I don't think that question has ever been officially answered. From what I've read, I'd gather that "SSS-ness" boils down to four points: The field and stands are in the ideal configuration for watching soccer. 18,000 - 30,000 seats Stadium provides a good soccer atmosphere. Seats are close to the action, noise is retained. Soccer team owner controls the revenue from the stadium That's about right, isn't it? Note that there's nothing about "no American football". The very soccer-specific Pizza Hut Park hosts high-school football and I believe others do, too. Where am I going with this? Simple: I've read post after post bitching about how Seattle got a team when they don't have a SSS. But don't they? Doesn't Qwest, with the upper section covered up, meet each of those criteria? It was designed for soccer. The lower bowl seats 24,000. The lower bowl seats are close and intimate and the stadium retains noise. The team owners control the stadium. Seriously, why isn't Qwest a SSS? Because an NFL team plays there? Keep in mind, those who think the Seattle MLS club will be playing on a field with gridiron lines are assuming that nothing will be done about that. I think that's a pretty big assumption. Is it because the building itself is big? That's irrelevant -- all that matters is the size, shape, and position of the lower bowl. So let's hear it: what makes a "soccer-specific" stadium? And why doesn't Qwest qualify? ------RM
why can they not replace the field turf for every game? from what i have read, purchasing a new field turn costs about $16,000, and installation is not supposed to be difficult, so IMO mls should require all these field turn fields to just replace it.
It's not just that, you'll always be the number two tennat, if MLS already scheduled a game on Saturday night late in the season and then Seahawks schedule a game on Sunday the same week what do you think will happen to the Seattle (Sounder's) game, it would be moved to Wednesday,Thursday or Friday. Then in late August what do you think is going to happen to the field when Seahawks start playing, FOOTBALL lines, FOOTBALL logo's. That always looks good on TV when you have yellow soccer line around all the Football lines and logo's.
There are three criteria for a Soccer Specific Stadium. It is not a SSS unless all three criteria are met. 1) Soccer is the PRIMARY TENANT 2) The Owner of the Soccer team controls most or all of gameday revenue inside their stadium 3) The Stadium is configured for soccer use. Meaning that the pitch has the ability to be 70+ yards wide, minimum. Examples of Soccer Specific Stadia 1) Crew Stadium (Columbus) 2) Home Depot Center (LA & Chivas) 3) DSG Park (Colorado) 4) BMO field (Toronto) 5) Toyota Park (Chicago) 6) Pizza Hut Park (Dallas) 7) Sandy Stadium (RSL) 8) Red Bull Park (2009) Examples of stadia which are not soccer specific. 1) Qwest field (Seattle) 2) Gillette Stadium (New England) 3) Giants Stadium (RBNY) 4) RFK Stadium (DC) 5) Robertson Stadium (Houston) 6) Rice-Eccles Stadium (RSL) 7) Arrowhead Stadium (KCW) 8) KC's temporary home (KCW)
This is the main point of them, it allows the game to be played. On fields designed for American Football the 4-5-1 turns from a vice to a full on death grip.
I understand the "primary tenant" objection. However, that really only comes into play in terms of scheduling and field configuration. All the objections I've heard about Qwest boil down to the stadium's size. And as I've pointed out, those arguments don't wash. As for field width, I couldn't find a reference as to how wide a soccer field Qwest can have. However, the pictures I've seen of the NFL field show one side at least 10 yards away from the wall, maybe 15 or more. It looks to be plenty wide enough for a comfortable soccer field, which would make sense if the facility was designed for the game. So if the soccer team loses out to the NFL team on date conflicts, it's not an SSS, even if the two teams never compete for a date, even if the gridiron line problem can be solved? That's picking nits in my book. ------RM
Why aren't those legit? The stadium's size allows for dead space, which takes atmosphere out of a stadium.
