The I-League: Does America Need More Indoor Soccer?
“The I-League is a national indoor soccer league that features an economically viable model for team owners. Set to debut in 2011, the I-League will offer high-level professional indoor soccer in regionalized divisions. The launch of the I-League is the initial phase of USL’s efforts to build the soccer pyramid to meet the growing demands of the indoor game.”
So says the USL, operators of a new indoor league set to launch in the United States next year. We already know a team from Rochester will play in it, probably called the Lancers after the old NASL team. And that’s about all we know.
I’m not aware of any great pent-up demand for new indoor soccer teams, or another indoor soccer league, in Rochester or just about anywhere else in the United States at this stage. Crowds for a handful of indoor games held in Rochester in 1997 weren’t particularly impressive, and since then, indoor soccer’s star has only fallen relative to the outdoor game nationwide.
The landscape for indoor soccer has changed quickly. As recently as 2001, in their excellent academic study Soccer and American Exceptionalism, Markovits and Hellerman wrote that “in the United States, this version of soccer undermines the still precarious culture of the “game proper” itself by offering an alternative and competitive threat.”
That’s just not really the case any longer, with handfuls of teams left and dwindling numbers of fans attending indoor games.
It might still be possible to sell indoor soccer if you’re Peter Wilt. And some teams still can boast of a longer existence than their MLS counterparts: in the Major Indoor Soccer League (MISL), the Milwaukee Wave date back to 1984, the Baltimore Blast to 1992 and the Philadelphia Kixx to 1995.
But even those who love indoor soccer, like our friend Kenn Tomasch, worry for its future with declining attendances (from a post a few months ago):
I love indoor soccer – have for some 30 years. But it’s hard to ignore the sad landscape of this sport right now. With three games to play (all this weekend), this latest MISL (there have been three, give or take) is on pace to have an overall average attendance of somewhere around 3,700 fans per game. Except for last season’s Xtreme Soccer League (which averaged 3,435 for its mere four teams), a [indoor] league hasn’t gone under the 4,000 mark in average attendance since the NPSL of 1991-92.
The MISL ended up with an average attendance in the 2009-10 season of 3,934. Attendances in the MISL are nearly half those of indoor soccer at its peak in the late 1980s, when it was not merely competitive with outdoor soccer, but outstripping it: indeed, this was the launchpad for the USL organisation, which began as an indoor league in the southwest in 1986.
All that said, there’s no particular reason indoor soccer can’t survive at that level of attendance if costs are kept in check, and as Peter Wilt’s pointed out here before, actual revenue can go up even when attendance goes down, if one is selling more tickets (and giving less away) while also raising sponsorship income. So it’s perhaps not as bleak a picture as it appears, at least in Milwaukee’s case. The Wave’s attendance dipped from 4,247 in 2008-9 to 3,934 in 2009-10, but ticket revenue was up 30% and sponsorship revenue up 35%. Still, that’s a far cry from the late 1980s, when under Wilt’s previous stewardship two decades ago, the Wave averaged over 7,000 fans a game. Selling indoor soccer is, it seems, is an awful lot harder now.
Then there’s the question — what does the USL’s reference to the new I-League mean by saying it “features an economically viable model for team owners”? It would seem from the limited information we have that this refers to its plan for “regionalized divisions” that would substantially reduce travel costs. In the MISL, there’s a fair old distance in a six team league that spans two countries, from Baltimore in the northeastern United States to Monterrey in Mexico. So that makes sense, as we’ve seen discussed in relation to second division outdoor soccer in the vast space that is North America as well.
But whether we really need more competing indoor leagues in North America is another question entirely. If we look at this sentence from the USL’s statement — “The launch of the I-League is the initial phase of USL’s efforts to build the soccer pyramid to meet the growing demands of the indoor game.” — and replace “demands” with “challenges”, we might be closer to the reality of the I-League’s apparent impending appearance on the scene, and is existence might just muddy the waters of a form of the sport that has an unclear future here as it is.
Email This Post
If there was an economically viable model for indoor soccer team owners, someone would have discovered it sometime between 1978 and today. Some have hit on it for brief periods, some have soldiered on despite the losses, but I don’t think anyone has found a sustainable, viable, economic model to make this game work.
You could say that about outdoor in most places, too – it’s only been recently that a handful of teams have been able to make it, while others see a road to profitability ahead (rightly or wrongly).
