Due to there being a Cosmos thread every other week I was just curious if people wanted a second New York team more than a National footprint. Northeast – 4 teams, maybe 5 depending on how you want to look at Toronto. I wouldn’t classify Toronto as Midwestern though and I think they’d agree. Midwest – 3 teams Northwest – 3 teams California – 3 teams Mountains - 2 teams Texas – 2 teams Southeast – 0 teams Southwest – 0 teams Florida – 0 teams It seems to me that The South and by the south we are talking about Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee as well as Florida are the most glaring vacancy MLS has as far as regions go. MLS has leached all off the strong franchises it can out of the USL now if it really wants to grow its product, and by virtue the sport, the league is going to have to go back to doing some hard work. The next few franchises may not be as glamorous as the last few but The South and Florida are going to be important for the league to get to where it wants to go. As far as the Southwest goes, the desert states between Texas and California you only have three viable options in Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Tucson. None of which are likely to happen anytime soon. Anyway, I’m not asking which one you think is more likely or which one has an ownership group that can get something done. While those points will in all likelihood be debated in this thread for the poll I just want to know which one you would prefer.
The South isn't going to support a team just because it's in "the South". MLB tried that with the Braves, I only know 1 person that fell for that. It's all college football 24/7/365. Baseball has been making inroads here but, most people just don't care. I hope MLS understands this- when thinking about soccer in the South... I think they should put a 20th team elsewhere, and not in NYC. If people can't go support a team - i know its in Jersey- with Henry, then who cares about that market? People there watch foreign leagues anyways, it's like DC- lots of soccer fans, no one cares about United and MLS.
To be fair that region, outside of atlanta and miami, is generally a void in all pro sports. Even the tampa area generally does a poor job supporting it's teams. To me the Southeast is college sports land. Now for expanding MLS geography, which i like the idea of more than NY2, then i'd think Detroit, St. Louis, or San Fran are better options.
As much as I think it would be great to travel to either location, what makes these 2 tiny markets obvious candidates?
If they were to take a risk, I would work Miami because its not as conservative/old fashioned and it has a large hispanic/latino populous, but as everyone is pointing out, its all about college football in the s.e as well as Nascar, people forget about stock car racing and the tradition in the region.
Expanding into the South needs to be done in regions that have had an influx of people from the North and Midwest moving in. Areas like Raleigh and Norfolk/Virginia Beach areas would be my first "southern" targets. St. Louis, Indy, Minneaoplis, and NY2 make more sense to me.
If you want to increase the national footprint, I think the best markets would be Minneapolis or San Diego. Atlanta, Miami, Detroit, and Phoenix are the big markets without teams, but I seriously doubt any of them could successfully support a franchise. Miami - Isn't a great sports town. Just because there are Latinos, it doesn't mean the team will be well supported. Some MLS teams have practically no Latino support whatsoever; New England, for example. I was at a game a few years back and I remember a bunch of Napa Latina babes going around and throwing hats with FMF logos into the crowd. I just shook my head. Some markets have great multicultural support, others don't. It's a real gamble. Atlanta - I've been to three sports bars in Atlanta. In each one there was a rowdy crowd of racist college football fans telling me that "soccer is for Mexicans." Sure, not all of Atlanta is like this. There's a small group of loyal soccer fans, but I seriously doubt they'd be willing or able to support MLS. Detroit - The whole metro area is a mess. Since the city itself is down right dangerous, there really is no central location. The population is extremely fragmented and the soccer fans I know there suffer from euro-snobbery or lack of acceptance of soccer as a professional sport. Phoenix - I don't know much about the area, but I do know that it's REALLY hot in the summer. Also, the demographics just don't seem right.
Less than 30K showed up to see the USA-Canada game for the past Gold cup. Some of us drove 5+ hours for that game (remember seeing a few Chicago FIRE shirts. SO I say Detroit does not get my vote.
It's not about the city or region, it is all about the ownership group. I think an MLS team could be successful in Des Moines, IA if there were the right owners to pull it off. The success of franchises like SKC, Portland, Seattle, and others are showing what motivated owners do. Franchises like New England and Dallas show what unmotivated owners do.
Most people seem to be coming from the perspective that the south is only good for college football and NASCAR. I disagree with that perception based on one thing, the misrecognition of what people actually care about. Do they like college football? Yes. Do they not care about anything else? I believe not, the region just hasn’t been given much of a chance to prove it, or build on any set foundation. Baseball is a great example; all southerners should care about the Atlanta Braves, well that’s stupid. In sports people care about two things those they love (their team) and those they hate (not just other team but their rivals) this is what the south has lacked in almost all sports. MLB Atlanta Braves – 1966 NFL Atlanta Falcons – 1966 New Orleans Saints – 1976 Carolina Panthers – 1993 Tennessee Titans – 1997 NBA Atlanta Hawks – 1968 Charlotte Hornets – 1988/Charlotte Bobcats – 2004 Memphis Grizzlies 2001 New Orleans Hornets – 2002 Compare that to the ingrained hatred other teams in those same leagues have had time to develop in other regions, it isn’t even close. Look at the league that MLS has to compete directly against for most of its season, one team just one team. People say the PNW does well because they have history and tradition, I’ll agree with that but they also hate each other and only play each other in one sport… soccer. NFL Seattle, MLB Seattle, NBA Portland, NHL Vancouver, MLS Seattle, Portland and Vancouver I’ll bet MLS stays very strong in that region as long as that is the case.
