I hope they get Marta.

I remain very pessimistic about the prospects of a womens' league. Mens' soccer (MLS) has more than enough trouble putting people in seats. LA with Beckham looked half empty this past weekend, Columbus, despite being a top club this year, can't get people out to their stadium. There were plenty of empty seats in Chicago, though I think weather was a factor there.

Womens's soocer is very likely to have even more trouble generating enough revenue to pay their expenses.

Mr. Goff, thanks for your continuing respectful and educated coverage of the women. Compare FSC, which interviewed the Commish this weekend and called her Sonya.

Any clues on which national team players are likely to be allocated to Freedom?

I look forward to the return of a women's league. I just hope the Washington franchise gets Abby Wambach, um, back.

Abby, Natasha, and Tarpley/O'Reilly/Osbourne. We want goals!

I hope they will bring Karen Carney from England. She is hot. and Christian from Brazil, she is hot too.
LA drew more then 25k and chicago more then 19k.

I think we are better off keeping it relatively regional. Scratch LA altogether and reserve any expansion for Atlanta, Carolina, etc. Keeping travel expenses and frustrations to a minimum will help. Otherwise, set up 2 distinct conferences and keep inter-conference play to a minimum. I like the idea of using college stadia (and the odd purpose-built location like soccerplex). Built-in potential fanbase if prices are not exorbitant. Blah, blah, blah.

Sorry, I was even boring myself with that. Here's hoping for Hope! (And Tarpley too.)

td, if they "drew" that many then why were there so many empty seats, especially in LA. Check the MLS highlights and you'll see what I mean. LA should be packed out every game. Isn't that why they brought in Beckham?

But even if you want to throw out CHI and LA for this week, the broader point holds. MLS's cornerstone growth/atendance strategy of SSS's ain't workin'. Columbus, Colorado, Frisco, Frisco, and Chivas are practically empty week in and week out.

The mens game in the US has plenty of trouble drawing fans. History has shown that womens sports draw far less than mens.

Womens's soocer is very likely to have even more trouble generating enough revenue to pay their expenses.

Posted by: Ron | June 9, 2008 7:39 AM
=========================================

There appears to be a distinct pro bono motive among at least some of the league's investors, such as Anschutz and Hendricks. They may be willing to tolerate losing money for a protracted period, so long as those losses are kept to a manageable level.

Scratch LA altogether and reserve any expansion for Atlanta, Carolina, etc.
=======================================

Scratching LA means scratching Anschutz, doesn't it?

LA should be packed out every game. Isn't that why they brought in Beckham?
=========================================

But Beckham will appear at HDC at least 15 times a year, barring injuries and suspensions. Thus, any particular LAG home game is not a special occasion. By contrast, he appears only once or twice at each of the other MLS venues, and he regularly produces sellouts. I've always said that Beckham is Anschutz's gift to the rest of the league.

Ron,

LA leads the league in average attendance (ticket sales) with 24K. Include Chivas and the HDC average drops to ~18K, still 3K above the league's overall average. Sure, Colorado, Columbus, and Dallas are below the overall average, but they're earning more from ticket sales, concessions, parking, than DC is in RFK. So it's not just attendance, you have to factor in profit.

Ron,
Sure, there were a lot of empty seats at kick-off time. Unfortunately, that's normal in LA due to traffic, etc. But after the first 20 minutes the place looked packed. I got home in time to catch the last 20 minutes of the Fire-United game, and it looked pretty packed in Chicago too. I think you need your eyes checked.

x

Ron, i agree in general that they are not filling up the stadiums but you have to admit that Beckham is having a great impact on Galaxy. They are on top of the western league and attendance is always high.

Scratching LA means scratching Anschutz, doesn't it?

Posted by: tri-village | June 9, 2008 10:22 AM
--------------------
hmm...good point; I hadn't thought of that. I suppose that's why I'm a fan posting on a blog instead of running a team or a league.

Womens's soocer is very likely to have even more trouble generating enough revenue to pay their expenses.

