Should the Lamar Hunt US Open Cup has a title sponsor?

Yes, it should has a title sponsor. May I suggest icanhascheezburger.com

 

Maybe we can get a company that makes Scotch to be the sponsor.

 

Actually, that's a great idea. They already have the history with the tournament. And their Scotch is very good, my wife's favorite!

 

How did I know who started this thread before I even clicked on it?

I can has title sponzer?

Got news for you: seems to me like few people are even referring to it as the Lamar Hunt US Open Cup. Good luck getting another name in there.

If anything, they should drop the "US Open" part of it. Just go with "Lamar Hunt Cup."

 

http://national.soccerhall.org/Monthly Column/MC.August.2005.htm

The oldest trophy in the United States team sports history was donated to the American Amateur Football Association in 1912 by Sir Thomas R. Dewar, a British distiller, sportsman and philanthropist during a AAFA (now known as United States Amateur Soccer Association) visit to London prior to the 1912 Olympics.

The trophy was originally purchased for $500 and given in the hope of promoting soccer in the United States and in the name of Anglo-American friendship. The cup was first awarded to the Yonkers Football Club (NY) in 1912 after they defeated the Hollywood Inn Football Club (NY) at the Lennox Oval in New York City. The trophy was officially adopted as the U.S. Open Cup trophy prior to the Brooklyn Field Club's inaugural championship in 1914 in Pawtucket, RI. The trophy was retired in 1979, but was refurbished by the USASA in 1997 and was presented to the 1997 and 1998 Open Cup winners, before permanently retiring to the National Soccer Hall of Fame in Oneonta, NY.


Sir Thomas Dewar Cup

 

Don't think they use that one anymore.

 

I think it should have a title sponsor. Lamar Hunt US Open Cup, sponsored by ________. It would help with a lot of things probably, such as making this tourny more relevant.

 

Anything that gives the USSF more money to promote the tournament and anything that gives bigger prize money to the teams, thus getting the players to care more, is a good thing.

If a title sponsor can help bring this, it can't happen soon enough.

 

i see no reason not to have a sponsor

 

Who is going to sponsor it?

The main attraction to a sponsor is being able to increase the prize money, no? The tournament has zero national television presence. All but one of the matches this year has pulled in less than 7k people; most have been in the 2-3k range.

That's a pretty small group to be advertising to.

Which Fortune 500 companies are going to line up to slap their name on that at a rate where the prize money actually increases? You think U.S. Bank or Google just can't wait to pay $5M a year for that? You think Nike-- which would stand to potentially benefit from overpaying as a sponsor and subsidizing the prize money-- is going to want to?

I'm sure that you could find a sponsor; don't get me wrong. But it wouldn't bring in the money to make it worth it, unless you place the value as a $10,000 check + a month of free groceries from Kroger.

 

There's no way that the US Open Cup pulls in $2M. The middle-tier college football bowl games (you know, the ones on ESPN) pull in $2M. The BCS games pull in $5M-$6M. No way is the Open Cup in that company.

Wrong.

Average MLS attendance: 30 matches x 15,000/game= 225,000 home fans, 450,000 total (sponsorship works both home and road, you know)

2008 USOC attendance for the MLS rounds (1/8 final through finals): 4461/match. Even if that had been the average for the first two rounds (you know, with PDL and USASA clubs) that falls 50,000 short of the average MLS club's home attendance. It's less than 40% of the exposure when you consider road matches.

MLS hardly has great media exposure, but they do have a weekly ESPN match. The Gold Cup is televised by, uh, local TV and USLlive.com? You also have exposure through, uh, jersey sales and the like. You realize that every Beckham jersey sold at Scheel's or the adidas store has the Herbalife logo, no?

 

And you'd be fired.

Not even remotely close.

Total attendance to this point in the 2009 US Open Cup: 78,972 (with one game I don't have - Wilmington vs. Chicago). With two semifinals and a final yet to be played.

Lowest total attendance (home and road) by an MLS team in 2009: 171,606 by New England with 17 games left to be played. Lowest total attendance (home and road) by an MLS team in 2008: 397,605 by Kansas City.

118,453 is the highest total (with three games missing) for an Open Cup tournament in the modern era. Miami drew 119,000 just at home in the worst attendance year by a team in the history of the league.

Which is, if you've ever tried to follow the USOC, not even remotely close to the same level of media exposure as an MLS match.

 

if the mls and teams would just ADVERTISE this fracking tourny, then more of the casual soccer fans would actually know about it and more would go. hence giving a sponsor a reason to lay down some dough for the sponsorship. yes, a sponsor would be great. but first, maybe this league should take this tournament more seriously. and imo, the first thing i would do, is to have this tourny in the offseason so you're seeing teams at full strength instead of having mls sides play their waterboys and ballgirls. right after the mls championship would be great. interest in soccer would still be high and players would still be in good shape. either that, or maybe stop the season half-way through, and play the tourny. shorten it up a bit so it's not too long also. then pick up the season after the cup's over. idk, i just think looking for a sponsor before fixing this cup and making it worthwhile is putting the cart before the horse.

 

Unlikely. It's still a tournament on bad dates. There's a reason casual fans are casual. They don't go to hardcore things on this on bad (and nearly consecutive) Tuesdays or Wednesdays on short notice. Nor are they likely to just because you tell them they should. Come see the Wilmington Hammerheads? Not much juice there.

And you'd have no PDL teams and probably no USL teams. You do realize that PDL teams can only use their college players from May 1 until mid-August and that USL-2 teams have a short season and USL-1 teams don't usually keep all of their players together in the offseason, right?

Other than that, it's a perfect plan.

And it would be an MLS/partial USL-1 only tournament. That what you want?

 

You sir, are a one man wrecking crew. I commend you for staying firmly rooted in reality.

 

Whats the purse at present, 100K?

You dont have to make it a 1,000,000 for teams to care. if the purse even doubled or tripled youd could get MLS teams to care. a $10,000 bonus check for these guys is HUGE.

The tournament should absolutely have a title sponsor. No reason not to. And it doesnt have to be rediculous money. Just find someone willing to sign a reasonable contract over a longer term. Like a 7 year/ 2 or 3 million dollar deal (400K+ per year). That way the tournament benefits and as the tournament grows the sponsor will benefit from the investment. If you can get more money, great, but the tournament needs more exposure and fewer reserve squads if it is going to grow.

Without sacrificing when it occurs and the spirit of an 'all comers' tournament, sponsor dollars are the best way. But finding somebody willing to drop in excess of a million a year is a bit, far-fetched, to be nice.

 

I guess they just haven't been asked, then. Yeah, that must be it. Nike outfits the national teams, but they just haven't been asked to pony up $5M more for the USOC. Okay.

 

US Soccer has enough funds to pony up the prize money if it wished.

 

That's not even a Cup. A trophy, yes. But not a Cup.

 

If it were doable, it would be done.

 

The USSF is a nonprofit, and as such must file a Form 990 with the IRS covering their assets, revenues, and expenses.

Please get a copy of this document and show me where in the budget that prize money is going to come from.