MLS in the South East.

[Gothamite]

MLS could have solved their NYC problem by working with Red Bull, but the problem there is that Red Bull obviously never wanted any part of it.

I remain astounded at the absolute lack of interest that club, whatever name they were using, has had in promoting themselves and the game on this side of the Hudson River.

[Don]

MLS could have solved their NYC problem by working with Red Bull, but the problem there is that Red Bull obviously never wanted any part of it.

I remain astounded at the absolute lack of interest that club, whatever name they were using, has had in promoting themselves and the game on this side of the Hudson River.

Seems like they want the attention attached to the locale NEW YORK without actually marketing to the NEW YORK soccer fans. What purpose does that serve when you have the biggest market in the US and all you want is some folks from Jersey showing up?? No wonder that organization has been a joke since the leagues inception.

[Gothamite]

Yep, that about sums it up.

The Cosmos have done more to promote themselves and the game in Gotham in their short history than the MLS side has since the league started play.

[frosty06306]

Honestly not too many options down here, but we need a chance with one team. Top options in my mind would be Raleigh NC, Charleston SC, Atlanta GA, Nashville TN, and Orlando FL. Im sorry but the last thing Miami needs is another stadium to not fill up, those fan bases are awful, all of them, each sport.

[Mr. Aware Eagle]

I'm a Southerner and a soccer lover with no MLS team to root for. I want to support domestic soccer, but all I can do is watch the US team on TV.

And those of you talking about NASCAR and wrestling, those sports are more popular in the south than other places, but I really don't think a majority of the southern population cares about them, at least in my part of the south. People are obsessed with football, and really get into Braves baseball around here.

Atlanta is a big enough market that it could likely adequately support a team, but I'm not sure they would have as enthusiastic supporters as other markets in the South. However, I am part of a Facebook group that supports MLS in Atlanta, and it's becoming pretty active. Supposedly a banner got flown around the Home Depot Center tonight that addressed Don Garber, stating that Atlanta wants a club. I'll believe it when I see photos.

I can see Nashville, Carolina, Tampa or Orlando really embracing a team.

No matter what happens, whenever a team in the Southeast pops up, I'm going to be a die-hard fan. I desperately want an MLS team to root for. The nearest club to me is Houston, at about 600 miles away. I have a lot of friends and family that play or enjoy watching soccer, and there is a growing thirst for the beautiful game down here.

[The_Admiral]

Im sorry but the last thing Miami needs is another stadium to not fill up, those fan bases are awful, all of them, each sport.

Nah, Dolphins fandom is all right. The other three can piss up a rope.

I think Miami could embrace a soccer team. It's an international sport in an international city! Worth a try, certainly more so than friggin' RALEIGH. Suburban Atlanta could work as kind of a family-fun niche, I guess.

[BlazerBlaze]

So far Miami - Fort Lauderdale, Tampa, and San Diego(not South East), have been suggested what about Atlanta they could hook up with Atalanta BC Atlanta Silverbacks old blue logo is really good use something along those lines. Orlando, Birmingham or an area in Virginia for those who do not follow DC United?

I would not be a huge fan of going into Atlanta. Not much of a latin population there and I think they're pretty much maxed out with the number of sports teams they can support. Braves and Falcons are both doing well, Hawks were when there was an NBA. Just don't see where an MLS team would fit in.

The United are having alot of problems getting a new stadium, so I don't see how Virginia/DC/Baltimore could get another franchise with that going on, although ten years from now may not be a bad idea to look into it again.

Birmingham I would call the Detroit of the south. You would not want to a put a team in a dying city. 1/3 of the population since 1960 has fled and the city has the 10th highest crime rate in the country.

Put it in the suburbs. Hell use KSU new stadium. Plenty of room to expand there to add more luxury boxes if need be. Plus its right by I-75 and I-575, can use the KSU parking decks if need be or the mall's.

[Foxxtrot44]

Im sorry but the last thing Miami needs is another stadium to not fill up, those fan bases are awful, all of them, each sport.

Nah, Dolphins fandom is all right. The other three can piss up a rope.

