WASHINGTON, DC and SAN JOSE, CA (July 14, 2008) USSoccerPlayers -- J Hutcherson and Tony Edwards walk through Major League Soccer's recent expansion announcement.
Tony Edwards: So J, we are in the midst of a season where the team in the Western Division has a goal difference of plus 1. Where the 3-9-6 San Jose Earthquakes can still say with a straight face that if they take 6 points on the current home stand that they are in the playoff hunt. Where only three teams in the league are above .500 on the road.
Into this flurry of mediocrity, Commissioner Don Garber announced at the All Star Game that on top of Seattle next year and Philadelphia in 2010, two more teams would join the league in 2011. He even listed the cities under consideration.
I'm wary of lurching into hypocrisy, as I have a team to watch in person again, but with legitimate criticism about the quality of play, with established teams like the Red Bulls still seeking consistency, with DC United and Houston still seeking resolution to their stadium issues, not to mention the economic situation in the United States, is now the time to expand again? At what point is the league moving into NASL/NHL territory?
J Hutcherson: It’s certainly not the time to act like it’s manifest destiny. There are too many clubs trying to convince themselves averaging a legit 15k is success rather than the median. Getting past that through quality of play and meaningful competition should be well up the list. What is funny is the whole concept of national footprint to attract higher national advertising rates and viewer numbers, and it’s still a League with nothing to offer south of DC and east of Dallas.
I’m not as riled up about Canada as some, but it’s also not a place one immediately thinks of as a growth market. The day the exchange rate shifts, and it’s the same problems that led to all those hockey teams moving anywhere but Canada.
TE: Aren't we all beyond the idea that a 'national footprint = higher ratings = success'? The NHL has a national footprint, Arena Football has a national footprint, heck the MISL went into Stockton to help maintain its national footprint, right? Does anyone believe that having a team in Atlanta or Miami is going to draw more viewers in Mobile or Jackson? Maybe.
Substantially, teams have to know what their base numbers are, by now, and the question is how to grow that number. We've established that with the exception of Beckham, Blanco, Donovan (maybe, in the pre-Beckham days), and Adu, the idea of going to a game to see Brian McBride or Claudio Lopez or Fred or Taylor Twellman doesn't really move the needle, as much as I wish it did.
Advocates will say that now is the time to get these new investors signed up. That the league is poised to add a number of new stadia, sold a lot of tickets in Seattle and Toronto, has a paying national TV deal, and attendance is on the rise. But is there anyone who believes that seeing the name Seattle Sounders or Vancouver Whitecaps or Delaware Valley Soccer Club is going to bring out more people? No, they will be expansion teams struggling for success on the road and hoping to draw well at home. The MLS equivalents of Major League Baseball teams scheduling fireworks nights when the Royals are in town over a weekend.
JH: The footprint still gets discussed in sports business circles, but I’m with you on its relative importance. Still, it’s hard to make the case to national advertisers when you’re not technically national. Sure, the original MLS circuit wasn’t represented in the Pacific Northwest, but it had the regions covered. Houston and Dallas are a reasonable drive from each other and so is DC/Philadelphia/Harrison. They’re doubling and tripling regions before moving out to the areas that don’t have a connection at all.
I do think it matters that there’s at least the tacit connection to an actual team. That’s one of the big outside the circus tent responses to Major League Baseball and Little League teams using their marks. Build any connection and see where it gets you versus letting entire regions go fallow until you deign to include them.
Still, I would like to see numbers that show an expansion team increases ratings outside their market.
TE: To defend the league for a second, Philadelphia fans, on the whole, aren't going to support at New York or a DC team. Pittsburgh fans might support Columbus, but I think you are making a more compelling point to national advertisers that you're big league by being in Philadelphia.
On the advertisers discussion, I know its not the same thing, but the NFL isn't in Los Angeles. And they are in Jacksonville. I do believe that's more a point about how powerful the NFL is rather than any statement about the necessity of Los Angeles to a national strategy, but there's a lot of people between the Bay Area and San Diego. So not being in a specific region isn't necessarily fatal, if the game is compelling enough. And the NHL, as you noted, offers the counter-argument. That establishing a national footprint doesn't guarantee anything, other than shiny new arenas with plenty of good seats available.
I'm with you on the connection to an actual team. I coach a u-12 boys competitive team, named after the local MLS squad. For the first time this coming season, we're playing another team with the same name. After years of playing against all the Chivas-es, Milans, Barcelonas, and especially Arsenals (tons of Arsenals out there), its refreshing to see another team with an MLS name.
We haven't touched on the obvious drawback of expansion yet, which is the last 2 expansion teams are certainly not compelling draws on a soccer level. Both Toronto and San Jose have had to revamp their rosters significantly, and while the Quakes looked better this past weekend, this team makes one think back fondly to Brian Quinn's Clash teams at times.
JH: Are you suggesting I should stop playing up the party line at this point? There’s no question about the Mid-Atlantic. The idea of a regional team might cut it in New England, but the DC/Philadelphia/NYC corridor wants nothing to do with each other. Considering the occasional talk of the potential for MLS Baltimore, we might point out they’re not the closest of friends with their neighbor forty minutes south.
For the national advertising, sure they would prefer a nice nationwide spread, but breaking a one share is breaking a one share. The All-Star game came close if you count both networks that carried it, and that’s saying something.
To get back to one of your earlier points, I’m not convinced there’s enough available talent at the rate MLS wants to pay to support 14 clubs at an appropriate level. My opinion obviously, but that’s the biggest issue the League is facing. It’s not getting a stadium in DC or trying to figure out attendances in multiple markets. It’s making sure the product is quality.
TE: What does it say that not many of the players who signed in mid-season were Americans coming back, and that otherwise the 'big' moves were Kei Kamara being traded for considerations, essentially. As opposed to Major League Baseball, where the trade deadline talks dominate the month of July.
We are agreed that quality of play and player compensation are the biggest issues facing the league. I'd add getting the youth development system up and running to that list of things more important than real estate.
I'm happy as anyone to have a team to take my kids to watch, but realistically this would be an amazing 10 team league. I'm not suggesting dumping any teams, but the talent base isn't there. I guess the counterpoint to that is watching Ramiro Corrales do a 'Zidane pirouette' last Sunday and pulling it off.
JH: As someone who was part of the ‘sports business as beat’ era of coverage, we’re already seeing interest waning and coverage models changing. When faced with personal economic issues, I would assume most people don’t want to see that applied to the sports they watch. At least not on a daily basis.
What’s genius about the baseball model is that those trade talks takeover the worst part of the schedule. Nobody should be expecting record numbers in the middle of the summer. Shifting that focus to trades and an All-Star game is brilliant, and there was a reason that baseball’s experiment with two All-Star games in the late 50’s didn’t work. You’re right, it’s a sharp focus issue at a time when most of us are happily thinking about anything else.
MLS leadership should be seriously thinking about where they're focused. Multiple competitions, multiple promotional exercises with and without primary product involvement, and now the short-term successes that should always come with expansion. It's not the best way to run a business.
