It’s easy to be excited about the prospect of several new soccer stadiums being built (see story on page 14 of the August 28 issue).
Soccer fans have long been tired of their teams being treated as second-class, and a stadium of their own is the best way to show everyone that soccer has arrived.
To the show-off factor can be added some bottom-line issues.
MLS teams owning their own stadiums can control vital revenue streams associated with sporting events: parking, concessions, stadium signage, naming rights.
Several MLS clubs are currently stuck with horrible lease agreements.
There’s no greater single indicator of MLS owners’ long-term commitment to the league and sport than the decision to invest in stadium development.
The Hunts stepped forward with the Crew Stadium in Columbus.
We now have concrete plans for a stadium in Los Angeles, and there’s serious stadium talk in New Jersey and Chicago.
Why haven’t teams moved quicker on pushing stadium projects ahead?
There are lessons from the Crew Stadium, the one stadium project to date.
Everyone now forgets the problems the Hunts had getting support for their stadium. It’s a miracle they didn’t give up. Columbus area voters twice rejected referendums on stadium projects before the Hunts went ahead on their own.
It isn’t going to be easy to generate public support for a soccer stadium in areas such as Los Angeles, New Jersey and Chicago.
Then there’s the reality check: Things don’t look quite as good this year in Columbus, where crowds are down 3,200 for Year 2 of the Crew Stadium.
It’s fine and good to talk about alternative revenue streams, but there must be paying fans to make them flow. Will MLS clubs draw enough fans to cover the debt payments?
Fans have no right to ask for a stadium of their own if they don’t go to it.