Let's assume team X need to be relocated in 2013 or 2014, which city has a viable stadium that could attract a MLS team and large enough fan base/population size to attract good attendance (17,000+)? This is a good chart that detail which cities is viable (large enough to support MLS). Which of these cities have a viable stadium for the long-term similar to Portland or Montreal pr a Seattle type situation? Code: Rk Current Metropolitan Area 2011 Census change 1 D1 1996 New York 22,214,083 0.58% NFL MLB NBA NHL MLS 2 D1 1996 Los Angeles 18,081,569 1.14% MLB NBA NHL MLS 3 D1 1998 Chicago 9,729,825 0.45% NFL MLB NBA NHL MLS 4 D1 1996 Washington-Baltimore 8,718,083 1.69% NFL MLB NBA NHL MLS 5 D1 1996 Boston 7,601,061 0.56% NFL MLB NBA NHL MLS 6 D1 2008 San Jose (Bay Area) 7,563,460 1.27% NFL MLB NBA NHL MLS 7 D1 1996 Dallas-Fort Worth 6,887,383 2.32% NFL MLB NBA NHL MLS 8 D1 2010 Philadelphia 6,562,287 0.44% NFL MLB NBA NHL MLS 9 D1 2006 Houston 6,191,434 2.31% NFL MLB NBA MLS 10 D2 2011 Atlanta 5,712,148 1.67% NFL MLB NBA 11 D2 2006 Miami-Ft Lauderdale 5,670,125 1.90% NFL MLB NBA NHL 12 D1 2007 Toronto 5,583,064 CFL MLB NBA NHL MLS 13 Detroit (U.S. only) 5,207,434 -0.22% NFL MLB NBA NHL 14 D1 2009 Seattle 4,269,349 1.67% NFL MLB MLS 15 Phoenix 4,262,236 1.65% NFL MLB NBA NHL 16 D1 2012 Montreal 3,824,221 CFL NHL MLS 17 D2 1995 Minneapolis-St. Paul 3,655,558 1.10% NFL MLB NBA NHL 18 D1 1996 Denver 3,157,520 2.16% NFL MLB NBA NHL MLS 19 San Diego (U.S. only) 3,140,069 1.45% NFL MLB 20 St. Louis 2,882,932 0.16% NFL MLB NHL 21 Cleveland 2,871,084 -0.38% NFL MLB NBA 22 D3 2011 Orlando 2,861,296 1.53% NBA 23 D2 2010 Tampa (Bay Area) 2,824,724 1.49% NFL MLB NHL 24 Sacramento 2,489,230 1.12% NBA 25 D2 2004 San Juan 2,478,905 26 D3 2008 Pittsburgh 2,450,281 0.12% NFL MLB NHL 27 D3 2004 Charlotte 2,442,564 1.66% NFL NBA 28 D1 2011 Vancouver 2,313,328 CFL NHL MLS 29 D1 2011 Portland 2,262,605 1.64% NBA MLS 30 D2 2012 San Antonio 2,194,927 2.45% NBA 31 Cincinnati 2,179,965 0.36% NFL MLB 32 D1 1996 Kansas City 2,122,908 0.86% NFL MLB MLS 33 Indianapolis 2,103,574 1.10% NFL NBA 34 D1 1996 Columbus 2,093,185 1.07% NHL MLS 35 Las Vegas 2,013,326 0.91% 36 Austin 1,826,636 3.84% 37 D2 2007 Raleigh-Durham 1,795,750 2.64% NHL 38 D1 2005 Salt Lake City 1,776,528 1.81% NBA MLS 39 Milwaukee 1,757,604 0.36% NFL MLB NBA 40 Nashville 1,698,651 1.66% NFL NHL 41 Virginia Beach 1,679,894 0.49% 42 Greensboro Triad 1,602,693 0.85% 43 Louisville 1,440,607 0.92% 44 Jacksonville, FL 1,360,251 1.09% NFL 45 Oklahoma City 1,348,333 1.96% NBA 46 Hartford 1,331,406 0.04% 47 Grand Rapids 1,328,440 0.52% 48 Memphis 1,325,605 0.72% NBA 49 Greenville SC 1,281,394 1.14% 50 D3 2006 Richmond 1,269,380 0.88% 51 New Orleans 1,238,228 1.92% NFL NBA 52 Ottawa 1,235,324 NHL 53 Calgary 1,214,839 CFL NHL 54 Buffalo (U.S. only) 1,213,871 -0.16% NFL NHL 55 Birmingham 1,212,800 0.36% 56 Albany 1,168,120 -0.03% 57 D2 2010 Edmonton 1,159,869 CFL NHL 58 D3 2011 Rochester 1,150,469 0.07% 59 Fresno 1,095,829 1.34% 60 D3 2011 Dayton 1,075,683 0.26% 61 Knoxville 1,063,354 0.78% 62 Tulsa 998,438 1.01% 63 Tuscon 989,569 0.95% 64 Honolulu 963,607 1.09% El Paso (U.S. only) 820,970 2.54% Winnipeg 730,105 CFL NHL D3 2004 Harrisburg, PA 687,222 0.61% D3 2010 Charleston, SC 682,121 2.64% D3 2011 Wilmington, NC 369,685 2.03% D3 2011 St. George, Antigua U.S./Mexico cross-border metro areas Tijuana - San Diego 5,009,170 El Paso - Juarez 2,461,538 Reynosa - McAllen 1,700,000 Updated - Aug 25, 2012
Cities with a big enough and small enough stadium to host an MLS team in 2014 are San Antonio, Hamilton, Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa (if the stadium ever gets built) and Regina.
