In Atlanta, each year we see players making a choice between playing soccer and getting a job making money. In MLS, we see players being cut due to salary cap considerations. In LA, the Home Depot Center alledgedly made the Galaxy profitable. There is a new facility being built in Frisco, the Fire are on their way to a SSS, and presumably the Rapids are on their way. We should have something tangible on the Metros in the next 60-90 days. This prompts a couple of questions: 1. If these facilities are built and have the same effects on the league finances, will the salary cap be increased to prevent the cutting of players that are "making too much money?" 2. What is the trickle down affect on the A-league and lower divisions of the USL? Will other A-league teams build SSS (Charleston has one, Rochester is building one and Atlanta should have one next season). 3. Will this make it more viable for kids coming out of college/high school to choose playing professional soccer and sticking with it?
The amount of money involved in the TV deals is also relevant in this question. Right now, the MLS has to pay various networks to have their matches televised. The day on which major corporations are paying tons of money for commercials in the half-time show of the MLS Cup, the salary cap would have blown through the roof. But of course, you're right. SSS is one of the key steps for the financial success of this league.
When the league is profitable, you could see a larger bump in salaries, but when the entire league is profitable, you could see a move away from a single-entity structure and into a one owner-one team situation with a hard salary cap. However it could take a few years for this to make its full impact...I mean even if the rest of the teams broke ground within the next year, they would not be ready until the 2006 season at the absolute earliest. It would take a few years for the financial impact to be felt, but SSS owned by the I/O are crucial. It allows the teams to actually profit from parking and concessions, which many teams are hurt by not recieving. These SSS could also be used for concerts and other non-sporting events, an idea that may not appeal to most of us, but they can make the owners of those stadiums a lot of money in a short period of time. But if cities see that there is more revenue when there is a SSS, more cities, including those in the A-League would be more willing to use public funds to help build SSS. This would mean more money for the A-League, which would create a similar situation at in MLS.
I was under the impression that LA last season was the only team to ever have a profit. I've also heard that the crew did twice, but I haven't seen any numbers to back it up.
The general feeling is that the Crew itself did not turn a profit, but the stadium did because of the other events held there. Now if the profits form the stadium made up for the losses of the Crew we don't know.
I came across a news article awhile back that stated that the Crew were profitable when looked at from a team basis. However, when the Crew's share of MLS' losses was added to their operating profit, it made the team slightly unprofitable.
I think that SE and profitability are not as directly related as you state. SE enables the league to have a salary cap, without which control of finances (and profits) becomes difficult. If you see a deal with the players that permits a permanant salary cap, then you may see the end of SE, but there are, of course, other issues even without the salary cap for a new not-yet-established league. Profits would help that last point, and remove at least that reason for SE.
As the league becomes profitable it will raise the salary cap. If this happens because of SSS or selling players abroad or by any other method is going to be seen in the future. The league is stupid if it thinks a $1.7million salary cap can hold it over through the next 5-10 years of expansion and growth. Once these teams are making money the league is going to have to pay its players more. Otherwise we will always get to watch young players playing against old, soon to retire players. It the league truly wants to grow and develop strong American players who will stay here as opposed to going over to Europe, there will have to be a higher cap. SSS won't be the only way to get to this. Selling players is another way to do this.
I started this thread a while ago https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=99606 to see how MLS ranked in salaries in this hemisphere (w/o considering the cost of living).... We are not that bad off (4th-5th?), but of course that is w/o considering Europe either, although we are seeing serious problems with finances in that part of the world as well.... Now the issue about SSS is a bit tricky since so far we have one example (Columbus) and LA, where they had a truly pathetic season which might have actually forced the owners to offer tickets at discounted rates and/ or just give them in special packages....(limiting discussion just to soccer, forgetting about concerts and other events, since i imagine the owners want to see soccer start paying for itself in the short to mid term) By 2007 (after a season w/ 5-6, or 7 -hopefully- SSS) we might be able to make a better judgement....On the other hand, any increase in the salary cap has to be sizable IMO (at least 500K per team)....Otherwise, for example, a 200K increase in the cap will probably end up used in salary raises (surely deservedly so) among some players
SSS are long term money losers... But look good right now.. they give the apperance's that lots of people love the game... They are however long term money losers in the sense that you will eventually lose out on mass amounts of cash. Not that I really mind being a Revs fan myself, I just hope that the salary cap is removed in the future, so we can have the Yankees of MLS. I see tons of comparisons to European Soccer stadiums.. But your not seeing them compared to where all the Giants play. Old Trafford Seats 75,000, Giuseppe Meazza where AC milan plays seats 85,750, the Santiago Bernabéu stadium where Real Madrid plays is 75,000... Division 2 and 3 teams play in stadiums the size of the SSS that are being built today for MLS teams. Another factor not taken into account is population in areas where the stadiums are being build. Low density areas are where the smaller Euro SS are built. Places like NY with a metro area of 30 million cant fill up 70,000 seats at Giant stadium? Gillette stadium has a very dense area to pick from, in the millions as well.. same goes for the rest of the teams in the League. Lets look at the facts. MLS played its frst game in 1996. Those that were say 5 years old in 1996 are now 13? they dont even have licenses yet.. so going to the games is hard not to mention jobs to pay for tickets. Give them another 7 or so years and your going to see attendance sky rocket because those kids grew up on soccer, now have jobs and transportation. They have stars they grew up watching etc.. Those 20k stadiums will lose major profit to teams like the revs that can house 68,000 fans if the demand is there. SSS are a short term solution but will eventually be a long term problem as the league will not be able to grow as fast as if they were even selling 40k tickets compared to the 20k they are limited to. Even at 40k compared to 20k a game with a 20$ ticket average your losing out on nearly half a million dollars a game. at 15 games a year.. your going to lose out on 6 million dollars a year that you could have made by going the easy route. But hay ill take it long term like I said remove the salary cap and the revs will have a 14.4 million advantage on each team per year.. add inflated ticket prices and your talking about upwards of 20 million a year.. that would bring in a Beckham or a Ronaldo just off your "Extra Ticket" cash.. nevermind 48k extra people buying drinks, food, merchandise etc.. Could be upwards of 30 to 40 million a year based solely off the fact that you have a bigger stadium. Sorry for the long rant, I just feel that SSS are not the way to go.. patience is.
