they saw Roth and Allen as owners that are too good to pass up, the stadium situation be damned. Although MLS isn't as desperate for investors as they used to be 7-10 years ago, the situation is not that good to be extremely picky.
I think Seattle and Philly are showing just how focused on getting into all but one of the top 10 tv markets. And Seattle reverberates all the way down to southern Oregon and out to Idaho.
Yeah I don't get it. St. Louis is regarded and hyped up as Soccer City U.S.A. yet they only plan to build an 18,500 seat stadium. Why wouldn't they go in the low to mid 20's? Hope it's expandable.
What about you guys? Getting 30K for the playoff games I hope you guys build a 30K stadium. You think they'll build it that big?
St. Louis is a smaller metro area than some. For instance: Dallas - 6.0 million Toronto - 5.9 million Houston - 5.5 million D.C. Area - 5.2 million Boston - 4.4 million St. Louis - 2.8 million I think it's a great idea to build a smaller stadium if the economics are right and then expand from there. I think most of this is driven by Toronto F.C.'s success and other owners are trying to follow that plan of starting small, build demand, add on.
Well, since only a few teams actually average more than 18K I don't think it is that conservative for them to build an 18K stadium. They are basically just estimating a bit above the MLS average, which isn't a bad way to start a franchise and stadium. At least the potential for sellouts and great atmosphere would be greater in 18K than it would be for 22K. I'm not saying they couldn't sell out 22K. I havent done the market research, but I think it is safe to assume that building around the league average is a safe way to do it. I have to assume it can be expanded, but I have been wrong before.
I think Garber was speaking more to the current politics of the Whitecaps getting to build a stadium than to his preferred MLS stadium size. From the linked article: They can use a potential for MLS membership as leverage. If Garber had come out saying that the preferred size was 20,000 to 25,000, part of that leverage would have disappeared.
Okay, but Salt Lake Cities population is like 179,000 and they have pretty good attendance. Lotta games around 16k in that dump of a stadium
The metro area of Salt Lake is around 1.1 million, and they don't have to compete with the one of baseball's most historic franchises in the summer. The AAA Salt Lake Bees average about 6,500 people a game whereas the Cards average over 48,000. I'm not saying that a St. Louis franchise couldn't fill a 25K stadium, I just think it's smarter to start at a baseline and be prepared to add on in the future.
Right. Houston, on the other hand (with the larger population) will obviously build a stadium with more than 18K capacity. But still probably only around 20K. Yes, they drew 30K for the playoffs, but have only averaged just under 16K this year. Teams only get a couple playoff games a year at most. No reason to build for 30K.
We've been debating this a bit on the Quakes forum. I think it's a pretty good strategy as long as they build in the capability to expand as needed. I don't want it to turn into a thing where tickets are really hard to get and really expensive, and the crowd is there mostly to provide a nice atmosphere for the TV audience (and I'm typically reduced to being a member of the TV audience for "my team's" matches).
Well, if MLS goes the way we hope it does, one day that might happen. But I wouldn't expect it for a looooooooooooong time. It's quite a difference between 18,000 and 60,000. And with all the entertainment opportunities we have in this country (and they keep growing) I would be surprised if it ever reaches that point. In fact, I think it's more likely that MLB and NFL will downsize before MLS reaches MLB/NFL size demands.
I'm not talking about 60k, I'm talking about 25-30k from 18k. And this could be 10-20 years down the road. But given a growing population and the miniscule market penetration soccer has in this country relative to potential, I don't think it's out of the question at all to think that a 25-30k stadium could routinely sell out (and I mean really sell out, not what we have today in an "HDC sellout").
Agreed. BTW, there's no MLS in Baltimore (and most likely never will be), so it's appropriate to use the population of the official Combined Statistical Area for MLS purposes. Yeah, I can see how it's appropriate for some markets to build 18,000 - 20,000. Population is only part of the equation - you've also got to consider other factors, like stadium location and how strong a presence soccer has in the market (Toronto had no history in MLS, but is a massive market with a large base of soccer fans). For example (and believe me, this is a hypothetical), a new Revs SSS built next to Gillette would probably be better built in the low 20s, while a new Revs SSS in or much closer to Boston (and on the T) should probably seat closer to 30K, since it's likely to draw more fans based on its more central location.
While I believe most SSS's in this country are expandable, there are other options too that would help meet a potential increased demand for soccer: -play more games (Should be simple enough to lengthen the season or play more friendlies.) The extra matches will make more soccer tickets available to the interested public. -in an extreme case, add an extra team (like Chivas USA, or the rumors we hear every now and then about a second team in Chicago) In general, it's going to be a lot cheaper to simply play an extra 3 or 4 home games each year than it is to actually expand a stadium.
Another option is to play bigger games at (usually readily available) larger NFL or college stadiums nearby if need be.