One's local. The other's national. It's not an either/or proposition. The existing teams can continue with the sorts of important local efforts that Paul mentions while expansion occurs elsewhere. How does Garber making the sell to potential new investor groups take resources away from the sorts of efforts that Paul mentions? How does the league office developing two separate business plans for different sorts of stadium situations take resources away from those local efforts? The "reorganize and refocus" efforts that Paul describes need to come from the existing teams' local management organizations. Garber making sales pitches with intelligently-designed business plans to potential new ownership groups doesn't impede the Krafts from rebuilding bridges in NE, Sakiewicz from rebuilding credibility in NY, or Moore from continuing to sharpen focus in SJ.
Not bad, but in the case of San Jose we have yet to see anything from the newly reorganized front office. As for supporters groups, Club Quakes is awesome doing what they do, the Casbah (in stadium support group) however can't seem to attracted any new members. I do believe that the Quakes Front Office don't really care about supporters groups, though they are the most passionate fans the Front Office would rather have a stadium filled with soccer moms and AYSO kids. But, yeah I do believe MLS shouldn't expand until the product off the field is better.
I agree that you may be right. There is a lot that can be done on the local levels to tap the communities for better attendance. It does have to be driven from the top, however, as most plans are. With limited resources we could end up like the dog that tries to get two bones and winds up with none.
Well, we’re talking about two different dogs... Good point. I also agree that ensuring that each MLS team focuses on its local fan relationships should be a priority. Paul makes some really great points about building attendance and the importance of nurturing supporters' groups. But expansion doesn't undermine those efforts. Where's the substantive resource conflict between nat’l league execs working on expansion and local management organizations focusing on their fan and community relationship-building? Garber meeting with potential investors hasn’t impeded KC’s crusader program. Hunt hosting potential ownership groups at Crew Stadium hasn’t impeded the Rapids from hanging those snazzy banners in downtown Denver. Is it the league’s expansion-oriented business modelling for different stadium situations that’s undermined the Krafts’ credibility with fans in NE? Beyond some very high level direction-setting, building local attendance and reaching out to local fans are efforts by management that lives and works in the community. Garber or Mark Abbott coming into NE, NY/NJ, or SJ won’t rebuild credibility in those markets. KC, Dallas, and Columbus - the examples that Paul cites as "compasses for success" - have done well thanks to local efforts by local mangement. We can say the same about Colorado, Chicago, LA, and DC. In contrast, it’s appropriate for the league’s nat’l execs to spend most of their time and effort on matters that require a more national and centralized focus - like expansion, league sponsorships, and nat’l media.
I don't think there is a substantive conflict. It would just be a focus conflict. What's the mission? But I think it's likely both can be done simultaneously as you commendably point out above.
I seriously doubt that attendance would be hurt at all by expansion. Every season the league has gotten more competitive. The only thing that expansion would do is create more opportunties for young Americans. Depth would become more of an issue, but that's all. Prior to contraction almost every team had a hole or two, but they shored it up via the Allocation Draft, Dispersal Draft, SuperDraft and the Supplemental Draft. If expansion happened now, they'd lose their depth but not more than one starter. The expansion teams might have holes, but the existing teams wouldn't. Those depths spots would most likely be filled by young Americans, thus creating more opportunities. The league continues to add good non-Americans every year, the only difference would that there'd be less outcasts like Serna and Grazziani, as they'd go to expansion teams. With the current salary cap, teams are already parting with good players, so expansion wouldn't dilute the talent pool at all. Every year more and better Americans are coming up through the U-17's Residency Camp and are better earlier in their collegiate careers. These trends are likely to continue, and very very unlikely to reverse. So, we're now seeing bottlenecks for good young American talents like Eddie Johnson, Justin Mapp, Devin Barclay and David Stokes. These guys need to play, and expansion would open up spots for them to get that playing time. I love PM's enthusiasm, but I very often think he is missing the big picture. Nice article, as he is simply stating his opinion. While I disagree with him, it is a well written and enjoyable read. -Digital
Digitron, Thanks for the compliments. Agree, disagree, its all for the betterment of soccer. Whatever the path, our destination is the same. I will take issue with the "big picture" thing. Ok, since 1998, MLS has said that the next year, there would be some announcement re:expansion. It has announced a list of cities that are potentials but nothing has come of it. Every year we hear ok, not next year, but the following. We went from 10 teams, to 12, back to ten in that same period. So obviously either we are doing something wrong, we are approaching it the wrong way, or something. We haven't sold the MLS bill of goods. But at the rate we are going, we talk about the possibility of expansion, we hope for it, yet we come up empty. Thats fine, but after awhile the story lacks the appeal. At some point we have to deliver. Ok. So here is what I am saying. If Oklahoma or anyone else approaches for that matter, great lets deal with them on an individual basis, keep it low key, but not make it sound like it is this priority to expand. Something tells me though that the league list of cities is more of where WE WANT to expand, rather something actually happening. Now what am I suggesting? So the league says, you know what? What we have may not be ideal but it is a pretty darn good foundation. So with that, rather than focus attention on "expansion" lets work to make our foundation rock solid. Hence the public challenge, if you want to call it that, of saying over the next five we are going to grow our average attendence by 8% per annum. We will do that until we break 20k per team a year. We will also work to make each supporters club in the league, a 1000 strong (Or whatever the number you want to