The summer months tend to be the highest attended and TV rated games. The status quo actually does seem the best if you want a US league to financially succeed.
I disagree. But I’m thinking long, LONG term. To me, the holy grail will be when the United States manages to make the semi-finals of the World Cup, or, with luck, the final. At that point, the people of the US will finally take to wanting to watch the game, become fans of it at a level they aren’t currently willing to do. At THAT point, there won’t just be an MLS at the top doing well, there will be regional second divisions and third divisions that also do well. And all this will be needed because American football is about to enter a period of decline, not because it will lose popularity for viewing, but because it is fast becoming a sport no one wants to play (since no one wants to become a brain-damaged vegetable).
So, to me, the primary goal is not currently maximizing financial success, but maintaining enough financial success, combined with proper player development, so that future success is maximized.
Despite only a one goal difference, I thought the 2014 World Cup final was lifeless, with both Germany and Argentina afraid to make any mistakes, resulting in safe, uninteresting footy. Sure, everything’s at stake, and even one mistake can result in defeat, but if it’s at the cost of providing an entertaining footy game - oh well.
I see way more diving in Europe and SA than in MLS. On the other hand, if I start seeing too many giveaways/shitty passing in an MLS game, (or dispossession after dispossession, with zilcho playmaking) I’ll turn it off.
*grumble, grumble:)
IMO, maintaining enough financial success requires the current March to October regular season (the playoffs can and should be shortened). The league is making money, but it ain’t making that much money. In addition the winters of Chicago, Minnesota, Montreal, Toronto, and Foxboro (not mention Kansas City) preclude a fall to spring schedule unless you want to add a 3 month winter break and I don’t care how popular a sport gets, it’s going to struggle to maintain interest with that long of a break in the middle of the season.
So even in the hopeful future, I severely doubt a move to a Fall to Spring league. And I wouldn’t even want it to do so.
Ok, so what’s the actual argument for it other than “that’s what the big 5 do?”
I don’t think pro-rel will ever happen for MLS, but I can see both arguments that it increases competition between clubs, demanding more of them, and that it makes games more exciting because not only the top of the table has something to play for. Switching the schedule though? Don’t see it. So there’s a break for the WC? Eh, pretty minor.
I am not sure the arguments for pro/rel apply equally in the US, however. I mean these countries have soccer as the unquestioned #1 sport. So a team dropping to a 2nd level wouldn’t affect support terribly much. In addition the Western European leagues tend to have an issue with super teams. Now I know that there is nothing forbidding salary caps for competitive balance in pro/rel leagues, but not have really applied them. I think it would be more difficult to have that setup in a sports rich country like the US. Add to that the massive size of the country. In England or Spain or Germany the countries are so small that not having a team in certain area doesn’t mean that fans don’t have a 1st division team nearby. Until Atlanta United got an expansion team last year, you had no 1st or 2nd division teams between Washington DC and Orlando or between Houston and Orlando. A team getting relegated from an area can leave a huge area with a massive population (consider the US is the size of Western Europe) without a 1st division team. That’s difficult to build a successful league or to enter into successful sponsorship or TV deals.
And there is a negative impression in the US about 2nd division teams. Look at Atlanta. The NASL Silverbacks struggled to get 3,000 attendance, the MLS Atlanta United average 46,000 a match and had two games with attendance over 70,000. 1st division teams matter more in terms of support here.
Also I like the ability for teams in the US to rebound even if they spend some time at the bottom of the league. It applied to the Chicago Fire last season just as it did to MLB’s Chicago Cubs and Houston Astros, who were able to retool and win World Series after finishing at the bottom for a number of years.
I agree that there’s an extremely strong counter-argument that you put forth. I think pro-rel would be a disaster. But I understand the arguments for it.
Don’t understand why people want to change the schedule at all. Well, I know one person that hates hot weather and would love being in the stands alone in January in Montreal.
I have only been to two NFL stadiums in my life, the one outside Boston, which New England Revolution uses, and one in New Jersey. Both were extremely opulent, to a degree basically unheard of in Europe, I mean the owners had gone full out, especially in Boston.
You are telling me, that the Billionaire owners of the teams, in the richest country in the world they can’t drop some big money on a couple of top-tier talent? Instead of Mr No-Name from Nebraska, imagine if sides had players like Coutinho or Fabregas or hell even Neymar? Messi could surely sell out New Jersey. Sure, you have the prestige factor, but come on; money eventually talks. Look at China, they seem to have started getting big name stars now because they are willing to pay 250,000 a week wages.
Gillette Stadium is an NFL stadium that is also used for MLS because the teams are owned by the same person. Configured for football it seats around 70000. For soccer they get approximately 20000. They could configure it for more if the attendance would support it.
