Soccer specific stadiums are nothing more than a big, fat, wet dream. Let's face it, there just aren't any suitors out there who are willing to spend so much on a league who's potential is unclear and future uncertain (Hunt and Anshutz are not enough to grow this league). MLS needs to grow. A LOT of potential fans are being wasted. Having been on these boards for awhile, I have witnessed the patience and interest of soccer fans in places like Detroit and Houston wear thin. Having lived in San Diego and Minneapolis, I know. Our interest in the league is fading into apathy, and it's because we don't have teams to support. There's only ten teams for crying out loud. Since the league's impossible expansion prerequisites have failed to create any growth, it's time the league changes it's direction in regards to expansion. BS posters frequently mention that the Hunt-Wizards and Kraft-Revs partnerships with the stadiums and management are good situations (good, not great), so why don't they look for more NFL owners who own stadiums? Lurie, the Philadelphia Eagles owner has expressed interest in owning a team. And I'm sure other NFL owners would be interested too since they want more events for their stadiums. They'll be inclined to stick with the league as owners since they'll be making some revenue of MLS as stadium owners. Or in the case of Seattle, many citizens are expecting an MLS team, since it was promised as a part of selling the idea of a new stadium for the city in the first place. I'm sure many people in other cities with public-financed stadiums feel the same as Seattle does about getting good use of the facilities. Colorado played hardball with Mile High stadium and got a better lease, the same is in the works for Chicago at Soldier Field. The key is to just avoid miserable deals like Giants Stadium and RFK. Is it not true that the NBA had its beginnings as a league whose owners were primarily NHL owners looking to fill dates in at their arenas? Look at the NBA now. Most importantly, if MLS EVER enters an era where suitors are lining up to build stadiums and become owners, it will be on the merits of the sport and league itself, the league must prove itself first by developing a decent sized following, and a respectable footprint. Use the NFL owners/stadiums to get to a larger footprint, let the league grow and see what becomes of it. More teams and more cities will make more fans. Who knows, maybe someday the league will average 35,000 and won't even need to leave NFL stadiums. As far as I'm concerned, screw worrying about these soccer-only stadiums. We can share with football, and it may even evolve into a beneficial partnership. If MLS earns some respect for being a decent league, perhaps the NFL will respect our league more, and learn more about soccer etiquette, and such issues as grid-lines won't even be an after thought to soccer fans, as it will have readily been taken care of. Nearly all of the new NFL stadiums built in the last several years have had soccer dimensions in the back of their minds when being designed. They are all first class facilities. Many of them are in downtown locations. These are good things. The stadiums I have in mind are Lincoln Financial Field (Philadelphia), Ford Field (Detroit), Reliant Stadium (Houston), Seahawks Stadium (Seattle). Bring the size of the league to 14 with these four cities. From there, see if that stirs the pot a little bit, and eventually expand into 4 more cities. Now I'm not all about COMPLETELY piggybacking off of the NFL. I'm just suggesting that MLS needs to expand into the #6th (Philadelphia), #8th (Detroit), #10th (Houston), & #13th (Seattle) largest markets in the United States by any means necesary. With all of that said, I am not denouncing soccer specific stadiums. If someone wants to build one, great. But if the league is only waiting for these pipe-dream fantasies like Milwaukee, Winston-Salem, McKinney, Trenton, etc...then we will be resigned to clinging to our 0.0001% chance that one of these will be built for the forseeable future.
It's probably just me, but I would rather go to see a game in an old, terraced/bleacher stadium then some ritzy ass new stadium with refrigerators under every seat. Those kind of stadiums attract people who are there for the stadium's amentities, not for the game. Believe me, it happened here in Philly when the flyers moved out of the spectrum...there's been no atmosphere ever since. Anywayz, i would prefer crappy stadia to the new, high-class ones. Unfortunately most people would disagree.