Posted by: Ron | June 9, 2008 7:39 AM

==================================

The womens league could play for 100 years and not lose as much money as the MLS has in 12 years. Their target is 5000 per game which seems achievable.

I mean MLS not "the MLS"

Losing money in sports on some levels isn't bad. Most owners get to count the losses on their personal income taxes every year.

LA, Santa Clara, Portland, Seattle, Vancouver. That's a decent conference for a womens league, I would think.

Milbrett is playing for the Whitecaps this year.

But even if you want to throw out CHI and LA for this week, the broader point holds. MLS's cornerstone growth/atendance strategy of SSS's ain't workin'. Columbus, Colorado, Frisco, Frisco, and Chivas are practically empty week in and week out.

------------

The important of the development of SSS's is about controlling revenue, not increasing attendence. Most (all?) of the teams with SSS's have good financial outlooks. Contrast that to a team like DCU which has good attendence but loses tons of money every year due to a poor stadium situation.

Once all the teams in the league are in SSS's (or at least in stadiums that they control), the elague will be in much better financial shape, even if attendence is the same. At that point, the league will be much better equipped to raise the salary cap significantly and improve play on the field because the return on investment would be higher -- resultant attendance increases would result in higher ticket sales, concessions, and parking revenues which would actually be kept by the teams.

I like the idea of using college stadia (and the odd purpose-built location like soccerplex).
=========================================

That is why, in a thread some days ago, I expressed concern that the Philadelphia franchise is waiting a year to start play, apparently because they want to be in the new SSS in Chester. They don't need that large or fancy a venue, when there are plenty of college (and even high school) stadiums in the area that are largely idle during the summer. For instance, the team's WUSA predecessor played at Villanova, in a stadium that I think seats around 10,000. I can only hope that the operators of the new MLS team give them a really good deal on the rent.

Yeah, Anschutz may need a different shelter. Today's WSJ page 1 says the IRS is chasing him for $143.6 million in back taxes.

Geez, not this again. Professional women's soccer failed once and it will fail again.

I went to the recent Freedom game in Germantown and had a nice time. The soccer was, at many times, quite good. It's a great opportunity for dads to take their daughters (and sons, for that matter) and work through some teaching moments.

5,000 is a reasonable attendance goal but I just don't see 5k at the MD Soccerplex to see WMLS (or whatever this league will be called), version II though.

Controlling revenue at stadiums is an intermediate goal though not unimportant. If you want to raise the salary cap, though, you are going to have to get better tv contracts. The tv contracts' values are going to go down, not up, if the content (MLS soccer games) does not improve. The content stinks when you have Colorado, Columbus, Dallas, etc. playing in empty stadiums. The Revs don't have an SSS and an SSS for them is not in the cards. They play at empty Gillette, with football lines a good percentage of the time. Looks awful on TV. Awful. Networks are not going to re-up for higher fees for that. I'm sorry. They just won't. SSS's are not the answer, full or near full SSS's for soccer matches are. In this repect most of MLS's SSS's have flopped and that does not bode well long-term for the league.

Meant to add that 5,000 at women's matches might be a good gate for them IF (a big IF) they can do it. Their bigger problem though is TV, and their ratings in the last league were HORRIBLE. Without ratings, the league is doomed. They have put forward no credible plan to improve the practically non-existent ratings the previous league achieved.

Just my two cents, but I find women's soccer so awful! Truthfully I don't even really consider it soccer. I usually just skip over Goff's blogs when it comes to women's soccer. And I simply cannot even listen to a word of Julie Foudy as a commentator. (Just giving some feedback.)

While we're at it, can someone pull the plug on the WNBA. Talk about an unwatchable sport!

Dear WUSA Commissioner and League Officials,

Placing a league with teams in similar markets as MLS with the season starting around the same time is a big mistake. NO, a HUGE MISTAKE.

The USL has some of its success for attendance attached to the fact that their teams are not in the same markets as MLS (Atlanta, Portland, N Carolina, Rochester, Puerto Rico...).

