Portland Timbers to MLS in 2011 – USL-1 Northwest teams gone – Minnesotans reflect on the loss
Major League Soccer announced today that the Portland Timbers will be the newest team to expand into the fast growing MLS market. Earlier this week, the Vancouver Whitecaps were announced to be moving to MLS also in 2011. Last night, the Seattle Sounders played their inaugural game in MLS after being announced as an MLS team a year and a half ago.
What all three of these teams have in common, beside their proximity, is their history in both the old North American Soccer League (NASL) and the United Soccer Leagues (USL). That history has also created a fine rivalry between the teams, which is something that MLS may have only with the Los Angeles Galaxy and Chivas USA.
The old Portland Timbers began play in the NASL in 1975 where they played until 1982. (The league folded in 1985.) The current USL Timbers were founded only 8 years ago, in 2001. As the team starts their 9th season in the league, the supporters group called the Timbers Army is the strongest in the USL and will likely follow through to the new MLS team.
The Seattle Sounders enjoyed a successful debut last night in the MLS season opener. However, the team would have had another silly MLS marketing name if the fans of the team hadn’t stood up and demanded that the team carry the name that they wore on the uniforms for both the NASL when they played from 1974 until 1983 and again with the A-League which morphed into the USISL and finally the USL. The Sounders have a fine history and the fact that the team has sold 22,000 season tickets is all that needs to be said about Seattle soccer history and the support for the team.
The Vancouver Whitecaps also share a long history, but the team name has not always been the same. The Vancouver 86ers were the pro team that played in the Canadian Soccer League starting in 1986. The name “86ers,” was reflective of the year the team was founded and commemorated the city’s founding in 1886. The 86ers played in that league until it folded in 1992 at which time they moved into the American Professional Soccer League. The APSL became the A-league and then the USISL and later the USL. In 2001 the team took the name, Whitecaps.
Inside Minnesota Soccer checked in with a few members of the original Thunder organization to see how they felt about the Portland move to MLS and the end of an era of USL teams in the Northwest. Amos Magee, Peter Wilt and Manny Lagos all have been involved in both the USL and MLS. They share their thoughts along with USL and MLS analyst Bruce McGuire.
Amos Magee spent 12 seasons with the Thunder as a player and 2 more as head coach. He played part of 3 seasons in MLS and is now Director of Soccer Development for the Portland Timbers as well as assistant coach. Amos reflected,
I think that MLS expansion will continue to add to increased coverage and interest in MLS and soccer in general. The USL 1st Division will benefit from this increased interest. The business model needs to be changed by the USL and I hope that they (the owners and USL) can figure out how to make this league more navigable and profitable. I am hopeful that once the financial crisis abates and there is a renewed surge of money and optimism, the USL will significantly expand to the right markets with the right owners.
Amos Magee
Manny Lagos spent his early professional years playing with the Thunder before having a very successful career in MLS. The former player now is back where things started, filling the role of President of the Minnesota USL-1 team. Manny commented on the Portland loss,
They’ve been a great franchise in our league and will be missed. In some ways, the loss may be tough for USL, but it is also very telling that the three newest MLS franchises have now been from USL markets. How this will shape USL in the future will remain to be seen, but I do know the future of soccer in North America is very bright. Both on and off the field, domestically and internationally, the level and interest of USL continues to grow.
Manny Lagos
Peter Wilt is not currently a Minnesotan, but he was at one time when he served as the Thunder’s President, GM and part owner from November, 1994 through the 1997 season. He went on to work with numerous soccer teams including Chicago Fire where he was the team’s first president and general manager. Peter is currently President/CEO and Part Owner of the Chicago Red Stars of the Women’s Professional League. Peter has seen and worked with many teams so he brings a different historical perspective.
USL is losing some very good markets to MLS, but it will not kill the League. Second division soccer will always have an audience in North America. The landscape will always change based on interested and qualified ownership and available markets. The player salaries, travel costs and revenue opportunities will shift over time – sometimes up, sometimes down, but there will always be a place for relatively affordable professional soccer. It tends to be cyclical. If you look back at the mid-90s and the merger of the A-league and USISL, you will see lessons that are being repeated now. New teams or even new leagues will eventually crop up to replace the Vancouvers, Portlands, Seattles and Torontos.