choose). This requires league and club support, etc.. Of course you can establish some criteria that makes a group qualify as a supporters group, but I think we know what the general idea is. So each of the ten teams ends up having a hard core supporters group of a 1000 members, and averages 20k at each game. And for arguments sake, stadium development continues as it has been. We build a couple so that all ten teams are in excellent environs that allow each club to be a viable business. Not necessarily in SSS, but you get the picture. Ok. You also commit to taking the two teams that seem to be falling short of expectation and commit to making them as strong as the strongest clubs. In this way, parity extends beyond the field and the league is built around 10 solid organizations.....averaging 20k a game....with solid hardcore supporters groups of 1000 each.... Under which scenario do you think expansion would likely happen? The current one? Or what I suggest? I know, much of what I argue sometimes is simply about semantics, and is written from the comforts and simplicity of being a fan, but nonetheless, I wouldn't offer such ideas if I wasn't absolutely convinced that it wasn't possible. Ok, shred away. Paul
Paul, I agreed with most of the respones before, because I see no reason why we can't focus on improving our foundation while expanding. But after reading your post I think I see what you are getting at, but it wasn't clear. You want stronger bids, or at least not to waste our 10 or so remaining spots on sub-par bids, just because we are determined to expand. This is something that I have worried about as well, that we are so desperate for SSS's and new owners that we are willing to sell our souls to Canada, or have DuRoss in Rochester get a second mortgage and eat peanut butter and saltines for a few years in order to scrape together an acceptable franchise fee. You do mention that the expansion plans keep getting delayed, but a lot of this could just be the League exercising such caution that they don't end up with teams in bad stadium situations or uninterested owners. So, maybe, the League has done what you suggest, albeit because of poor bids rather than patience. So, yes, I agree that if by season's end it turns out that we have a couple half-assed bids by NFL owners just trying to fill dates in their stadiums, or minor-league money from someone like DuRoss, maybe we should wait. But due to the apparent improvement of the league's stability and profile over the past year I think that we'll see some strong bids.
Nice article PM and I get your message Tron. From the perspective of the contracted: Beyond my own disappointment as a teamless Fusion fan, I think the overall health and success of the league is dependent on both strong teams (on and off field) and an attractive footprint (which drives TV revenue I think). Anyway, I see so much room for improvement in the way the individual teams are managed, particularly along the lines of building the fanbase and connecting with the community, that I think it's in MLS's best interest to improve what they have first, before expansion. Building the fanbase and getting teams in the proper setting (I loath cavernous football stadiums) at this time, would do much more for the long-term viability of the league than rushing to expand for expansions sake. One point Tron addressed was the opportunity for young americans to get minutes. This very critical point can also be addressed by limiting the number of Sr. Internationals and Trans Int'ls on MLS rosters. I think the league continues to benefit from the contributions of foreign players and this broadens the fanbase as well. However, as the talent pool of Americans grows, we can generate more space on rosters without adding teams by scaling back the # of internationals per team.
After reading his article, I come away with the feeling he is preparing us to expect no news on expansion come 2004 , is it just me ?
I agree with Paul, after contraction, expansion at this point seems like a desperate risk to get new investors. Just having essentially 3 guys fund the whole league scares the hell out of me. But if you work to make the existing league more viable, I think that's infinately easier with fewer teams. I like the ten teams. The quality if play is better, and I think all the markets that they have them in now are solid markets. What the league needs is stability and time to build itself up. Baseball and Hockey are talking contraction left and right, Basketball should be doing the same, all of which are from grumbling that the leagues are spread too thin. Don't do the same with MLS. Give it a couple more years.
Please do not lump the Crusaders in KC as a fan club becuase they are not. They are nothing but glorified ticket sellers.
it's still not an either/or proposition I cited "Hunt's crusader program", along with Denver's really cool banners, not as fan clubs, but as examples of local management efforts to improve attendance. The point is that improving attendance in the existing markets isn't undermined by current expansion efforts. If the point that someone's trying to make here is that bad expansion is bad, then, well, yeah, ok, that's self-evident. No one's arguing that MLS should accept under-financed or otherwise poorly conceived expansion attempts. But that painfully obvious point has nothing to do with whether a few nat'l league execs pursuing expansion has any substantive impact on local management efforts to build attendance and fan relationships in their communities (see diatribes re local/nat'l on the first page of this thread).
Re: it's still not an either/or proposition I don't think the point is that expansion efforts are a detriment to local efforts to building attendance, but rather that MLS constant focus on expansion "coming soon" may start to backfire as it keeps not happening and that MLS may benefit more if MLSHQ focuses on building attendance. Towards that end I believe some franchises, particularly the Revs, could use a kick in the rear from the league to jump start their efforts to build/rebuild their connection to the fans and that that effort may be more productive to overall growth than constantly promising an expansion that may never come.
Re: Re: it's still not an either/or proposition Fair enough. I agree that MLS has raised the expectation stakes significantly this year by talking so openly and so often about expansion and by listing certain markets. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what league execs can do give the Revs the appropriate kick in the rear. Garber and the guys in the league office work for the Krafts (and AEG), not the other way around. That message needs to come from the Krafts' fellow investors and, perhaps ultimately, the fans.