Everything you need to know about new soccer stadiums, about where they fit in the puzzle of pro soccer growth in this country, is right here. Dwayne De Rosario is talking about dedicated soccer stadiums, a place for clubs to dig in and call home.
That’s what helped the league more than anything else. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to have your own stadium. It creates a culture, an environment. You can build history around it.”
De Rosario was talking to Brian Straus from the Sporting News. It’s a good piece that helps explain how Houston’s new $95 million facility happened – and why Dynamo officials got the most important stuff right.
I’ve long said that stadiums are absolutely, positively and unarguably the most important growth element for Major League Soccer and, by extension, professional soccer in the United States. Anybody paying attention has said the same.
As succinctly as possible, here’s why:
- Clubs were always going to hemorrhage money as renters. Stadiums created revenue streams and opportunities that simply do not exist otherwise. Someone could teach on business class on the fiscal contrast of renting and owning.
- Logos and jerseys are nice. But nothing beats a physical structure for establishing club identity.
- In terms of establishing deeper community roots and being seen as an entity that will be around for a while, the stadium means everything. You know how you might treat a bunch of nice college kids who rent the house down the street? You are cordial, and hopefully vice versa. But at the end of the day, you figure they’ll be moving on. No need to invest much time in getting to know them, right?
- Related, big media treats a club quite differently once the concrete, steel and high-impact plastic goes up. As De Rosario said, they take you more seriously. In most markets, anyway.
-
- wesbadia - May 11, 2012 at 9:58 AM
-
Spot on. And this is a great reason why Chivas should strive to obtain its own stadium outside of Carson and possibly outside the LA metro area.
Ironic, though, that the reason the Quakes left SJ for Houston was a stadium deal, and now the reborn Quakes are only a little over a year behind on opening their own stadium. Houston was a reset of the clock for the club. That movement enabled them to dwell in a college stadium for six more years while they secured their own house. The hiatus in SJ was unfortunate, but Houston has been a huge asset to the league, and the rebirth of SJ was quick and has proven even more successful than the first go-around.
-
- joeyt360 - May 11, 2012 at 10:52 AM
-
Outside of Carson, yes, but SoCal is still where the demographic the team wants to hit is, so they should stay somewhere in the area.
On the SJ move, it is interesting they only got it a year or so faster, but it still validates the move: AEG would never have been able to make the current SJ deal happen (and Wolff was only interested in starting from scratch, because in a sad irony stadium negotiations are easier for teams that don’t currently exist), and Houston ended up with a moderately better deal (subsidized land) and better revenues in the interim.
-
- wesbadia - May 11, 2012 at 11:27 AM
-
Completely agree with you SJ/Houston move comments.
Re: Chivas in SoCal — I’m not opposed to Chivas remaining in SoCal, whether that’s San Diego, Santa Ana, Anaheim, or San Bernadino. What I do have a problem with is this “targeted demographic” that they’re trying to hit. Trying to capitalize on hispanic (mainly Mexican) presence in SoCal is obviously not working. There’s nothing wrong with trying to appeal to a certain demographic or even ethnic group, but when your sole focus is on that particular group, you are relegating yourself to a niche status… which is what Chivas currently has. Until they realize that they need to ditch a lot of the “MLS’ hispanic team” image, they’re going to continue to have to tarp off sections of HDC (or another stadium) for their less-than-half-filled stadium. Coming to the realization that your intended target demographic is too small to build a club on will ultimately help the success of that club.
Personally, I’m a fan of having them relocated to San Diego, continue to capitalize on as much hispanic influence they can, while appealing to the traditional SoCal demographic a la the Galaxy. Not only that, but a move to San Diego would fuel a pretty fierce rivalry with Tijuana of the FMF. It’d be akin to an upstart gang moving in on the territory of an established gang. Could you imagine the “classico” potential that could have? That alone could further develop the hispanic image target by appealing directly to the traditional crowd that supports Mexican soccer.
-
- manutebol - May 11, 2012 at 2:33 PM
-
“AEG would never have been able to make the current SJ deal happen (and Wolff was only interested in starting from scratch, because in a sad irony stadium negotiations are easier for teams that don’t currently exist)”
dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. You have no idea what you are talking about. AEG never even tried to get anything done in SJ. They just ransacked the organization like shyster carpetbaggers. If they truly wanted to get a stadium done in SJ they could have easily done it. AEG spent $60 million in private funds on the houston stadium. The new SJ stadium is costing Lew & Fisher $60 million in private funds. Ergo, AEG could’ve gotten it done without subsidies. If they wanted to sell to a local owner who would’ve kept the team there, they could’ve easily done that too if they made any effort.
MLS set its own popularity back a good 10-20 years in northern california when it rubber stamped the move.
-
- joeyt360 - May 15, 2012 at 10:23 AM
-
“dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. You have no idea what you are talking about. AEG never even tried to get anything done in SJ. They just ransacked the organization like shyster carpetbaggers.”
