Ah, the business of soccer in America. Just when a club (I use that word ironically, despite treating it as a synonym for "franchise" in an American context) begins to take root, just when the fan base is growing and just when a supporters groups see success in building their numbers, it's all taken away.

To hear Major League Soccer commissioner Don Garber tell it, the Philadelphia Union would not exist without the efforts of a group of dedicated fans called the Sons of Ben. The collection of like-minded soccer fans had one goal in mind when they formed in 2007: bring a top-flight professional team to their city.


With their mission accomplished, the Sons of Ben now have an actual team to support. But for other groups around the country who hope to replicate Philadelphia's success, the path is a bit more difficult. Far from MLS headquarters and often in cities thousands of miles away from the new hotbeds of the Northeast and Northwest, they do the what they can to drum up interest, find reasons to believe, and keep their cities in the discussion for the next MLS franchise.


One such group is the Crocketteers, started in 2009 with the stated purpose of bringing professional soccer to the River City. Founder Michael Macias found the imagery of Davy Crockett and the Alamo, two icons from San Antonio's history and sources of pride for the city, a perfect fit for the fledgling effort.


"Like the Sons of Ben, we pay homage to a local city hero or for our matter, state hero in David Crockett," Macias said, "Crockett, although from Tennessee, is considered a Texan in the minds of many proud Texans. He came to Texas for a new life and then gave that life for Texas by fighting for it. His statue is on the grounds of the Alamo today, his name is honored in both a downtown street and hotel. In fact one of our members is a direct descendant of David Crockett."


Having just marked the group's first year of existence, Macias knows the job of proving to MLS that San Antonio deserves a franchise won't be easy; convincing soccer fans to join without a team to support brings its own unique challenges. Growth has been slow, as one would expect, and spreading the message is done almost entirely by word of mouth, a local community website, and the groups' own Internet presence at crocketteers.com.


"Our numbers are growing every month and we have a goal of having over 250 members (500 on Facebook) by year's end," Macias revealed. "We want professional soccer to notice us. We want to say that we were there from the beginning, before a club called San Antonio home."


Make no mistake: the Sons of Ben legacy, and the there-before-the-team success that Macias and his group hope to copy, is a strong influence on The Crocketteers. That legacy manifests not only in the spirit of the group, but in networking advantage; Union president Nick Sakiewicz's brother Ed, who runs soccer-related organizations in San Antonio, lent a helping hand to the group by opening a direct line of communication between The Crocketteers and the Sons of Ben.


As part of that relationship, The Crocketteers have been admitted to the Independent Supporters Council, an organization of supporters groups from the US and Canada that includes the Timbers Army of Portland, the Red Patch Boys of Toronto, and the Sons of Ben themselves. "We look to use that resource in running our local group," said Macias.


Macias and The Crocketteers recognize that MLS may be wary of San Antonio as a potential market, having flirted with placing a team there just five years ago. The effort ended in disappointment, with then-newly-elected mayor Phil Hardberger criticizing a proposed deal that would have put a team in the Alamo Dome. "It makes our situation that much harder in that we have to put San Antonio back on the soccer expansion map," lamented Macias.


But with new mayor Julian Castro on the record supporting the idea of professional soccer in San Antonio, the advent of The Crocketteers, and the growing nature of the city, Macias sees hope.


"With an economy that is that is rated tops in the nation, local sports radio in support of MLS and now a grassroots soccer supporters base that other candidate cities would love to have on their side, San Antonio needs to be on Major League Soccer's short list not only for expansion but for a possible relocation of an existing franchise."

Fans look on as the Haitian National Team takes on Trinity University in San Antonio

San Antonio is the nation's seventh most populated city with 1.3 million people, and the metropolitan area boasts over 2 million; those numbers are certainly strong enough to support a team that would hope to draw crowds of no larger than 20,000 a match.


For all its attributes, the case for San Antonio means nothing without an actual plan. The 2005 deal, one that sought the Alamo Dome as a potential home, fell through because the city's leadership failed to see the benefit. Local investors seemed to be lacking as well, though efforts to find them were hampered by political concerns. When Phil Hardberger closed the door on the deal, and the league responded tersely to the political resistance they felt was destructive, and the city feel off the MLS radar.