Actually, I think MLS would settle for a "crappy" SSS over a state-of-the-art NFL facility built with soccer in mind... It'd be nice to see a really nice SSS being built somewhere but even here in OKC and Tulsa the reality is not as nice as league officials would have you think. When the "rubber hits the road" these proposals will only garner public support if integrated with needs of the community (HS football, outdoor concerts, U of Central Ok's football games). It was funny reading that Lamar Hunt thought Tulsa's Skelly Stadium was "too big" when I always thought the problems with it had more to do with the crown, the plastic grass, and the narrow field. Skelly Stadium has a capacity of 41,000 but about 10,000 of that was from an upper section by the pressbox never used when the former Roughnecks were using it for NASL games. I understand how some big NFL stadiums can turn into a cavern with no atmosphere if only 8-10,000 people are there. But geez, we've been doing it for 7 years now in New England, Denver, East Rutherford, LA, Dallas, KC, and DC... LA gets one next year while Chicago in a couple of years goes back to a renovated Soldier Field... SJ is a college stadium with a narrow field... Miami had a great space in Lockhart that was actually looked down on during it's NASL days (why not move them to the Orange Bowl?). If a SSS gets built, it could very well be a bare-bones project, as cities can justify $$$ for NFL stadia because of "economic impact" but are hardpressed when it comes to a spectator sport as largely untraditional as soccer... I'm with ya... put teams in interested markets FIRST... then pressure for SSS. In the NASL, owning a team was relatively easy... keeping the team going year in and year out was not... in MLS, there are so many obstacles (single-entity, SSS, large entry fees, grass only stadiums) that even the most dedicated and interested potential I/Os have been put off... Some day we may be able to do what the NFL, NBA and NHL do on a regular basis... threaten to leave town unless a stadium is built... but right now, most cities would just respond with: "Don't let the door hit you on the butt on the way out." I don't see any other way this league gets 14 or 16 teams...
i think most sss here are going to be built with at least some bleachers... i *believe* LA's will, and c-bus is all bleachers if the fire had built in arlington before this season, i think that would have been all bleachers as well and i definitely agree with you... bleachers rock... if they want to have seats... fine, just don't put them in the supporter sections
terrace/bleachers at both ends, seats in the midfield sections...that's the only way to go...and put a space where the bleachers stop and the fence(or whatever surrounds the field) begins so that people can rush to the fence after a goal. that would be good times.
I don't care if you have to get a grasshopper and a chicken to have babies together, since MLS has been so adamant about Soccer Specific Stadia, I am holding them to it. And, I'm right to. And, they're right to. If MLS hadn't killed Lockhart, I would consider crappy, but, reasonable makeovers... but, that's not the answer. And, it sucks. From now on, SSS. Other deals will suck a$$... it will continue to make MLS look like a joke. And, if MLS expands into NFL stadia (or any stadium that isn't constructed specifically for the team), I won't believe in the people running it (the league) anymore. And, if I don't believe that the people creating this product have my best interest in mind, I have no reason to continue to be a consumer of it. They weren't willing to make sacrifices for us - namely keep Miami, and possibly expand Rochester or add another club, I'm not going to make sacrifices for them more than I already do.
I don't disagree either. I love Crew Stadium, I was there for the US-Mexico game and it was the greatest. BUT, there aren't any more Crew Stadiums being built anywhere. The main point of my essay is that I want the league to expand more than I care about soccer-only stadiums. Philadelphia can play in Veterans Stadiums, Franklin Field, wherever; and Houston could play in Robertson for all I care. I just want to see more teams. I also agree that the atmosphere goes when the intimate stadiums are gone, but I think it has more to do with the gentrification of the crowd, than the building itself. I was at Invesco Field when the US played Mexico, it was LOUD. If MLS played at these places, the tickets would still be cheap.
That is not what FIFA wants.... from an article of fifa for the construction of new stadia!!!... here is the link: http://www.fifa2.com/scripts/runisa.dll?M2:gp::67173+stadia/reg/index+E and..... ... so what do you think???
I'm inclined to agree with the original poster. If SSS could be built everywhere, that would be best. But MLS might fade out while we wait for that scenario to evolve. If the LA stadium thing catches fire and other cities starting building SSS, that's great. But MLS needs owners. NFL owners have facilities that people are accustomed to attending and having good times. Like it or not, NFL is king in terms of dollars. If MLS wants to grow it had best make friends with the king, at least until MLS is strong enough to branch out alone.
