They play the Emerald Bowl at AT&T Park, the East-West Shrine game, and they had XFL games back when SF had an XFL team. It’s rather odd seeing about three feet of space between the back of the end zone and the left field wall.
I swear I recall a socceer game being played there, (two Mexico teams?) but can’t seem to find info on it.
No, their attendance kind of sucks.
They’ve played a number of soccer games there. I went to see USA vs Japan three years ago.
Actuall, it was Mayor Richard Riordan (1993–2001) who basically told the NFL this, in a much nicer way of course. The NFL was willing to play in the Colosseum, but with major upgrades such as a ton of luxury boxes. Also, it would be paid by LA and be rent free as supposedly the money from taxes of nearby businesses would make up for it. (Bare in mind that the LAUSD didn’t have funds to provide students with their own books, such as math, at the time the NFL is asking for this) Riordan didn’t fall for the scam and basically said they could have it or build a new one themselves, but with their money. This has continued under Jim Hahn and I doubt the current mayor, Antonio Villagrosa, will change it
Yes, but look at ticket prices. What is the average ticket price for the 100,000 soccer fans in a developing world country? What is the average ticket price in for a pro football game in the US? Probably about 75+ times as much. You can always fill a stadium. Sucking every last dollar out of the public is the wondrous achievement of pro sports in the United States.
If the Galaxy charged a buck a ticket they would have a lot more takers. The economics of stadium use make that $1 ticket unfeasible in the US.
True, and the populace always makes sure to publicize the ‘deals’ the NFL offers.
The NFL is a for-profit company, and their product is licensing deals. The last few times it came up in LA, the NFL offererd deal(s) such as:
[ul][li]massive tax incentives[/li][li]guaranteed minimum income regardless of actual attendance[/li][li]the right to blackmail us every year thereafter by threatening to leave[/li]li other exchanges of funds[/li][/ul]
Basically, the only deals they offer are deals in which (A) the team owner is exposed to no risk and (B) the other teams in the NFL get a share of the booty as well.
The NFL also proffers the “pride” of having a local NFL team, but that works out in the worst way when people remember how the Rams and Raiders left in the middle of the night without leaving money on the dresser.
One thing that’s been touched on in the thread which I thought I would mention in more detail is the location issue. Whenever it’s time for the city to build some massive thing, they have a tendency to locate it downtown, which has a certain logic to it, since downtown is central to the city. And I believe that the NFL would prefer a downtown location.
However, a lot of people (IMO reasonably) feel that if the city is going to spend a lot of money, it should spread the wealth around and put things like new stadiums in places which could use a bit of development dollars. There’s plenty of land available in the valley or East LA, but IIRC, the NFL wasn’t keen on having a stadium placed in those locations (but I may be wrong on this point).
What you are talking about makes a lot of sense and was probably a big factor in the New York West Side Stadium proposal for the Jets. The public rose up and resisted the idea of putting anything that would create more congestion in an already congested area. Contrary to popular perception there are areas of NYC that aren’t highly congested and could use the economic stimulus. However, as it always seems to be the case, practicality loses out to the chase for the almighty buck.
You misspelled basketball.
Car dependency is still a big problem here, regarding the Coliseum. Public transit is a little better, and promises to improve further, but nobody wants to be waiting for a bus or train in the neighborhood of Exposition Park after dark. Expo Park is really the northern edge of South Central, and probably not as dangerous as it’s purported to be, but perception and rumor is what drives people’s behavior and choices in these matters.
Whenever something is going on in the Coliseum, that pretty much wipes out the possibility of parking for anything else in the Park, like any of the several museums. Two or three of those are star cultural and educational assets of the city and top-ranked nationally. As someone who could spend a week in the Natural History Museum, I think having one of the two weekend days blacked out during football season is enough.
Spartydog:
Not really. In the case of the Jets’ proposed West Side stadium, the stadium was meant to double as an expansion of the Javitz Convention Center. The only place to expand the convention center is adjacent to where the convention center already is; the only question was whether or not it was worthwhile to make it a stadium as well as a convention center expansion.
Also, the Jets were in a somewhat unique situation. They are 100% second fiddle to the Giants in popularity in the New York metro area. If a new stadium was going to mean something to genuinely change that status, they needed it to identify them as the “most New York” of New York football teams, and nothing says that like Manhattan.
As a New Yorker, I personally think the city dropped the ball there. The convention center needs to be expanded no matter what; making it into a stadium for the Jets as well would not have hurt so badly. A domed stadium in the area could have brought future Super Bowls. And of course, we had a real shot at the 2012 Olympics if the project could have been green-lit. Traffic would no doubt have been something of an issue, but NYC has the most extensive mass transit system in the USA and that matter could have been dealt with pretty easily.
I must say, I do sense a lot of no-true-Scotsman coming from this.
See, I think this is a big deal for the matter at hand. If the “San Francisco 49ers” move to Santa Clara, SC will get to collect all those parking taxes and hotel revenue and such. Granted, this issue will have different impacts in different places. Plus, the prestige of having a football team is dampened somewhat if the suburb “your” city’s team plays in is a shithole.
And will have to increase fire, police and traffic spending. Really, the myth that stadiums bring in a lot of net cash is just that- a myth.
Which is very unfortunate. I wonder if LA could make that a condition of any stadium built? “Yes, we will subsidize it, but that means you have to sell every ticket for $5 or less.” We could make book on how many shades of purple the owner would turn if given that proposition. 
Honestly, I think that you could get away with having a “cheap seats” section. What NFL owners really want out of a stadium is the revenue from the luxury boxes, and all the amenities that go along with them, which are largely paid for by corporations. The income from single upper-deck tickets is a drop in the bucket.