IF the WUSA is planning on drawing attendance from "soccer junkies" then they should play in the MLS off season. How much time does the directors at WUSA think that I have to go to soccer games? If I am a season ticket holder, then I already have a full plate of games to see, let alone attend another league! And its not like I can watch it on TV.

Does the WUSA think that all the pretty girls in the US will bat their eyelashes to convince their boyfriends/husbands to not spend money on MLS and spend it on WUSA? Or do they think that there are more women fans that will support a women's league? If that were the case, then Senator Hillary would have been the overwhelming leader in the Democratic party.

****I am not anti-WUSA!!!! I think it's a good idea. But I think that it is going to be poorly executed and will fold before it has a chance to produce.****

Now if that means that MLS should adopt the traditional European schedule so that the WUSA could play in the summer (smaller teams, less games, female fans in short shorts and bikini tops at the games might get me to go once or twice) would be fine by me.

That would be a positive change for MLS (by aligning it to the majority of the world it would allow better moves with the transfer window, we could schedule our tournaments with greater ease, and our teams would be peaking within the season for foreign tournaments like Copa Libertadores, etc.).

And soccer junkies like me can see games on American soil all year long.

Sincerely,
Soccer Junkie

The WNBA is partially subsidized by the NBA. We all know MLS is in no position to help out another league if it can't stand on its own. I hope it succeeds, but I think it will fail.

If you want to raise the salary cap, though, you are going to have to get better tv contracts. The tv contracts' values are going to go down, not up, if the content (MLS soccer games) does not improve. The content stinks when you have Colorado, Columbus, Dallas, etc. playing in empty stadiums. The Revs don't have an SSS and an SSS for them is not in the cards. They play at empty Gillette, with football lines a good percentage of the time. Looks awful on TV. Awful. Networks are not going to re-up for higher fees for that. I'm sorry. They just won't. SSS's are not the answer, full or near full SSS's for soccer matches are. In this repect most of MLS's SSS's have flopped and that does not bode well long-term for the league.

------------

Huh? First of all, it's IMHO to think that a value of a TV contract is going to be tied with something as silly as the appearance of crowds at games. The biggest factor is -- and always will be --the number of TV viewers pure and simple. And the amount of people watching on TV is going to be influenced by the quality of the players on the field, not the folks in the crowd.

Second of all, even if you do believe that presentation is the key thing for TV contracts, then the SSS's are a huge boost. Games in a half full SSS looked a thousand times better than games in a tenth full NFL stadium (especially those with artificial turf and football lines). To whatever (small) extent atmposphere is improtant for TV contracts, they are *better* now than they were in the past with larger rented stadium (and will continue to improve with getting rid of two awful fields in Salt Lake City and NJ and replacing them with vastly improved stadia). Even if the SSS's aren't a panacea, they are absolutely an improvement over the past, so I don't see how you can argue that TV contracts would be "going down".

Third of all, SSS's are going to enable teams to invest more money and increase the quality of players on the field more than playing in rented stadiums would. That is such a key part of growth to the team. If a team like DCU gets a player for (say) $5M salary, the only way they can recoup that salary is through a ticket sales and increased advertising. With a SSS, they can also get increased concerssion and parking revenue, plus they would be in control of advertising (billboards and such) within the stadium that they don't now. That stuff is huge and allows for a reason to invest in the club. When playing in rented NFL stadiums, that means that if a team goes all Cosmos and buys up huge expensive talent, all they'll do is lose money (it's well documented that during those 60,000 attendence years, the Cosmos were a money losing team and thus an unsustainable model).

I think you have a chicken and the egg argument backwards. ESPN and company aren't goign to pay out much greater sums in TV contracts until after the talent improves. Talent isn't going to improve until MLS invests more money in the product. And they aren't going to invest more money in the product until they have a system which incentivizes them to do so -- and controlling the day of game revenue by having SSS's is a massive part of that.

I don't know how big MLS will ever become; it may never become more than a niche sport. But it is certain that it would never become big under the system of using oversized rented NFL stadiums with limited revenue streams.