Enter the ownership of the San Antonio Spurs, the city's only major league sports franchise. The Spurs ownership, operating as Spurs Sports & Entertainment (SS&E) currently hold an option to start a USL franchise in the city, an indication that they might be willing to invest in top-level professional soccer. During a summer schedule, an MLS franchise in San Antonio would be without serious competition for sports entertainment dollars, and any conflicts with the Spurs themselves during those portions of the year that overlap could likely be sorted out without any serious hindrance to soccer's ultimate success.


Equally as pressing as lining up a willing ownership group with the requisite deep pockets is finding a proper home for a possible team; the Alamo Dome is likely no longer an option, and seems ill-suited to the task regardless. Building from scratch isn't out of the question, but with suburban stadiums around the country struggling to draw fans and urban land prices a potential deal-breaker, an alternative might be necessary to entice the Spurs to shell out the expansion fee.


That alternative might exist in Alamo Stadium, a 23,000-seat venue used primarily for high school football since its opening in 1940. The stadium is currently owned by the San Antonio Independent School District (SAISD), who has reportedly held talks to turn over control of the venue in light of their budget problems. With a central location and potential for renovation, Alamo Stadium could be the perfect place for professional soccer in San Antonio.

Location of Alamo Stadium (denoted by "A" on the map) in the city of San Antonio

The stadium would need renovation, $30 million worth according to sources, to bring it up to the necessary standard. Though the school district could pass a bond issue to pay for the construction costs, that may prove difficult in the current environment of school closings and budget shortfalls. Another possibility is a partnership with the Spurs and the city, who would split the costs; though there is no talk yet of such a deal, SS&E's resulting control of the venue for all events (soccer, outdoor concerts, etc.) might be enough to bring their investment.


The trickiest bit for San Antonio's renewed MLS candidacy is the availability of a franchise. Would the city be a candidate for expansion, with Don Garber stressing the need to re-enter the Southeast and Montreal already lined up to join as the nineteenth team? Perhaps the Alamo City could become home to an existing franchise, one struggling in their current market or with a intransigent stadium situation.


For Michael Macias, new or old hardly matters.


"Seeing the success of the Houston Dynamo, the Crocketteers are in full support of a relocated franchise. It might be a better option from the Crocketteers standpoint as we will be supporting an established team and success may come sooner than expected."


And if you wonder which current MLS team Macias and The Crocketteers think might be a candidate for a move to their city, you needn't look far.

Alamo Stadium

"In the early 1970's the City of San Antonio saved a failing ABA franchise in the Dallas Chaparrals," he said. "The team wasn't doing well in Dallas and attendance was less than woeful. That team today is known as the San Antonio Spurs and has been one of the best supported franchises in all of sports. I'm sure if the situation called for it, the City of San Antonio can turn around the fortunes in the stands for another Dallas-based franchise."

On Friday, following Columbus' poor showing at the gate for the second leg of their first round playoff series with Real Salt Lake, I argued that the Crew should be moved to Montreal. The reaction to that argument, which I made as an effort to replicate the knee-jerk nonsense that floats around so much of the American soccer blogosphere (how many times have you heard "he's crap" about a player after one poor match?), was telling; many of you thought the argument well-reasoned enough, or read it already with feelings on the subject in mind, that you agreed with it.


For the record, there was a clue as to the provenance of the piece; I had a note, in super-tiny print, that the post was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. If I failed to convey that in the actual text itself, that's my failing, even if it does prove that Columbus' performance in the stands is worrying to many. I had hoped that the bluster and hyperbole would give enough clues that I was using thin arguments to push for a Columbus move. I guess not, as evidenced by how many took it at face value.


I was mildly surprised by the reaction, though I did receive push-back from some segments of the soccer community; Fake Sigi took it apart, and did so emphatically. Some commenters came to the Crew's defense, and with the passion I would expect from someone defending their club. Still, it seems that dissatisfaction from around the greater American soccer community with Columbus and their attendance woes runs deep, and while I believe that none of the arguments made in my original piece are enough to warrant picking the team up and shipping them off anywhere (much less Montreal, who doesn't need an existing franchise, but should be entering the league as an expansion side), my concerns have been deepened.


