Where Next for MLS? 2. St Louis
Our first post in this series on where MLS might expand to next prompted an interesting discussion, as Miami was dismissed for its history. Numerous Portland fans were bemused that the article had not mentioned the Timbers, arguing that Soccer City USA would be the best destination for the league. But this series is not about where I think MLS should go next (and believe me, Portland would be high on that list), but instead looks at the current top few contenders for a spot.
And St Louis, just pipped to the post by Philadelphia for the last MLS franchise awarded and still in line for a spot, certainly has a claim to historical worthiness.
Background
St Louis can also claim to be the original “Soccer City USA”. The sport thrived in the western outpost in the late nineteenth century. In his book Soccer in a Football World, David Wangerin writes that “No US city embraced soccer more unreservedly than St Louis, which operated all manner of junior, amateur and semi-professional leagues, most stocked with red-blooded Americans equally at home on the baseball diamond.” The St Louis Soccer League attracted gates of thousands, producing many of the country’s best players and teams.
Intriguingly, St Louis developed a notably “American” playing style, one based on workrate and strength rather than passing. The St Louis Globe Democrat concluded that the American game had more “pep, punch and thrill” than the British game. It was far less a game of ethnic enclaves than in other parts of the country.
Unfortunately, by the 1930s, the St Louis league had disappeared, almost without a trace. The college game continued to thrive, though, and St Louis provided five of the players on the American defeat that upset England at the 1950 World Cup.
Professional soccer finally appeared in St Louis with the NASL’s St Louis Stars, founded in 1967 and playing at the Cardinals’ Busch Stadium. They draw almost 8,000 on average in their inaugural year, and almost 10,000 in their final year, 1977. The team were runners-up in the playoffs in 1972. They kept to the St Louis tradition of developing local talent; this allowed them a certain stability, but also meant a lack of star power ensured mediocrity.
The gap left by the demise of the NASL team was filled by indoor soccer. The St. Louis Steamers joined the Major Indoor Soccer League in 1979, pioneering soccer as glitzy family entertainment, music blaring and dry ice wafting over the field for player entrances. The Steamers were a success, attracting over 13,000 per game. Indoor teams have come and gone, though, in tune with that form of the game in the country as a whole.
Now St Louis is pushing this history in its expansion bid, touting its status as “Soccer Capital of America”.
Stadium
St Louis’ strongest selling point for MLS, though, is surely its stadium plans. St Louis Soccer United, the group backing the bid, has a tract of land in Collinsville, Illinois secured for an 18,500 capacity soccer specific stadium already. The stadium plans promise to take MLS to the next level in design, as these renderings show:
The project’s soccer-specific stadium will be among the next generation of MLS stadiums striving to capture the intimacy and excitement of the European game. It will incorporate a roof structure which fully covers the seating areas to help mitigate inclement weather conditions and hold in the sound of the crowd.
Supporters
St Louis Soccer United tout a high rate of local participation in soccer (10.2% of residents play, compared to 7.1% nationally) and a thriving metropolitan area of 2.7 million people as a base for strong support. Jeff Cooper, the man running St Louis bid, seems to understand the culture of soccer support, touting the possibility of what would technically be an Illinois derby with Chicago, less than three hundred miles away. He recently told the Daily Herald that “With all the rivalries in other sports that St. Louis and Chicago already have, it’s a ready-made rivalry. “We have a great market. It would be a fun rivalry to have.”
You can guarantee that several hundred Fire fans would make the trip every season; if, unlike Columbus (Chicago’s current closest team), St Louis could return the favour, you’d have an MLS version of the Cubs-Cardinals rivalry in baseball. St Louis is also even closer to Kansas City, which might just give the Wizards the jolt their fanbase seems to need: Kansas City’s isolation from other MLS markets surely hasn’t helped its development. A stronger basis in the Midwest with some real rivalry games would add to MLS credibility.
Backing
Financial backing is where St Louis fell short in their contest with Philadelphia. Had St Louis Soccer United put forth the bid they have now ten years ago, they would have waltzed into MLS. Unfortunately for them, it now takes far deeper pockets to get into MLS, and thus big investors will still need to be found for this to happen.
Overall
St Louis is only the eighteenth biggest market in the country, and isn’t as glamorous a location as New York City or Miami media-wise. But if there are to be eighteen teams in MLS, and given St Louis history of supporting local soccer and developing talent, one has to respect their bid, especially with their stadium plans so well developed. But as always in MLS, it will come down to money, money, money.
Related posts:
23 Comments
Trackbacks
- 18 March. The News and Blogs you might have Missed « Kansas City Soccer Review
- STLSportsMag.com » Blog Archive » The Morning Tailgate
- Pitch Invasion » Lead Story » Where Next for MLS? 3. New York City
Money is always going to be the final key to open the expansion door, Tom, but I think you’ve outlined other good points as to why St. Louis deserves a soccer team.