I’ll leave you with these quotes:
“I’m more than ever convinced that if soccer is to make it big in the U.S., it will have to be the indoor brand, where scoring action is furiously suited to American taste.”
“Tell the rest of the world to go on playing in the mud and rain. We’ll get rich while staying clean. The future of American soccer is indoors.”
“There’s no way pro soccer can survive anymore in this country without indoor soccer.”
“I’m convinced now that indoor will be what makes soccer in the US.”
Those quotes are from 1980, 1984, 1983 and 1983, respectively from New York Daily News Sportswriter Dick Young, San Diego Socker Julie Veee, Chicago Sting Owner Lee Stern and Sockers owner Bob Bell.
I would guess that the point here is not another league of more teams, but to steal the surviving franchises away from the current alphabet soup of leagues that sprung up in the wake of MISL (version number ???) failure a couple of years ago. It might even work. Indoor soccer is now, and probably forever (now that the American soccer fan is no longer assumed to need a bastard hybrid of soccer, ice hockey, and basketball), the perfect place for an entity like USL to step in.
The USL model is ideal for situations where clubs can’t be counted on to have the resources to properly investigate the finances of their partner clubs, organize scheduling, administration, and marketing, and in the end, to stick around long enough to make for a stable league. Have the offices in Tampa run the thing like an overgrown version of the center where I play lowest-division O30 indoor soccer*, and there’s some modicum of stability.
Of course, the NASL side of D2 outdoor split seems to believe it is ready for something bigger than D2 has been in this country, and I guess we’ll find out this coming season if they’ve really outgrown the nursery that is the USL model, but indoor could really use the outsourced administrative and vetting services that USL provides.
(*-My god, it is a fun game to play, especially being a bit overweight, out of shape, and coming from a background –in the distant past– in sprinting-based sports.)
When I first moved to the US in the mid-1980s I had never played indoor soccer with hockey boards. But living in the northeast, I had no choice but to adapt to it during the winter months. I still don’t like that type of super-fast, hyper-physical indoor game. In recent years, however, things seem to be changing a bit. For instance, in Michigan, where we live now, many top-notch facilities and leagues have either done away with boards or offer board-less soccer as well as the ‘traditional’ game. I wonder if a pro (or semi-pro) league offering an increasingly sophisticated US soccer culture board-less soccer might be more successful? Or maybe the terrible economic situation and the vast number of leisure options available (in theory) make this kind of business venture unlikely to be profitable?
I agree with Peter. In terms of an indoor board- less game I assume he is referring to something closer to futsal, which I think is a far superior game to the typical indoor game played in North America.
Yes Shawn, one version of board-less soccer is indeed futsal, which would work well on basketball courts in USA. But I’m also thinking of board-less 6 v 6 and 7 v7 with goals closer to outdoor size. Lots of fun and skill involved, and we run as much as with boards, but less frantically and with fewer collisions (on a decent night).
Futsal is a complete non-starter as a spectator sport.
As I always say, futsal is what baseball would be if all you could ever hit in baseball was singles.
Marketing slogan: “Like outoor soccer, only without all the excitement!”
KT — I’m curious, why do you think futsal’s popularity has grown so much worldwide in the past two decades as a spectator sport if that’s the case?
I think it is great that the USL is about to make a go at the Indoor game. Hopefully they will run it on a regionalized basis with several different levels (Premier, Pro1, Pro2 and Semi Pro/PDL). Almost every city could have a team playing in the league with feeder teams. I have been keen on this idea recently after having played in the old USISL Indoor League with the Atlanta Magic back in the day. The past problems with indoor soccer have stemmed from the professional teams playing in sparsely populated cities as opposed to the major cities. I think USL is going in this direction since Alec Papadakis got the opportunity to play indoor in a exhibition back in the old NASL days. If they run the indoor league under the same concept that they did in the NASL Indoor version of the 80’s they can be successful in the USL by creating an additional revenue stream for franchises. Unltimately players could play year round if they wanted firmly entrenching themselves in communities as opposed to having to bounce around from city to city. Indoor and outdoor soccer on the professional level are both about entertainment and I think the USL has a great opportunity to make this work. I guess this is what the big announcement for the USL is on their website for tomorrow not to mention NuRock was advertising for managerial people for indoor soccer right before they purchased the USL. Keep the information coming as I was wondering what the USL was about to announce tomorrow.