Peter Wilt
Bruce McGuire grew up playing soccer in Rochester MN where he learned to love the game. It wasn’t until years later that he developed his current passion and insatiable thirst for knowledge about the players, teams and leagues from around the world. This interest was the catalyst for duNord Futbol, a blog Bruce wrote and edited for nearly 4 years in which time he became a nationally known expert on soccer. Bruce brings another interesting perspective on the league from a Minnesota supporter’s vantage point.
While this might be a sad period for USL, losing some of their most storied teams, it’s a great time for soccer in America and that is what I care about most.
As a Thunder supporter it’s really unfortunate to lose 3 big rivals. Over the years I have come to despise the teams from the Northwest. But they have owners who understand the future is up, not sideways.
The USL now has a prime opportunity to fill the void and grow the 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of soccer in this country that they currently control, and over the next 10 years if they don’t do that, then someone else will. It also leaves a vacuum in the landscape that I think the entire middle of the country can exploit. Let’s see St Louis, Milwaukee, Omaha, Lincoln, Madison, Quad Cities, Des Moines, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Detroit, Indianapolis, Wichita, Cincinnati, Memphis, Little Rock, Nashville, Grand Rapids, Champaign, Dayton, Boise, Helena, etc etc etc, jump on this chance and blow it wide open.
Bruce McGuire
Comments are closed.
Helena! I think Missoula might hold more potential.
My joy at the Timbers joining the MLS with Seattle and Vancouver is tempered by my sadness in Portland leaving USL-1. The league is essential to the long-term health of football in North America and provided a welcome and spirited home for the Timbers, Sounders and Whitecaps. We should remember that the Whitecaps and Timbers will be playing in USL-1 in 09 and 10. There will be plenty of opportunity for the league to grow in other areas, but most importantly, Minnesota, Montreal, and other franchises will have two last chances to kick us and the Whitecaps around. I look forward, also, to national and international cup competitions. Go, Thunder!
I was with Bruce until he uttered, “Little Rock.”
I was with Bruce until he uttered, “they have owners who understand that the future is up, not sideways” interesting comment when related to growth, marketing and business development…sideways is what is missing…sideways brings depth. I hope USL positions itself with a thoughtful competitive growth model…this is going to be interesting.
Mr. McGuire is correct that the middle of the country is wide open. It is not for no reason that Creighton sends players to MLS every year. A USL team could start playing at Morrison Stadium in Omaha without having to make any modifications.
I keep waiting for MLS to realize that this is not the economic climate for aggressive expansion. It looks like I will be waiting for awhile.
Nathan…
everything I’ve seen from Seattle thus far flies in the face of your criticism that this is not a good economic climate for expansion. On the contrary MLS is in prime position BECAUSE of the economic conditions. You can still go to an MLS game and get good seats for $15-20. How much does an NBA, NHL, or NFL ticket cost?
Soccer is, always has been, and always will be a blue collar sport. Its lack of cost will only help it in these tough times.
Djam
No, MLS is not in prime position BECAUSE of the economic conditions. Seattle was awarded a franchise in late 2007 and the club has Joe Roth/Paul Allen money behind it. Their situation is anomalous. Portland already has a funding gap.
Basically, MLS announced further expansion the same week the Federal Reserve announced that it would send $1 trillion into the financial system by purchasing Treasury bonds and mortgage securities. Cheap tickets or not, things are grim. Prudence should be the order of the day. I want MLS to succeed, but it looks to me like they are unwittingly laying the groundwork for future contraction.
Both of you are right.
Seattle will do well…someone understands authentic branding and development and how to market to their base.
Portland?
Vancouver?
They need to wait…look at their city/state/province budgets.
The area can’t support 3 MLS teams with the current economy.
In a few years however…USL merging into MLS as as blue collar sport with a solid profitable business model and an international/local approach…???
Vancouver sold 5000 season tickets from when they announced last Wed. until Sunday. The team announced yesterday the first phase of their season ticket orders have sold out. So basically from Wed. afternoon through Sunday afternoon, 4.5 days, they sold 5k in season tickets. That is nothing short of amazing! There are current MLS teams that don’t sell that many season tickets.
I have to agree, if you can afford to market the idea, the USL and MLS tickets are some of the best values for your money today in the sports entertainment business.
Nathan – I respectfully disagree. While the NBA is having a budget crisis MLS is thriving. This is not a league designed to to fill 80,000 seat stadiums at $50 per ticket. It never will be either, and nobody is interested in it becoming that (only the BIGGEST clubs in Europe have large venues and high prices).
