There should be at least one professional team in Citifield.

“An MLS team at Citi Field is a nonstarter for us,” [said MLS spokeswoman Risa Heller] in a statement. “A soccer stadium in Flushing Meadows-Corona Park is a win for soccer fans, a win for the Queens community and a win for economic development.”

How could this be a win for the Queens community and a win for economic development? A soccer stadium will host 17 regular season home games (or thereabouts) and probably a couple exhibitions. You could probably have a few other events there, like high school or college soccer, rugby, lacrosse, etc., but not too many more or it will degrade the grass field. That's a lot of vacancy for the area.

As much as I like that as a solution, since the world does not need another stadium and certainly not another in Flushing Medows, I don't know how great that would work out.

Looking at the likely soccer configuration, I can see two obvious problems. One small one, the 2012 fence changes look like they're require more modification to fit the pitch again. Two, you'd need LF bleachers to have sight lines that weren't horrific. If MLS played the split winter schedule that would be fine, but I don't think Citi has the space to be moving that much bleacher in and out every week.

That and MLS loves their soccer-specific stadiums. The only baseball stadiums used by MLS are RFK and the San Jose one, and neither are used for baseball anymore, and they are building a replacement for the latter. The few other non-soccer specific stadia are NFL stadiums.

The only baseball stadiums used by MLS are RFK and the San Jose one, and neither are used for baseball anymore.

And Portland, but when Jeld-Wen Field was reconfigured in 2011 to accomodate MLS, it was made unsuitable for baseball.

Using a baseball stadium for anything other than baseball is a bad idea. Nothing "fits" in the field right. I guess a concert with a stage near second base facing home plate is the best you can hope for. Looks like this is how Yankee Stadium would be set up for a concert. Those are a lot of bad seats.

I could see a 25,000 seat football/soccer stadium getting a fair amount of use in that area. New York City/Long Island football probably has a decent following, in addition to the other events puck mentioned. Of course worries about the field conditions still stand.

Shouldn't the Red Bulls fill closer to capacity before we consider a second NY franchise? The Red Bulls have been pretty competitive, have some of the more marketable players in the league, and are middle of the pack in attendance. I can think of a couple open markets - St. Louis, maybe Carolina, Minnesota, Virginia Beach, heck even upstate NY? - that have more potential as markets than a second NYC franchise.

And yea, sports stadiums are not good for econ development, particularly soccer stadiums. They're great fun, and I'm glad we built one in KC, but don't expect to turn a profit on them.

Using a baseball stadium for anything other than baseball is a bad idea. Nothing "fits" in the field right. I guess a concert with a stage near second base facing home plate is the best you can hope for. Looks like this is how Yankee Stadium would be set up for a concert. Those are a lot of bad seats.

This is true. The Yankees run the football field from home plate out to center field, but when they have soccer there, they do it from along the third and first base lines.

They also set up for boxing with the ring in RF, as here

Shouldn't the Red Bulls fill closer to capacity before we consider a second NY franchise?

Hey, they drew better--as a percentage of capacity--than the Mets did. Maybe they should switch parks!

Shouldn't the Red Bulls fill closer to capacity before we consider a second NY franchise? The Red Bulls have been pretty competitive, have some of the more marketable players in the league, and are middle of the pack in attendance. I can think of a couple open markets - St. Louis, maybe Carolina, Minnesota, Virginia Beach, heck even upstate NY? - that have more potential as markets than a second NYC franchise.

Not to mention going back to Florida. But Garber wants to revive the Cosmos first, come hell or highwater.

Hasn't MLS failed pretty badly in Florida in multiple ventures? Granted, they were in awful stadiums, but Florida just seems to be a poor pro sports market.

Where could you put a SOS in Miami that would work?

I think the future of MLS is in smaller market cities like Portland or KC where you can be the big team in town. A second NYC MLS team would just get overshadowed by a jillion other things to do in NY.

Shouldn't the Red Bulls fill closer to capacity before we consider a second NY franchise? The Red Bulls have been pretty competitive, have some of the more marketable players in the league, and are middle of the pack in attendance. I can think of a couple open markets - St. Louis, maybe Carolina, Minnesota, Virginia Beach, heck even upstate NY? - that have more potential as markets than a second NYC franchise.