Soccer-specific stadiums will not turn a marginal soccer market into a profitable one. (See Miami) You gotta put any expansion/relocation teams in places where people are going to come out and watch the games. Duh, right? And no matter how many soccer fanatics there are in a region, a crappy stadium situation will lead to perpetual losses and a dwindling fan base. (See Metros) Double duh. What MLS needs to do is do tons of market research and figure out what are the eight or ten markets with the best potential upsides, find the best near-term stadium situations, and move into the best two, four or six. If Seattle looks like the best market, and an Invesco-Field type of lease can worked out, welcome Seattle to the league. If they can only get a Giants Stadium type of deal, stay away. Ditto Houston, Philadelphia, and on and on. Sure, this is very, very obvious. Most pragmatism is. But I agree that MLS needs to get to 14 or 16 teams to better reap the possible windfall from a very good national team, and ideologically waiting for SSSs is not going to get it there.
The MLS should get out of their contract w/ABC first and move to another network like NBC. I'm always saying this but, ABC sucks! They are not putting ANY effort into making the MLS big even though it was their investment by signing them. The only time that you see commercials about the league is when they show them on Soccer Saturday. That defeats the purpose of advertising! Not only that but they put their matches on ESPN2, which is not a station that everyone gets. More people get ESPN than ESPN2. Better yet more people get ABC than both of those, so why don't they play it on there? I think we all know why. If MLS got better ratings and more publicity then that would create a better and larger fanbase. With that then I believe more people would be willing to support getting a team in their city or even build a SSS. But, I guess that's just me LoL.
So that's what has been missing from MLS... leauge sanctioned mayhem. History proves that soccer crowds and fences are a bad combination.
There is more to SSSs than game environment (although that is a large part of it.) In DC, MLS does not get any revenue from the parking, food, or drinks. Plus, MLS does not hire the staff working those games, thus has less direct control over how the stadium is managed during games, and how the stadium is scheduled. With SSS, MLS gets a better deal. It would be nice if RFK did not have concerts days before games (where the audiences destroy the pitch.) It would be nice if we didn't have to move the schedule around because of other events. And it would be safer and more enjoyable if MLS (not RFK) had more control over the security and event staff of the games. I believe that all of this is in the long range plans of MLS. It's just not so easy to get there from here when your losing money.
Thats why we NEED SSS!!!!.... but we don't have money to build it by ourselves... i have an idea... the fans in lower divisions of argentinian soccer build themselves the stadiums... well that aren't five-star stadiums by fifa... but they have stadiums... why... the fans put all their effort for building an arena for their team.. well if a fan of XXX (put a random team in XXX, well minus LA and CREW) put a bag of concrete... sum to that 12.000 fans per team... well you have a very good start... and sum to that the help of the investor (or the league...) and you have a very very good start... well that could be difficult... but possible!!!
ok, just forget what i said about the whole fence thing...that was ignorance on my part. So scrub that but keep the terrace/bench thing at each end part.
Terraces and standing sections have been all but banned in Europe, for the same reasons we don't want fences (too much of a chance for violence). That's one aspect of soccer that we definitely do NOT want here. We have a chance to do it right for a change, and just because they do it in Europe doesn't mean it's okay. Let's get off this "we have to do it like them, or it isn't soccer" crap. Many of these so-called "traditional" stadia in Europe and other places are substandard, and would be condemned and shut down by even the smallest whistle-stop, podunk town's building inspector. Now, having bleachers in the endzones is not a bad idea, just as they do in some football stadia, and the way some older baseball parks have bleachers in the outfield. But the way the FIFA report reads, they would probably have to be chair-back bleachers, instead of just benches. But for me, the venue doesn't matter that much. I can handle MLS playing in NFL stadia, as long as they're playing. It beats the alternative. Economics may not allow for SSS's right now, and we'll just have to make do with what we have. Deal with it.
I agree with how terraces bred violence over in Europe, but we don't have problems with violence, nor will we for a very long time. It's not very accurate to compare terrace culture from the 70's and 80's to the fans here in the U.S. We don't really have to worry about overcrowding or violence, so what exactly is the problem with benches without backs? I know what you're trying to say and that your worried about the possibility of violence and that's completely understandable, but we're not sticking benches in the Kop end of Anfield. It's different here.
why fences generate violence??? i don't know why.... the violence is not generated by fences or terraces or anything like it.... its generated by the population... and their cultural improvements... nothing more...
I think the point is that fences created the opportunity to turn violence into mass deaths, i.e. people being crushed to death as they try to escape. That exact set of circumstances probably wouldn't happen in the US. But any time you set up a hard barrier in front of a volatile mass of people, you have the potential for a very bad situation. Besides, high fences are just ugly.