http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/story/139856p-124169c.html Talk of playing it in Yankee or Shea Stadia. Very interesting. I guess it would make the Metro's late-season collapse even more painful.
I don't see the game being hosted anywhere other than an SSS from now on. I'm guessing Columbus gets it in 2004, Dallas in 2005, and any new stadium involved with expansion from then on.
This would be disastrous - Look at the attendance of regular stadiums versus SSS at the MLS Cup Finals: 2003 @LA (sss) - 27,000 2002 @NE * - 61,000 2001 @Col (sss)- 21,000 2000 DC - 39,000 1999 @NE - 45,000 1998 @LA(Rose)- 51,000 1997 DC * - 57,000 1996 @NE - 35,000 (* - Home team in MLS Cup Final) In every case the SSS is usually HALF of the attendance in a regular stadium - Is the desire to have the appearance of every seat filled (THEY WERE NOT AT LA!!) in SSS really that strong that they would opt for such smaller crowds? - This is a step in the wrong direction I can see SSS for regular season games - But the Finals need to be in bigger venues - The attendance in DC and NE even when their teams aren't playing bears out the support for soccer in these communities - Don't punish the local soccer communities by keeping them out of 3rd-world sized venues for championship games
The crowd at HDC was very close to sellout if not a complete sellout. Sure there were empty seats, but in modern stadiums with wide concourses, nice concessions and lots of standing room areas - there are plenty of people not sitting in their seats during a game. Plenty of people from Chicago and other areas may have been at the stadium for the first time - as a result, they might have been all over the stadium checking out the view from different places. All of the regular Galaxy fans who were at the game said that it was as crowded as it had ever been. As far as your second point goes. Sure they can sell more tickets when they hold the game at a bigger venue. But does that affect perception of the match? TV ratings are not any higher when it is in a big stadium. Everyone knows that MLS Cup can sell out (or get close to it) a bigger venue. And the extra ticket money is not that enormous a factor in the grand scheme of things. And put it this way. If there are 30,000 - 35,000 more fans who aren't able to get tickets - the match will get better tv ratings, right? I think it is better to reward those owners who are willing to undertake the exposure of a big mortgage on a new stadium that will serve the league better in the long run. MLS should be proud to show the world its (for the most part) non-tax payer funded, attractive soccer venues. These are the stadia that are best suited for MLS, so MLS should be proud to be associated with them. When 66% of the teams have their own nice stadiums, I would even like to see home field advantage go to the highest seeded team left come the MLS Cup final. It would be appropriate to see the most important match of the year played before the supporters club of the league's best team sitting in their own seats. The atmosphere would be tremendous. And it would be an appropriate reward for being the best team over a long 30+ (come expansion) game season. There have been a number of non-neutral MLS Cups played already - might as well make it a permanent part of the cup and take advantage of the appeal the spectacle has on TV. Even the Razor came alive for MLS Cup 2003 and everyone knows how quiet that stadium tends to be.
There was an article somewhere that said 3 teams had "bid" to host MLS Cup 2004.. One was LA at the HDC, DC United and an unamed 3rd team.
I suspect that unnamed 3rd team, is Dallas. Since the Burn will be back in the Cotton Bowl, they have a good field in a stadium that is plenty big. They have also not hosted a All Star Game (never), and MLS Cup (never), or a Men's national team game (10 years almost). Having a Championship game to spice up a season ticket package, in a season when they NEED to bring that back, would be very important. True they are likely to host these games a year later, but it is sure possible to me.
But Dallas will be getting their new stadium in 2005, which will get the Cup for 2005 (has it already been stated with the stadium announcement?). So that's a big strike against Dallas for next year.
Sure, this is an old thread, but it's an evergreen. Several questions: 1) anyone heard anything about possible 2007 Cup sites? Surely Toronto is too cold, right? Same with Chicago? 2) anyone heard anything more at all about the possibility ever of hosting MLS Cup at either Yankee Stadium or Shea? Or will they just wait for Harrison? 3) Anyone heard anything about possible future DC bids to host the Cup at RFK , assuming it is another mid-November date?
1) Nope - this usually gets decided, or at least narrowed down, in the league meetings during this Cup's weekend yes - (don't look for this to stop them) yes - ( " " " ) 2) no, that would be damned silly .... yes 3) I doubt we see another soccer "event" of any kind until we get the new stadium built - which is a shame because the new stadiums are too damned small for MLS Cups and other events .......
Wazza matta with Toronto or Chicago in November? - Sure it might be a bit cold but so what The MLS Cup or whatever they end up calling the Playoff Final should always be at the HOME field of the higher seed - PERIOD
Definitely agree that having it at one of the team's home field is better, but it doesn't give MLS long enough to market the Cup throughout the year, have hotels squared away etc. Besides, imagine (and this is definitely a work of imagination) RBNY made it to the MLS Cup as a #1 seed. Can you honestly say the Cup being hosted at Giants Stadium would be a good thing?
What if New England, or New York(ha ha) make it to the final as the higher seed? Do we play on a saturday or push the MLS cup back to a Sunday when the resident NFL teams dont play?
Now you're confusing the argument with facts - "Never let facts get in the way of the truth" - Intruder in the Dust (i think)
While I understand the need for the league to "reward" the franchise owners with a Cup in their stadium for putting up the money for the SSS, it does seem to de-legitimize (if you will) the numbers of the thing. While I love the HDC, the 27,000 fans simply cannot offer the same "umph" that a stadium filled with more people can. I was lucky enough to go to the World Cup this last summer, and sitting in Gelsenkirchen with their enclosed 37,000 was nothing short of incredible. (Despite the US teams horrible performance.) My two cents is to give the new SSS the All-Star games and the special performance games, and have the large MLS Cup matches at cities who are next on the expansion list. Imagine the Lincoln Financial Field in Philadelphia with its 68,000+ seats. Or Edward Jones Dome in St. Louis with its 66,000+ seats. Rewards should be given to the investors of SSS, without question. Soccer still brings a bad taste to the mouths of many big bucks investors thanks to the NASL. But by going to other cities who are considering investing, showing them that they do have a local fan base, and that investing in soccer is a worthwhile venture, can only help the league and the reputation of the league in the long run. Okay, I'm officially stepping down off of my soapbox.
I doubt it. First, the weather could be very bad, and MLS wants to make the Cup an event. If it's too cold for people to attend the functions, they won't. Also altitude is a factor in Denver. I think Denver is more likely to get an All Star match, when the weather is better and outcome less important.
RFK could easily host the 2008 Cup. The Gnats will be gone, and no way we have a new stadium finished by then.. With the baseball infield gone and maybe even the old stands back in pace (unless they were wrecked taking them out) - RFK will probably even get some WC qualifers again. It will be the largest SSS in the country, and the DC market has proven it will fill the house for the right games. In fact, I'd bet we don't even break ground on a new stadium until the Gnats have moved out and the plans are put in place to demolish RFK.