I prefer futsal, to play and to watch. Since it requires more than just launching rockets towards the goal and praying for a rebound.
But aesthetics aside, I think it would be cheaper to rent facilities for futsal. You wouldn’t need a hockey rink, any large-ish High School or Small-College has the facilities to hold a decent size crowd. Personally I would love if MLS had a winter futsal league down the line when the league is more mature(Especially since we have a 6-7 month break every year). Even if it didn’t include any players from the outdoor teams, I’d be interested. All the big clubs in Brazil and Portugal have futsal teams (as well as basketball, volleyball, and etc).
Anyway, how about promotion relegation? I think it would be perfect for indoor soccer and Arena football in the states. Wasn’t there an 2nd division Arena football league. I mean why not? Most of the arguments against MLS doing it are valid………but in indoor soccer? How much difference in quality is there between the competing leagues?
I went to one indoor soccer match because I received free admission. Not my cup of tea but I’d still like to see the indoor leagues do well.
I am in total agreement with those that think futsal, not American indoor soccer is the way to go for the new league. Futsal is NOT boring to play, nor to watch. It is a fast, skilled game. And it is growing immensely internationally. I think it would attract a lot of spectators as it is already attracting lots of players in the U.S. Great for skills development.
Futsal is great for skills development, but will not hold the American attention span like indoor soccer can. As for facilities there are plenty of indoor soccer arenas across the country and most cities have a civic center or a municipal arena where indoor soccer can be played at the professional level.
I couldn’t see futsal working as a spectator sport here, but as a participant sport it very well could. Would certainly be great for youth development.
Futsal would probably work best in cities like NYC, Charlotte, Atlanta, Miami, LA. Places where basketball facilities outnumber hockey facilities by hundreds to one. I say Charlotte in particular because we have about 1000 basketball courts and the only one hockey rink that I know of — the one at the mall got converted to futsal then the mall closed.
“Does America Need More Indoor Soccer?”
No.
It has value for practice and fun, especially in the winter in cold climates…and that’s it.
As someone who has moved from the UK to the USA, I did wonder why football (don’t call it soccer!) hasn’t really caught on; specifically MLS. Naturally there is the fact that the big starts aren’t over here – but is that the real reason? Someone told me something one day and I’ve always considered that to be the real reason – advertising. USA loves advertising. NFL? Continual slots for adverts due to any number of breaks in the game. NBA? Four quarters, play breaks up a lot – good for adverts. MLB? A break every half inning plus numerous other ones with pitching changes. Lots of breaks = good for adverts = it gets shown on TV = it’s popular.
Football – one 15 minute break in between 90 minutes of non-stop action. That’s why football won’t catch on in the USA.
There is room for indoor in the winter months from November through February for an organized league both professional as well as semi pro. Advertising dollars for television are big, but the question you need to ask if how many people actually watch commercials? The answer is very few as most Americans including myself detest commercials so that is not really that valid. Besides going to an actual game is much more fun than watching it on TV. Other forms of media such as the interenet can help further the game for those who want their fix for watching. Baseball, basketball and football are ingrained in the American culture, but times are changing and soccer is gaining in popularity. MLS has actually done well considering the league has only been in existence for about 15 years. If teams ran more like businesses and keep their spending in check then they will be more successful on the professional level. Furthermore, companies will sponsor teams regardless of television if you show them a value proposition for their dollars and soccer/futbol fans typically have money to spend on the game.
“KT — I’m curious, why do you think futsal’s popularity has grown so much worldwide in the past two decades as a spectator sport if that’s the case?”
I should have said “In America.”
Futsal as a spectator sport in America is an absolute non-starter. You will never – and I mean NEVER, I will pay real money in a bet never – sell tickets to Americans to watch futsal in any reasonable numbers over the course of time.
If you’re going to bring up the “everybody in the rest of the world loves it, why won’t Americans?” argument, I’d say we’ve had it for eons with regard to the outdoor brand of soccer (among other things).
And once someone brings up promotion and relegation, it’s time to go. Oy.
and did anyone notice this announcement yesterday? Yes, it’s true. Not one, but TWO pro indoor soccer leagues launched ON THE SAME DAY!!! It’s the sport of the future i tell ya!!!