Just to reiterate what I wrote in the Miami forum: MLS should break things down into three divisions/conferences: East, West and Central. I just think it’s kinda strange to tell teams like Chicago, Columbus, Kansas City, etc. that they’re really part of one side in this wide country.
Again, if St. Louis is awarded the 17th franchise, and say Portland lands the 18th, I would see the league breaking down like this:
WEST - Seattle, Portland, Real Salt Lake, San Jose, Los Angeles and Chivas USA
CENTRAL - Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Colorado, Kansas City and St. Louis
EAST - Toronto, New England, Philly, D.C., New York and Columbus
Breaking things down into three divisions could make people focus on regional marketing and help attract the fanbases needed to create rivalries…which will help the MLS grow.
I think that’s not a bad idea, Kevin. Though given Toronto’s the Fire’s second closest team, it’d be a shame not to be in the same division as them. But in principle anything that grew local rivalries would be good for the sport.
i hate to say this to the dozens of wizards diehards, but the easiest solution here is to move KC to stl. KC has the worst attendance in the league, the worst stadium situation, the worst team nickname. i’m sure there are some people in KC who would be heartbroken, but from the outside it just seems like there is not nearly as much fervor for football (at least on an mls level) in KC as in some other cities — both ones that have teams (toronto, chi, dc) and those that are looking for teams (portland, stl, philly).
personally, i would prefer mls go to a single-table league and have promotion/relegation (eventually), even with all its attendant problems. maybe then KC could get a usl-1 or -2 team and rise up. but from my point of view — taking into account fanbase, stadium, etc — it seems like they are a second-tier city for the mls. many of the cities you are or are planning to highlight in this series could be considered more worthy of a team.
is that too callous? is there some great reserve of untapped enthusiasm for the wizards in KC that i just don’t have a sense for?
that three division idea is terrible. the vast majority of people are pushing for a single table, and the playoff structure to accommodate this idea would marginalize it right away. A 4 divison, 20 team league is a much greater possibility (yet still an improbable one) than a 3 division, 18 team league.
Plus why aren’t you factoring TV revenue into any of this? Revenue isn’t based on ticket and jersey sales alone.
The sooner STL has a club the better! I’m not a fan of divisions but the 3 division plan listed above is no worse than what we have now. I assume that would lead to the top 2 clubs from each division making the playoffs.
tom,
i cant believe you left out the origins of the game of football’s olympic history starts with the saint louis olympics. the international birthplace for the first olympic tourney was in st. louis around the turn of the century (not gonna look it up 1900 or 1904 games) its the the key to st. louis soccer history and american soccer history.
btw: whoever is pushing the 3 division thing needs to let it go.its terrible.
the kc thing i might agree with btw, if they dont get the stadium built they need to move. the only reason KC has a team is the Hunt family who used to own the club. Lamar is gone, the team is sold and they better get their act together.
St. Louis has an excellent soccer history. I wouldn’t be upset if it was awarded an expansion team, but I agree with VJM. It makes more sense to me to move the Wizards there. I also think the single table is the way to go. From a fan’s perspective it has worked out great in USL First Division even while maintaining a playoff system.
All you who think KC should be moved can fuck off. MLS can’t make the team move. Get it through your neanderthal skulls. We have local ownership and a stadium on the way. Seriously, get the fuck over it.
GS: I don’t support the Wizards moving, but you are actually wrong. The franchise system allows the league office to tell whoever they want to move. That’s part of the point of having a franchise system to have a central body overseeing quality control.
St. Louis should be the next one. Their inclusion would surely help boost KC’s numbers a few times a year and would provide a great rivalry for Chicago.
I wonder why/if they have explored the idea of making half of the team public (perhaps the stadium operation sided of it since it could generate non-soccer revenue as well to attract investment). If the existing support is as big as suggested, selling stock in the team would surely bring in a few hundred million easily.
P.S. I will post this anytime the subject is brought up, there will be no pro/rel anytime soon (if ever) there are simply far too many factors working against it the biggest being money.
higher on my list is dumping the draft and having a single table anyway. Making Superliga the UEFA cup of the region would be up there as well as it would give more capital to smaller teams in smaller leagues making them better and thus the region and by extension the USMNT as they would be player better, more experience competition due to more nations having more resources to train players and compete more regularly.
It’s not a question of whether St. Louis can pull this off, but rather how soon St. Louis will have it’s financial ducks lined up. With the stadium ready to be built once MLS gives it its blessing, it’s a no lose situation. St. Louis deserves an MLS team and will get one. Guaranteed.
Wait a minute Dunmore, you claim this is all not who SHOULD get a franchise, but who WILL MOST LIKELY, but your post is actually about who SHOULD get a franchise. Do you think the MLS gives a rats arse about rivalry or that they’re going to give St. Louis a franchise because of its “history”? You’re talking SHOULD! If you’re talking about who will get the next franchise then it comes down to this: What city has an ownership team with very deep pockets, and who can line up a favorable stadium deal *as Seattle showed it doesn’t necessarily have to be a SSS) and who is in a decent TV market. Period. Nothing else matters. Who is closest to fulfilling those criteria?