A team in Queens would draw from a completely different population center as the NYRB. The tri-state area is more than big enough for a second--some would say for a first--NYC team. It's not nailed on the team would be branded as the Cosmos. They're playing now in the NASL and the Saudi outfit may or may not want to sell the brand to the new owners or that the new owners would even want to brand the team the Cosmos. I think Garber wants a second NYC team for 1. It will bring about the highest franchise fee possible 2. It sets up a pretty awesome derby with NYRB. Not quite Arsenal-Tottenham or Milan-Inter, but it's a start!

#10 I guess I could see that. I'm not saying its a terrible idea, just that I think MLS should look to expand markets before putting two franchises in one market (I thought Chivas USA was a bad idea at the time). Eventually though I can see building intra-city rivalries being a good thing.

#10 I guess I could see that. I'm not saying its a terrible idea, just that I think MLS should look to expand markets before putting two franchises in one market (I thought Chivas USA was a bad idea at the time). Eventually though I can see building intra-city rivalries being a good thing.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I think San Diego and the spiritual home of American soccer--St. Louis--not to mention Orlando, Minneapolis, Atlanta and a few others deserve a look. I'm still not convinced MLS is going to solve the stadium issue in New York so Orlando may get a team yet.

I think the future of MLS is in smaller market cities like Portland or KC where you can be the big team in town. A second NYC MLS team would just get overshadowed by a jillion other things to do in NY.

If you're going that way, looks like San Antonio, Orlando or Rochester are the cities currently drawing well in the minors. As a native of the latter I can say it has always been a good soccer town, but it would still probably be the lowest draw in the league just on size. If you think Chivas was a bad idea, how about the LA Blues and their 666 person avg. attendance?

That and MLS loves their soccer-specific stadiums. The only baseball stadiums used by MLS are RFK and the San Jose one, and neither are used for baseball anymore, and they are building a replacement for the latter. The few other non-soccer specific stadia are NFL stadiums.

Definitely. It's not just the better fit for the field, it's also the control of revenue streams vs. paying rent.

The use of NFL stadiums in Seattle and Foxboro is tolerated due the ownership situation (Paul Allen is a co-owner in Seattle, and there's Kraft in New England.) The guy who owns the Timbers owns (or has the operating rights) to the stadium. The league would love to replace RFK with a league/team owned stadium. San Jose is building a soccer-specific stadium.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I think San Diego...[deserves] a look

They have a team now: Xolos!

MLS can award the Wilpons NY20 if they build a soccer-specific stadium in the Citi Field parking lot. Otherwise, this is nothing more than fantasy.

The Mets have already been gifted a lot of extra parking by the city in the last 20 years, included unpaved areas under the Van Wyck Expressway and paved spots near Flushing Bay. They've also decreased the capacity of the baseball stadium, so the Mets can survive with a corner of the lot redeveloped for a soccer stadium. The site would be much better than the Fountain of Industry site, although MLS will never admit it unless that plan gets defeated.

They have a team now: Xolos!

I really wish we had a pyramid. If Rochester or San Diego or any other club wanted to be Big League, then go for it! Let the market determine where the best soccer markets are.

There were a number of international matches staged during the final few years at Shea. The polyglot of ethnicities in Queens could make MLS work if the franchise was run right.

There were a number of international matches staged during the final few years at Shea.

They've had a couple at Citi, including an Ecuador vs Greece battle that I actually almost went to out of curiosity.

I really wish we had a pyramid. If Rochester or San Diego or any other club wanted to be Big League, then go for it! Let the market determine where the best soccer markets are.

Seems like relegation would work in MLS better than any of the other four existing sports leagues. Why not? I'd love to see Rochester and San Antonio elevated and New England and Chivas demoted!

how about the LA Blues and their 666 person avg. attendance?

They should eject someone just to avoid Satan.

If we did have a pyramid, Rochester has long seemed like the obvious team to pull a Norwich City and make the top league and then hang around in the mid-table. Last non-MLS team to win the US Open Cup and all that.

If you're going that way, looks like San Antonio, Orlando or Rochester are the cities currently drawing well in the minors. As a native of the latter I can say it has always been a good soccer town, but it would still probably be the lowest draw in the league just on size.

San Antonio though seems like the obvious choice -- if a jump from the NASL to MLS doubles their attendance, then they're at about the MLS median. Only the NBA in town, so no competition in the summer, and the big Latino population that might (or might not) drive MLS attendance in the future.