More than likely the WNBA's financial backers are looking for an exit strategy. Talk about a money-loser with no prospect of making money in the foreseeable future. Practically no one goes to the games, and virtually no one watches on TV. The sad reality is if any women's team sport were likely at the outset to succeed it was the WNBA. All it is now is a death watch, its days are numbered.

@Phil

Took the words out of my mouth.

Phil, empty stadiums do not make for valuable tv content. It does not matter if it is an empty SSS or not. Playing in NFL stadiums is not the answer. Agreed. But neither is playing in empty SSS's. Watching a game in Columbus, Colorado, or Frisco is just depressing and every bit as bad as watching a game in Gillette or Giants stadium.

You seem to be saying that gate revenue is all MLS needs. You are wrong. They need gate *and* they need TV if they are going to even be a viable niche sport. Without telegenic content, you don't have TV for long.

The fact is right now there are serious problems even at the GATE. Don't tell me Columbus doesn't have problems at the GATE. Or Dallas. Or Colorado. Or New England (again no SSS there I know but they are never going to get one under current ownership). I don't care what the announced number is. The people aren't coming to games. So things aren't even working under your rosy scenario.

Empty stadia + bad/no tv contracts = eventually another failed league

but interesting how folks will come out of the woodwork to see the best of the best play - see Giants stadium last night. If MLS upped the level of play on the field, would that take care of things? I know it's not the same as seeing a national team play, but are folks in NY and other places not going to games because they can get a better product on their TV from other parts of the world?

What is the difference between an MLS fan who posts on a women's soccer thread how much women's soccer sucks and an NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB fan who posts on an MLS thread about how much MLS sucks?

What's the point? I don't like the NBA but I don't spend my days posting how much I hate the NBA on every single NBA article or thread that is written.

Women's Tennis and Golf is very successful and I don't see why women's soccer couldn't be as well. The quality of play might not be the same as the men's but you also aren't paying as much to see a game. MLS is crap compared to the English, Spanish, German, Dutch, Italian and French leagues but that doesn't stop me from going to games.

I for one can't wait to take my nieces to Freedom games so they can have some positive female role models playing the sport that they love. If you hate women's soccer don't go. Let the owners of the league figure out the financial aspects and I don't think any fan of MLS is in a position to criticize WNBA or the women's league for losing money. How many MLS teams are in the black? Even with their new stadiums?

And I simply cannot even listen to a word of Julie Foudy as a commentator. (Just giving some feedback.)

Posted by: Alex | June 9, 2008 11:43 AM

IMHO, Julie Foudy's Smart / Stupid comment ratio is better than any other former soccer player that has ever graced the airwaves of ESPN.

Plus, I dig chicks my own age....

some people on this blog just waste space by writing nonsense

dt, It would help, but sooner or later the league is going to have to figure out how to market itself. WHat they are doing now is not working.

No Morning Kickaround. No Good, Bad, and Coyote Ugly. I know Steve's been working hard for us and I appreciate the articles and blog items, but without GB&CU it just doesn't feel like a Monday should.

@Ron,

Out of the 4 teams you just named 3 are/have been terrible. Yes Dallas and Colorado have had brief flirts with success and the playoffs but by and large are just poorly run and operated clubs.

Dallas' stadium is so far away from Dallas that it might as well be Arkansas.

Colorado's team just flounders most of the time.

Columbus has issues with the fact that they have been just terrible since McBride left that squad. They've had coaching issues and they have really had a blind eye turned on them since the stadium was put in the ground. They need new ownership to inject some sort of life there and they need to do something that will help to overcome it's small market stigma.

New England plays in the suburbs in a massive venue that's half closed to "create atmosphere". It's got a billionaire owner who cares - but not that much. The team operates at an acceptable level. They have the most talented coaching staff and have had a good history. But Boston is 1) Red Sox 2) Celtics 3) Patriots 4) Bruins 5) Whatever 6) Revolution in the suburbs.