I think Miami could embrace a soccer team. It's an international sport in an international city! Worth a SECOND try, certainly more so than friggin' RALEIGH. Suburban Atlanta could work as kind of a family-fun niche, I guess.

Fixed.

[bosrs1]

The one thing that league has done consistently well in recent years is place teams. They don't ignore excellent if geographically similar markets to chase after holes in their network coverage map. Unlike some other leagues I could name...

I'll give them alot of credit for that as well. Going after latin markets like Houston and LA as well as going after markets underutilized by the other major pro sports leagues such as Portland, Salt Lake City and Montreal.

If I was the MLS the next market I would look at going into would be San Diego. I think meet both qualifiers. Huge latin market, and a market that I don't think is fully utilized by the four major sports leagues.

San Diego is right on the border and only has an MLB team, so it fits the mold perfectly.

While I agree San Diego would be a good fit for MLS, you did forget that we also have an NFL team. That said San Diego isn't without issues, the biggest issue being proximity to the border. Many "latin" fans in the region are more inclined to root for the Tijuana Xolos than they would be for a San Diego team. That and we don't exactly tear it up attendance wise during exhibition soccer games we've held in the last few years. That said if it's done right in the Portland/Seattle model it could work. It would just require an owner and stadium plan.

As for the Southeast, I'm not sure MLS should go back there for a very long time. I just don't see any city down there having a Seattle, Montreal or Portland level of excitement or support for a franchise. Maybe it's the cliche'd transplant issue, maybe it's lack of interest in soccer, maybe it's something else. But the model that has worked lately, moving decent to great NASL squads up to MLS just won't work down there. Miami's minor league team is a joke, Tampa's isn't much better (and is about to get USL competition as well), Atlanta's is not great. The best of the lot is Carolina. And even they aren't instilling anyone with any confidence (or showing any interest in moving up). The 20th team will be the NYC team if MLS gets their way and then I think they'll take a break. FIFA doesn't like domestic leagues having more than 20 teams and at most MLS would go to 24 in defiance of FIFA. So I don't think we'll see a huge expansion until they've solidified their position further in the US.

[fumbler]

The MLS has already defied FIFA by having teams in thier league from another country, the MLS is one of only a few leagues in this situation.

[Snazel]

MLS could have solved their NYC problem by working with Red Bull, but the problem there is that Red Bull obviously never wanted any part of it.

I remain astounded at the absolute lack of interest that club, whatever name they were using, has had in promoting themselves and the game on this side of the Hudson River.

I'll go with this. I have no knowledge of the soccer community in NYC, but it does seem like the Red Bull sugar-water company is a tad arrogant. Also given New York's size and the amount of people who love and play the sport, the Red Bull haven't really produced much success.

Something is wrong up there, and I can only guess that one of the key reasons why is that a rather clumsy, monolithic, multi-national soda company, can't manage the club with the kind of agility and alacrity that is required to capture the imagination of America's largest local soccer market. I am not just talking about winning either, I am talking about branding and building a sense of community.

As for where MLS should go next, I am going to go in a more radical direction.

I think MLS should hold off on any expansion and then watch and see what brands don't reach self-sustainability in the next 5-10 years. That this era should be about "being able to float on your own steam". I say this, because I think the league's next step is a widening of the cap (and increasing the ease at which you can squeeze a DP into the cap).

It is stars that will eventually take the league to another level. This has to be done carefully. Seeing which franchises can make that next evolution and which one's cannot is a pretty key move. Expansion just dilutes the water more and ensures the league stays rooted at its current state. And right now the ratings are still GOD AWFUL (MLS still rates worse than women's bowling or video-taped poker tournaments), and the general financial alacrity of individual teams is still not firm.

Is Dallas really going to work? Is there a real solution for DC? Is this really the best we can do for the Boston market? Remember, MLS as a whole is not profitable yet. The 55 million dollars the Galaxy got for local broadcast rights is eye-opening though, but I am not sure fishing for more expansion money in St. Louis, Atlanta or Manhattan is the answer for where and what this league needs to do next.

