Visiting Baltimore

Starsky wrote:
They went with cities that support soccer like Seattle or Atlanta which average 50,000 attendance per game

I think they got it right

seattle's #1 team, by far and away, is the seahawks (nlf).  but second place is a definite toss-up between the mariners (mlb) and the sounders (mls).  i get the impression that there are more baseball fans in numbers, but soccer fans are way more passionate.  in my little slice of exurbia there are at least two "sounders bars" but i can't think of a single "mariners bar."

one the one hand, giving the WC games to established markets like seattle or LA is a reward for loyalty, cementing the market, etc.  but on the other hand, those games are going to sell out - why not expand to new markets like baltimore?

anyhoo, looks like seattle is only getting round-robin games, no knockouts.  i'll be attending as many games as i can get tickets to.  maybe england will play here and i can attract a certain san fransiscan up this way…

I believe the MLS grew out of the 1994 World Cup.

MLS is a pretty big league now! It ain’t just ten markets….Teams in some cases drawing 50,000 is a big deal even if it ain’t NFL numbers! Did you think the NFL only has 8 or 9 home games per year?

It makes sense to reward cities that care about soccer and - in the main-have world class infrastructure.
I wish Columbus had the large stadium to be rewarded.

Baltimore? Pfft

MLS is a Ponzi scheme. It has “more than 10 teams” because it’s chief revenue is the initiation fee for new teams. It’s Amway masquerading as a sports league.

Julian, wrote:
MLS is a Ponzi scheme. It has “more than 10 teams” because it’s chief revenue is the initiation fee for new teams. It’s Amway masquerading as a sports league.

you really disconnect yourself from the internet when you drink.

sweetcell wrote:

Julian, wrote:
MLS is a Ponzi scheme. It has “more than 10 teams” because it’s chief revenue is the initiation fee for new teams. It’s Amway masquerading as a sports league.

you really disconnect yourself from the internet when you drink.

Don't take my word for it. Google “mls Ponzi scheme” and go look at the number of academics who call it that. Like 4 of 27 teams (or whatever the count is now) are profitable without league dispersements of new franchise fees. The TV revenue is negligible and attendance sucks outside of like 5 cities.

When they run out of cities to expand to to generate more “new franchise fees,” it’s over. It’s a Ponzi scheme.

MLS has flaws but it’s lasted more than two decades. I think it’s a success by any measure. Is it the Premier League? No but none are other than the Premier.

Attendance is actually quite good. MLS average attendance per game is about the same as baseball or basketball.

The product on the field is vastly improved with lots of talented South American players making the first jump to MLS from say Argentina.

MLS stadiums used to be atrocious but have been upgraded. See DC for example.

When I read that some teams average attendance of 50,000 I find it remarkable. These numbers compare favorably with the most successful teams in Europe or South America that have been around over a hundred years.

The 2026 World Cup will be another boost to MLS as will be Messi arriving about 2023-24.