Apologies for this week’s late roundup — I had to retrieve my now-repaired laptop from the shop and get settled back in before writing this. On the bright side (for you, the information-craving consumer of sports subsidy news, surely not for me, the lowly scribe of such reports), even more stuff happened while I was at the store, so you get to enjoy bonus material as a result!
- The Chicago Bears owners responded to Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker’s demand that before getting any state help with a new stadium, the team must pay off the state’s $350-500 million in remaining debt on Soldier Field: How about $25 million instead? The response from legislators has been mostly LOLBears: State Rep. Kam Buckner called the offer “inadequate” and “disrespectful,” while Pritzker deadpanned, “I’m not sure what it’s tied to, what they’re asking for in return for it. I think if they’re donating $25 million to support the people of Chicago or the people of Illinois, that’s always a good thing.”
- Did the Cleveland Browns owners forget to mention that as part of their new stadium in Brook Park, they’re considering charging personal seat license fees of as much as $149,300? Must have slipped their mind, along with how much of those fees would apply to the Haslams’ share of stadium costs and how much to the public’s $600 million and up cost. (Pretty sure the answers are “all” and “none,” respectively, since that’s how it always works.)
- Also on the Browns front, the Crain’s Cleveland Business editorial board writes that Mayor Justin Bibb’s proposed deal to get $80 million worth of payments in exchange for letting the team move to Brook Park “leaves a bit of a bitter taste” but may be the best Cleveland can get given that “team owners hold the leverage in an environment where cities are desperate to retain their teams.” Or, at least, they do when the state legislature hands out $600 million to the team to help it move from one part of the state to another. Fixed that for you!
- The Seattle Sounders owners are seeking outside investors to buy a minority share of the team, with the proceeds possibly being used toward building a new soccer-only stadium, possibly at its Longacres training site in nearby Renton. That’s a lot of possiblys, for sure, but Sportico values the Sounders at $825 million and soccer-specific stadiums generally go for less than half that, so … possibly.
- CT United F.C. will begin play in MLS NEXT Pro next year playing home games at venues scattered across Connecticut, while it waits for a new stadium to be built in Bridgeport — which is to say, while it waits for the state to decide to give it $127 million to build one. “On the merits of the actual math, the jobs, the housing, the economic impact and aligning with what the priorities have been stated for this administration, it aligns perfectly,” said CT United owner Andre Swanston, take his word for it, he’s just a disinterested hundred-millionaire.
- “Will the College Football Playoff title game bring economic boost to the Tampa Bay area?” WTSP-TV actually looked at the results the last time it hosted the CFP championship in 2017, and nope: A promised $250-350 million economic impact turned out to be just $720,000 in added sales tax receipts, while hotel tax receipts actually went down. “If that were the case, why is every major city and community bidding on these major events?” asked Hillsborough County Commissioner Ken Hagan. Because you’re all idiots?
- No, the “sky stadium” Saudi Arabia plans to build for the 2034 World Cup doesn’t look like this, it looks like this. The former is AI generated, the latter, honestly, is probably AI generated at well, but maybe AI generated on purpose by the people who actually plan to build it? With more than half of the internet now AI slop, it’s arguably bigger news when something isn’t a fake, no?
- And finally, if you’ve worn out the entertainment value of the yule log, we now have the Athletics Las Vegas stadium construction camera. You’re welcome.
I’m sorry, anyone who buys a PSL is a sap.
And as for why municipalities keep trampling each other to bid for these events…I suspect it is part the elected officials’ desire to go to said events as VIPs and part the fact that we, as a country and a culture, have long had a stupid relationship with sports.
They may not even be getting tickets to the game. They may just be getting a plate at a banquet two days before the game.
“USF director of sports management Michelle Harrolle… says the impact is about more than dollars and cents. ‘People aren’t spending $250 million at that one time… we get known as Champa Bay, and that has a huge impact on businesses wanting to come here, people wanting to move here.\'”
Might be the funniest sports biz quote I’ve ever read, and from the head of a whole-ass academic program at a state university, no less. Out of all the reasons that people move to Tampa/St Pete (and Florida, more broadly), the successes of local sports teams and the abundance of sporting events in the area are somewhere between the number of Waffle Houses per square mile and the distance to the closest auto mall with left-hand drive vehicles on sale on the list of the biggest factors.
The “economic impact” of even the biggest sporting events in Florida is usually equal to a week of sales at Publix stores across the state. Maybe what this state needs is even more Publix stores than we already have? (Wait, I just gave the developers more terrible ideas.)
I really don’t get why decision makers in Florida go for these events at all. From October to May every year hotels across the state are packed. They don’t need events like this at all. We now have decades of evidence that major football games in Florida add Jack squat to the economy (except for maybe that Jacksonville Super Bowl, that one probably added something, lots of money in mirage fees for those cruise ships they had to use for hotels!)
Moorage fees
FWIW, I think mirage fees is just as accurate…
It’s part of what makes the incremental golden parachutes to the Citrus Bowl even more absurd. The last round of renovations actually brought the capacity *down*, and the bowl game attendance in the years after the renos and before covid were noticeably smaller than in the years prior to the renos (and still are today).
But these things happen in cities and states that have hitched their entire economies to the tourism wagon. Ironically, Jacksonville being a relatively unattractive destination actually helped its economy become more diversified and more resilient to the downturns like the one during the pandemic.
You are 100% correct.
