Comments on: MLS Expansion: TV Must Be the Key (UPDATED)

By: dan

dan — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 06:54:56 +0000

plus detroit and columbus would be a shoe in rivalry. BUCKEYES WOLVERINES, RED WINGS BLUE JACKETS. Its perfect. But first Detroit needs to get its people working. With the failure of the USA government on protecting U.S. workers by outsourcing jobs and ignoring the debacle free trade has brought this country has caused alot of us americans to be hurting.

the CREW need to stay in COLUMBUS. Thats like moving the Browns out of cleveland……………………………………….oh wait they did that and that was a big mistake by the NFL that the gave a new team,

By: Kent

Kent — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 19:12:03 +0000

Add Detroit. We have a diverse ethnic population that loves the sport. We have one of the highest levels of youth soccer participation. We have a major-league indoor team (the Ignition). We have an established USL team (the Michigan Bucks). We have two strong soccer universities (Michigan and Michigan State). And we have successful franchises in the other four major sport leagues, all of which draw solid attendance and TV ratings. I think the Ford oval would look great on the front of a Detroit team’s uni.

By: Derek

Derek — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:15:09 +0000

Also, unfortunately, the international schedule puts MLS directly up against the NFL, NBA and NHL, which is likely the biggest reason why the league hasn’t implemented such a move so far. Maybe when MLS crowds routinely average in the 30,000 range, then make the move to a Fall-Spring schedule.

By: Derek

Derek — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:12:54 +0000

I agree promotion/relegation would be nice, but it is the longest of long shots in the US. A Fall-Spring schedule is doable though and should be adopted for sure. The problem with it is one unique to the US/Canada. MLS(and USL) are the only leagues in the world with teams throughout such a large geographical area. In a Fall-Spring schedule, northern teams would have to deal with serious weather, while LA, Florida, and Texas would be perfect conditions. If you think about it though, that’s better than Europe, where every team is playing in relatively crummy weather. Plus, freeing up the players in the summer may prevent further debacles such as that 5-0 US-Mexico mess.

By: Bret

Bret — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:14:50 +0000

While I agree financially that sinking cash into a soccer-specific stadium may seem like an iffy move, on a psychological level I wholeheartedly believe that SSS’ are the way to go. I think Joe Six-Pack turns on Red Bull-Galaxy a few weeks back, sees a huge cavernous stadium one-quarter full, and thinks “This sport is lame, they can’t even get their own fans to watch it.” I watched Wiz-Galaxy on Sunday and it was a joke. For the average person, it’s hard not to think that kind of stuff. Meanwhile, you turn on Chivas USA and see 20,000 people banging drums and going ape-nuts and it’s hard not to get pumped on it.

Build stadiums that people are pumped to go to, and watching it on TV becomes more immersive, raising the league interest nation-wide.

Also, I agree that Toronto’s international player situation is odd and needs revision, but I think if Canadian fans are hungry for teams, and will support rivalries, and bring revenue, and there are enough quality players to support expansion at that level, I don’t see why we shouldn’t further expand further there.

Lastly, we definitely need to switch to the international schedule. And I’m 100% for promotion and relegation, but it will never happen in America; owners will never stand for it, TV revenue would plummet, and the average American fans that we’re trying to draw in won’t watch their team play in “the minors.”

By: Mike D

Mike D — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:06:00 +0000

On SSS (soccer-specific stadia) – While I agree they are pivotal in the majority of markets, Seattle is a great example of why they’re not always the best way to go. With the Sounders, you have nearly 30k a game, something you’d never have gotten if the ownership had built a stadium before the franchise started playing. It also is a huge additional cost to sink into a club that doesn’t even exist yet. Watching the financials of the Union starting next year will be interesting as it will give us our first looking into a club who has dropped all of the money from the very beginning on a stadium and expansion fees. I don’t think that is always the way to go. I am also very concerned that 10 or 15 years down the road, MLS is going to have a MAJOR problem with stadiums — needing expansions. None of the current stadiums are really all that expandable, and if they want to draw 30k in most places, a MASSIVE upgrade would be required. What they should look into doing is more stadiums with 20k base with the expandability to NFL-level capacities. In that regard, Seattle is in perfect shape because if they need more seats, open up the upper level at Qwest.

On International Scheduling — the MLS vitally needs to go to it. It certainly doesn’t help their ratings revenues to put the league on hiatus (if they choose that route) or drop the quality of play while major players are out on international duty (Gold Cup, Confed Cup, World Cup).

On future markets — Miami is a key market to explore. I would venture to guess, Kartik, that the Marlins are high on the TV viewership lists in MLB because the area is widely supported by Florida’s retirement coast — seniors who love baseball but can’t make it to the park. I’m not sure MLS would be able to draw largely from this crowd. However, having a presence in one of the Latino ethnic epicenters of our country is key.

I’ll be very interested to see if the USL/MLS partnership is extended and by what means. Any future developments could be pivotal to paving the way for future schemes of promotion/relegation (something I think is critical in the long run).

By: Paul Sepp

Paul Sepp — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:24:45 +0000

Florida had two teams and like many things Florida screwed it up. Elections, the environment, money laundering, real estate etc. I think the MLS would do better telling Miami to take a hike.

By: Florida Goal

Florida Goal — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:29:19 +0000

Chris, Florida is a terrible sports market per attendance. But as someone, maybe Kartik stated here the Mutiny lagged in average attendance because of playing through the summer months- in April and October for instance Mutiny attendance was on par with the rest of the league.

Why MLS insists on a misplaced calender is a serious question. Blatter is right. For heavens sakes youth soccer is a big part of any fan base as it was here in Tampa, and the kids are all gone during the summer. It’s the same deal with Miami FC right now. I’ve talked to some youth soccer people in Southern Florida, and they are taking their kids to games in September. So the 500 people at Miami FC magically becomes 2,500 or more.

USL also has a misplaced calender although rumors persists that USL-1 and USL-2 may move their seasons. I would not hold my breathe though.

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 05:25:50 +0000

Once the league reaches 18 or 20 teams, I think they should consider instituting a single-table format, with each team playing each of the other teams in MLS twice.

As for expansion, after Philadelphia (next year) and Portland and Vancouver (both 2011), I think they should give St. Louis and Montreal a try. If not St. Louis, then maybe they should consider returning to Miami.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 02:07:59 +0000

Florida is a terrible sports market. The Fusion and Mutiny failed because of this reason. Also, it didn’t help that MLS was tampering with the rules of the game to fit their marketing concept of what they “thought” Americans would like.

They need a team in the South East, that’s for sure. But, not right now.

MLS is getting it right, at the moment. I think they should continue on their present course.