ARENA SOCCER ASSOCIATION
2035 CLEVELAND AVE. N.W. CANTON, OHIO, 44709
PHONE: 330-455-4625 FAX: 330-497-6904
Arena Soccer Association Announces Startup
CANTON, Ohio – Steve M. Paxos announced today the formation of an exciting new venture in American sports entertainment – the Arena Soccer Association.
Years in the planning, the ASA will be bringing action packed, affordable sports entertainment to arenas throughout North America. A proven management team has installed a fiscally responsible business plan that ensures stability and growth in an ever-competitive professional sports scene.
“Arena soccer experienced great success in the 1980s and 90s,” said Paxos, president of the new league. “Sports fans loved it – but corporate mistakes stunted its growth. We believe that by applying the ASA’s basic business principles, arena soccer will flourish once again.”
Born in the fun-filled 1970s, arena soccer made a giant splash with a sports-crazed public craving nonstop action at affordable prices. It attracted families who couldn’t shell out half a week’s income to attend a sporting event. It enticed college students seeking a hip “date night” that didn’t break the bank. By the early 1980s, fans were packing many arenas to see the wild sport that was dubbed “human pinball”.
Paxos formed the Canton Invaders as part of the new American Indoor Soccer Association in 1984 – then served as league commissioner from 1988 until 2000. The league became the National Professional Soccer League in 1990 and the foresight and guidance provided by Paxos’ management team made it America’s longest-running professional indoor soccer league.
The ASA is tapping into that experience. Two key members of the NPSL’s executive team will serve in similar roles in the ASA. Chuck Murr is vice president of media relations and Sally Rodgers is director of business and accounting. Other executives with decades of sport management knowledge will soon be joining the ASA.
They will bring the expertise that helped transform the NPSL from four struggling clubs into an enterprising 15-team league across the United States and Canada. The NPSL enjoyed continuity with expansion, packed arenas, and nationally televised games on ESPN.
“Arena soccer is America’s version of the world’s most popular sport,” Paxos said. “The most exciting aspects of soccer are scoring goals – and great goalkeeper saves. An arena field approximately onefifth the size of a World Cup pitch means roughly five times the scoring chances. There are infinitely more skillful and athletic opportunities throughout the course of a game.”
The ASA is meeting with ownership groups across America and Canada that have expressed interest in being part of the league’s inaugural season in 2011.
Original teams will be based in mid-America, with plans of coast-to-coast play and innovative ideas regarding television.
“There’s no limit to the extent of expansion,” Paxos said. “The only criteria for ownership is to stick with the plan, support fellow owners, and let the sport sell itself.”
For further information e-mail: chuck@arenasoccer.net=
Well it is great to see more leagues sprouting up, but I think you guys are still missing the BIG picture. There needs to be several different levels across the country eg. Pro1, Pro2 and Semi Pro. It looks as if the USL has missed the mark after listening to their press conference in Rochester today since they will only have approximately 8 teams. This ASA League hopefully learned from the past failures of the AISA/NPSL since they have the same operators. I guess some soccer is better than no soccer and maybe one day these leagues will get on the same page.
Peter, can we read into the Milwaukee Wave-Chicago Red Eleven co-ed indoor game as any type of relationship building or brand building, or was it simply a one-off event?
I disagree that futsal cannot be a spectator sport. Obviously, you have not watched high level futsal, like they have in the professional leagues in Brazil. It’s a much more exiting and technical game than American indoor soccer.
Futsal is awesome.
Futsal is great to play, but somewhat boring to watch. I have watched some international matches and I prefer indoor with boards. If you know much about the American indoor soccer version there is a lot of strategy behind the game and the better players rarely use the boards unless as a last resort. Anyway whatever version of soccer thrives in the US I am all for as I love the game.
There is only one question that needs answered. Can you do it regionally?
If you can’t do minor league soccer regionally, you are asking for trouble. End of story.
As far as futsal goes, when FIFA took it over, and increased the court size to that of team handball, all the excitement and fast action went out the door. I’d rather see the British version of 5/6 a side (no walls), played with the old MISL 6.5′x12′ goals. I think if indoor went back to its roots (i.e. MISL 1), and got rid of the gimmicks (MPS, huge goals), it might have a chance. Don’t know how much, but at least a chance.
“I disagree that futsal cannot be a spectator sport. Obviously, you have not watched high level futsal, like they have in the professional leagues in Brazil. It’s a much more exiting and technical game than American indoor soccer.”
When they import Brazil’s professional leagues here to play, we’ll see.