First, there are technically no owners of MLS teams. There are operators who have invested in the MLS league and are granted rights to operate a team. All the contracts are from the league, not the teams.
Average attendance at MLS games are around 20000, with a few teams getting over 40000 but most in the 17-20000 range. Aside from the soccer strongholds, many teams are in fairly small markets with limited incomes. Ticket prices are low and heavily discounted, TV rights are small, and there are limited merchandising opportunities. The team owner/operators aren’t typically billionaires, they are companies and investors who are looking to make money and keep soccer viable.
There are salary caps for the teams that limit what teams can pay for players. There’s also the David Beckham Rule that allows for a limited number of players to exceed the salary cap, but even there some restrictions apply.
Teams don’t pay players $20M a year because they wouldn’t generate $20M a year in extra profit. No way would Messi add another 70k people a game, and if he did, there are only two players in the world with big name recognition in the US. You couldn’t come close to replicating that with every team. Coutinho? I bet more than half of MLS season ticket holders have no idea who he is.
The old NASL tried to splurge on world stars and it bankrupted the league.
Could Robert Kraft afford to spend $200M a year on salary for the Revolution if the league let him? Yeah, for a bit. Why would he?
Here are the 538 number cruncher’s attempts to rank all the teams in the top soccer leagues (453 teams) against each other.
They have the best MLS team, Toronto FC, ranked exactly equal to the worst EPL team, Huddersfield Town (worst according to their ratings, not to the current standings). The worst MLS team, however (Colorado), is worse than any team in the Championship (English second division). It appears that the modal MLS team would be expected to finish on the low side of mid-table in the Championship, but not to be in much danger of relegation. So, basically seems to agree with the consensus in this thread.
In addition to what others have pointed out regarding actually making a profit on the teams, only THREE MLS teams are also owned by NFL owners. The Revolution, as you mentioned owned by Kraft, Atlanta United, owned by Arthur Blank, and Seattle Sounders, for which Paul Allen who is a minority owner for them is also the owner of the Seahawks. The rest have a far less value than NFL owners or even NBA owners.
Eh? You may have some small strongholds like Salt Lake City or Columbus (for now) or Kansas City or Portland, but most teams are in the major markets. There are 2 teams in NY metro, will be 2 teams (again) in LA, a team in Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Washington, Atlanta. Soon to be a team again in Miami (by 2020). Toronto and Montreal in Canada. Really the only major Top 15 markets that don’t have a team now or coming soon is Phoenix and Detroit and they both in the mix for an expansion.
That sounds about right. Also Toronto FC last season was arguably the greatest team in MLS history (most points ever, won the MLS Cup, etc) so mid Championship is likely a good approximation. Not that long ago, MLS teams would probably more League One - they’ve come a long way.
I’m probably a pretty average US soccer fan in that I follow the MLS to a decent degree since I have a local team, and I follow Intl soccer when Sportscenter talks about it, and I have no idea who that is.
Since you didn’t mention us, I believe we are 19th in TV markets, probably one of the lesser ones.
Yup, you’re correct. My memory is playing tricks on me. Granted, some of those teams are in big markets that simply don’t appear to have much soccer appeal, but the teams are fairly well placed at this point.
15-20 TV market makes you more of a mid-market than a small one, IMO. Though I believe y’all are 18th now - Orlando is growing at a good rate.
Also I really like y’all’s stadium. Hopefully one day make an away game visit when Atlanta comes calling.
No worries - MLS has been expanding at a breakneck pace in the last 10 years. In that time, bigger markets like Toronto, Philly, Seattle, Atlanta, Minneapolis have joined up. There was quite a gap between like the 10-20 media markets in favor of some smaller cities (mostly for geographical reasons as well). Sometimes it’s hard to keep up. I am hoping after 28 the league takes a few years to just breathe and deepen.
I think we tried really, really hard (or maybe you did?) to make the two teams a rivalry with the whole “taking out a trash-talking billboard” thing. But then you proceeded to kill us in both games so that didn’t work out so much in our favor
I think MLS tried ;).
And I’m surprised you forgot about the 3-3 draw in MBS (quite possibly one of the best games I’ve watched in MLS).
Just a nit to pick. Three teams in Canada. Vancouver Whitecaps. Makes for a good regional rivalry with Seattle and Portland. Being in the west (Alberta) I have a tiny bit more interest in MLS than if there were only teams out east. Also a friend’s son was part of the Junior Whitecaps program which made the team and the league a bit more personal to me.
Yeah that seemed like a weird direction for the teams/MLS to go. If OCSC wants to cultivate a rivalry, wait until 2020 and cultivate one with Miami.