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.

poll by twiigs.com

by Kevin McCauley

During the 2010 World Cup Qualifying campaign, the United States National Team has been thrown some serious curveballs by their opponents in an attempt to create a significant home field advantage. We had to go down to San Jose, Costa Rica and play Los Ticos at Saprissa Stadium, the first stadium with artificial turf approved by FIFA for World Cup qualifying matches. Not surprisingly, although not entirely because of the joke of a pitch, the United States struggled with the turf and got dominated by Costa Rica, losing 3-1. On August 12, which is not a weekend day, the United States faces Mexico at the Estadio Azteca at, get this, 3pm local time! In case meteorology wasn’t your major in college, this tends to be the hottest part of the day. Since the majority of Mexico fans will be at work or school during this time, the rationale for the kickoff time of the game was obviously to give the home side as big of an advantage as possible. Mexican players are used to playing in 90+ degree heat in the middle of the day; American players, for the most part, are not. This is in addition to the unbelievable smog in Mexico City. I’ve been told spending a day outside there is equivalent to smoking two packs of cigarettes.

All of this got me thinking: What could the United States do with their home games in the future to create as big of a home field advantage as possible? After some brainstorming with a friend of mine, I settled on the following venues.

Bronco Stadium, Boise, ID


NCAA Football’s Boise State Broncos have been playing in the lovely 33,500 capacity Bronco Stadium since 1970. The stadium is best known for its trademark blue field, affectionately known as the “Smurf Turf.” This unorthodox field certainly could provide the United States with a considerable advantage, considering that none of the other teams in CONCACAF have likely ever seen anything like it. And if that wasn’t good enough, we could use our first match at Bronco Stadium as the occasion to launch our new all-blue home kit! If El Tri had to play the United States on blue turf while they were wearing jerseys that were the same shade of blue, they’d never know what hit them!

Lambeau Field, Green Bay, WI


Since 1957, Lambeau Field has been home to the NFL’s most historically successful franchise, the Green Bay Packers. It earned its nickname “The Frozen Tundra” in 1967 during the famous “Ice Bowl” game against the Dallas Cowboys, in which the temperature sunk to -12 Fahrenheit. The stadium currently seats nearly 73,000, and it plays host to the occasional outdoor hockey game during the Packers’ offseason. If Mexico wants to play us at 3pm in August, why can’t they come play at Lambeau at 9pm in November? I can just see Rafa Marquez now in his cute little El Tri scarf, hat, and mittens. To fit in with the Green Bay crowd in November, the United States team could introduce their new orange jerseys for the inaugural match at Lambeau. We could have an “orange out” in the crowd, and they wouldn’t even have to buy any new merchandise! There’s nothing like deer hunting season in Wisconsin.

Wrigley Field, Chicago, IL


Wrigley Field is home of Major League Baseball’s Chicago Cubs and is perhaps most famous for its ivy-covered outfield walls. The use of any baseball stadium for a match could provide a significant home field advantage for the United States, but this one probably takes the cake. Because of the reasonably small dimensions of Wrigley Field, the sideline would likely have to be right up against the outfield wall on one side. Imagine the considerable advantage the United States would have if their opposition had to deal with the unexpected element of taking throw-ins from inside of an ivy patch! In addition, because of the dimensions of the stadium, the game would likely be played on a pitch that is square. This is something else that opposing teams would not be used to, providing a considerable advantage to the United States. Now, you may be asking, what to do with the pitcher’s mound? The answer, of course, is nothing! If we constructed a football pitch at Wrigley Field, the pitcher’s mound would likely be in the corner of one of the penalty areas, providing another little unique piece of character to our home stadium.

Talladega Motor Speedway, Talladega, AL


Lots of teams play their home games at a stadium with a large athletic track, placing the fans extremely far away from the pitch. So I say, why can’t we play our home games at a stadium surrounded by a racetrack? It’s the same thing, except this one is asphalt instead of some kind of synthetic rubber. Talladega Motor Speedway seats over 175,000 spectators, so using it as our national stadium would give us the biggest capacity football stadium in the world! Not to mention, holding our games in Alabama would likely get rid of the problem we have at many venues, where we are outnumbered by supporters supporting the away team. Unlike New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and other major U.S. cities where United States soccer games are often held, Alabama generally doesn’t cater to foreigners. We’ll have 175,000 true red, white, and blue flag-waiving Americans in the stands, no more Johnny Honduras ruining our home field advantage!

Opposing teams would likely be so intimidated, they’d forfeit immediately.

These are just some of the ideas I had for good home venues for the United States, but maybe you have some better ones! Leave your ideas here.