It’s slow. It’s boring. Brazilians do tricks, which is great, but if I want to watch tricks, I’ve got YouTube. As a spectator sport for which people pay money, it’s an absolute non-starter in the United States. Absolute, complete, 100 percent, won’t happen, can’t be done in America. If one of these leagues (or another) goes the futsal route, it’ll last a month and draw a handful of people.
If it is economcially viable then why not? As long as it is attracting fans to the games then I think it shoudl be encouraged
Is indoor football more or less popular than outdoor football and what is the reason for it, that is what needs to be addressed and answered, players woudl develop different skill sets from predominantly plaing indoors and then struggle when in outdoor leagues
Indoor soccer, NO! Futsal, YES! Smaller ball, more touches, better skill development, no hockey boards, no silly ricochets & caroms, no penalty boxes.
I would love to see the sport of soccer become more recognized throughout the United States. There are countless reasons as to why it hasn’t yet, but I can see indoor being the first step.
As I watched the World Cup, I made it a topic of discussion with many people I encountered day to day. The recurring theme I found with Americans and following soccer is that they get “bored,” “there’s not enough excitement,” and “there’s not enough scoring.”
In a sense, the last statement is correct. How many games have you seen where after 90 minutes of play, plus overtime, the final score is still 1-0 or 2-1? American spectators of sport get a thrill from scoring. Basketball yields scores into double, and sometimes triple digits. It may be a part of culture, the quick, instant gratification. Indoor soccer is typically a faster paced game with more scoring which brings appeal to Americans.
The numerous other popular sports in the US (baseball, basketball, hockey, etc) pose a distraction from soccer. As a kid, there are so many choices in regards to sport that the odds of choosing to focus on soccer are much less than in other countries where soccer is one of the top rated in popularity. It’s a generational problem to tackle as well. If parents push their kids toward baseball, they will progress in baseball, and grow up to push their own kids into baseball. Soccer has already been popular for generations in other countries.
I agree with Steve Marino’s point too. The US is driven prominently by profit margin. The big TV networks will broadcast what will generate the most revenues. If there was a way soccer could provide TV networks with more opportunity to make money off adverts, there’s a strong chance it’d be shown more.
Soccer does have advertising value – sponsors’ names are emblazoned across the front (and sometimes back) of every players jersey, and the revolving boards around the field carry adverts as well. Not to mention while watching soccer matches, they overlay adverts/brand names on the bottom of the screen (bottom scroller-style, i.e. “this match brought to you by worldsoccershop.com”, etc.). I haven’t seen the third-type of advertising anywhere but on US soccer broadcasts.
So the no-time-for-advertising point can be countered easily.
I just think that the argument that American fans like high-scoring, lots-of-points, many instant-gratification instances type games is the main reason soccer doesn’t take off. What about baseball? While at the stadium, fans drink, eat, sing-along and are constantly entertained by the announcer/kiss-cam/mascots.
I usually use these points to counter the “low scoring”/”boring” comments about soccer:
Basketball: So high scoring that no one cares about the game until the last two minutes of the fourth-quarter (whuich lasts for an hour).
Football: 21-7 is just 3-1. And the instant-gratification from great catches and tackles? Same in soccer when players execute great passes, feints, dribbles, shots, goalie saves, etc. It’s just that we don’t replay it 20 times after the “play” is over. It’s always flowing and one play just evolves into the next.
Scoreless ties? I’ve seen many crappy, bore 0-0 draws. I’ve also seen absolutely brilliant, edge of the seat 0-0 draws. They just don’t watch enough to get to balance the crappy games with great ones. A European team may play upwards of 40 games a season. An NFL team plays at the most, 20 (?).
As long as it don’t interfere with any outdoor leagues I guess. Outdoor should be are main priority. I was all against it but it would be something to watch in the winter months even though I think it is like a last twitch for a dying man. The only reason they are doing it because they are in a sinking ship and going down fast. The have only have two teams in D2 which I would not be surprise it Austin left and a D3 which is a glorified PDL. I think they are probably going to jump ship too. With that being said it would be kind cool and if it is fifa sanction that mean it would be on fifa 2011 video game.
I am the son of the owner of the 1790 cincinnati kings.He said that 1790 cincinnati kings and the louisville lightning most likely will join the I-league if the USL get at least two team near cincinnati and louisville.
by
kyle bavis
8/24/10