Seems like relegation would work in MLS better than any of the other four existing sports leagues.

Why? You still have a lot of the same issues that make it unfeasible for the big four sports--owners who sink a lot of capital into buying into the cartel, taxpayer funded stadiums, and league interest in having teams in specific cities.

They're great fun, and I'm glad we built one in KC

I went to a game at Livestrong a few months ago. It's really quite lovely. And some franchise in Kansas City should be worth a damn.

Seems like relegation would work in MLS better than any of the other four existing sports leagues.

Isn't MLS still structured as a single-entity?

Shouldn't the Red Bulls fill closer to capacity before we consider a second NY franchise? The Red Bulls have been pretty competitive, have some of the more marketable players in the league, and are middle of the pack in attendance.

Red Bulls do OK. The stadium was shrunk from the original design in terms of both seats and luxury boxes because of the Great Recession. Parking is a nightmare. Best access is from PATH which is not available to everyone; it still isn't 100% up after Sandy. (And we have that doddering lunatic Seth Blatter who is expecting people to watch soccer in the Midwest and Northeast in the middle of winter.)

Back in the day the Cosmos sold out Giants Stadium. The top international friendlies sell out in NY metro; many of them are about as competitive as the Pro Bowl.

Why? You still have a lot of the same issues that make it unfeasible for the big four sports--owners who sink a lot of capital into buying into the cartel, taxpayer funded stadiums, and league interest in having teams in specific cities.

The capital invested is much, much less than the other sports. The stadiums are taxpayer funded, but not all of them are. Is the difference between MLS and USL enough that fans/taxpayers would be irate if their team was relegated? And MLS would care less about what cities the league is in than other sports because they rely so little on their TV contract. As long as they have some presence in LA and NY (and I guess having multiple franchises in each would help ensure that), then they're probably okay. If they lose a Dallas or Denver market, and pick up Rochester and Virginia Beach, why is that necessarily bad if those markets are supporting soccer better?

I don't think you'd want relegation based solely on the field, maybe a mix of game results and attendance?

MLS isn't interested in their teams sharing stadiums anymore.

Isn't MLS still structured as a single-entity?

Yes. Relegation/promotion in MLS is a fantasy.

Where could you put a SOS in Miami that would work?

After the rogering the citizens of Miami took in building Loria's new playpen, why on earth would any of them spring for a soccer stadium?

The Mets are “very interested and fully capable” of bringing Major League Soccer to Citi Field, City Councilman Peter Vallone Jr. (D-Astoria) announced Thursday.

I suspect the Mets are so desperate for money that they'd rent the stadium to anyone for just about any purpose, as long as they can pay the rent.

The capital invested is much, much less than the other sports.

So are the returns. You think an owner who paid a $40 million expansion fee, or spent $60-100 million to have a stadium built above the cost of purchasing the franchise will be ok with relegation?

The stadiums are taxpayer funded, but not all of them are.

I don't know numbers, but I would guess more than half are publicly funded. (Which doesn't mean the munipality bought the entire thing, but they contributed a significant chunk--more than just "infrastructure" costs.) The cheap single bowl MLS stadiums still cost around $100 million. I have a hard time seeing teams funding those when the average MLS team makes $10-15 million/yr in revenue.

Is the difference between MLS and USL enough that fans/taxpayers would be irate if their team was relegated?

Yes, it is. Attendance would take a big drop with nearly every team, maybe every team. (Seattle hasn't had a down spell for us to see what affects their attendance.) Plus, I'm guessing the attendance differences between leagues aren't just a measure of the market size. Even if some of the allure is just branding, being in MLS vs. USL or NASL makes a big difference.

And MLS would care less about what cities the league is in than other sports because they rely so little on their TV contract. As long as they have some presence in LA and NY (and I guess having multiple franchises in each would help ensure that), then they're probably okay. If they lose a Dallas or Denver market, and pick up Rochester and Virginia Beach, why is that necessarily bad if those markets are supporting soccer better?

Well, Denver maybe not, as it is not a large market, but I don't think the league would be happy to lose a market the size of Dallas. And they're not going to want the Galaxy to be relegated, even if Chivas is still in the league. Toronto either, I would guess, much less a team like Seattle.

Plus, remember. 10 years ago, MLS was in danger of folding. It's on much more stable ground now, but these teams aren't like European teams where they can keep a huge degree of support after relegation.