I’m sorry, but you’re clueless. AEG consistently hemorrhaged money on SJ, just like it did on several other teams. No local investor was walking through that door when they left. If there was one, they’d have sold. They got involved in the franchise in the first place to save it, and spent years looking for an investor and a place to play, with none forthcoming, all while paying some of the highest rent in the league. They even pitched what would have been a pretty reasonable deal to SJSU to renovate Spartan Stadium (this is pretty incredible considering the gouging rent they’d been charging for that decrepit venue) only to be rebuffed.
SJ fans tell themselves the most ludicrous lies in order to justify hating the company that not only saved soccer in America, but is also the only thing that kept the Earthquakes around long enough to win some trophies and be missed, the only reason there’s an Earthquake team today.
-
- mikeevergreen - May 13, 2012 at 11:32 PM
-
I think they should move to San Diego – and forget this Chivas thing. The Sounders, Timbers, Whitecaps, and Earthquakes are back, why not re-ignite the San Diego Sockers ?
-
- wesbadia - May 14, 2012 at 9:16 AM
-
They’re having this debate in Minnesota right now with all the talk surrounding the new Vikings stadium. Some of the older generation want the Minnesota Kickers resurrected. And then someone in the younger generation said something along the lines of: “Let’s let that era of American soccer history have its own pages in the history books. It’s a new age in soccer, so let’s start something new.” I can’t help but agree with this. I think the only reason some of the old NASL team names used in MLS right now are still popular is because either those teams have virtually been around since then (longevity), or the market was saturated with soccer-loving fans that they’d embrace pretty much any team name (true fandom).
I’m in favor of the older names being turned into relics. New stadiums with new teams can honor their past with banners and insignia and logos around their fields and in the crowds, but I think branding teams to be successful rather than simply nostalgic would be the smarter way of doing things. I don’t think anyone in Philly or Colorado or LA are upset that their old NASL monikers were left off their teams.
-
- joeyt360 - May 11, 2012 at 12:23 PM
-
Fortunately or un-, I think the ownership’s logic on Chivas is mostly that if they wait long enough, MLS will get good enough talent and style-wise to eventually appeal to that demo. It would suck to be a fan of that club, though, and endure what might be another 10 or 20-year wait.
-
- wesbadia - May 11, 2012 at 1:04 PM
-
Not sure it’d be financially viable for the franchise to wait 10 or 20 years for MLS to evolve to that level. If it was any other business, they’d be hard pressed to wait that long, while expending vast amounts of resources to keep the doors open while the soccer economy reached a point which made them solvent. Business can’t function that way, and soccer is, ultimately, business. If that’s Chivas’ hope, then they run the gamut of becoming antiquated and irrelevant.
-
- joeyt360 - May 15, 2012 at 10:24 AM
-
Chivas doesn’t lose serious money, and franchise values are now going up over time. Unfortunately, they’re probably in a position where they could, if they want to, wait as long as it takes.
-
- yotesfan3 - May 11, 2012 at 2:49 PM
-
Should build one in phoenix…….cough
-
- sacsoccerfan - May 11, 2012 at 3:35 PM
-
How about Sacramento for re-locating Chivas. The City of Sacramento is looking to build a new facility (arena, stadium) of some kind and has been working with AEG. The NBA Kings may not be in Sacramento in a year or two. ‘Chivas Sacramento’ would own the central valley region.
-
- peoplesrepublic0fdabayarea - May 15, 2012 at 12:41 PM
-
lame
-
- sacsoccerfan - May 15, 2012 at 3:16 PM
-
why?
-
- chuckleberry1974 - May 12, 2012 at 10:35 PM
-
How about one of the 2 most important franchises in MLS finally getting its own stadium someday? Frickin DC United needs to get out of RFK like 10 years ago. Please find a way to get a new stadium.
-
- mikeevergreen - May 13, 2012 at 11:34 PM
-
I agree. Either strip RFK down to 28,000 seats, or build a new one and tear RFK down.
-
- bobinkc - May 17, 2012 at 12:21 PM
-
I have to agree with “wesbadia.” When Sporting KC moved into Livestrong Park from Community America baseball stadium, we saw Hispanic attendance drop from as much as 50% to near nil. The Hispanics could always scrape up enough bucks to attend 1 or 2 games per season when the prices were lower, but with the higher prices in the new stadium, they just aren’t there.
Believe me, I have no quibble with Livestrong because is so much better to play on a pitch built specifically for football vs. the baseball stadium. I just hate to see the Hispanics aced out of the attendance. When our son went to special games early this spring that included the Mexican team, Livestrong was packed out with Hispanics. Too bad about the higher ticket prices.
-
- kgg6 - May 18, 2012 at 2:18 PM
-
It’s just so different when you watch a game of soccer in a soccer specific stadium. It’s just different. I’m a soccer nut but you can’t put me to buy tickets to watch games in an environment that’s not designed for soccer. It’s not the same.