If baseball had to depend on the gate at their games then I couldn't just show up at the gate to any game that is not Yankees and Sawx and get a ticket ANYWHERE I wanted to.

The only sports that play in full sell-outs in this country every week are Football and NASCAR.

Baseball doesn't

The NBA doesn't (Take a look at Golden State, Atlanta, Charlotte, and some other teams when they are playing a random game w/o star power).

We are in a down economy. We are watching wealth and companies retreat everywhere - and who's signing sponsor deals with NAPA, Volkswagen, Microsoft, American Airlines, Visa and a bigger one with Dick's Sporting Goods. MLS.

Look, this league has hair on it, no doubt. But the with what it's achieved and been able to do on and off the field considering the problems that a league faces in a country this size with the game's history here is amazing. And then throw in the results some clubs have gotten with a team payroll that covers one player at many clubs the world over.

Regarding Julie Foudy as a commentator:
It took me a while to get used to her voice, as it sometimes has a shrill quality that grates a bit (to me), but she's obviously very bright and knowledgeable. I find her comments a lot more insightful than, say, Tommy Smyth.

I really like her and look forward to hearing what she has to say.

asitis

Apologies for off-topic rant.
Re: Chicago Tribune comment Goff made a few posts back about no game-day coverage.

That's why I canceled my subscription. While living in Chicago I contacted them countless times with complaints. They're borderline hostile towards soccer and they're coverage (or lack of) reflects that. I'm sure that also doesn't help the team's attendance issues.

Rant over. Back to women's soccer.

@VBB, your posts are usually coherent and logical, this latest one is neither. Though it should be said you did concede my point. Nothing you or Phil has said has proven that MLS is doing well financially, or that the SSS strategy is working. MLS at best has a long, hard slog ahead, and right now, SSS's or not, the stadia are far too often empty and the TV ratings stink. I said this in relation to the main point of this thread, which is the prospects for *womens* soccer. If MLS is at the foot of Mount Everest, and it is, womens soccer still can't get a visa to get into Nepal or Tibet. Sad, but true.

The USL has some of its success for attendance attached to the fact that their teams are not in the same markets as MLS (Atlanta, Portland, N Carolina, Rochester, Puerto Rico...).
==========================================

I'm not entirely convinced that Soccerplex and RFK are in the same market. And geography aside, I wonder how much the demographics of MLS and WPS fans will overlap.

I'm not entirely convinced that Soccerplex and RFK are in the same market.
Posted by: tri-village | June 9, 2008 2:03 PM
============================

The Soccerplex has as many open concession stands as RFK.

Ron: Honestly, I don't get your point.

It seems to me that you are basically labelling SSS's as a "failure" based on the expectation that they wouldcause attendance to be driven up and lead to full stadia. And since that has not happened, then they are worthless. and will lead to bad TV contracts. Or something along those lines.

But the evidence doesn't support that. For starters, it was probably unreasonable for some people to expect SSS's to cause league attendance to signficantly increase. That doesn't happen -- just like all new parks, there is some spike in initial attendance as curious people go and seen the shiney new building, but the long term attendance is going to be driven by other factors -- mostly, the quality of the team and overall talent of the league. That's as true in soccer as it is in every other sport (save perhaps the NFL) in this country. Plenty of new MLB stadiums, for example, have seen bumps in attendance their first year followed by returning to previously established levels. Basically, you seem to be chastizing SSS's for failure to deliver something that they never promised to do.

What SSS's have done (and I'm repeating this aggin for effect) is allowed the teams to *make more money* off of the fans who do attend. They make a massive difference in terms of allowing teams to remain afloat. There existence has been a big reason why more (and depper pocketed) owners have inquired about ownership in the league. Now, MLS is a reasonable investment, one with upside. Previously, it was a money sinkhole.

