Westward Hos

I'm embarrased to admit that I get awfully tired of fans in MLS expansion cities.

Yes, I know-- I should be happy they care. But they just seem to think that nothing that's gone before in MLS has anything to do with what their city is doing now. We saw it this year with Toronto: best atmosphere in MLS? Almost without a doubt. Unprecedented fan support? Erm... no.

That said, Toronto appeared to have set the standard for MLS expansion by selling out nearly every game this year and by having a true soccer-knowledgeable public. The recipe for success appeared pretty clear: open up the team in a soccer-specific stadium, sell the game to true soccer supporters and get them to build a solid season ticket base.

But now MLS is contemplating expansion to Seattle, and the model, so far, can't be any more different. Seattle MLS will be playing in Qwest Field, a "cavernous" NFL stadium (note: the use of the adjective "cavernous" is required in any post about MLS in NFL stadiums).

Seattle fans like to point out that Qwest was designed for soccer and approved by Seattle taxpayers on that basis. Let's unpack that a little.

First, Seattle is not the first NFL stadium "designed" with soccer in mind. I'm reminded that some described Gillette Stadium the same way, so let's not pretend that "designed for soccer" means anything in the abstract. I'm perfectly willing to defer to fans who have been to Qwest and say that it's actually pretty good for soccer-- but no combination of curtains, tarps and sightlines will be able to make every fan forget that the upper deck is empty for MLS matches.

As for the "approved by taxpayers" bit-- I'm not quite sure it's relevant. Besides, if Seattle taxpayers were swayed by the "also designed for soccer" bit, it's because they were already 90% convinced by the "NFL stadium" bit.

Even accepting, as I do, Seattle fans' contention that Qwest has a great atmosphere for games of the lower division soccer team, the Seattle Sounders, even when there are only 10,000 in the stadium, is the game day experience as good as it would be in a soccer-specific stadium (SSS)? Seattle fans might point to games at Crew Stadium, where a somnolent crowd chews on brats and engages in drinking games revolving around how many crosses Frankie Hejduk will mishit. That's a great point: an SSS is no guarantee of a great crowd. From what I've heard, Seattle fans will put Columbus to shame. But all things being equal, wouldn't the same crowd of Seattle fans be better in an SSS than in Qwest? Of course it would.

And then there's the economic side of things. Seattle fans are quick to point out that gazillionaire Paul Allen is involved in the ownership group-- and may be allowing MLS Seattle to play rent-free in Qwest. Their logic goes something like this: Paul Allen has made lots of money. Therefore, he doesn't make any mistakes, and this team will make money.

Frankly, that's an idiotic argument made only by people who don't understand business. Rich men make "mistakes" all of the time-- they underestimate the importance of certain factors or over-emphasize others. You don't think rich guys were buying subprime mortgages? Frequently, the rich will take huge, but calculated, risks precisely because they are rich. Investing in soccer in the US certainly falls into that category.

So, while I'll defer to any guy as successful as Allen, that doesn't mean his actions shouldn't be scrutinized. It is harder for MLS teams to make money in an NFL stadium than a soccer-specific stadium. Even rent free, an MLS team will forego certain revenue streams, like concessions, parking and merchandising. Even if the Qwest contract gives MLS Seattle 100% of those revenue streams, certain other revenue streams simply won't be available, like stadium naming rights. It's conceivable that playing rent free in Seattle will actually cost MLS more in terms of lost revenue. And it's certainly going to be harder to build a season ticket base when capacity in Qwest won't be meaningfully limited. This summer, you couldn't score a ticket to Toronto's BMO Field, even though the team stopped scoring sometime in March. For all but the highest demand games, anyone in Seattle will be able to walk up to Qwest on game day and buy a ticket. I'm sure they'll sell a decent number of season tickets because Seattle is a good market, but will they sell as many as they would have in an SSS? Of course not.

Finally, we have the old cannard that Seattle is going to be a great MLS market because the NASL was popular in Seattle. Can't we put this one to rest yet? There simply isn't any correlation between NASL success and MLS success. Times have changed, the product has changed, and, even if that weren't true, the metrics of success have changed.

None of the above means Seattle MLS won't be successful. There are a number of factors that point to success: I like the ownership group, I like the downtown location of Qwest and I like the fans' obvious, if shrill, passion for the sport. I am conscious of the quote from Voltaire: "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien"... the best is the enemy of the good. In other words, striving for perfection can undermine real progress. So, let's not oppose Seattle on the basis that there are, theoretically, better approaches to building a team. But, at the same time, let's not sweep 12 years of experience under the rug.