(10-04-2017 07:14 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 06:39 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(10-04-2017 11:59 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(10-03-2017 07:56 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Personally I think MLS needs to get over themselves

No, MLS is right to want 20,000 seat stadiums with good sight lines for soccer and to prefer smaller filled stadiums over playing in NFL-sized venues. That model is working very well for MLS teams that have such stadiums. If other sports' teams or franchises have different desires, so be it.

If a pro franchise owner wants to build his own NFL palace, or if some Daddy Warbucks wants to donate the money for a college football team to have its own brand new stadium, that's fine, but MLS does just fine with its model.

Did I say an NFL sized venue? No. I said 40,000 for San Diego.

40,000 is still twice the size that most MLS teams prefer, unless they have decided to use an existing venue rather than paying for their own to be built. A team that draws 40,000 for one game and 15,000 to 20,000 for almost every other game should absolutely not build a stadium that seats 40,000, which is why MLS stadiums built for the soccer team are doing it right.

It would be a really dumb business decision for an MLS owner to pay for a stadium that is built and sized for someone else's purposes, and I doubt that will ever happen. Using someone else's stadium while not having to pay for the cost of building the stadium (as in Seattle or Atlanta) is an entirely different matter, obviously.

That's fine. Said MLS owners can pay for everything themselves then. Easy peasy.