As for TV contracts, I still don't get this tenuous link you are trying to make between fans and capacity in SSS's and TV contracts. One major thing drives TV contracts: ratings. TV ratings for MLS have indeed been stagnant. I don't know why you'd expect SSS's to change that. The main thing that will change that is improving the quality of play on the field -- so that the soccer fans who watch the EPL or La Liga and whatnot will also tune in to watch MLS. The *only* way to improve quality on the field is to spend more money on players. and the *only* way for MLS teams to spend more money on players if if they have a way to make that money back. SSS's at elast offer the possibility of recouping investment in players; rented NFL stadiums do not.

As for "proving that MLS is doing well financially", who the hell knows? Do you have some access to secret MLS figures that the general public doesn't? If you do, please share. It has been reported that more teams are becoming profitable -- and the first two teams to do so were the Galaxy and (yes indeed) Dallas. And the big thing that pushed Dallas from losing money to profitability was the building of a SSS rather than renting the Cotton Bowl. It's ironic that you keep citing Dallas' attendance as a problem since they are the perfect example of how a SSS allows a team to not be as worried about attendance because they are making much more money off of each individual who actually attends. I do also remember an article last year that projected that about 6 (I think) teams were headed to profitability in 2007 and all of them were in SSS's or controlled their stadium. DCU has had good attendences for years -- and continues to bleed money.

Furthermore, I find your commentery abut declining TV contracts to be odd since the current TV deals actually pay MLS for the first time in their history. That suggest not that the TV deals are getting worse, but the opposite -- that they are getting much better. Will they continue to get better? Only if ratings increase, of course, which is depending on improving the quality of the league. But the deal with Disney/ESPN goes until 2014, so it's not like their is a major contract negotiation impending. The league has time to expand the product.

I'd love to see information on how the league's profits are doign. We almost certainly won't get much of any information until the CBA comes up for discussion in 2 years. Prior to that we only have occasional references in the media -- references that have pretty uniforming said the same things: that SSS's make a very large different to the profitability of teams and the league.

As I previously said, SSS's aren't a panacea. They aren't going to propel MLS to some much higher level on their own. There biggest impact is in allowing teams to actually becoming profitable rather than losing money. They've enabled the league to stabilize and focus on growing rather than simply surviving. MLS will continue to be aroudn for the indefinite future, which is something that was a huge question only a few years ago (in the 2001 timeframe). I'd say that's a good thing.

Also, I'd note that the idea that a "niche league" needs a good TV contract to survive is also wrong. A league can survive and exist without any sort of national revenue producing contract. It won't grow, mind you, or become anything more than a locally supported entertainment option, but it can survive. Arena football and the various lacrosse league (namely the indoor lacrosse league) have been around for a while without any sort of notable national broadcast deal.

On the note of women's soccer: a good national TV deal (or lack thereof) will have little effect on the league. That type of league is going to survive on having low costs (cheap player contractsd and rent) more than having high revenues. The problem with the WUSA is that the owners were expanding a huge, widely follwoed league -- they see to have more tempered (and realistic) expectations with the new league. I think it can survive assume they control costs and don't overspend their potential means.

For that reason, I don't expect Marta to come to the league. I don't think the cost required to acquire her will be able to be recouped with their business model.

I will repeat what I said in previous threads: Potential MLS investors from Montreal, Miami, St. Louis, Las Vegas, etc., etc., are lining up around the block, vying for the privilege of risking $30 million and up on expansion franchises. When this queue starts to vanish, then I will become concerned.

I don't expect Marta to come to the league. I don't think the cost required to acquire her will be able to be recouped with their business model.

Posted by: Phil | June 9, 2008 2:30 PM
==========================================

True, but I very much doubt that the Swedish club for which she plays is recouping its costs, either. So what is she doing in Sweden? I strongly suspect that there is a Swedish Anschutz with a strong pro bono motivation.

I think Marta is making about the same in Sweden as Franco Niell here. I think WPS certainly will compete with that, and I would think her image rights would be far more valuable here than in Sweden, to the mutual benefit of Marta, the league and her sponsors. The best in the world will be her, she'll be here too.

