On the other hand, free tickets to a home game and money to improve the team (one that finished last place by a mile last year and is currently in last place again), as well as a future friendly against an MLS team is a safer bet. A smart business decision by the Silverbacks.

http://www.insidemnsoccer.com/2012/05/25/q-a-with-atlanta-silverbacks-owner-boris-jerkunica-concerning-usoc-venue-sale

But I’ll admit the stat history is so short and the number of “Hosting MLS” games are so few, there’s really no way to demonstrate a long-term attendance increase. I’ll understand if you maintain it doesn’t generally happen, while I’ll hold the opposite belief.

The key point I don’t think either of you is focusing on is concept of scarcity. In Kenn’s original example, he likened this situation to a business obtaining a unique asset. That asset is VERY scarce. You can off-handedly say, “there will be other Cup games down the road,” but there’s only a 50% chance of hosting in the 3rd Round. And there’s only a 1-in-16 chance it’ll be THE most popular MLS team (as it was in Atlanta’s case). So yeah, there will be other Cup games, but there’s only about a 3% chance it’ll be as valuable an opportunity as the one Atlanta sold away (and that’s not even counting the fact that as a USOC game, the game actually MEANS something, as opposed to pre-season friendlies).

Atlanta and Minnesota traded away extremely scarce opportunities for something ANY club could acquire. I hope they use the money wisely, because they sure didn’t use their unique opportunities that way.

By taking the “short term” money for a Cup game on the road, the clubs may be able to keep an extra marketing staff employed or pay to keep a popular player signed or run several small promotions throughout the season. This is the way businesses are built. Rarely, if ever, does one “big event” help a franchise. Case in point: this years Minnesota home opener. A hyped up game in the dome that drew 8K+. How did that effect their regular season attendance? So far, not positively.

As far as attracting “new” fans by having a Cup game at home, I doubt it would work. Most fans that are “new” will only be coming to see the MLS side. After the game, I doubt these fans would come back at all. Can you give me an example where this has worked? Where a lower division club has hosted a MLS side and had a steady build in attendance afterward?

There will be other Cup games down the road. But taking some extra cash and reinvesting it in the business is the way to go now.

In 2011, only one lower division team hosted an MLS team.
In 2010 I am counting two.
In 2009 I am counting 7 throughout the whole tournament. 6 in the 3rd round and 1 in the 4th.
In 2008 it was 6. 4 in the 3rd round, 1 in quarterfinals and 1 in semifinals.

In 2012 there will be 8 lower division teams hosting MLS teams just in the 3rd round. Depending on how the games go, potential buyouts etc. We could see more the rest of the way.

That is an improvement over the previous two seasons. And with more on the line and MLS teams appearing to take this tournament more seriously, I think this is a good sign.

The argument that these funds will help keep the lights on signifies that those clubs have problems that a short-term cash infusion WILL NOT SOLVE. Long after this money is spent, these clubs will still suffer from small fan bases, and lack of sponsorship dollars.

I really enjoyed this post and completely agree with you.

As someone who runs a small (emphasis on small) business, it seems like I am confronted with a similar decision everyday. I always try to see things long-term. If the fans of the teams in question are true fans, they will understand the necessity of this decision. More money now means the team will be able to reinvest in the long term goals of the organization.

I hope both D2 teams win and both get another big payday down the road!

Great article, like the part on how you point out how sport fans in this country really fail to see their teams as what they really are – a business.