Why? Maybe if the league grows more and expands to other areas where the team won't compete for fans with another MLS team as much, then maybe one, not both.
The Raiders don't even sell out most of their games. The A's win the division and have relatively subpar attendance numbers - and those are boosted by $1 Wednesdays. Economically, you've got a crap argument there. There's a strong possibility that NO league will have both Oakland and San Francisco teams within 4 years. There's no evidence suggesting that MLS could make it work.
where do you got that info???? I don't think that your argument is based in real statements of the teams involved....
--------------------------------------------- The Raiders don't even sell out most of their games. The A's win the division and have relatively subpar attendance numbers - and those are boosted by $1 Wednesdays. ------------------------------------- Have you seen how much Raider tix are? It's ridiculously expensive. Plus I know many people who don't consider Raider games to be family- friendly environments (even if tickets for 4 were affordable). The only thing I am sure of, regarding this post, is that San Jose was the m-f-ing WRONG part of the Bay Area to put a team. Move the Earthquakes to the Peninsula, I say. Like somewhere in the Mission district (land's cheaper, lotta crazy Central/South American soccer fans)
The Raiders may have a foot out the door, but it will take the A's leaving the East Bay in order for the Quakes to play in Oakland. Still, having the Traiters (er Raiders) leave the Bay Area will help to free up some sports dollars. Hooligans, anyone?
As to the Raiders' ticket prices- that's probably not the issue anyway. Al Davis wants to charge those ticket prices, and he might get away with that in Los Angeles. Most everyone believes he's getting the heck out of Oakland, wherever he goes. You can only sue the hosts so many times before the relationship goes beyond repair. If the Expos end up in Washington, the money that's ready for a Portland baseball stadium will still be available (built into state law now), and the A's ownership has been trying to get out for some time. The Raiders leaving probably doesn't change the A's position because the stadium is already re-geared to the Raiders and the city and county aren't in a position to throw any more money at it. Therefore, I'd say the chances of the A's staying aren't good. Problem is that the Quakes are better off in San Jose than they are in that stadium, believe it or not, mostly because it's too big, partially because the city and county would demand rent concessions from the Quakes that they wouldn't demand from another NFL or MLB franchise (refer to basic laws of supply and demand for the reason why).
I think that the best place for the Quakes is the East Bay. Too bad MLS didn't beat the Giants to that land in front of the Bay. San Francisco is the center of the bay's universe, despite the protests of San Jose. The only way to get Alameda county to put up an SSS is to have both the a's and raiders leave. Even still, I doubt that the Memorial Colliseum would get demolished for a futbol stadium. The problem w/ the Bay Area is that land is so expensive and the Bay makes travel a bit more difficult. But San Fran/Oak/Berkeley have way more residents than San Jose, so the franchise ideally would have been place here (Oak/SF). Plus Sacramento would provide a few extra fans. But the reality is that San Jo was the best option at the time. The main thing is that the Quakes don't do enough to get on the radar screen outside of SJ.