Apparently Miami Vice is in actual consideration for Beckham's new franchise. LAWD
A 2nd Los Angeles team is worth more to the league than any market you can move them to. Let them rebrand and acquire new ownership before leaving Los Angeles.
Plus, when Atlanta gets a team what gaps are left in the footprint that are worth filling? You could argue Phoenix and Minnesota that's about it.
If it's an LA team in another area, maybe, but playing in the same stadium as the Galaxy? Going to be a big brother/little brother thing like Lakers/Clippers.
San Diego looks ideal based on its population and only having two other pro franchises. Obviously the more pro teams you have, the more difficult it is for each team to thrive with finite corporate money for premium seating, advertising, etc. MLB and NFL are the most intensive and tend to eat up the resources far faster than NBA or NHL, and MLS can succeed at significantly less than NBA or NHL. This website breaks down the estimated costs for each type of franchise
But looking at that first chart, there are some opportunities to expand where MLS wouldn't have a lot of competition and could build very strong supporters bases as a result. Now I think they've underestimated the MLS cost, especially as the league grows, a bit, so I'd ignore some of the markets they say can support a team. But there's some on there that we'd typically ignore that probably, upon closer look, do have the population and business capital to support a team (basically looking at where MLS = yes, other sports = Marginal or better):
- Albuquerque
- Birmingham
- Calgary
- Dayton
- El Paso (which has already authorized a bond issuance to build a publicly financed stadium for an MLS team)
- Greenville/Spartanburg
- Hartford
- Honolulu
- Las Vegas
- Louisville
- Omaha
- Providence
- Richmond
- Rochester
- Sacramento
- San Antonio
- Tucson
- Virginia Beach/Norfolk
Now we can debate the merits of many of those, for instance, Birmingham's analysis does not include all the money that is spent on Bammer and Barn footbaw. That analysis, at least, rules out cities like Phoenix, San Diego, and Minneapolis as already being too saturated. I'm not sure if they are or aren't, but I do at least like the general methodology used. At any rate, I think expanding the footprint even into a smaller market is worth more than a second team playing in LA playing in the same stadium.
Also TV has taken a major role in MLS expansion. That's why a second Los Angeles team is much more valuable than any small market. Just look at New York. The Giants and Jets share a stadium. They also happen to be the 4th and 6th most valuable teams in the league and the four teams ahead of the Jets are major market teams (Dallas, New England, Washington and Houston). I don't think sharing a stadium is that big of a deal. FWIW, the Lakers are 2nd most valuable team in the league while the Clippers are 13th. Yes there is a difference but the Clippers are still more valuable than 17 other teams in the league.
If it's an LA team in another area, maybe, but playing in the same stadium as the Galaxy? Going to be a big brother/little brother thing like Lakers/Clippers.
Some other good reading: (http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-some-us-cities-may-have-too-many-pro-sports-teams-2013-11) (http://timandjeni.com/blog/can-seattle-support-six-major-pro-sports-teams/) (http://www.conferenceboard.ca/reports/briefings/bigleagues/briefing-12.aspx)
All very good points, and I don't disagree with you. My point is this: MLS needs to expand its viewership to increase its TV contract. While average attendance is now higher than at the NBA and NHL, the TV viewership pales in comparison. Is expanding the TV footprint better served by having a second LA team or by having a team in another city? Are people around the nation more likely to watch Los Angeles FC vs Colorado Rapids than they are to watch San Antonio FC vs Colorado Rapids? I don't really think so; not if the team is equally good. And will more people in LA, since it's the 2nd largest TV market, tune in to MLS because there's a second team? Or is it a pretty similar number, and you'd just be splitting viewers/fans away from the Galaxy? Basically, does having that second team necessarily increase by a significant amount (more than having them in another city) the aggregate number of MLS fans/viewers in LA? If the answer is clearly yes, then the case for keeping Chivas is made. If not, then they should be moved. I don't know the answer to that question.
Richmond is an interesting city for an MLS team, because it is close to the southern DC exurbs and Charlotesville, both of which contain no less than a few million young people including young families.
lol @ Greenville/Spartanburg and Omaha, though.
And Dayton is one of a few cities on that list that is within an hour of an MLS team already. I know Richmond technically is as well but the population sizes would better support a team there.
I see MLS market as primarily immigrants, Hispanics, and young people, is this inaccurate? I'm not sure how Spartanburg matches up to that demographic, even though it does have a BMW Spikermobile plant. I know a few people my age who lived in Greenville and despised it.
All very good points, and I don't disagree with you. My point is this: MLS needs to expand its viewership to increase its TV contract. While average attendance is now higher than at the NBA and NHL, the TV viewership pales in comparison. Is expanding the TV footprint better served by having a second LA team or by having a team in another city? Are people around the nation more likely to watch Los Angeles FC vs Colorado Rapids than they are to watch San Antonio FC vs Colorado Rapids? I don't really think so; not if the team is equally good. And will more people in LA, since it's the 2nd largest TV market, tune in to MLS because there's a second team? Or is it a pretty similar number, and you'd just be splitting viewers/fans away from the Galaxy? Basically, does having that second team necessarily increase by a significant amount (more than having them in another city) the aggregate number of MLS fans/viewers in LA? If the answer is clearly yes, then the case for keeping Chivas is made. If not, then they should be moved. I don't know the answer to that question.
Well ... Phoenix sort of is a hot market ...
I'll see myself out.