And I'll go further and say that Montreal was a mistake. I love Montreal, its a great city, but I am not sure the Impact was the right move.

[TBGKon]

So far Miami - Fort Lauderdale, Tampa, and San Diego(not South East), have been suggested what about Atlanta they could hook up with Atalanta BC Atlanta Silverbacks old blue logo is really good use something along those lines. Orlando, Birmingham or an area in Virginia for those who do not follow DC United?

I would not be a huge fan of going into Atlanta. Not much of a latin population there and I think they're pretty much maxed out with the number of sports teams they can support. Braves and Falcons are both doing well, Hawks were when there was an NBA. Just don't see where an MLS team would fit in.

The United are having alot of problems getting a new stadium, so I don't see how Virginia/DC/Baltimore could get another franchise with that going on, although ten years from now may not be a bad idea to look into it again.

Birmingham I would call the Detroit of the south. You would not want to a put a team in a dying city. 1/3 of the population since 1960 has fled and the city has the 10th highest crime rate in the country.

Put it in the suburbs. Hell use KSU new stadium. Plenty of room to expand there to add more luxury boxes if need be. Plus its right by I-75 and I-575, can use the KSU parking decks if need be or the mall's.

KSU's stadiums would have to be expanded by 10 to 12 thousand seats to work.

How involved is the Silverbacks owner? Could they expand Silverbacks Park? If not, I think the women's league used to play at Georgia Tech's Bobby Dodd Stadium, maybe that could work.

[TFoA]

So far Miami - Fort Lauderdale, Tampa, and San Diego(not South East), have been suggested what about Atlanta they could hook up with Atalanta BC Atlanta Silverbacks old blue logo is really good use something along those lines. Orlando, Birmingham or an area in Virginia for those who do not follow DC United?

I would not be a huge fan of going into Atlanta. Not much of a latin population there and I think they're pretty much maxed out with the number of sports teams they can support. Braves and Falcons are both doing well, Hawks were when there was an NBA. Just don't see where an MLS team would fit in.

The United are having alot of problems getting a new stadium, so I don't see how Virginia/DC/Baltimore could get another franchise with that going on, although ten years from now may not be a bad idea to look into it again.

Birmingham I would call the Detroit of the south. You would not want to a put a team in a dying city. 1/3 of the population since 1960 has fled and the city has the 10th highest crime rate in the country.

Put it in the suburbs. Hell use KSU new stadium. Plenty of room to expand there to add more luxury boxes if need be. Plus its right by I-75 and I-575, can use the KSU parking decks if need be or the mall's.

KSU's stadiums would have to be expanded by 10 to 12 thousand seats to work.

How involved is the Silverbacks owner? Could they expand Silverbacks Park? If not, I think the women's league used to play at Georgia Tech's Bobby Dodd Stadium, maybe that could work.

Before they took 2010 off, the Silverbacks were planning to expand Silverbacks Park into a 15,000 seat stadium. I don't know if their plans have changed or not (right now they're at Phase II of IV), but they at least had some sort of intention to expand. Here's a rendering of what the finished product could look like:

[Don]

MLS could have solved their NYC problem by working with Red Bull, but the problem there is that Red Bull obviously never wanted any part of it.

I remain astounded at the absolute lack of interest that club, whatever name they were using, has had in promoting themselves and the game on this side of the Hudson River.

I'll go with this. I have no knowledge of the soccer community in NYC, but it does seem like the Red Bull sugar-water company is a tad arrogant. Also given New York's size and the amount of people who love and play the sport, the Red Bull haven't really produced much success.

Something is wrong up there, and I can only guess that one of the key reasons why is that a rather clumsy, monolithic, multi-national soda company, can't manage the club with the kind of agility and alacrity that is required to capture the imagination of America's largest local soccer market. I am not just talking about winning either, I am talking about branding and building a sense of community.

As for where MLS should go next, I am going to go in a more radical direction.