Because, although I don't hold to the views set forth in my piece in reality, there is a kernel of truth there. It's hard not to be when the most successful side in the league over the last few years can't fill half of their stadium for a playoff match.


I have trouble divining the line between relocating clubs to best benefit the sport and the league and the need to weather to storm to better build a community of fans that will last, which will only come with a consistent presence in the community (and without the threat of relocation). Relocation, no matter the sport, is distasteful, even as we Americans have come to expect it from time to time. Because the franchise model means sports teams are wholly controlled by private individuals, there's always the possibility that the man (or woman) in charge could pick up and move their asset to another city when money is more easily made. The community, to whom the club belongs on some level even if it's only via an outdated romantic notion, has little or no say.


Columbus has a stadium of their own, stage or not. Columbus has ownership with a solid financial portfolio, operational ineptitude and an inability to understand their fan base or not. Those two facts alone make moving the Crew a non-starter; MLS, and professional soccer in general, doesn't have many cities that can provide both of those elements, and it would be ridiculous to take a club out of one. Columbus' problems involve management and marketing, not an intrinsic problem with the market itself. I have no doubts that if those issues were properly handled, the Crew could increase their average attendance dramatically, and in short order.


I have no special affinity for the Crew, and I don't know much about Columbus. The arguments made in "Time to Move the Crew" may have some validity, but they fall well short of proving that relocation is the best way to "fix" the club. Relocation sounds like an easy answer, and putting the Crew in a market (like Montreal) that would conceivably provide full houses, is tempting. But Major League Soccer's future lies no in band-aids and misdirection, but in doing the hard work of making its teams relevant in each and every market it inhabits. Maybe Columbus wasn't the best place to put a team back in 1996, or maybe it was the perfect place and things just haven't gone well; neither view matters, because the best thing for MLS, MLS fans, and certainly the Crew faithful, is to make it work there.


Next week, I'll present "Time to Move FC Dallas".


Only kidding.

It's the last Match Fit USA Soccer Show before The American Soccer Show debuts next week. Things are tense, and Jason and Zach argue about referees, discuss potential call-ups for the USMNT, talk some USL news, and close out with a heated debate about MLS and relocating clubs. Make sure you go to americansoccershow.com to subscribe to the new iTunes feed!

The Match Fit USA Soccer Show, on the Champions Soccer Radio Network.

DOWNLOAD the show

LISTEN in the CSRN Media Player

SUBSCRIBE in iTunes THIS IS THE NEW AMERICAN SOCCER SHOW FEED! EVEN IF YOU ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE MFUSA FEED, YOU NEED TO SUBSCRIBE HERE!

SUBSCRIBE to the RSS feed

SUBSCRIBE HERE if you want to get all of the great CSRN shows, including The American Soccer Show, Winning Ugly, The MLS Show, Glory Glory Leeds, The twofootedtackle Podcast, and more in one iTunes feed.

American soccer, just like the big professional sports in the country, follows a franchise model. This means that each club is wholly owned by an individual or group, whom are free to sell or move the team at any point; when relocations occur, there's always a fan base, passionate and loyal, left behind.

Rumors are circulating that the Cleveland City Stars, a USL club that just completed their first year in USL-1 (they finished bottom of the table) will be purchased by a group looking to move the team to Elkhart, Indiana. MFUSA reader Cody Vild, a loyal City Stars supporter, shares his thoughts with us.

Today started as any other day as a fan of the Cleveland City Stars. That was until I found the article that suggests a potential sale of the team. What compounds matters is that the new owners have the idea of moving the team to Elkhart, Indiana.

As a follower of the City Stars, this news is quite disheartening. After following an USL-2 team, which more or less dominated in its first two years of existence, and had an interesting year after there "promotion" to USL-1, it would be a shame to see them leave. They have just started to build a history with the city and it would be a travesty to see them ripped from us (not quite as bad as the Browns, but still upsetting).

The idea of moving this team to a city with 10x less people seems a little silly to me. I know that Elkhart claims that they can support an USL club, but one would think it would be more important to develop a fan base in a city with a much larger market. It is not like Cleveland is a wasteland of soccer. In a 2006 friendly versus Venezuela, Cleveland Brown's stadium drew a very respective crowd for a game with moderate importance (~30k for a 72k stadium). Also, the Cleveland area is home to Brad Friedel’s Premier Soccer Academies. Cleveland had one of the most popular teams in the NPSL in the Cleveland Crunch, which for me gave me my first nudge in loving the beautiful game. Depriving a large market with a rich soccer history would be truly detrimental to the state of soccer in America.