But the stadium is designed to retain noise, which keeps atmosphere in. People on these boards who have actually been to Sounders games have said they're plenty loud enough. I mean, how loud do you want? Filled for NFL football, the noise is often so defeaning that the opposing players can't hear their quarterback call the signals. Scale that back to 36% and the noise level should make for a fine soccer atmosphere. ------RM
Bullshit. This is getting absurd now from Seattle supporters. The place isn't even half full, not even close. In fact, I'm willing to bet you don't even sell out half of your games this year at 24,000 capacity. Yet, you all try to come on here and convince us that a NFL Football stadium is the same as a soccer specific stadium. It's not. It never will be. This is still a stupid move by MLS.
It looks bad to have 20,000 people in a stadium with 50,000 empty seats. You can cover them up or do whatever you want, but everyone can still see a big empty space. Compair 20K at BMO, Toyota Park, ect. to 20K at Qwest, Giants Stadium, The Razor, ect.
i also beleive in this too and that Gillete and even RFK can qualify just on how the seats are structured alone.... i have seen the quest picture of a posible make up for the new seattle MLS team, i dont see the problem with it, heck seattle might need a SSS after all. Quest is really soccer friendly. maybe if more people wouldnt underestimate on US stadia, yes its large, and massive, but with MLS growing i dont see any worries.
=================================== Need to have a catagory in between these 2 and put Houston-Robertson there 1/ 4 square grandstands close to the field 2/ grass 3/ 30,000, not much bigger than HDC 4/ They play more games than the actual owners do (Houston Cougars) 5/ Other than the humidity and occasional football lines, works well 6/ Yes I know area may be so-so, but apparently has stopped fans from coming.. 7/ They fill in and have 2 championships-
Well, I'm not a Seattle supporter, just someone who hates illogical arguments. So your argument is that 24,000 seats is too many??? What does that have to do with whether it's an NFL stadium or not? No, what's "absurd" is this neurotic obsession with the empty seats stacked on top of Seattle's soccer stadium. If we could take a giant buzzsaw and hack off the upper deck, everyone would be gushing at Seattle's wonderful soccer stadium. "Empty seats make us look bad!" God, what an inferiority complex. ------RM
RFK is a fantastic atmosphere when people are only sitting in the lower bowl. Nothing covers upper levels, and as someone who goes to almost every DC home game, I hardly even notice the upper deck. So whats the moral? Make the most of it. This stadium is what the Seattle team has for now, so just promote till blue in the face, so that the lower section is sold out or close to sold out every game, and the fans are loud and passionate, and you should have a fine soccer atmosphere (for a non SSS). Yes RFK and Qwest have a lot of differences, RFK is smaller, grass, etc etc, but just making the point that you make the most of what you have and sometimes the fans can make the stadium moreso than the brick and mortar. No disrespect to Toyota park or BMO, but I think the best places to watch MLS soccer are RFK and Robertson (and most of the time, both of those are only half full)...even though they are rickety old non-SSS. I don't know if Qwest will be on par with those stadia due to its size, but if the game-day atmosphere is somewhere in between RFK/BMO and say...Gillette, I think they will be just fine. You have an NFL stadium, it's unrealistic to use the same expectations one would have for SSS. Instead compare it to teams without SSS. If you can have a gameday atmosphere better than Gillette, Giants stadium or Arrowhead, but not quite RFK or Robertson, that is a great place to START.
Because Qwest isn't a 24,000 seat stadium -- it's a 67,000 seat stadium with a lower deck. No amount of curtains or tarps is going to change that fact. Yes, if they could cut off the top deck of Qwest and give MLS Seattle top control over scheduling and revenues then I believe Qwest would be an absolutely wonderful SSS. Probably as ideal as one could get. But you can't just ignore those upper deck seats as though tthey don'ty exist. For staters they do have an impact on the presentation and perception of the game. But more improtant IMHO is that they will hurt season ticket sales as there jsut won't ever be an impetus for people to have to buy season tickets -- people will know that tickets are always available. and that's true if the lower bowl sells out anyway (which I think will be difficult to do for ordinanry games anyway) -- if a Beckham-ish game comes around and demand is much higher, they'll just open up the upper deck. A limited supply of seats -- a true limited supply, not an artificial one like tarping off the upper deck -- can help to drive demand for tickets. But regardless, my big issue with Qwest is simply that we don't know how an MLs Seattle team will do in terms of revenue acquisition. No MLS team ahs been reported to be able to make a profit without getting revenue from non-MLS events at their home stadiums and with the Seahawks and First and Goal ruling the roost at Qwest, I'm skeptical that MLS Seattle will get outside revenue from things at Qwest (or if they'll even get the lion's share of the revenue at Qwest for their own events, actually).