Isn't MLS still structured as a single-entity?

Yes. Relegation/promotion in MLS is a fantasy.

'Tis. However, I could see the argument that the single-entity would be the only thing that makes pro/rel with MLS possible if the 2nd division were also part of the entity.

I don't see what it would gain for the league, though, given the costs of setting it all up, running a 2nd division, etc.

#31 You're probably right. Why does relegation work in EPL?

We'll never have a true pyramid but, if we did, it wouldn't be governed by MLS but by the USSF. I think, geographically, we might be too large a country with too diffuse an interest in soccer to support a true pyramid.

Yeah, one answer to #33 is that the entire league could basically fit in Michigan.

Another answer to #33 is that they started doing it in the 1880s, so they've had time to get used to it.

Relegation not only brings about problems with media contracts, but with also with the sponsors. The difference between a major league team (any sport) and a minor league team (any sport) in the NY metro area is often that between a six figure and a five figure contract.

Where could you put a SOS in Miami that would work?

Lockhart Stadium in Fort Lauderdale seats 20,000. Miami Fusion F.C. of MLS and various incarnations of the Fort Lauderdale Strikers have played there including the current one. If MLS really wanted to go into Miami, Lockhart Stadium could be renovated.

Why does relegation work in EPL?

Yeah, one answer to #33 is that the entire league could basically fit in Michigan.

Looking at that Mich/GB map, I see I was born right in central London. (And my mother is from Scotland, which I guess would be the Upper Peninsula, eh?)

they started doing it in the 1880s, so they've had time to get used to it.

In 1892, the Football League absorbed the rival Football Alliance, took its top teams, then made the remaining Alliance clubs into the second division.. Subsequently, almost all soccer leagues around the world (outside North America, of course) use promotion/relegation; in fact, many leagues in other sports (especially in Europe) use pro/rel.

Imagine if the NL had, in 1901, not accepted the AL as an equal, but instead demanded it become its second division. Eventually, there would have been a third division, etc. in baseball (and probably other US team sports as well)! The mind reels...

Do the Mets even need a parking lot?

Imagine if the NL had, in 1901, not accepted the AL as an equal, but instead demanded it become its second division. Eventually, there would have been a third division, etc. in baseball (and probably other US team sports as well)! The mind reels...

Perhaps memories of the 1880s World Series with the old American Association led the NL to try to replicate that with the AL. A second-division concept probably would have eliminated the concept of a World Series (unless a first vs. second division format would be acceptable, and I'm not sure it would be), and our view of what a baseball season is like would now be entirely different.

Yeah, one answer to #33 is that the entire league could basically fit in Michigan.

What does Swansea have to do to get some respect?

Norwich too...

I'd always figured that relegation, in European football, works because the clubs are prior to, and more powerful than, the leagues they belong to. As several here have pointed out, clubs in US sports are creations of their leagues – or in the very few cases where they originally weren't (the Packers and Bears have such origins), those origins are now effectively meaningless. Relegating an MLB club would be like telling a Starbucks that it sucked and was going to have to become a Seattle's Best Coffee till it got better.

Let the market determine where the best soccer markets are.

I have found Nieporent's sockpuppet!


MLS isn't interested in their teams sharing stadiums anymore.

More seriously, good. I can't stand dual-use stadiums.

I believe the next cycle of stadium construction will swing back to some sort of dual or multi-use stadia. I think single sport stadiums are better for the sport and the fans but look what happens economically.

A single-sport stadium gets built to wild huzzahs.

The team looks for some extra money and rents it out for other sports (e.g. college bowl game, soccer team, NHL Winter Classic, etc.)

People think the novelty is cool.

More teams get into the act and the stadia become de facto multi-use.

People start complaining about how the stadia are unsuitable for the other sports.

When the stadium comes up for replacement pressure is put on to save money / resources by making the new facility accomodate all of its clients -- and the architects will be found who can promise that this time it'll be done "right."

Where could you put a SOS in Miami that would work?

After the rogering the citizens of Miami took in building Loria's new playpen, why on earth would any of them spring for a soccer stadium?

Given the latest of several screwings of the fans by the Marlins, if MLS moved in, it would be soccer only in short order.