So hopefully in the end the Green Army has a team to root for. Cleveland cannot afford to lose another team, especially to a city where not only does it hurt Cleveland soccer, but America as a whole.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

The San Jose Earthquakes, the only MLS franchise to be "reborn" after the original version of the club was relocated to Houston, is in a tough spot. Owner Lew Wolff is struggling to get a stadium project off the ground, has seemingly overestimated the city as a soccer market, and is lashing out at fans in the press.

When the league awarded an expansion franchise to Wolff in 2005 to fill the void created by the relocation of the original team to Houston, a jaundiced eye or two were pointing in Don Garber's direction. Despite the big money Wolff as owner, many questioned the wisdom of granting a team to a city that had already proven once their inability to get a proper stadium built for the club.

Wolff assuming allayed the league's fear by convincing the owners back in 2007 that he'd be able to get the deal done. AEG had pulled out in frustration, but as owner of the A's and a real estate maven, perhaps the league believed Wolff had the wherewithal to give San Francisco Bay Area professional soccer a fitting venue. Major League Soccer's anxiousness to return to the Bay Area, a hotbed for the sport in the US, brings us to today; Wolff's stadium efforts have stonewalled, the team is one of the worst in MLS, and there future is looking bleak once again.

Hindsight is always crystal clear, and the bet here is that Garber and Co. are kicking themselves over the decision to rescind the "no stadium, no team" policy, at least in the case of the Wolff and the Earthquakes. Without a concrete stadium plan, San Jose will continue to be stuck in the ill-suited and entirely too small Buck Shaw Stadium, a venue that team does not control and the league cannot be happy with. Despite original plans to "barnstorm" around the San Francisco area, the club has settled into a rotation of the aforementioned Buck Shaw and Oakland's Coliseum, used when the club has "big" matches that are certain to attract larger crowds.


What to do? Should the league take another hit, admit defeat in San Jose (again), and move the club to another market? St. Louis seems to have more stadium plans than they know what to do with, and would certainly welcome the club with open arms. Should MLS stick it out and hope that Wolff is able to finally secure the money necessary to break ground on a facility? The only problem there is that the owner's plans aren't exactly for a soccer palace; what was to be a step-up from a purely-functional no-fills facility and seat 18k is now slated to be a bare-bones 15k seater with zero amenities. If having a dedicated stadium for the Earthquakes is the only goal, I suppose that will do; but with other venues like Rio Tinto and Red Bull Arena opening, an austere and smallish stadium would looks terrible by contrast.

The Earthquakes have dedicated fans. They manage to fill up, or close to it, Buck Shaw Stadium for the majority of home games. While the excitement over the team's return hasn't met Lew Wolff's expectations, that doesn't mean that San Jose and the Bay Area is not a worthwhile market for MLS. But for the time being, while the league focuses its attention on new and excited fan bases in cities like Toronto and Seattle with high hopes for Vancouver, and Portland, San Jose's small crowds and undetermined future make it an obvious candidate for relocation.

Moving the team would take some serious pride-swallowing on the part of MLS. Wolff's protestations over the club's relative lack of popularity and his frustrations over the stadium deal give the impression that he might be happy to get out of the league. MLS knows it has willing parties in a couple of cities, and finding a buyer shouldn't be too difficult. But will Garber and the decision makers admit defeat for a second time in San Jose, thereby shining a light directly on their folly to return to the city in the first place?

It's likely not gotten that far. I can't see the Quakes moving anytime soon, but the question of their future is worth asking. MLS can't afford to leave clubs struggling in markets without viable stadium futures (other than the New England Revolution), and after Garber's comments/threats regarding DC United earlier this year, we know that no team is untouchable. With a shaky recent history, and "failure" already on the resume, San Jose could be staring at the prospect of losing another Major League Soccer franchise.

Steven Goff at the Washington Post has posted an exclusive interview with The Don regarding United's stadium situation, and it's not good.

I hate to say I told you so...