Qwest is not a SSS 1.) It was not built for a soccer franchise. Seattle fans complain about this point all the time, but just because the stadium was built to accomodate soccer doesn't mean it is a soccer stadium. The stadium was built for the Seattle Seahawks, it is primarily an NFL stadium (therefore, not a soccer specific stadium), there is really no ground to argue this point. Even if you argue soccer is given equal billing (which is absurd), the fact remains it is not a soccer SPECIFIC building. 2.) SSS's are tailor made to fullfill the mid-range sports entertainment market in major cities, having major league ammenities, but smaller capacity (18-25,000 range) creates demand for tickets. Having a 67,000 seat stadium and offering 3.) Sure, the owners of the Seattle team will control the revenue, but how do we know it is going to the team? Most luxury suites and club seating options allow you access to ALL events at the stadium. Seattle will be able to charge a little bit more for suites that people buy for Seattle Seahawks games... i don't see how this helps the club. Clubs like Chicago make money from the concerts and other events their stadium hosts... Seattle will not.
so is Gillette Stadium a SSS? Its owned by the Kraft family (owns patriots and revolution).... it is not a soccer stadium, and neither is qwest field
You mean, like just dismissing the primary-tenant consideration without any reason to other than you don't feel like addressing it? Or, do you just hate most illogical arguments....? Like it or not, having a stadium built for a soccer team adds a sense of permanence and legitimacy to that team's perception in the marketplace. In a country where first-division pro soccer leagues have always failed, creating this sense is extremely important, the unassilable logic of "geez, what an inferiority complex" notwithstanding.
Wow and the Qwest debate heats up again, I can see both sides of the argument and there are good strong points on both sides of the argument. I guess the situation can be best described this way, it's like a newly married couple that goes out and buy a nine bedroom and eight bathroom house, it would be more house than what their needs are currently. Yes they can live on the first floor until their family grows, but with that size of a house, it's just not the most practical thing to do. Well the same could be said about Qwest field, it's more stadium than what would be the current needs are for MLS at this point in the league's growth. But then again, if someone is going to give you this big house for free, well why not take it...right? Qwest is a soccer friendly stadium that is a fact, but it's not a soccer-specific stadium! A soccer-specific stadium is a much smaller venue and typically has amenities, dimensions and scale suitable for soccer in the United States, including a scoreboard, video screen, luxury suites and possibly even a roof. The field dimensions are within the range found optimal by FIFA — 110-120 yards (100-110m) long by 70-80 yards (64-75m) wide,[1] wider than the regulation American football field width of 53⅓ yards. Lastly, the seating capacity is generally small enough to provide an intimate setting, between 12,500 - 30,000 for a Major League Soccer (MLS) franchise, or between 5,000 - ~15,000 for a franchise in the United Soccer Leagues (whose attendance is subject to more variation), as opposed to the gigantic American football stadiums in which most MLS teams were compelled to play at the league's inception. But these facts can also be debated, I guess the key thing in this argument would be the point about the capacity and the excess of it, because SSS are much smaller capacity stadiums with maximum seating capacity ranging from 18,500 to 30,000 to meet the current needs of Majoe League Soccer today. Just look at the MLS Cup game played yesterday, the atmosphere was great, but the empty seats in the upper deck took something away from the seriousness of that game played! But let's wait and see what happens at Qwest before we rush to our judgements. Soccer-specific def here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer-specific_stadium
Just because a stadium (NFL +NCAA etc) accomodates soccer, does not mean its soccer friendly. The smart NFL stadiums build their stadiums big enough to accomodate the soccer field in order to get extra revenue from soccer friendlies, world cup qualifiers, gold cups etc.. It is EXTRA revenue for them.. Yeh, we need them for when we get any of the World Cups or other FIFA events, but for everyday league, club games and the general survival of the domestic, SSS is the only real long term option...