Phil, it is true that the NASL both before and after its heyday "existed" with no TV contract. Some existence. I went to some late Diplomats/team America games back in the mid-80's. Sure, they existed, and the soccer was wretched. If MLS ends up like that, it might as well go under. Those were considered the dark ages of American soccer. And if that's all the women's league achieves, it is unlikely to last long. We already have the W-league.

If you want to go on believing MLS can succeed without people going to or watching the games, and all they need is a real estate play on SSS's, go right ahead. I wish it were that simple, but the fact is it ain't. You will not see massive investments of millions more dollars for much better talent without a much better track record of success/interest than MLS has thus far achieved.

The Soccerplex has as many open concession stands as RFK.

Posted by: I-270, Exit 1 | June 9, 2008 2:07 PM

zing!

I think Marta is making about the same in Sweden as Franco Niell here. I think WPS certainly will compete with that, and I would think her image rights would be far more valuable here than in Sweden, to the mutual benefit of Marta, the league and her sponsors. The best in the world will be her, she'll be here too.

Posted by: OWNTF | June 9, 2008 3:10 PM
==========================================

But this means the league will have to have some sort of DP rule from day one, as almost surely, salaries will otherwise be capped in the high five figures.

Ron: I don't believe that MLS "MLS can succeed without people going to or watching the games" -- I don't see where you are getting that from what I wrote. In fact, it's quite the opposite -- LS can survive because people actually *are* attending games and watching on TV and the league actually *is* making money off of them. They have TV contracts that pay the league. They have stadiums that allow for actual revenue to be captured. That is why the league is *doing better*. That is why investors are lining up for the chance to invest $30 million (or more) to get into the league.

It bears repeating: FC Dallas is profitable. They were the second team in the league to become profitable. Attendance has not changed since the Cotton Bowl days. The difference is -- pure and simpyl -- FD actually makes money from their stadium now. You can gripe about their attendance not being up to whatever random standard you want, but that's immaterial. What is improtant is that they are financial viable -- and they are.

High attendance doesn't mean crap if you *don't make money off it it*. Low attendance is okay as long as *you do make money off of it*. That's the bottom line and it's something you can't seem to accept.

MLS has averaged around 15,000 in paid attendance league wide in recent years. New teams like Seattle and Philadelphia will likely only help that number. I don't see how you can make the conclusion that "people aren't going to games".

one more comment on the stadiums. Look at the Nationals. in their brand spanking new stadium, they need to draw 18,000 some odd fans a night to make the same revenue they would have made selling out RFK. a third of the fans, roughly, same revenue. it can be roughly approximated then, that each seat at NatsGiveAwayPark is worth THREE TIMES what a seat at RFK was to the club.

Dallas is making money with a half empty stadium. DCU is losing money with a half empty stadium.

Geez, not this again. Professional women's soccer failed once and it will fail again.

Posted by: Sam | June 9, 2008 11:12 AM

___________________________________________Funny, people said the same thing about MLS before it started.

A target attendance of 5,000 per game?

Last I checked, the SoccerPlex seats 3,200. Granted there is the grass behind the goals and standing room around the edges. But how many US fans would pay $$ for standing room only? (Granted, British fans used to stand in the terraces for their teams -- but I suspect they've even become more discerning given the price of premiership tickets.)

A target attendance of 5,000 per game?

Last I checked, the SoccerPlex seats 3,200. Granted there is the grass behind the goals and standing room around the edges. But how many US fans would pay $$ for standing room only? (Granted, British fans used to stand in the terraces for their teams -- but I suspect they've even become more discerning given the price of premiership tickets.)

My bad on the double post.

MLS is *men's* professional soccer. This is women's professional soccer. Big difference in styles of play here and I don't think WMLS will make it. Bottom line is it's crap soccer.

Hell, MLS is hemorraging red ink still.

Last I checked, the SoccerPlex seats 3,200.
===========================================

Several days ago someone mentioned that a Montgomery County newspaper reported that seating capacity will be increased to over 7,000:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2008/06/altidore_villareal_deal_close.html

(Scroll down to 12:47 p.m.)

D9b1AW Blogs rating, add your blog to be rated for free:
http://blogsrate.net