-
Website
http://www.majorleaguesoccertalk.com -
Original page
http://www.majorleaguesoccertalk.com/would-you-pay-40-million-for-a-minor-league-franchise/572 -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
As more and more MLS clubs move into the black (LA, FCD, CMB, RSL next year), the outlay to join the league will seem like a smarter and smarter investment.
The $40MM fees, and the a new post-2009 CBA with the players union, will drive the league to increase team salary caps, allowing teams to bring in more quality players, therefore making MLS appear less "minor-league."
Remember, no one is talking about league solvency anymore, they're talking about relevancy in the soccer and US sports landscapes. That relevancy come with more teams and higher salary caps.
Krishnaiyer, I guess you'd consider ALL national leagues save England, Germany, Italy, and Spain as minor. That's leaving a lot of soccer "minor-league" soccer wealth around the world.
Your selective portrayal of the facts leaves this column with little credibility. Salt Lake, Toronto, and Houston get great local coverage. Next year there will be 2 or 3 teams playing on football lines (New England, Houston, and maybe Seattle), at most for half their season. That's out of 15 teams.
If you manage to get a SSS, you'll probably make money in a new market (Toronto, Salt Lake). At the least losses are minimal compared to the appreciation in team value (Toronto bought in for less than $15 million, Salt Lake & Chivas USA for $10 million, any of them could sell to Atlanta today for $40 million). Who knows if there'll be a big take off, but with soccer-ignorant generations passing on and huge latino immigration, there's reason to be optimistic. Not everyone can afford an NFL team.
Watch the news about USL this week. $40 million into MLS is a much better investment than $750 thousand into USL.
Where I totally disagree with this story is the thought that MLS must succeed for soccer to work in the US. Many of us have checked out on the league after trying to support it. The product simply isn't good enough and more and more young American kids go abroad now at a young age so my feeling is if MLS fails it may be for the best. So no I wouldn't pay $40 million for an MLS team.
This is certainly not a eurosnob post because the premise that MLS must succeed is not eurosnobish. It is just plain stupid to think MLS matters in any way.
You need the league for player development. Even if many of your national team players end up playing in the Budesliga, you still need non-national team pros to provide the infrastructure. You need pros in order to have a competitive environment for those national team players to develop. You need pros to teach the next crop. Without a league, there is no professionalism. Without a league, you have something like in New Zealand. You're just hating on it to hate on it. I've never been to Gillette so I can't comment on what a Revs home game is like, but I go to every DC United game I can. It's fun. It's not Manchester United but it's definitely as good as Bolton or Charlton or any of those other have-nots in the EPL.
The media coverage has varied quite a bit from market to market. We've always had good coverage here in Washington DC. Houston is coming along well. Even Columbus, which had always received luke-warm coverage at best in their local media, is now getting love since they're now a winner. Dallas is having issues. So is Denver. Salt Lake City seems to be going in the right direction. It is at various stages in different markets. While it's not the two ton gorilla of the NFL, I wouldn't call it minor league. I would call it "developing" or "emerging".
Maybe you can argue some of these guys have been "damaged" or "held back" by playing in MLS. But I'd argue that many of them would have gotten lost in the lower ranks of European clubs and not given a proper chance to play first team minutes at crucial stages in their careers.
MLS may not matter to Harris, but it does to many American players and to most USMNT fans. Why not hop over and tell French, Turkish, Japanese, and Russian fans that their leagues don't matter.
The NFL was founded in 1920, but it really wasn't until the mid-50s that it passed college football as the face of the sport. The NBA was founded in the late '40s, but I'm old enough to recall when the NBA finals were on tape-delay broadcast at 11:30 pm in the East. It took 40 years before the NBA exploded into mainstream popularity.
Yes, sometimes the league gets a little gun-shy and thinks too much about the NASL's flameout. But it's going about things in the right way. Build the stadiums first, get a stable revenue stream, and then you can start trying to line up pricey talent. I recall reading about the groundbreaking for Pizza Hut Park, and Lamar Hunt being quoted as saying that when the AFL began building its own stadiums people stopped asking how long it was going to be around.
It depends on the market and the bias of the local media for or against soccer.
This piece may have worked me up the way it did some of you guys had I not seen that Eddie Gaven piece. So am I to simply assume this website is advocating a Columbus victory on Sunday and Red Bull fans need not visit? Surely turning away the largest metro areas fans cannot be good for business, can it?
And it will be interesting to see which expansion bid that doesn't have a stadium plan in place will actually go forth to buy one. Its not like all the cities have put up $40M. I believe it was a $100K fee only to bid.
If a city or state is going to pay for one, then I could justify drawing 15K a game for 16 home dates where I get control of all revenues in the stadium. But minus that enticement, I woudln't do it.
At the end of the day, as attendance for a conference playoff final last week showed, just because you call yourself "Major League" doesn't mean you are Major League. You think the Columbus Blue Jackets would have played to 7,000 empty seats in a one off game to go to the Stanley Cup, like the Crew did in their 21K stadium for a trip to LA and MLS Cup?
MLS is a nice little domestic soccer league but there is very little they do in terms of operation that screams Major League. In the general American sporting public, minor league baseball at the AAA level, AHL hockey, and the NBADL have as much, if not more revalence in parts of the US.
MLS is a minor league in terms of the US and World soccer.
One point that's been forgotten here: look at the NHL. They've been trying to become "major league" (as meant by Kartik) for longer than MLS (much longer if you consider the predecessor leagues of both; I grew up in Cleveland which had the Barons and the Crusaders in various prior leagues) and is still not doing a whole lot better than MLS is: some markets, sure, but (for an example) this year my understanding is that the Crew have been at least par with the Blue Jackets as to coverage in Columbus.
(As for the pro/rel comment: go look at England. The Premiership and Championship look to me like the first moves in the direction of killing pro/rel; I imagine it will start with the Championship closing the door on pro/rel with the First Division. I can also imagine an argument being made involving the UEFA Champions' League at some point.)
That said, whether "major league" or not, if MLS teams are at minimum breaking even then investment in the league is somewhat independent of the league's quality.
One more point: MLS needs to look at and learn from the USL. If the league can't afford to compete for players with the Premiership, Serie A, La Liga (either one), etc. then it should set its sights lower instead of trying to compete for viewership with those same leagues. This is not a cutdown, it's acknowledging that MLS is a young league and it takes time to become established in the US. Oh, and nuke some of those extracurricular activities — if the failure of the teams that got pulled into the CONCACAF Champions' League etc. proved anything, it's that MLS can't afford the bench depth needed to survive those and the regular season. I predict with some confidence that the Crew and the Red Bulls will crash next season just because they're stretched too thin.
$40M? As it turns out, at least one group (Montreal) that was a slam dunk for MLS has reconsidered, thinking the fee a money grab.
MLS needs to wake up and realise that the quality of a league is measured by the quality of the clubs involved, not the cost of a new franchise. Deepest pockets are not necessarily the people who are the best owners; in fact the more you pay for a franchise, the more they're going to want to look out for themselves instead of looking at the health of the collective.
SB
It raises the question as to whether a team must make money for the owner to get a return on investment.
Also, there is a lot of bias from journalists, for ex.: Jim Rome and many others that do not give soccer any respect; they bash it and do not acknowledge anything good. You do not see that much hate toward extreme sports, wnba, bowling, strongest man competition, etc.. These sports are truly minor league but they do not get the bias and negativity that some journalists have against soccer. This negative coverage influences the young viewers who discount the league just because of what they hear. For the exception of mma, soccer is the sport that is actually growing. We need quality players for a quality product, but it takes time to do it right. We have to look at the big picture.