St. Louis seems to be the closest but in reality, an ownership group could pop up with very little notice (it didn’t take long for Seattle to materialize) and move to the front of the line.
As I’ve said in other blogs, if fans in a city are serious about getting a team, why not try to do a Barcelona/Green Bay Packers scenario and get 60,000 people to put in $1000 plus $100/year to become members of a fan owned team. Portland? Montreal?
I’m just having my cake and eating it, Timoteo. I said the posts are going to discuss the cities most likely to get franchises and not those without an imminent opportunity. But yeah, I’m interested in what they’re bringing to the table aside from the factors you list as mattering to MLS. Let’s think about them as fans too. Otherwise we wouldn’t be having a very fun conversation….We’d be in a boardroom.
That’s an interesting idea about fan ownership, too, though I think that MLS wouldn’t actually allow it. The NFL, basically the model MLS lusts after, has banned not-for-profit ownership for decades (the Packers are grandfathered in). MLS would take a lot of convincing.
Hey, I can respect the whole ‘three divisions doesn’t work’ idea…but I haven’t seen nor read anything that would lead me to believe that MLS is looking into a single table or promotion/relegation format.
Would I like the possibility of a USL side (like Montreal or Rochester) making it to the MLS for a season? Absolutely. But I don’t see it happening.
I just don’t like the idea of East Coast vs. West Coast, that’s all…
Papa Bear, a “franchise system” per se doesn’t give the “league office” the right “to tell whoever they want to move”. It does require that the the league (generally by super-majority vote of the other owners) approve any franchise relocations, but short of buying the team or revoking the franchise (each of which would be an extraordinary step), there isn’t a mechanism for forcing teams to move. That would not have been the case if MLS itself owned the franchise (as it did many teams in the early days of the league), but KC now has an ownership group who have taken over from the Hunts and appear to be committed to staying in the area. That could of course change (particularly if they can’t bring their stadium and other plans to fruition), but until it does, the league’s ability to infuence the situation is limited.
It it somewhat interesting to note in this context that the soccer/football leagues that have seen the most “forced relocation” in recent years have not been operated on the North American franchise model, but are rather “old school” leagues like those in Scotland and England, who have used stadium regulations on minimum capacity, security and the like to effectively force teams to play elsewhere (see, e.g., Gretna having to play at Motherwell, which is 75 miles away, or Inverness Caledonian Thistle having to play at Aberdeen, which is 150 miles away) or alternatively refuse promotion that they had won on the field (several examples in the English Conference, and in Falkirk’s case, be denied promotion even after agreeing to move). While these are intended to be temporary measures, they can end up having a lasting effect on a club’s fortunes (and in Gretna’s case are likely to be permanent in retrospect, given the club’s current plight).
“As I’ve said in other blogs, if fans in a city are serious about getting a team, why not try to do a Barcelona/Green Bay Packers scenario and get 60,000 people to put in $1000 plus $100/year to become members of a fan owned team. Portland? Montreal?”
Because fan ownership does not, in any way shape or form, fit into the vision of the people running MLS. It’s their club, they don’t have to let you in if they don’t want to, and there’s no way they want to accept a supporter’s trust/MYFC type setup.
Also, you have no chance of getting 6000, never mind 60,000 people to stump up anything like that kind of money anywhere in this country.
Also, neither Barcelona nor the Green Bay Packers *began* life with tens of thousands of people pitching hundreds or thousands of dollars in to become “co-owners”. From much smaller beginnings…
Apparently the #8 commenter has been saying that to all of the KC citizens as they tried to enter the stadium to watch the Wiz play too.
They should move them to St. Louis, move the KC Royals anywhere else in the country, but they can have the Chiefs.
Metro,
I don’t know if the MLS would accept that type of ownership. I think if a group could raise that type of interest and money they’d be hardpressed to ignore it.
I don’t think that 60,000 putting in $1000 would necessarily be out of the question, because people would be buying into being owners. And you wouldn’t have to necessarily even get 60,000. Probably when you start raising serious money say 30 million or 40 million, you could start get corporate sponsorships, since it would be a non-profit organization. I’d like to see someone try. Portland or St. Louis would be the ideal cities to try it, in my opinion. Maybe with Portland, start by buying the USL Timbers with the idea of getting the idea out there, and then bring it to the next level. It might take 3-4 years to raise that kind of cash, but it would demonstrate the depth of commitment of the fan base in a city.
I read that they cant use the word “united” in thier name as part of a new franchise - it looks like DC united filed a claim so i guess they need to find another name for this new team.
st. louis deserves the chance for an MLS team, and would bring great publicity more to the midwest more than chicago or KC. Although I do strongly agree about the given rivalry between chicago and st. louis. I think its rediculous that the stadium is not even in st. louis. They need to find a new location in the st. louis area!…
i grew up in st.louis and really hope they land a team eventually…but portland and vancouver just had their act more together.
and you can’t have the wizards…with a cup championship in our history and a SSS on the way, we are fine.