I think MLS should hold off on any expansion and then watch and see what brands don't reach self-sustainability in the next 5-10 years. That this era should be about "being able to float on your own steam". I say this, because I think the league's next step is a widening of the cap (and increasing the ease at which you can squeeze a DP into the cap).

It is stars that will eventually take the league to another level. This has to be done carefully. Seeing which franchises can make that next evolution and which one's cannot is a pretty key move. Expansion just dilutes the water more and ensures the league stays rooted at its current state. And right now the ratings are still GOD AWFUL (MLS still rates worse than women's bowling or video-taped poker tournaments), and the general financial alacrity of individual teams is still not firm.

Is Dallas really going to work? Is there a real solution for DC? Is this really the best we can do for the Boston market? Remember, MLS as a whole is not profitable yet. The 55 million dollars the Galaxy got for local broadcast rights is eye-opening though, but I am not sure fishing for more expansion money in St. Louis, Atlanta or Manhattan is the answer for where and what this league needs to do next.

And I'll go further and say that Montreal was a mistake. I love Montreal, its a great city, but I am not sure the Impact was the right move.

I agree that expansion should really stop right now and let the leagues product get better and profitability go up. They are not a ratings driven league yet but a gate driven league like the NHL. Attendance has never been better for the MLS. This is a good thing. There are stragglers, like FCD (awful stadium location), DCU (RFK situation is terrible) and others. Timbers, Sounders, Union have all been great adds to the league and bring a vibrant atmosphere with sold out parks every week. These are bright spots.

Its too early to say whether Montreal is a mistake or not. They havent even played a game yet! Thats the most radical thing youve said in that whole post because its flat out too early to say. MLS has been smart in expansion so far, no reason to not trust them on this decision until the games start getting played.

[pmoehrin]

The MLS has already defied FIFA by having teams in thier league from another country, the MLS is one of only a few leagues in this situation.

And FIFA defied common sense by giving the World Cup to a place that's going to have games played in areas with a smaller population then my town. The MLS is also they only major North American soccer league not in Mexico, so screw what FIFA thinks. They are in no position to start throwing stones at anyone right now.

[UnclearInitial]

MLS could have solved their NYC problem by working with Red Bull, but the problem there is that Red Bull obviously never wanted any part of it.

I remain astounded at the absolute lack of interest that club, whatever name they were using, has had in promoting themselves and the game on this side of the Hudson River.

The problem with the Red Bulls (and I say this as a Red Bulls semi-fan who occasionally goes to games) is that they thought that putting a couple of giant billboards on 50th&7th before every season starts and putting ads for their new stadium at bus stops was enough. What they should have done is to promote more in the Hispanic community,and put billboards at Giants Stadium.

[Snazel]

With the Galaxy's new 55 million dollar local-TV deal, hopefully the MLS will realize that selling tickets is one thing (and it will get you as far as the NHL is, which frankly, isn't very far), but TV and media rights are where it is at.

Yes, of course, this is going to take a long time to achieve, but the attendance figures are going to fluctuate (and ticket sales quickly reach a cap whereby fans can no longer afford your product if you keep raising them to accommodate for increased salaries). Also ticket-based leagues have constant relocation issues, because it just takes a few bad seasons to be reeling in debt.

I know the short-term focus has to be tickets, but the real gain here is TV. World Cup rights were sold for an ASTRONOMICAL amount. The NBC/Versus deal was pretty good. This is where MLS has to focus more. If they can do all they can to make sure NBC's tenure with the league is successful (bending over BACKWARDS for them is a good place to start), this will eventually pay off.

MLS has other issues to make their sport a little more conducive to TV ratings, but that goes way beyond the scope of a discussion of MLS in the South East.

I don't think MLS belongs in the South East right now, truly I just don't. My apologies to the great fans in Florida and Georgia, but MLS needs to stabilize right now, develop its quality, improve its officiating and doing all it can to get its TV ratings out of the PATHETIC basement and into a position where it can LITERALLY beat out bowling tournaments. Right now, it is some of the WORST rated programming on ESPN and it is only ESPN's commendable patience with MLS that really has ensured they have even that.