So MLS is adding Vancouver and Portland… basically consuming USL franchises that were ALREADY doing well by MLS standards/expectations. How is that dangerous??? I can see the worry about a true expansion team, but like Seattle, these aren’t true expansion teams and they aren’t in true expansion markets. They only one I am worried about is Philadelphia. Its clear why they took these cities over St. Louis for example, they aren’t building from scratch. Are you seriously suggesting Vancouver, Seattle, or Portland will be in jeopardy of contraction? Seriously? I just want to make sure I get where you’re coming from.
One more bit from me, I meant to post this several weeks ago but ran out of hours in a day. Anyway, thanks to Rich @ CCN for this one. Again, another reason why an “affordable” sports product could thrive in this environment. Another reason why USL needs to up their profile…NOW!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123630159510147111.html
I’m predicting St. Louis will likely go USL-1. I think they’ve seen MLS franchises built from the ground floor up in cities with rich soccer traditions, and can likely emulate that success, especially given St. Louis’ legendary position as a soccer community as well.
I’m getting the vibe that whenever Jeff Cooper comes up with the right scenario, Garber will likely let him in. It’s a perfect natural rivalry for Chicago & Kansas City.
I hate when people plug their blogs in talkback sections, but I only mention mine because I just did an article on this topic.
St. Louis is a strong candidate, don’t get me wrong. I was in Ohio when the league started up, and I saw the Hunt family construct a GREAT soccer specific venue in Crew Stadium for pennies on the dollar compared to what NFL and MLB teams are spending on their stadiums. I just think that MLS saw Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland were safer bets.
I’m also not advocating reckless spending, but I do think the “lets stick our heads in the sand, bury our wallets in the backyard” psychology of this crisis is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Spending in and of itself is not bad, but “bad spending” is. I think MLS is demonstrating some smart spending with these markets, and the timing couldn’t be better because of the value they are offering compared to competitors.
MLS is doing exactly what it needs to do to survive.
By expanding (and not radically; a team or two a year for a handful of years is relatively minor as far as USA sports history goes)the league gets an injection of new capital from expansion team owners and new fans from new markets while raising its brand profile nationally. Its structure (co-op style ownership) is keeping player saleries down, which is the biggest expense a pro sport has.
The flip side is that as long as saleries are repressed and the country’s (and world’s) best players remain overseas, fan growth within each market, excluding the USL-to-MLS bump, will be minimal from year to year and vulnerable to a franchise’s on-pitch performance. And soccer will continue to be a second-tier pro sport in this country.
The question is, “Will MLS loosen the purse strings when the economy improves to bring the best players here?”
If yes, then MLS moves into this country’s first tier. If no, then it will stagnate and remain vulnerable to the USL’s more individualistic ownership structure.
valid points – but I guess my position is there is there is no need for MLS to become “first tier” to use your words. There’s no need to complete against the NBA, NFL, or MLB for fans, because soccer has such a different demographic that it draws its base from. Sure there will be some overlap, but at its heart soccer has its own fans, and MLS gains nothing from competing with or trying to be competitive with those other sports. I think Don Garber gets that.
Its the worlds most popular sport for two reasons… 1) all you need to play is a ball (or something like a ball), and 2) it doesn’t cost a fortune to go to a game. A few years back I went on a tour of EPL stadiums and saw 8 different Premier League games and one FA Cup game, average cost per ticket… $25
Djam makes a good point about “bad spending.” In poor economic conditions putting your head in the sand is not always the best way to go. Most smart investors will see opportunities to expand their holdings. Instead of investing in anything and everything, they are looking to make the best of their investments.
Likewise, fans will be looking to make better decisions with their money. MLS is more competitive in that market. It is an opportunity that should be exploited. If they can get more people out to matches now, hopefully those people will stay when the economy gets better.
The difference with sports franchises and most other businesses is that owners aren’t in it for the money. No one is buying NFL or MLB franchises to get rich. It is a rich person’s hobby. With MLS it is understood that at best one might make a small yearly profit. The ego and the passion for soccer are what leads someone to investing in MLS.
The problems in the NBA and NHL are more due to excessive growth than they are the economic climate. Remember, this is the same thing that happened with the NASL. It is also what is happening with the auto industry. There were years of phenominal growth and then when things slowed down, a recession hit. Everyone was so addicted to growth and money that they didn’t see the cliff approaching. You’ve got to plan ahead more than one year into the future. That is what I like so much about the Garber-era MLS. They have been so cautious and well planned since he took over.
