Spot on. The largest Vancouver attendance in history for a sporting event was a Whitecaps v Sounders game (65,000). MLS would be crazy if they didn't capitalise on the potential rivalry.

One of the things Garber and MLS brass are always going on about is "footprint": the size of area that is 'covered' by an MLS team. For instance, DC United's 'footprint' covers not just the DC area, but Baltimore, Delaware, West Virginia, etc.

MLS wants to be a national league, which means being followed even in places that don't have a team. Assuming they are planning for only a 20 team league, I am sure one of the crucial issues they'll be looking at in expansion isn't just what cities look like they might support a team, but how "efficient" that city would be in spreading MLS' footprint.

By that standard, Portland would probably be an inefficient use of a franchise. Portland is small, and more important, Seattle's footprint will cover much of the Pacific Northwest already. In other words it doesn't really do all that much to spread MLS' footprint.

Montreal, on the other hand, would have a huge footprint. Quebec has 7m people, but more important, unlike Oregon where you'll probably have some people supporting Seattle, I am guessing that most Quebecers will only follow MLS if there's a team in the province.

But of course, if they are interested solely in maximizing audience size, that means expanding to as-yet-unrepresented areas: the south, or the southwest, both notorious for their awful fans. So it should be interesting to see how the league decides to balance sheer audience size/footprint against audience passion.

I wish I found my MA thesis this interesting.

Yeah that's pretty much the NHL's model and we know how successful that's been.

I think it's quite possible they pause at 20, but I don't see MLS stopping there. Firstly, they model themselves on the NFL and other major leagues, who have settled on a considerably larger number of franchises. Secondly, if there are ten other cities who still want franchises, can you see MLS turning down hundreds and hundreds of millions in expansion fees and potential TV revenue?

Err, I understand your point about footprints, but you make some massive lapses in that.

Portland fans will not support Seattle. There is a strong rivalry between the two cities that won't be bridged. They only support the M's and the Seahawks because Portland generally doesn't have that many MLB or NFL fans.

Soccer is a completely different animal for Portland. They have one of the longest soccer traditions in the states, along with Vancouver and Seattle. The Timbers are one of the best supported USL teams, and along with that came hatred of the Sounders and Whitecaps. Imagine if the MLS had have ignored New England in the hopes that Boston fans would support the New York team. By your model, FC Dallas and Houston shouldn't exist. Philly should be the last place on earth to get a team since they show up to the NE and NY games anyways to jeer them right?

The footprint model is a flawed idea. Television soccer fans are already ignoring the MLS in favor of the premier league etc. The real goal should be to draw steady crowds and make the atmosphere interesting. Find me groups of Miami fans that are going to travel to NY or TX in the bulk that Portland fans will travel to Seattle and Vancouver. I guess basically I'm saying, don't try and ram the MLS down the throat of some area when there are cities with existing rivals interested in getting in the fray.

The more interesting the games actually get at the stadium, then maybe a footprint model to increase tv viewers. Shouldn't focus on the fans at home right now though, when there is plenty of space at most stadiums.

How did you lot get up to three pages on this already?

goldstone: yeah, I thought of that, and wrote out an elaborate plan on how MLS could keep franchise fees coming and increase tv money through creation of a lower division while all the while maintaining a 20 team top division through pro/reg with the lower one. Then I realized it was as stupid as it sounds, and I deleted it.

But isn't FIFA trying to prevent big leagues? Does FIFA have any pull over MLS?


Psounder:

First off, it's not my model. 'Footprint' is a word Don Garber has repeatedly used when talking about MLS expansion.

Second, I didn't say it would be a bad idea to give Portland a team, nor did I say the people of Portland would whole-heartedly embrace a Seattle club.

What I said was insofar as MLS has 4 franchises left, they're going to want to make sure they get big bang for their buck, so to speak. And insofar as one criteria for measuring bang for the buck is audience size, giving Portland a team isn't the best idea. Drawing this conclusion is in fact absolutely nothing like drawing the conclusion that Houston or Dallas, with 6m people each, deserve only one team, or Philly (6m) or Boston (4.5m plus all of New England) don't deserve teams at all.

Portland has 2-2.5m people in its metro area. You've already said that people there support the Seahawks and Mariners, so it seems reasonable to assume that *some* (not all) people in Portland will support Seattle as their MLS club. Thus the "net gain" for MLS in terms of audience size would probably be less than 2-2.5m. There are probably a dozen metro areas in the US and Canada which are better expansion candidates from a "footprint" point of view than is Portland.

This will no doubt be important to MLS as the decide what to do. However, as I implied at the end of my previous post, and as AdC pointed out, there's evidence that audience size isn't the be-all end-all. So it should be interesting to see if MLS decides to sacrifice a bit of audience size in exchange for passion.

