North American Pro Soccer 2017

[Gothamite]

48 minutes ago, DG_Now said:

Is anyone else on the Soccer United Fan Council? It's a poll Listserv by MLS that asks questions periodically about what teams you watch, what merchandise you buy, and all kinds of other questions.

 

Yesterday they sent a simple one-question poll asking how MLS athletes compared to other sports as role models.

 

I answered about the same, but better and much better were in the lead.

 

Kind of a weird question, I think, and makes me wonder what they want to do with that info. We're not seeing an Artest-esque athlete crisis these days and MLS stars generally aren't newsworthy enough to be quoted on anything.

 

I got a very different question yesterday - about MLS websites and digital content. 

[bosrs1]

17 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

 

Nagle and his group of cronies are absolute idiots if they think they can open up a bid without SRFC's support. it's basically saying before the process even begins ":censored: the fans, and everyone who worked so hard to get us to this point". It's the most Jed Yorkian way of thinking I've ever seen, so it surprises me absolutely NONE that that piece of is involved in all of this. 

 

 

Here's an article that hits on some of the insanity of all of this. Jesus, guys. THREE F*****G YEARS to get this thing worked out, and this is the best you can do? This is embarrassing. 

 

MLS conference call sheds (some) light on (stupid) Sacramento MLS bid situation

Well they've got Meg Whitman, Jed York and the Kings ownership in their ownership cabal... what could possibly go wrong with that brain trust running things?

[bosrs1]

18 hours ago, ninersdd said:

Chivas USA didn't work also because a lot of Mexicans don't like the Mexican Chivas so they weren't gonna support an Americanized version.

 

Indeed. Chivas' core idea of trying to attract Latino and other Hispanic fans was not a bad one. It was the fact they were a direct extension of a prominent Liga MX club. One that the majority of even Mexican fans at best have no allegiance to, if not outright hate. Their business model immediately whittled the "Hispanic" fan group, which could theoretically include anyone of Mexican, Central American or South American decent, down to "Mexicans and Mexican/Americans who are fans of Chivas Guadalajara".

 

I don't see the San Diego or Phoenix bid being that stupid. Just as you don't see teams like the LA Galaxy, San Jose Earthquakes or Houston Dynamo being that stupid today. They try to appeal to Hispanic fans without artificially limiting themselves to fans from one country or worse like Chivas USA did, fans from one country who followed one team. Chivas USA's idea was flawed from the get go, made worse because their owner couldn't see that his Guadalajara brand was not as important in the US as he though it was. In that regard I'm kind of glad San Diego wasn't his landing spot as the league wanted in 2004.

[Gothamite]

42 minutes ago, bosrs1 said:

Chivas' core idea of trying to attract Latino and other Hispanic fans was not a bad one. 

 

Trying to attract them exclusively, however, was. 

[JTernup]

On February 1, 2017 at 8:58 PM, DG_Now said:

 

Thanks -- that was my reasoning for leaving Chicago out of my Midwest list, but I didn't specify as such or as eloquently.

 

Isn't Phoenix for MLS kind of the thinking that got us Chivas USA? I.e., Mexican-American fans will want to see a Mexican sport, just not a Liga MX team (but they actually won't)?

 

I think I read that Liga MX gets higher ratings in LA than the Galaxy do, which isn't surprising but also isn't great. I'd expect the same in Phoenix and likely San Diego too.

 

I think MLS needs to split the baby, and drop one team in the Midwest and another in either Southeast or California. Good luck MLS on figuring it out.

I think that putting a stripped down Liga MX club in MLS was a mistake as ninersdd and subsequently bosrs1 and Gothamite mentioned. However, Mexican-American fans will still feel the stadium. Go to a Galaxy match, a Rapids match or an Orlando match (all of which I have attended and know first hand) and you will see a lot of hispanics. Creating PHX Pumas would be a disaster but Mexican fans will go to MLS games in their home state.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

All good points everyone. I conflated "Chivas" with "all of Mexican soccer" which was clearly a mistake.

 

What a weird era that was. At least we got some cool Cubo Torres moments out of it.

 

[dfwabel]

On 02/01/2017 at 5:58 PM, DG_Now said:

 

Thanks -- that was my reasoning for leaving Chicago out of my Midwest list, but I didn't specify as such or as eloquently.

 

Isn't Phoenix for MLS kind of the thinking that got us Chivas USA? I.e., Mexican-American fans will want to see a Mexican sport, just not a Liga MX team (but they actually won't)?