I’m afraid I disagree with you on this point, djam. The disposible income dollar is a finite resource for the entertainment and service industries. Therefore, restaurants, sports, films, television, video game manufacturers, recreational vehicle makers, and innumerable other companies compete for that dollar, whether directly or indirectly. MLS needs to make it case that it puts out a quality product just as much as any other member of the leisure industries does (and do).
The reason that soccer needs to become a first-tier sport here, from my viewpoint as a consumer, is that I wish to see live soccer at it’s highest level live as often as I can afford. The best way for that to happen is if a USA based soccer league becomes the best, or at least one of the best, soccer leagues in the world.
To do that , the league needs to equal or better the income levels that the best leagues in the world take in, and then invest it in the best players and venues.
And to do that, they will have to have revenue from media and sponsors. Revenue from media and sponsors is driven by the numbers of people who wish to consume the product that MLS puts out. To induce that level of revenue, they are going to have to generate the kind of audience numbers that are close to, if not equal to, what the NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL each do. Not to mention what the EPL, Serie A, Bundesliga 1 and La Liga do.
Now, if you are correct and there is a large body of soccer fans who are currently untapped, so to speak, by MLS, fine. But there better be enough to eventually produce thirty, forty or fifty thousand of them in an MLS stadium for each match, along with tens of millions of them following through the media.
If not, we’ll always have second-tier quality soccer to consume.
Great discussion
Thanks Brian.
why do we need 50 thousand people in a stadium for MLS to be a top level league? Thats where we just don’t see eye to eye. When I went on my EPL tour there was only ONE stadium that I sat with more that 30 at, and that was Old Trafford.
The EPL is the best league in the world, yet you’re telling me MLS has higher standards for attendance??? The one key component I agree with you on is the marketing and sponsorship factor, as well as television. That’s where the Prem is king.
As a fan though, I don’t need MLS to be the EPL. For those of us who have been around since day 1 (I was there when the Crew whipped DC United on opening day 4-0), I think we’re quite happy with the growth we’ve seen, AND the fact that the new stadiums are NOT 50,000 seat venues.
sorry – one more point… its a little odd you threw the NHL in there. Only in Minnesota would anyone consider the NHL one of the “first tier” sports. Hockey is a regional sport, and for that matter only caters to the elite in terms of income (its expensive, equipment, ice time, etc). If you don’t think hockey is a regional sport, venture outside the region once or twice. I once watched a Florida Panthers home game with about, errrr, 900 other people.
just to shed some light: here are the average attendance figures from 2008
MLB: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance?sort=home_avg&year=2008&seasonType=2
NHL: http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/attendance?year=2008 (not ONE NHL team averaged more than 20,000)
NBA: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/attendance (not ONE NBA team averaged more than 20,000)
The English Premier League: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/stats/attendance?league=eng.1&year=2008&seasontype=1&cc=5901
Its grown since I went on my trip, but 9 of the 20 teams still average under 30,000 per match
So while I am buying your general argument on revenue, I think it applies to sponsorship and television – attendance, sorry.
Sorry for the flood of posts, I like having the numbers out there though for the discussion
To keep my post length down, I will address Djam’s posts one at a time, although there will be a bit of overlap.
Also, since he was rather insulting and condescending (I’ll point out where as we go along) I will be a bit also.
Post number one.
You lead with,”why do we need 50 thousand people in a stadium for MLS to be a top level league?”
I never typed that. Here’s what I did type (Caps added): “But there better be enough to eventually produce THIRTY, FORTY OR FIFTY thousand of them in an MLS stadium for each match.”
So, your opening statement was a distortion my position. Please refrain from doing that. I didn’t do that to you.
The reason is that with figures like that, we’ll be roughly matching the EPL in attendance, which will bring an EPL sized revenue stream from ticket sales, concessions and, in some cases, parking. Every dollar counts.
So, if fans want the general high quality of play that the EPL (or other top soccer leagues) provide, then yes, MLS is going to have to progress to EPL attendance standards.
We are in agreement on the relative importance of media and corporate revenue versus attendance revenue. TV, radio and sponsorship bring in more money directly than ticket sales. But remember attendance figures are one of the factors that induce the media to pay sports franchises all that money. And it is a factor in determining how much extra news coverage they give the club. Coverage is free advertising for the teams.
