U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Soccer
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-12-2016, 08:52 AM
 
167 posts, read 76,013 times
Reputation: 207

Advertisements

MLS just wants to control revenue streams. If they play in other people's stadiums, they don't get stadium naming rights, concert revenues, many of the other revenues depending on the lease.

If the same people own the MLS team and the NFL stadium like in Atlanta or New England, then MLS doesn't mind too much.

Besides, why not say that you want a stadium? There's no downside to asking for a stadium, so why not say it. Worst case, you won't get it. But usually you will get it, and usually US taxpayers pay most of the building costs. So MLS keeps saying it and taxpayers keep paying it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-12-2016, 01:50 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
4,848 posts, read 6,362,529 times
Reputation: 5800
Watching a MLS match with gridiron markings or baseball field dirt is a miserable experience. So is being at a game with 12k in a NFL stadium that holds 80k.

Aesthetics aside it's also better for business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2016, 01:44 AM
JJG
 
Location: Fort Worth
13,247 posts, read 19,179,706 times
Reputation: 7005
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4 View Post
I don't understand why the MLS is so adamant that its franchises have Soccer specific Stadiums.
The NBA is the 4th most profitable sports league in the world and other than Brooklyn and Oakland, their stadiums are designed for Hockey.
Even in the New Boston Garden the last Section and 1/2 on each side point straight at the loge seating, that would be the attacking zone at a hockey game.
Yeah, NBA and NHL sharing the same facilities really isn't a good comparison...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2016, 12:59 PM
 
3,804 posts, read 2,681,999 times
Reputation: 2825
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJG View Post
Yeah, NBA and NHL sharing the same facilities really isn't a good comparison...
Especially since the floors are changed between the sports. For MLS teams to play on essentially NFL fields with goalposts still visible as they either still do or have done until recently, is a freakin' joke.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2016, 12:22 PM
 
6,128 posts, read 2,544,308 times
Reputation: 2243
It's difficult to keep the pitch surface pristine when an NFL or NBA team is playing on it every week.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2016, 04:12 AM
 
Location: 'greater' Buffalo, NY
3,067 posts, read 2,108,277 times
Reputation: 3965
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4 View Post
and other than Brooklyn and Oakland
and Sacramento and Oklahoma City and Portland and San Antonio and maybe others
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2016, 07:31 AM
 
167 posts, read 76,013 times
Reputation: 207
I'm reading Louisville soccer / stadium study right now and remembered this thread. Louisville USL team plays at the local AAA baseball stadium, and the study has the basic lease terms, which are:

soccer club pays 5k in rent per game and also covers all gameday expenses (field conversion, gameday staff, etc)
soccer club gets no revenue from food and beverage sales, that also goes to the AAA team
AAA club also keeps all sponsorship revenue from stadium naming and permanent advertising
AAA club also keeps all revenue from 3rd party events, like concerts and what not
AAA club also gets 50% of luxury suite revenue from soccer games (and 100% from baseball games and other events), with some exceptions

These are pretty typical conditions from what I've seen. Except in most places you'd just give bigger rent and not have to pay gameday expenses. At big stadiums, such as NFL or MLB, rent typically goes at 100-400k for an evening. Plus they typically keep all or some part of F&B revenue, parking revenue, sponsorship, suite revenue.

If you can get the taxpayers to build that SSS, you control your own stadium, and that can be the difference between a very successful team and going broke.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-01-2016, 11:31 AM
 
Location: Orange Blossom Trail
6,416 posts, read 4,833,666 times
Reputation: 2635
Some stadiums are built for both. The new stadium here in Atlanta is built for both from scratch. Orlando built an all new soccer specific stadium closer to rail and the core of the city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2016, 11:37 PM
JJG
 
Location: Fort Worth
13,247 posts, read 19,179,706 times
Reputation: 7005
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0nyxStation View Post
Some stadiums are built for both. The new stadium here in Atlanta is built for both from scratch. Orlando built an all new soccer specific stadium closer to rail and the core of the city.
Honestly, Atlanta's stadium is being built mainly for the Falcons with Atlanta United (ugh) is 2nd in mind, so it's not an SSS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2016, 02:39 PM
 
4,665 posts, read 2,640,154 times
Reputation: 3342
I remember when Sporting KC (then the Wizards) would play at Arrowhead stadium, that really sucked. 10,000 people in an 80,000 stadium. It felt so empty and ruined the experience. Sporting has done well financially, so why shouldn't they build their own stadium. Their new stadium is awesome, holds 22K (I think) and is sold out almost every game. The atmosphere is very important in soccer. It's much more electric then baseball, and American football stadiums just really aren't made for soccer, it's just an odd feeling. In soccer stadiums, the front rows should be just feet from the playing field, more like hockey, and have a much more personal feel. Most soccer fans don't want massive stadiums that hold 50K+ people. I think it's just different cultural aspects of the sports.

I know many will argue otherwise, but soccer is the "beautiful game," and our sports culture reflects that. We want to make the experience personal and be up and close to the action. There are no bad seats in most soccer stadiums.

All one has to do is go to a soccer specific stadium and to a multi use stadium to figure out the reason why. Soccer is here to stay and will continue to grow in popularity. There is no reason why teams and franchises shouldn't have their own stadiums. Soccer is the #1 sport for those under 20, and the #2 sport for those under 30. Older generations still prefer American football, basketball, and baseball more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Soccer
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top