Getty Images The Seattle Sounders are hands down — sorry Portland and everywhere else — the success story of Major League Soccer as a young league. They lead the league in attendance and in-stadium passion (if, perhaps, not passion per person).
And they had one of the first major jersey sponsors (xBox), which leads us inextricably to today’s topic: The deal runs out at the end of the 2013 season, and majority owner Joe Roth doesn’t sound too optimistic about resigning with the Microsoft. In fact, he sounds downright negative about the prospect.
A block quote to get us started:
“They’ve just had a very unimaginative conversation over the course of the past year. They see things differently than we do. …They’ve been great partners, and I wish they’d stay on. I wish they would see it the same way that we do… If it was close, we would have caved like an accordion. I came to believe after a long series of negotiations that they weren’t interested.”
And that’s fine. xBox is allowed to make business decisions, as are the Sounders. But it will be interesting to see how much the club can command on the open market. The Galaxy lead MLS at $4.4 million per season. The Sounders will be looking to get more than that for their shirts.
And here’s hoping they do so because this is more than just a Sounders issue. The relative success or failure of Seattle to sign a new sponsor for multiple millions will be felt league-wide. Television ratings are improving, but not quickly enough to drive huge new deals with the networks. One way to make up for that lack of cash is to sign jersey sponsors for increasing amounts of money. (It’s a drop in the bucket compared to a massive television contract, but a $5 million-plus-sized drop ain’t too shabby, you know?)
The bottom line: Other teams will be watching the Sounders closely to see how the negotiations go, hoping for dollar signs and lots of them.
-
- corgster - Sep 27, 2012 at 3:32 PM
-
Is there any reason to include Portland in this article? We don’t bellyache in great numbers about actual reporting.
-
- bgordon23braema - Sep 27, 2012 at 4:03 PM
-
I wish you would have posted the full interview with Roth. He pointed out how dumb it is for team to build tiny stadiums when the league is trying to grow. I can’t believe how tiny San Jose’s stadium will be. How can league revenue increase if we can get more people into stadiums? The minimum size should be 25k at least.
-
- corgster - Sep 27, 2012 at 4:45 PM
-
I say that they should guarantee revenue stream stability before having venues being too large for their present uses.
-
- jhalion - Sep 27, 2012 at 4:54 PM
-
We should be smart about stadium size and relative growth. Building the stadiums with a certain size will allow us to expand when the time is right. Dallas, Philly, and the Columbus (and Chicago among others) markets all have stadiums which allows for expansion. No need to build it too big right now as you lose out on atmosphere.
-
- braema - Sep 27, 2012 at 5:17 PM
-
I would agree with Roth that building a small stadium to ensure a sell out is a defeatist attitude. Is it not cheaper to build a 25k stadium than to build an 18k stadium and then pay again to expand it in 5 years? With the right planning, mentality and entry price-point, a team should be able to get 20-25k per match. I also think owners are realizing one of the main problems with Chicago’s and Dallas’ stadiums is their location. It’s hard to justify a 2hr round trip just to watch a match. Hopefully San Jose’s new stadium is easy to get to.
-
- corgster - Sep 28, 2012 at 12:34 PM
-
Five years is not the time frame to be looking at. 10-20 years is the time frame for expansion after being built.
-
- firewolf777 - Sep 27, 2012 at 4:57 PM
-
Philly expansion is definitely gonna change the stadium. But we can’t wait.
Seattle truly has been a huge success I wish our sales were in the 40000 range.
-
- greej1938l - Sep 28, 2012 at 11:35 AM
-
Yeah I don’t understand the Portland mention….