To be fair, Garber is only speaking the truth, though it has to be unnerving to United fans to even hear him hint that United will be forced to relocate. Garber spins a little, as we would expect, mentioning the other local governments that have reached out to the club (I'll believe it when something concrete is announced).

More after the jump.

I actually appreciate the straight talk from Garber. A lot of it could be bluster, of course, a shot across the bow of the city and the metro area, an effort to make it clear that moving the team is a distinct possibility.

I have two problems with those who might think it is just bluster:

1. The local governments around DC are not communicative enough that a "threat" would have any real effect; essentially, if the counties (and states) are sure that someone else will step up, they won't act until it's too late.

2. We are talking about soccer, a sport that exists on the fringes in any city, so the idea that any county executive, state legislator or other official would "care" that United might relocate is a bit of a leap of faith.

I truly hope one of the other counties being mentioned as a possibility is serious enough to make a stadium happen for United. As I said before, it would be an utter shame to see the team have to move. But as Garber said, RFK cannot sustain the team as a viable soccer club; the financial burden the stadium places on McFarland and Chang means that they will continue to operate at a loss.

Generally, I'm a positive person, and I tend to believe that the best can happen. I'm on the other side of things with United's dilemma though, simply because I know enough about DC area politics to know that it will take a miracle to actually get a stadium built. Some of the options being presented (Frederick and Greenbelt, MD) are not really options at all; they would remove the team from their core fan base in a such a way as to make them no better than RFK in the long run.

All those options do is present the club with a choice: 20,000 at RFK where the lease is crippling, or 10,000 (or less) as a soccer specific stadium in the far reaches of the suburbs. Ouch.

I'll be on the lookout for more info on this topic, though Goff is certainly the first place you should check if you want to follow the saga. I will be here, however, to comment on any developments.

To close: Chris, you may have chosen a team that will soon be moving. Hope that doesn't offend your English sensibilities. Haha.

Things went from bad to worse for DC United today, as the Prince George's County Council voted 8-0 not to pursue the team's proposed stadium plan.

For one of Major League Soccer's flagship franchises to be staring down the barrel at homelessness (let's be clear; RFK is no "home") is a horrible nightmare. The league doesn't need this now, not with all of the good feelings that have come out of the Northwest in recent weeks. Even then, you know that the stadium issues in both Houston and DC were bringing me down, and this is just another shot to the old enthusiasm meter.

All the depressing thoughts, after the jump.

I haven't checked up on Houston in recent days, but I get the sense that they'll eventually find a way to get things done. Call it a Code Yellow (of DEFCON 3 if you prefer).

DC on the other hand, and maybe it's because I'm closer to the situation here, doesn't have that same air of hopeful optimism; PG County's rejection of the plan, with the 8-0 vote being a clear indication that there's no one backing the thing, drive confidence to an all time low. Call it Code Red, or DEFCON 1.

And I'm not kidding about this. RFK Stadium is a joke; and as great an environment as the place has on match day, it remains a massive albatross around the team's neck.

I hate to say it, but I truly don't see another option. The team could try another locality (though I'm fairly certain that none of the counties in the immediate area would be keen on the idea), or attempt to bargain their way into a deal with a nearby university, but neither has much of a chance for success, and the latter is clearly not a long term solution.

DC United, as an institution of the city (and it is, no matter what anyone says), has taken a gut shot. The death may be slow and painful, but know that it is inevitable. Staying on life support in a rickety building with no amenities and a financially crippling lease will only make the day that the team leaves that much harder.

I don't know where the team will end up, though Goff makes mention of St. Louis. I guess that could eventually be a good thing for the league, though thousands of soccer fans from the DC Metro will be left in the lurch. Moving a team away from the East Coast and the derby atmosphere that the I-95 corridor can provide (especially with Philly coming in next year, and New York opening up their new facility) can never, and will never, be something that MLS can spin as a positive.

Expect things to move quickly, though you may not hear much from team ownership. More attempts will be made with revised plans in PG County, and those in charge at the club will quietly inquire with other local governments around the area, though neither will be successful in the end. Soon, cities with MLS dreams will be calling, and it won't be long before something will be in the works.

The bottom line? DC United cannot be expected to stay at RFK.

I'm struggling to type this sentence, but I have to agree with Goff. Goodbye DC United.