MLS History--the Florida Fiasco

[Rover]

From SoccerPrime:

"Rover, you are wrong. Miami had average MLS attendance. The only thing that was wrong was that the owner Horowitz decided that there was no money in MLS. Plain and simple. MLS got rid of Miami because it had no committed ownership, same as Tampa Bay Muntiny. Mutiny were even worse since they were a team placed there by MLS with no local ownership plan, Easy to target them for elimination.

Rant off.

If we want to go further with a MLS History thread, lets start one. We are off-topic now... "

In all the euphoria about RLS and seedy cheetos joining the league, it's worth looking back on the not-so-euphoric contraction of the two Florida teams following the 2001 season.

SoccerPrime and I disagree to a point on why these teams failed, but only in degree. The key problem most definitely was ownership. My point about Miami is that it never should have been an MLS city, and only was so due to some faulty demographic assumptions. It was destined to fail, even with better ownership. The team had no room to grow in a competitive sports market with a profound indifference to soccer.

Tampa Bay had ownership problems, but also a proven record of soccer support dating back to the NASL. It should have been successful by MLS standards, but poor teams and marginal ownership did them in. The Mutiny were operated by the league at the end. Same thing happened to Dallas, until Lamar Hunt saved the day. No such luck for Tampa Bay.

MLS appears to have learned from the experience. Both RSL and seedy cheetos have strong ownership, for one. I'm less sure about Jorge V., but by and large I think it's a good bet that both he and Dave Checketts are in MLS for the long term and have deep enough pockets to get past the expansion period.

Such was not the case with the Mutiny or Fusion. Both had some success on the field, but neither could put enough fans in the stands to sustain weaker ownership. Tampa Bay's record and attendance were abysmal in their last year, while Fusion FC had a Supporters' Shield winning year but still mediocre attendance. In the end, MLS cut its losses and contracted.

[SoccerPrime]

From Kenn.com's ultimate MLS stats website:
http://www.kenn.com/soccer/mls/basic.html

Dallas 1996-2003 11,942
Tampa Bay 1996-2001 11,072
Kansas City 1996-2003 10,692
Miami 1998-2001 9,345

Sure Miami was the lowest, but only by 1300 to Western Conference Champ KC Wizards. Miami Fusion wasn't even in Miami. I am not sure who far most MLS teams play from their "home" city, but Fusion played an hour north in North Broward County, home of the Lockhart stadium (which looks like a smaller version of the Crew Stadium).
Tampa Bay was higher and near the basic average for MLS attendance. I would also add that KC has 3 seasons to up there numbers while Mutiny and Fusion have whallowed in contraction.

This is all moot, they are dead. But if they both had committment billionaires like the rest of the League, then they might have prospered.

RIP

[Rover]

Originally Posted by SoccerPrime

From Kenn.com's ultimate MLS stats website:
http://www.kenn.com/soccer/mls/basic.html

Dallas 1996-2003 11,942
Tampa Bay 1996-2001 11,072
Kansas City 1996-2003 10,692
Miami 1998-2001 9,345

Sure Miami was the lowest, but only by 1300 to Western Conference Champ KC Wizards. Miami Fusion wasn't even in Miami. I am not sure who far most MLS teams play from their "home" city, but Fusion played an hour north in North Broward County, home of the Lockhart stadium (which looks like a smaller version of the Crew Stadium).
Tampa Bay was higher and near the basic average for MLS attendance. I would also add that KC has 3 seasons to up there numbers while Mutiny and Fusion have whallowed in contraction.

This is all moot, they are dead. But if they both had committment billionaires like the rest of the League, then they might have prospered.

RIP

Thanks for the stats. I think you just showed that I wasn't wrong. 🙂

I don't think the point is moot, since my original reason for dredging this up was to make the case that it's real tough to overcome bad expansion decisions. MLS miscalculated on the demographics in South Florida, and all a better owner would have done was delay the inevitable. It's of course possible that a well run Fusion FC could have made it eventually, but Miami was not the best place to expand in only the league's third year.

So as we look at expansion this year and possibly each or every other year until we get to 18 teams, it's worth looking back to see what didn't work and why. It goes beyond attendance, of course, and one lesson of the Florida Fiasco has clearly been learned at MLSHQ--no mediocre ownership. Since the Mutiny and Fusion folded, MLS has added Stan Kroenke, Jorge Vergara, and Dave Checketts to the club. That's how you build a league. So I do not dispute the significance of poor ownership in the post-2001 contraction.

[SoccerPrime]

Agreed, bad (Miami) or non-existent (Tampa) ownership is NOT the way to go for MLS expansion. On this, we are in complete agreement.

[Jim Umber]

Originally Posted by SoccerPrime

Agreed, bad (Miami) or non-existent (Tampa) ownership is NOT the way to go for MLS expansion. On this, we are in complete agreement.

Now, you two shake hands (figuratively) and play nice from now on!😉