Always looking for ways to spice things up, I've decided to try out a new feature here at MFUSA; it's called "Friday Fight", and consists of a running debate (conducted through email) on a chosen topic.
The first installment of the Friday Fight pits yours truly (Jason) against All Things Footy podcaster and new MFUSA contributor Kevin McCauley.
You'll have a chance to vote for the winner of the debate at the end of the post.
The topic: Major League Soccer's expansion policy, in light of Don Garber's recent comments on potential markets for new MLS teams.
And off we go...
Davis: Don Garber recently spoke on Major League Soccer's future expansion plans, mentioning several markets are potential homes for team; while I'm not sure about the Commissioner's preferred targets, I do think that expansion is important to the league's success.
The bigger the national footprint, the better the chances for improved marketing partnerships, sponsorship deals, and TV ratings.
Simply put, expansion, and expansion now, is the way to go.
McCauley: Obviously, no one sensible is going to argue with the fact that expansion will bring the game to more fans and that is important to the league. However, MLS is a league that built its foundations on a business model of slow and steady growth. They were determined to not be the NASL, and thus far, they have succeeded. They already have three expansion teams planned between now and 2011, shouldn't they wait to see how the league's finances and the finances of those teams are looking before they decide to add even more?
Davis: They have that covered, in that they are intent on finding ownership groups that won't go running at the first sign of trouble. Why do you think Jeff Cooper's bid never received serious consideration? The league is being smart about expansion; find strong markets with the potential to explode, and ownership that has the cash to handle initial losses if they occur. If they were simply expanding to expand, then I might agree with you; but the exposure of the league to more of the country coupled with stringent requirements for investors (because that's what the "owners" actually are) makes my trepidation about it minimal.
McCauley: That is one positive, that Garber has become very strict about who invests in the league, but the league needs to make sure the teams they have are stable before they go expanding. The New York Red Bulls and FC Dallas, despite having plenty of money, are being run in an exceptionally poor fashion, and as a result, are both drawing less than 10,000 fans per game in two extremely key markets. The league's most successful franchise with its largest fan base, D.C. United, can't even get a deal done for a new stadium, stirring up rumors that the club is considering a move to St. Louis. The league has contracted and moved many teams to this point, who's to say they won't do it again, especially with the economy causing a serious drop in attendance for this season? I've heard the argument that all we need is more soccer specific stadiums, but with the attendance in Dallas, I'm just not buying it.
Davis: Obviously soccer specific stadiums alone aren't enough. It's also about making sure that the fan base exists and the organization is properly run. Dallas is a confluence of a poor team and worse marketing and therefore an indictment of their ownership, rather than an indicator of something intrinsically wrong with MLS. United's situation is troubling, I'll give you that, but moving forward with cities ready to step up with stadiums actually makes even more sense because of it. Taking control of their future by placing as many teams as possible in soccer stadiums with schedules the league can control is smart business, no matter the problems some of the original teams face. I've mentioned the national footprint, and while I think that trumps everything else, expansion is important as a way for the league control its own destiny. The matter of the talent pool is a nuisance, but I'm actually of the opinion that it's an overblown concern anyway.
McCauley: The matter of the talent pool is not a concern that I think is overblown at all. So many of the "fringe" guys that MLS is just on the verge of getting to buy a ticket to a game have the hang up that the level of football is nowhere near world class. It's not something that bothers me, because I know it will get better. I've seen the level improve drastically since the designated player rule was enacted. That's irrelevant, though, because MLS doesn't have to sell the game to me. I'd watch the league even if I didn't feel like the level of play was improving, just because it's my top domestic league and I want it to succeed. The people MLS has to sell to are the so-called "Eurosnobs." Every major city in the country has tens of thousands of people who love football but don't want anything to do with MLS because of the perceived level of talent in the league. It doesn't matter how wrong they are, perception is reality. There is one way around this, though, and that is a re-structuring of the roster and cap rules. If the minimum salary, non-DP maximum salary, and foreign player limits are all changed, there will be no problem attracting enough high-quality talent to MLS to fill out 16-18 rosters. If it was no big deal for an MLS club to offer $100k + / yr to an Anton Peterlin, Cody Arnoux, or Charlie Davies in 2007, the issue of expansion diluting the talent pool would be no problem, because we'd be able to retain all of these great young players we're producing.
Oh, and this argument about expanding the national footprint of the game without presenting any statistics seems very NASL-y.
Davis: Call it NASL-y all you want, but comparing the way that league operated and how they expanded to anything MLS does is like comparing Barcelona and FC Dallas; the national footprint argument is more about TV revenue and advertising dollars than anything else. A truly national league is much easier to sell to broadcasters and corporations than one with a regional feel, and as this country is so large, it's going to take 20+ teams to reach the necessary market saturation. The league shoots itself in the foot if it doesn't expand now, when demand for franchises is high and investors with ample monetary clout are lining up to get in. You want an increase in quality and something to counteract any shallowing of the talent pool? Then expansion is necessary, because it will allow the league to raise the cap and adjust roster rules without overly exposing themselves financially.
It costs money for MLS to push themselves towards relevancy in America, and expansion provides several new revenue streams with which to attack.
It was at this point that McCauley threw in the towel and conceded defeat to my withering intellect. Okay, not really, the email chain just sort of petered out (hey, we both have lives). I'm sure McCauley would have loved to get in one last word, but it's my site and I'm ready to put this up, so there you go. Be aware that this back-and-forth probably could have continued for another twenty rounds or so if allowed to continue.
Vote for the winner below.
