PonyFans.com

I read the Daily Campus article about former FC Dallas director of sales McGee, who now has the same position in the SMU athletic department. Yes, nifty, cute soccer-only stadiums are the new thing, and there is soccer a-plenty in the metroplex, but it's still a tough sell. Look at how the Burn did at Southlake. So, what's the tougher gig...McGee's old one, or his new one?

All we need are a good slush fund and a few winning seasons and SMU football becomes a very easy sell. It will take a lot more than that to sell to FC Dallas.

The problem is that the US hasn't allowed the activities surrounding soccer that attract fans worldwide. In Europe, the best thing about a soccer game is the hooligan fights in the stands. There is always the possibility of a stadium collapsing killing and maiming hundreds. And in South America, no instant replay is needed. If a ref makes a questionable call, they simply kill the ref.

Until the US allows these activities, soccer in the US will continue to suck.

Sarcasm is now off.

DC United has had a pretty good following from the get go because it got some good Central and South American players and tapped in to the immigrant communitiies. It still averages about 20K per game which is what the Nationals average, the Wizards average and is larger than what the Caps average. Obviously, the Redskins average 90k but only have 8 home games.

Professional soccer hasn't done well in the US becuase there are no convenient TV time-outs to allow lite beer / fast food / male enhancement pharmaceuticals / trucks and autos, etc commercials. In other words, think "anti-NASCAR". Unfortunately for soccer, it's more about the sport and less about rampant commercialization.....

I don't see sponsor logos pasted all over the jerseys of the Cowboys, Mavericks, Stars, or Rangers. I do see them on MLS teams and Euro teams. Because the game doesn't have stoppages, there is no room for commercials. The NHL has adapted by adding several tv timeouts during the game. Soccer could do the same when a ball is kicked out of bounds at pre-set intervals with minimal disruption in play. And the players would be able to get some wind and the game might actually be played at a faster pace.

Face it, most Americans just don't care too much for soccer. If we won the World Cup, it would make about page 3 of the sports section and get 2 minutes at the end of Sportscenter. Football season gives way to basketball and hockey which gives way to baseball, golf, tennis, and nascar. Even with the amount of tv Americans watch, their schedule is pretty full.

[quote="EastStang"] Because the game doesn't have stoppages, there is no room for commercials...

That is the point I was trying to make, and ultimately, this is the reason soccer has not found commercial (i.e. television) success in the US.

EastStang wrote:DC United has had a pretty good following from the get go because it got some good Central and South American players and tapped in to the immigrant communitiies. It still averages about 20K per game which is what the Nationals average, the Wizards average and is larger than what the Caps average. Obviously, the Redskins average 90k but only have 8 home games.

So now these immigrants are taking the tickets that US citizens would normally use.

PonySoprano wrote:

EastStang wrote:DC United has had a pretty good following from the get go because it got some good Central and South American players and tapped in to the immigrant communitiies. It still averages about 20K per game which is what the Nationals average, the Wizards average and is larger than what the Caps average. Obviously, the Redskins average 90k but only have 8 home games.

So now these immigrants are taking the tickets that US citizens would normally use.

It's all relative. We are the immigrants to the "Redskins".

to unaffiliated, non-alumni Dallas residents I would say The Burn is the easier sale with the new family friendly stadium. The Burn doesn't have 90 years of alumni wjo have a deep connection with the university.

FC Dallas regularly outdraws SMU football games, sadly. The numbers dont say it, but butts in the seats...easily. Shawn McGee is a good guy and I guess he has masochistic side considering his last two job choices.

We should market to the illegal immigrants in Dallas, endless supply my friends!

SMU still draws more than FC Dallas. Here's the attendance figures for the Burn/FC from Wikipedia:

1996: 16,011
1997: 9,678
1998: 10,948
1999: 12,211
2000: 13,102
2001: 12,574
2002: 13,112
2003: 7,906
2004: 9,088
2005: 11,189
2006: 14,982
2007: 14,994

And SMU would draw more if it went to corporations in the area and marketed event-driven plans. I get to one or two home games a year and would probably make more if my company was sponsoring an event.

As I indicated in my earlier posts, FC Dallas easily outdraws SMU football games. The "official" numbers do not indicate it, but "butts in the seat" easily. SMU has always been creative in their attendance figures, which is fine since we need to be at "X" number every year. Hell, I've assisted myself in getting those numbers up a little bit in the past.

I havent missed an SMU home game in the past 12 years and I have a suite at Pizz Hut Park so I promise you its an honest observation, not an attempt at a flame of any sort.