Yet we live in a post-factual world. People in positions of power can just SAY things. Which, fine, you can say things. But those things you say actually end up impacting policy, and the distribution of taxpayer dollars, which could go toward making the lives of every citizen a little bit better.
But that would be silly, I guess.
MLS “franchise” values seem grossly inflated. Seattle has the advantage of a pretty legit fanbase and 30,000ish fans per game- but the Apple deal has been a disaster. I’ve heard that games not including Miami draw “hundreds of viewers”.
American soccer fans seem pretty happy following the EPL and other European leagues and the MLS hasn’t produced a legit star in its entire existence. Their whole business model seems very content with needless expansion and grifting Apple. I highly doubt any streamers will be lining up to pay them when this deal is up.
It was far too soon for MLS to move their product off broadcast tv entirely. You need to build a following. They had made some strides in that direction, but nowhere near where they needed to be.
Enjoy that Apple cash. You will be rebuilding your tv product from scratch whenever it ends.
I live in an MLS city. The only time I ever hear about the local team is when my friend who works for them gives us inside tidbits about what’s happening with them on any given week. Otherwise, they’re out of sight and out of mind… and judging by the empty seats at a *playoff* game that I was invited to last year, that seems to be the case for everyone other than the hardcore fans.
If MLS thinks it’s struggling for relevance now, just wait ’til Messi leaves and the World Cup bump recedes further into the background.
It’s wild to me how the MLS comes into existence and they’re mostly playing in NFL stadiums- so they have this summer schedule to avoid NFL competition and it’s when the stadiums are available. The downside to all this now is most teams have their own stadium- so scheduling isn’t a problem, and now when the league would want people watching- the NFL, NCAA and an exciting World Series suck up all the attention.
Yes if you go to traditional season the start of your season overlaps with American football- but your playoffs are in April/May. Baseball isn’t really on people’s radar. NHL and NBA playoffs are happening but they’re often night games- MLS could totally rule Saturday and Sunday afternoons when networks/streamers are craving content.
Pro outdoor soccer was traditionally played spring-to-fall in this country not to steer clear of pro football, but because there weren’t enough players available to play in the “traditional” window.
Without loan players from Europe, the NASL wouldn’t have had enough players for more than about six teams. And those players were only available from around April to around August.
It was not realistic to switch to the fall-to-spring calendar (in some places, it still is not) for stadium availability, weather concerns and player availability. Those are all less of a concern now. (Well, weather is still a concern, it’s just different.)
MLS (not “the MLS,” no one “plays in The Major League Soccer”) now has a financial incentive to play fall-to-spring, not only because of the playoff window you reference (not sure how strong that is, though, really – if you don’t like soccer, you don’t care when the playoffs are, and it’s not about what you’re competing with), but because aligning with worldwide transfer windows makes sense and you’re really only swapping June, July and part of August for December and January. (MLS already plays in all the other months anyway, having stretched its season out.)
With stadium availability in most markets less of an issue, yes, they could do it. And you could PLAY soccer in Chicago or Foxborough in January, just good luck selling tickets to it.
And MLS couldn’t really “totally rule Saturday and Sunday afternoons” no matter when they play. American leagues have always struggled on television, and, in the absence or perceived secondary-ness of sports they like, sports fans are not going to just suddenly start watching something they don’t care for, just because it’s on TV.
Putting it behind a streaming paywall is another concern. They saw Apple’s money and said damn the torpedoes. It feels like they have been trying to put a brave face on all of it, but the fundamental ennui of most sports fans towards domestic outdoor league soccer is still a thing.
There are no easy answers.
They’re always going to be of minor interest because they will never have the best players or coaches in the world, and there’s no incentive to pay attention to any of the teams once it’s clear they stink. Promotion/relegation would be a welcome addition.
All those things you mention are kinda true- but the summer schedule doesn’t exactly produce sellouts in Dallas, Houston, Orlando etc. Atlanta plays in a dome. I attended a pre-Messi Miami match, I can only say it was the most well attended event I’ve been to in a temporary stadium next to an airport and industrial park. They’ll have the same attendance issues all of south Florida has when retires.
There’s totally a window of opportunity for them holding playoff games in the spring where they can get much better viewership numbers and be more on the national media’s radar.
If Cleveland actually gets $80m (maybe 2x what it will cost to demolish and remediate the stadium site) from the team with no strings attached I think it is not a bad outcome.
They get some net cash (I am assuming the stadium debt is retired or close to it?) and their land back.
Funny, I remember when the Browns left everyone was saying how the city would be sorry and would one day build a much more expensive new stadium for a replacement team.
Well, the Browns were gone for about 4 years. And just 25 years later, that shiny new stadium is also obsolete and the Browns are leaving it behind.
Wait, what was the lesson supposed to be again?
Cleveland has now tried both playing hardball and softball with the NFL. Neither one worked out for them. Maybe NFL stadium deals are like global thermonuclear war…. the only way to win is not to play…
When will these cities learn? The Hoosier Dome later 20 years, Metrodome, Silverdome, TWA Dome all were considered obsolete in 20 years. Now Cleveland, Chicago and Denver have greedy NFL owners demanding replacements for their 20 something stadiums. The higher percentage of th cost the city picks up, the sooner owners will demand a new stadium.
CT United F.C.?
That’s the best name this minor league team could come up with?
It seems half the teams in MLS are either United, or F.C.
These guys couldn’t decide, and picked both.