And NHL's model isn't the answer...in fact the NHL is borked, and is run by idiots. Garber is smarter than the NHL, he's even smarter than Tim Leiweke and Tim should be really grateful he got his 55 million, because Garber had a lot to do with that (more than he, or most people realize).

In fact, I wager Tim sometimes wishes that the NHL was designed/managed like MLS. But it isn't, the NHL has always been owned by sharks, who are often too paranoid of one another and too damn greedy to really do the sport good (call it Ballard-syndrome if you like).

[Gothamite]

MLS could have solved their NYC problem by working with Red Bull, but the problem there is that Red Bull obviously never wanted any part of it.

I remain astounded at the absolute lack of interest that club, whatever name they were using, has had in promoting themselves and the game on this side of the Hudson River.

The problem with the Red Bulls (and I say this as a Red Bulls semi-fan who occasionally goes to games) is that they thought that putting a couple of giant billboards on 50th&7th before every season starts and putting ads for their new stadium at bus stops was enough. What they should have done is to promote more in the Hispanic community,and put billboards at Giants Stadium.

At the very least.

They could also have done what the Cosmos did, and take over the local cup. They could have sponsored soccer tournaments or leagues, they could have done outreach to the New York soccer pubs, they could have made the slightest ing effort to reach the sport's existing fanbase.

It's convenient to place the blame on an out-of-touch corporate owner, but the neglect goes all the way back to the team's early days. They were never actually interested in the city.

[BlazerBlaze]

So far Miami - Fort Lauderdale, Tampa, and San Diego(not South East), have been suggested what about Atlanta they could hook up with Atalanta BC Atlanta Silverbacks old blue logo is really good use something along those lines. Orlando, Birmingham or an area in Virginia for those who do not follow DC United?

I would not be a huge fan of going into Atlanta. Not much of a latin population there and I think they're pretty much maxed out with the number of sports teams they can support. Braves and Falcons are both doing well, Hawks were when there was an NBA. Just don't see where an MLS team would fit in.

The United are having alot of problems getting a new stadium, so I don't see how Virginia/DC/Baltimore could get another franchise with that going on, although ten years from now may not be a bad idea to look into it again.

Birmingham I would call the Detroit of the south. You would not want to a put a team in a dying city. 1/3 of the population since 1960 has fled and the city has the 10th highest crime rate in the country.

Put it in the suburbs. Hell use KSU new stadium. Plenty of room to expand there to add more luxury boxes if need be. Plus its right by I-75 and I-575, can use the KSU parking decks if need be or the mall's.

KSU's stadiums would have to be expanded by 10 to 12 thousand seats to work.

How involved is the Silverbacks owner? Could they expand Silverbacks Park? If not, I think the women's league used to play at Georgia Tech's Bobby Dodd Stadium, maybe that could work.

Before they took 2010 off, the Silverbacks were planning to expand Silverbacks Park into a 15,000 seat stadium. I don't know if their plans have changed or not (right now they're at Phase II of IV), but they at least had some sort of intention to expand. Here's a rendering of what the finished product could look like:

My lack of living in ATL for the last 2 years is about to show, fair warning.

I want to say that KSU's was build to be expanded (BraveBird, as our resident Owl maybe you could help out here). So I dont think that would be to much of a stretch to do, specially with KSU getting football they'd prob like to be able to pull more than 8,700 for a game.

As for the Silverback park I remember those plans being there (Btw, are those palm tree's in that rendering by the gate? Really?) But the orginization has never been stable if i remember correctly, plus its a pain to get to that stadium.

Idealy if they just wanted a entirely new stadium I'd say Roswell or "retta would be their best bet. The 400 corridor is exponentially expanding with Windmere Parkway being the hot spot as of late. Maybe grab a spot around there.

[fumbler]

That planned Silverbacks Stadium looks good, i like the boutique arenas and stadiums around 20,000.

@ pmoehrin FIFA rules state that clubs must play in a league within thier own country, FIFA governs all leagues that come under the FIFA banner. USA comes under the FIFA banner therefore must comply with FIFA regulations, no matter how much you distrust them.