To answer your post: 1. expand the stadia 2. smaller stadia build demand. If all the games are essentially sold out, it creates demand for t.v. --> more $$ for the league 3. For some cities, the smaller stadia can be used for A-League teams and/or WUSA squads. 4. There are many small stadia teams that compete w/ the big boyz: Spain's Deportivo La Corunha (I think 25 or 35K), and Jaguares of Chiapas 20K+ (currently tearing up MFL; both MFL sides in Liberatdores, btw, are leading their respective groups and more than likely will advance). 5. Even NFL stadia are down-sizing away from the 85K behemeths of yore. And those are built for 8-11 matches a year, not 20-23 for footie! I can definitely envision a pact between NFL and say Chivas LA, USMNT and MMNT to build a stadium in LA.
Well the NFL wont be doing a pact to build a stadium in LA anytime soon, seeing how no NFL teams play in LA and to my knowledge there is no intention on putting one there, as the last 2 teams that were in LA didnt work out (St. Louis Rams / Oakland Raiders) It did not really occure to me about the TV demand though, was a good point you brought up on that. As long as the SSS are not the fixture for the league Ill be happy. I would like to see and hear 68k fans cheering and having a good time like the first season of MLS when I was at the USMNT / Fiorentina vs Revolution Double header. (by the way, 2-0 Fiorentina, I think Gabriell Bastitute scored both goals ) But on another note the NFL is not downsizing to 20k stadiums. they still hold around 70,000$ which is a very solid crowd. I think MLS will be able to sell out 70k stadiums in the next 7 to 10 years.. of course thats a long time to wait, but short amount of time if your in it for the long run.. I think we all know MLS owners arent in it for the immediate profitability of the teams so...
Any SSS essentially paid for by a corporation is obviously going to be a money-maker for a team. I don't know how the deal went down exactly in LA, but to my understanding Home Depot footed the majority of the bill. When ownership is in the hands of the franchise, you get to collect on parking and concessions, which is no small amount of money. The scale of the two things is drastically different, but the following illustration may shed some light on how significant these revenues can be: I used to have a job as a independent concert promoter that wasn't attached to any specific venue, and often times venues would give us the facility rent free as they knew they'd make a trainload off of parking and concessions. We'd keep 100% of the ticket revenue. Sure, the situations and scale are different, but believe me, that "extra" stuff adds up...and if you aren't having to pay rent and are collecting the extras, it'll help you get into the black.
what are you smoking? sell out 70 K stadium? in 7 to 10 years? I doubt that MLS can do that in 70 to 100 years.
you said it... no way we are going to have a league with anything like College or NFL numbers...and that is fine happy to be packed out in a 20-30K stadium going insaine - dont want to go back to being 20K in a 80K stadium...feels and looks pathetic
I was under the impression that the new SSS were going to be expandable as the league grows. An upper deck can be added like the stadium being built in Dallas has one whole side that could be expanded. SSS are definitely the way to go for teams that don't control their own revenue
I alway wonder about people who think the league should build big stadiums. If MLS ever gets in a position where it's selling out 25,000 seat stadiums, this won't really be a problem. At that stage, cities will be scrambling to build the league new $250 million stadiums, just like they do for MLB and the NFL. But having stadiums that are too big, that's a much harder problem to deal with.
A few things... First of all, the NFL commissioned a report, investigating the viability of stadium sites in Los Angeles. They are willing to build out there without civic funding to speed up the process. Of course, the usual candidates with stadium issues are being bandied around, even with the Raiders still yelling about going back to LA, as Al Davis says he has the rights to LA, bearing in mind that they were the only pro-team to play there (The Rams played in Anaheim). Second of all, regarding soccer stadiums in the lower divisions, it is an issue for teams willing to raise their profile. Two former USL teams, who moved to the regional Men's Premier Soccer League (I believe MPSL is considered Division Four with the USSF) already have or are considering building stadiums. The Chico Rooks have an SSS on the Chico State campus, though I think it is owned and operated by Chico State. The Arizona Sahuaros are planning to build a 7,500 SSS in the suburbs of Phoenix. That is all.
Slight correction, the Rams moved to LA around 1955 from Cleveland and played in the LA Coliseum until about 1980 when they moved to Anaheim. Even then, Anaheim is considered part of the LA market.
Very intelligent comments there... MLS has sold out 68k stadiums.. That fact alone proves that the interest is there.. people just do not take the league seriously... why is it when Manchester, Real come into town they sell out? cause they are good.. as MLS gains more respect, numbers go up.. as those who grew up watching MLS grow up.. they will increase added attendance. I never stated MLS should "build" bigger stadiums.