Baseball stadiums are really the only sport-specific stadiums being built nowadays. The only baseball stadiums that host non-baseball sports are "iconic" buildings such as Wrigley, Fenway and Yankees Stadium (who I do not think is iconic but whatever). There is a novelty but I can see that wearing off, especially with better alternatives around - Soldier Field in Chicago and MetLife in NJ. Boston is a little weird because Gillette is so far away. There is no clamor to have a basketball game in Chase Field or a hockey game in Miller Park. Fans want to be in an environment to watch the game. Baseball-only stadiums are "economically feasible" because there are 81 guaranteed events at the stadium.

Football stadiums are much more versatile. You can play football, soccer, have concerts, etc. without compromising sight lines and the fan experience. If soccer ever got big enough then MLS teams could actually fully use NFL stadiums (and not play in 3/4 empty Gillette field). I believe the Seattle MLS team has sold out the football stadium for a couple games and when bigger name teams come to NY they will often play at MetLife.

There's also iconic Tropicana Field (Beef o'Brady's Bowl) & historic AT&T Park (Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl).

Bowl games are a different sort - its cable programming for the holiday season. The Trop was originally built as a multi-purpose, right?

The only soccer game I've been to in the US was at Soldier Field, and I didn't think that was a good venue for it. It was too narrow, so that as far as I could see there wasn't a single seat in the stand I was in from which it was possible to see the touchline on the near side.

Where could you put a SOS in Miami that would work?

I know where. The Orange Bowl! Oh, wait...

AT&T Park hosts quite a bit of football - it hosted Cal for an entire season - and soccer. About 2-3 events a year. At least as much as any of the stadiums you mentioned, Frank.

Soldier Field is such a strange stadium. Why would you expound all that effort to savage a historic stadium yet end up with a smaller stadium? The Chicago Bears play in the smallest stadium in the NFL. While they have previous - they only left Wrigley Field because part of Congress's deal to approve the AFL-NFL merger was that all NFL stadiums must have a capacity of 50,000 or more - it makes no sense.

The only baseball stadiums that host non-baseball sports are "iconic" buildings such as Wrigley, Fenway and Yankees Stadium (who I do not think is iconic but whatever).

The thing is, that just isn't true. They had the NHL Winter Classic at Citizens Bank Park a couple of years ago. They play college bowl games at PacBell Park and Tropicana Field every year. People may not be "clamoring" for a basketball game at Chase Field, but they've played several. Perhaps it truly is just a novelty that will wear off, but it has been happening for quite a while now.

Ok - there are definitely more events hosted at baseball stadiums then I thought of. However, is hosting a basketball or hockey game better in a football or baseball stadium? Beyond the novelty I think its a bad idea in either venue. I just think its worse in a baseball stadium. Would Cal rather have been playing at AT&T or Candlestick? I'm guessing it wasn't feasible with the field and the same season as the 49ers.

I fully agree that football games are worse in a baseball stadium. I just think that people are going to get used to them being played there and will be asking for the new stadiums to accomodate them better. Thus swinging the cycle towards the multi-use paradigm.

Cal had no interest in playing in Candlestick or the Oakland Coliseum. They wanted a comfortable stadium that wasn't in the hood.

Also, having seen football at AT&T Park (back when the East-West Shrine Game wasn't blaming San Francisco for its steadily worsening rosters) it's not a bad place to watch football. It's a rectangular stadium, so there aren't too many seats that are especially ill suited for football, unlike Yankee Stadium. It's fun watching football in a modern, urban baseball stadium. I felt like I needed an overcoat and fedora like what my gramps would wear to watch the Giants at the Polo Grounds or Yankee Stadium.

I'd be surprised if New York sprang for a stadium. Aside from the financial reasons; the park issue is very real. The residents of the south Bronx were promised an equivalent amount of park space. The square footage may have been equivalent, but the functionality wasn't and it was years late. The residents, and especially the youth of the neighborhood were shortchanged by the Yankees and New York city. There is a limited amount space in the Flushing area and tennis is weighing in.

Another complication is the gradual realization that the stadium/arena projects don't deliver what they promise. Yankee Stadium has not only the parks, but the debacle of the parking garages. Willets Point is still a good place to break your car's axle; it hasn't been developed since Citi Field opened. Ranter's development of the Atlantic Yards near the Barclay Center has been pushed back years. Actually I think it's decades.

Finally, post-Sandy it's going to be difficult to spend money on another stadium. The infrastructure needs were known, but ignored. Sandy highlighted many of the existing issues and raised new ones.