Soccer Scrimmage wrote:

QUOTE:
Portland has 2-2.5m people in its metro area. You've already said that people there support the Seahawks and Mariners, so it seems reasonable to assume that *some* (not all) people in Portland will support Seattle as their MLS club. Thus the "net gain" for MLS in terms of audience size would probably be less than 2-2.5m. There are probably a dozen metro areas in the US and Canada which are better expansion candidates from a "footprint" point of view than is Portland.

This will no doubt be important to MLS as the decide what to do. However, as I implied at the end of my previous post, and as AdC pointed out, there's evidence that audience size isn't the be-all end-all. So it should be interesting to see if MLS decides to sacrifice a bit of audience size in exchange for passion.

What Portland has going for it is that after the Trailblazers, a MLS team there would be the only big league game in town. I know Portland fans really want a major league baseball team. I think having a MLS club in a major city being the only major team in action for the entire summer would be a boon for the league in terms of getting support and people talking about the team.

There would be the built in rivalry with Seattle, and who knows--some crazies might travel down to San Jose for a game.

QUOTE:
There would be the built in rivalry with Seattle, and who knows--some crazies might travel down to San Jose for a game.

They already do -- quite a few made the trip down last summer to see the Timbers take on the California Victory (based in SF) in the USL.

It's pretty clear the hardcore fan support is there for MLS to succeed. That doesn't tend to play much role in MLS' thinking, though. Market-size is definitely a consideration, but it's still all about being able to fund your own stadium and having deep pocketed owner-investors lined up.

Despite the involvement of the Paulsons with the Timbers and the possibility of turning their current minor league baseball stadium into a soccer specific stadium, it's not really clear Portland has those two things, hence the lack of buzz about their candidacy.

Call it the "Beckham Effect," TT.

The thing is 20 teams is okay, but this could truly be an excuse to have a 60-team league with relegation/promotion. It's amazing how the answers are staring everyone in the face.

Q: Is Montreal a football town?
A: No. Not by any stretch of the imagination. First comes hockey. Second comes hockey. Then there's hockey. The Alouettes are fourth. The Impact are down a ways from that. Keep in mind the Impact actually went bankrupt in 2000 when the Saputos briefly left the team. The current incarnation is not entirely Saputo owned - the govt of Quebec also owns a share (shades of the 'spos). That's why the Gillett deal is so interesting: despite growing attendance to about 11,000 per game and building a new stadium, the Saputos aren't quite confident enough to do this on their own, and MLS won't allow any gov't ownership.

Q: Should MLS cure sick franchises?
A: My thinking on this is heavily coloured by having had both the Jets and the Expos taken away from me. As a result, my immediate reaction is that KC and Energy Drink can rot in hell for all I care. I also don't really see how the league can do much in markets where the local franchise owners insist on acting like lobotomized chimps.

Q: How big can MLS get?
A: OMG! A subject I've actually presciently blogged about. That never happens. Usually I'm way behind the Board on this stuff. I'd like to agree with JV that the route to expansion lies through relegation and promotion, but the problem is I don't believe and North American sports league will ever adopt this idea. But the question about when FIFA might step in is an interesting one. In the past they've always left the US to itself, figuring that any batshit ideas that come up there (30-team leagues, shootouts, indoor soccer, etc) can't possibly spread and any football is better than no football. But I think those days are over. Recently, on the Grenada 74 issue, Blatter said something to the effect that "relegation and promotion are fundamental to football and cannot be compromised". I wonder if the day hasn't come when FIFA might not try to impose something on the US (an approach which would go down very badly, I should think, as Americans instinctively aren't keen on int'l organizations...Don Garber would probably join the Black Helicopter crowd...)

Q: Will Mo be fired?
A: I heard an interesting story yesterday, friend-of-a-friend thing. Apparently, inside the TFC organization, many people are livid at Mo for having spent much of spring training on the sidelines with the team. Apparently, someone actually had to go and tell him "you're not the coach anymore. Go make some phone calls and buy us some damn players". I dunno if this is true, but it would explain the total shit show of an offseason we've had.

I think this thread wins on the paragraphs-per-post-o-meter.

Also, one of the nice things about the WSC re-launch is that we here in MLS-land no longer trail the goddamn Walesathon in posts. I forsee a long spell of North American dominance on this part of the board, which of course is mainly a reflection of the NPS/TFC relentless rise to glory.

My tickets are in hand. My passport is in transit from DC. I am more excited about a 14-hour car trip than I've been since the time we decided to do Montreal-Little Rock in '92 to be at the "so long GHWB" party and I ended meeting Molly Ivins and shadowing Wolf Blitzer for the evening.

Despite the fact that TFC are bringing 2500 people to the game tomorrow, tickets are still available for the home side. Tee hee.

I've also heard an incredibly amusing rumour that all fans will be given a Crew scarf at the gate. On the off chance we actually score (preferably Dichio, God Willing in the 24th minute), watch for 2500 of these scarves to make their way onto the field.

Antonio: travel safely! I am really looking forward to seeing you guys embarrass the Crew fans.

My son just asked me if 2500 away fans is an MLS record.

Anyone?