The bottom line is (generally speaking): More people in seats, more money to clubs. More money to clubs, more to invest on better players, coaches and facilities. Better p,c and f, better quality of soccer.
As for your preferences as a fan, I can’t argue with you. If you prefer to see second-tier soccer, or at least don’t mind not seeing first-tier, that fine. I’m not in any position to tell you you’re wrong for your tastes.
And I am not dissatisfied with the pace of MLS’s growth. I’m just dissatisfied with their level of play. I do have the belief that they will eventually become one of the best leagues in the world. And I know it won’t be overnight.
But I, and many others, would like for the good ol’ US of A have one of the best, if not the best, domestic soccer league in the world, so I can more easily afford to see top flight soccer. And for that to happen, the 16,000 per that MLS is bringing in will not cut it.
Post number two.
In this country, Hockey as a major spectator sport is not regional. It is somewhat more popular in colder climes (where many of the older, more established teams are), but it’s live spectator appeal is national. The figures you provide in your third post prove it.
There are 10 NHL franchises in cities where the water outdoors almost never freezes: Tampa Bay, Dallas, San Jose, Anaheim, Carolina,L.A., Atlanta, Florida, Nashville and Phoenix.
In 2008, 40% of those franchises were in the upper half of the league in attendance. And those franchises; Tampa Bay, Dallas, San Jose and Anaheim all finished with a roughly equal or higher per game average than the MLS’s league average.
In 2007 Tampa bay was 3rd. In 2006, second.
Dallas has finished as high as 6th in this decade.
People down south is watching live hockey, too.
Oh, and this quote: “If you don’t think hockey is a regional sport, venture outside the region once or twice.”
Well, obviously I don’t think hockey is a regional sport. Therefor, by your logical construct, you are saying that I have not ventured outside the region.
A bit of bio here. Off the top of my head, these are among the states I have visited (not a complete list): Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Texas, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Wyoming, Kentucky, Montana, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland, Hawaii.
Here’s a list of countries and protectorates I have visited (again, not complete): Canada, Mexico, Japan, China (Hong Kong), the Philippines, The Mauritias (sp? Again, off the top of my head.)Guam, Okinawa.
While I am no Michael Palin, I have most certainly “ventured outside the region”. Please refrain from saying things about me in a public forum that are false. I have not done so about you.
The stance that the above implies is that I am somehow not as experienced as you, otherwise I would agree with you. It’s similar to the “You don’t agree with me because you don’t understand” line of reasoning. To use them while knowing practically nothing about who you are using them on is almost always egocentric and condescending. It’s not about experience. It’s about the evidence. Whether hockey is regional or not is debateable. Whether I have “ventured outside the region” is not.
Oh, yeah. It’s a shame you went to the Florida Panthers game where only 900 people showed. You should have gone to one of the other 40 where they averaged over 15,000. Might have had a better time.
haha, whoa tiger. Clearly I rubbed a hockey fan the wrong way, for that I apologize. To be honest I wasn’t directing my post at anyone in particular, I addressed certain aspects of multiple posts. I haven’t been in Minnesota very long but I am learning fast not to mess with hockey, its the sacred cow here when the fact is its a mere blip in most parts of the country. the FACT is hockey appeals to very small demographic, a micron of the size of football, baseball, or basketball. Thats all I was suggesting. Not my intention to be condescending, but thats the problem with blogs isn’t it??? Same problem with email and all the other nonpersonal communication we have these days, there is no “tone” so when someone disagrees with you or goes against your point of view the natural reaction is to demonize them or what they are saying. Let me clarify – as someone who has lived in more than 10 states and every region, I barely ever heard the word “hockey” until I moved here – and I don’t expect that to change much. While the sport clearly has all the makings of a good spectator event (which is probably why it does okay in some of the markets you’ve sighted) it has very little growth ahead of it, that is until you no longer need $X for equipment and $X fees for ice time, travel, etc. Not everyone has to have played a sport to appreciate it or become a devoted fan, but it sure does help.
Sorry you were so put off, definitely wasn’t my intention.
Djam, you seem to have missed the point. I’m not a particularly big fan of hockey, I just disagree with you on the extent of it’s popularity.
What I do have strong objection to is you saying things about ME and attributing views to ME that are simply NOT TRUE. It is the personal comments and distortions that poison what is in every other aspect a very pleasurable debate between you and I.
P.S. Will get to your third post in a few hours.
OK … well…I guess I’m onto another thread.