 

I think I read that Liga MX gets higher ratings in LA than the Galaxy do, which isn't surprising but also isn't great. I'd expect the same in Phoenix and likely San Diego too.

 

I think MLS needs to split the baby, and drop one team in the Midwest and another in either Southeast or California. Good luck MLS on figuring it out.

I know you made a later post, but LigaMX gets highest ratings in the US of all soccer leagues.

 

http://www.latimes.com/sports/soccer/la-sp-soccer-baxter-20160501-story.html

 

Which brings me back to Phoenix sports apathy.  Three years after the new stadium opens, what next?  As the LA Times story illustrated, the LigaMX start times are even better for US fans in the Mountain Time Zone.

 

Even if not branding with a LigaMX team, MLS using the "they've got a large Latino population" line fails as much as it works.  Dallas Burn/FC Dallas has had issues attracting Latinos since leaving the Cotton Bowl; Tampa and Miami never got it right and Chicago and Philly struggle too.

[Gothamite]

I think that's just a focused example of the challenge that MLS has in general - the sport is insanely popular around the world,  growing here all the time, but people in the US can follow the best teams across the globe.   You have to give them a reason to support their local side.

[Sykotyk]

10 hours ago, dfwabel said:

I know you made a later post, but LigaMX gets highest ratings in the US of all soccer leagues.

 

http://www.latimes.com/sports/soccer/la-sp-soccer-baxter-20160501-story.html

 

Which brings me back to Phoenix sports apathy.  Three years after the new stadium opens, what next?  As the LA Times story illustrated, the LigaMX start times are even better for US fans in the Mountain Time Zone.

 

Even if not branding with a LigaMX team, MLS using the "they've got a large Latino population" line fails as much as it works.  Dallas Burn/FC Dallas has had issues attracting Latinos since leaving the Cotton Bowl; Tampa and Miami never got it right and Chicago and Philly struggle too.

 

To be fair, MLS didn't get much right at its inception. They went with giant NFL/collegiate venues, marketed primarily toward American fans who otherwise hadn't had an interest in soccer. Overlooked the ardent soccer fans because they assumed they'd simply attend/watch/support just because without any need to promote to them. And the same general thought went into the Latino market. It's soccer, they like soccer. They'll attend.

 

A lot of the Nikefied names killed interest: Burn, Wiz, Clash, Crew, etc. Even some names that seem 'classic' now were head-scratchers such as Galaxy. Of the original teams, D.C. United seemed to have 'gotten it' before the rest of the league.

 

Say what you will about the "European names", but sports tend to have their own unique cultures that transcend political boundaries. It's why you see American Football teams across the world have Americanized names. It's the Braunschweig Lions, Vienna Vikings, etc. In soccer, Americans equate Europe with soccer, and mimic those naming and nomenclature practices.

 

Seattle Sounders SC, FC Dallas, Houston Dynamo, DC United, Minnesota United FC, Columbus Crew SC, Sporting Kansas City, NYCFC, Orlando City, etc. A soccer field, for a game, is a 'pitch'. The sideline is the touch line, etc. MLS tried to reinvent the wheel and instead turned a lot of people off to it.

 

If it weren't for the Crew needing a new home, this soccer-specific-stadium craze may never have happened. Which is astounding. MLS once thought that they'd be filling NFL/collegiate venues the same way NFL teams did. Instead of realizing the fortune in having your own home that you control all the revenue. Even if it does seat 18-20-23 thousand.

 

 

As for the Cotton Bowl, part of that is just proximity. Cotton Bowl was easy to get to from Dallas. Especially the south side which is much less well off than the northern suburbs of Frisco, Allen, etc. Easiest way to Frisco is a toll road and a car. It didn't put a kabosh on attendance for those in the vicinity without ready means of transportation.

[Sport]

I was 9 years old and not well versed in European soccer naming conventions at the outset of MLS. As a result I thought DC United was just another singular nickname. They were "The United" just like the Crew and the Revolution. It wasn't until about 2006 when I figured it out. 

[Digby]

22 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

I was 9 years old and not well versed in European soccer naming conventions at the outset of MLS. As a result I thought DC United was just another singular nickname. They were "The United" just like the Crew and the Revolution. It wasn't until about 2006 when I figured it out. 

 

I was sort of like this -- I had heard of Manchester United and assumed DCU was just an offshoot of that, but that both had the singular nickname thing. You know, the Manchester United versus the London Arsenal.