San Antonio is doing it right, but I am not sure MLS will go with third team in Texas. Now, if we had a proper MLS-2, our list could be quite long of cities. Stadiums are always going to be the issue. Crazy thought, but what if the Green Bay Packers say wanted a team to fill their stadium in the summer- could even use the same name and colors. Stadium would probably too large and from what i have seen, field too narrow. Las Vegas stadium looked a little narrow and of course, much too warm most of the time. Phoenix, if not playing in the Cardinal stadium as too large, now about the DBACKs stadium, kind of how DCU shared with baseball. If a team goes to Atlanta, how about Bobby Dodd- grass. Atlanta BEAT played their before- too narrow ? Downtown. Nashville, if Titan too big, how about Vandy's ? Is the Butler Bowl in Indy still around ? Bottom line as MLS found out, until you build your own SSS, you will have problems with size, type of field, football etc.
^Why wouldn't MLS go with a third Texan team? Not only are they actually building assets and a fanbase, but its a large city and equally large TV market. I fail to see one downside to San Antonio.
= more of a statement of geography than anything. If the MLS stops a 20 for while, you are set for NASL. If the league goes to 24, I think you are a top 2-3 to make the jump if the new stadium fills regular and gets pushed to that 18-20 K level of most other SSS. =Another way of saying this, I think Garber is going to get his 2nd NYC team as #20 one way or the other. If he goes to 24, that only gives him 4 slots to try to MAYBE spread the geographical presence of the league. If he is not worried say to put a team or two back in the south and simply wants to go with best markets (and nothing wrong with that), then you fall into the same situation that PDX-SEA-MONT did by stepping up. =Heck, what are doing even right now- outdrawing 2-3 MLS teams playing in a high school stadium on plastic. Sky would seem the limit with your own SSS and grass. (it was fun to see you beat HOU in the USOC)
Which is pointless. Geography won't be the determining factor in anything if there's ownership, money, and support. Case in point ^ Also, there are already "triangles" in the league that are much more compact and overlap their reaches than adding SA would here in Texas.
Ever been to Houston ? If not, reserve your judgement However, the point of "it's F'n hot in SA" is completely valid. SA is more humid than many spots in the US, but still doesn't catch the level that Houston/Corpus etc on the Texas Coast do.
A benefit of promotion and relegation is teams rarely move. Most big cities already have a team so there really isn't anywhere to move to. An owner can't really threaten the city to build him a new stadium or he will move the team because he has no leverage. The NFL is smart not having a team in Los Angeles. Every team that doesn't have a brand new stadium is threating their city to build them a stadium or they will move the team to LA. Promotion and Relegation promotes owners taking responsibly for their team. A franchise system promotes corporate welfare.
Ok, you're right and wrong. You're right that the NFL is smart not to have a team in LA. You're wrong about the reasons. The NFL's blackout rules means that it makes more sense to have no team in LA than to have a non-capacity crowd at some LA Stadium. There's more money to be made showing the other 32 teams. The pro/rel, corporate welfare crap is, of course, just plain wrong
NFL teams have been using the LA threat to get new stadiums. Sounds like a good reason to not have a team in LA. A team will be playing in LA once every team, except the one that moves to LA, gets their new stadium. You can bet on it. What do you call taxpayers funding stadiums for wealthy owners? Sounds like corporate welfare to me. A franchise system encourages corporate welfare.
LA can support two teams, easy. The threat wouldn't cease to exist if the Vikings moved to SoCal "Corporate Welfare" is a loaded word used by people who, generally, think 'welfare' and 'corporations' are bad things. NFL teams bring billions, billions of dollars of out-of-town money into muncipal coffers. But please, continue using loaded teams; after all, it is easier than actually thinking
The threat of of moving a team to LA with one team already in LA is much less than if you have no teams in LA. The owner should be responsible for building his own stadium. He shouldn't threaten the city and fans to build him a new stadium or else he is moving. I guess you okay with threats and corporate welfare.
If you want to have a productive discussion, feel free. If you want to just keep repeating "Corporate welfare" until you're blue in the face, I could suggest a few more productive uses of your time. NFL teams are important to the cities they are in. The stadiums aren't just a money-grab by owners, they're a city investing in its own cultural and economic future.
So who should pay for the sidewalks? Roads? Plumbing? cabling? etc. that will be necessary for the stadium and surrounding infrastructure?
"The greedy corporations that are trying to profit off the exploitation of fans, players, taxpayers, and the pure sense of athletic accomplishment"