I live in the Norfolk/Virginia beach area, and I'm fairly certain that we couldn't support an MLS team.
You want to give me some better numbers not involving Mexico, a final, or some other hot to trot international team that draws 50K from halfway across the country?
People view Southerners like they view Hispanics with Soccer. Simply because you are from X, will mean you will support Y regardless. Nice theory.
Wasn't this already tried in Miami? Besides, just having an large Hispanic population does not translate into support of a local team. The predominant ethnicities are Cuban and Puerto Rican which are not big on Soccer per se. That leaves many other ethnicities including Mexican, which usually support FMF or wherever one of their El Tri players is playing.
Yes, but Portland and Seattle have history and fan support like none other. That is motivated fan base.
Well I guess I should be blaming both Canada and USA fans. I think we were all expecting more than 26-30K to show up for that game. Poland-USA at soldier field did get close to 50K, maybe 40+K. Also Brazil-USA here in Chicago we got close or over 50K a few years back.
hmmm your point seems accurate, but tough to prove. Not that people up here care more about soccer, but more people care about the sport then in other regions. your point about the rivalry carrying the passion though in my opinion is slightly off. the seattle/portland rivalry is not specific to MLS, in fact it's barely on the radar here. the anymosity between seattle / portland started economicaly over 100 years ago. in the sports arena, u. of washington and u. of oregon (hate you ducks) has been very intense for a long time. the Blazer/Sonic rivalry was also intense and did not prevent the demise of one of the great n.b.a franchises a few years back. from a distance, I see the Braves in the playoffs all those years and not selling out the stadium, I watched an amazing Hawks team last year in the playoffs not selling out, I see the Hornets in both cities failing. The perception is and will be that people in that region only pay for two sports, football and nascar. Not going to try and explain why, just not sure if its a lack of rivalry.
That's not entirely true. The Charlotte Hornets situation is a lot more complex than it was told in the national media. George Shinn made a series of bad decisions (he openly admits to this), while he was found not guilty of rape in a much publicized trial, he did admit to cheating on his wife multiple times. This doesn't go over well in North Carolina, to say the least. He then partnered with a brash businessman called Ray Woolridge who nobody here ever liked and they gave the city an ultimatum on an arena or they'd move. The city voted the arena down. In addition to the scandal and distaste of the other owner, the people of the city saw that the Panthers had built a stadium Uptown with entirely private funds and wondered why the Hornets couldn't do the same. That arena that got built for the Bobcats was built out of anger and spite, it has cost several local politicians their careers and it's loaded to the brim with poison pills if the Bobcats ever want to leave. The attendances are poor because people here still hold a grudge against the NBA, the Panthers meanwhile just announced their 90th consecutive sell-out.
I know your point is valid in regards to Charlotte, I think they had an NBA record at one time actually in the old arena for consecutive sell outs. And I havnt spent a whole lot of time in the southeast, but I am a huge college football fan, and I follow nascar, and I know how passionate south eastern folks are toward there teams. But the perception of the southeast being all about football/nascar cannot be completely wrong, or MLS might still be down there.
While that is true, a lot of that fan support would shrink away if someone like Robert Kraft took over the team and neglected it. As you said, these franchises also have the advantage of a long history which is something all other expansion teams minus the Cosmos will not have. It is going to come down to the ownership group. That is why Garber should be focusing on finding a solid ownership group rather than focusing on a single city. I dont think trying to force together an ownership group is a good idea.
Poland is ALWAYS going to be a huge draw in Chicago. And last I checked, Brazil is kind of a big deal.
yes and no. Portland had shotty clueless ownership from 2001-2006...and the Timbers Army still grew immensely during that time. Maybe it's the DIY ethic, or our organics ways meaning "okay clueless FO" we don't care what you think, infact we'll make something bigger and better ourselves. A very Portland attitude, thus supporters came together. My point, while great ownership is always a plus, it's really the willingness of the supporters and how much they really want it. In Portland, the Timbers Army arguably brought MLS to Portland because of the crapload of work and behind the scenes activity that took place. Sure Merritt footed the bill, but we were the soul that drove the midnight train. Supporters can make the difference. If you want it bad enough, you'll find a way to make it happen. And that is true for any supporters in any city that wants to bring MLS to their neck of the woods. On that note...my order if I had a magic wand. - NY (yes, the Cosmos) - Atlanta - St. Louis - Chivas to SD (ya I know, but still)