 

Anyway, FourFourTwo had a nice piece on attendance, energy and the new MLS/old MLS divide that I think explained things much better than debates about branding have done. http://www.fourfourtwo.com/us/features/mls-new-markets-old-expansion-marketing-attendance

[MJWalker45]

19 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Trying to attract them exclusively, however, was. 

Also thinking his brand was as big as FC Barcelona and Real Madrid in the US didn't help either. Now any time that a foreign team mentions putting a team in the USA I think, "Not another Chivas!!" At least City Group, as much as I despise Man City, have done it the right way and partnered with local teams and groups rather than just set up a tent and waited for the fans to come find them. 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

24 minutes ago, Digby said:

 

I was sort of like this -- I had heard of Manchester United and assumed DCU was just an offshoot of that, but that both had the singular nickname thing. You know, the Manchester United versus the London Arsenal.

 

Anyway, FourFourTwo had a nice piece on attendance, energy and the new MLS/old MLS divide that I think explained things much better than debates about branding have done. http://www.fourfourtwo.com/us/features/mls-new-markets-old-expansion-marketing-attendance

 

Thanks for the link. I learned a lot, including that ATLUTD has 27000 season ticket holders!

[JayMac]

13 hours ago, dfwabel said:

Even if not branding with a LigaMX team, MLS using the "they've got a large Latino population" line fails as much as it works.  Dallas Burn/FC Dallas has had issues attracting Latinos since leaving the Cotton Bowl; Tampa and Miami never got it right and Chicago and Philly struggle too.

Do you mean this in context to Latino supporters or just in general?

[Sykotyk]

That was my general belief following the Crew. It's not that the older teams are any less capable than the new teams... it's that the old teams churned through potential fans at a time when the league wasn't all there. Where things were falling apart at time (TB & Miami, drab lifeless gigantic stadiums, etc), that's what those fans saw. That's what those people who may be fans today saw then. It's hard to make a first impression twice. And that's what a team like the Crew have.

 

They started in the shadow of Ohio State playing in Ohio Stadium. They were booted, effectively, from there so OSU could remodel it, and it's the basis for Crew Stadium/Mapfre Stadium. So, the Crew got another 'first impression'. This time, their new stadium. Which is northeast of downtown, on the fairgrounds, and looks like a rather overly built high school football stadium. It's barebones. It's minimal. Sure, it fits the Crew's 'brand'... but that brand didn't have much sway to begin with in Columbus.

 

So, second impression, same as the first. And now you have "MLS 2.0", and Columbus doesn't know. It's still MLS 1.0 inside Mapfre Stadium. It's the soccer mom, dad, and kids on a Saturday night watching a 'kids game'. It's not the 'hip thing to do' in town. The rebrand helped. But, sadly, it's going to take a new stadium. Huntington Field was built not far from Nationwide Arena and became the 'go to' place in Columbus. I've been there. Great baseball stadium. A miniature major league stadium, really. And then you still have Mapfre. Which looks about as exciting as a spelling bee.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Yeah...The Crew's stadium was groundbreaking in the US but it looks like garbage on TV.

[bosrs1]

11 hours ago, Gothamite said:

I think that's just a focused example of the challenge that MLS has in general - the sport is insanely popular around the world,  growing here all the time, but people in the US can follow the best teams across the globe.   You have to give them a reason to support their local side.

 

That's kind of why I like what the San Diego group is proposing. They'd clearly have their focus on the MLS side, but to broaden the appeal to those that might have Liga MX ties they're going to play up rivalry with the cross border Xolos specifically and work in other Liga MX sides to have them come to town for friendlies and such as well. Without being beholden to just "Hispanic fans" or even worse a single Liga MX team's Mexican fans like Chivas USA pigeonholed themselves.

[FiddySicks]

13 hours ago, McCarthy said:

I was 9 years old and not well versed in European soccer naming conventions at the outset of MLS. As a result I thought DC United was just another singular nickname. They were "The United" just like the Crew and the Revolution. It wasn't until about 2006 when I figured it out. 

 

Holy :censored:. I JUST now realized that. I've thought this whole time they were "The United". 

[4_tattoos]

As far as I can tell, DC United has not begun any sort of construction on their new stadium which is supposed to open for the 2018 MLS season.

[dfwabel]

1 hour ago, 4_tattoos said:

As far as I can tell, DC United has not begun any sort of construction on their new stadium which is supposed to open for the 2018 MLS season.

Late spring 2018 is their target and that's if the zoning issues are resolved in two weeks when the commission meets.