Jan 30, 2008
Foreign Ownership In American Soccer
Interesting article (via both Soccer Blogs and the BigSoccer forums) by Tom Dunmore on Pitch Invasion: The Austin Aztex and Foreign Ownership in American Soccer.
In addition to Aztex owner Phil Rawlins, who of course is also an owner and director of the English Championship side Stoke City FC, Dunmore points out the comments of USL president Francisco Marcos, with regard to further internationalization of USL. Marcos talks about the USL-2 team Crystal Palace Baltimore, and their obvious tie to the Crystal Palace of the English Championship.
Dunmore wonders if this foreign ownership is good for American soccer, invoking one last example in the California Victory, which folded last year -- its first year -- when it lost the support of its parent club, Spain's Deportivo Alavés.
Okay, enough Wikipedia links; sorry about that. I'm still new to a lot of the USL teams & stories, and those reference links are for me as much as anyone. ;-)
It seems to me that foreign ownership is no problem at all. If someone has the money and the energy to invest in soccer here in the U.S., and they can make a go of it, then why not? It may not turn out well, as seems to be the case with the Victory, but couldn't that happen just as well with American backers?
In fact, I'll go further, and say if it were up to me, we'd have more teams backed with foreign owners and affiliated with foreign teams. American soccer teams are still struggling for their place in our crowded pro sports landscape, all the way up to MLS, to some extent.
Meanwhile, more or less every other country in the world has already seen the light about what a great sport soccer is. Thousands of people around the world, in the U.S. and abroad, are already Deportivo Alavés fans, Crystal Palace fans, Stoke City FC fans. Why not tap into and draft off of some of that established fandom -- not to mention the management & marketing experience of the partner club?
I'm a late-comer to being a fan of the beautiful game myself, and I came mainly via the World Cup in 2006. But one of my very favorite parts of soccer is the international aspect. The other dominant U.S. sports have a little of that, but it's never much more than a Cuban baseball player here and a Chinese basketball player there. Not so with soccer, of course. Players, club teams and national teams hop around the globe like crazy, and to me, that's really cool. Foreign owners and partner clubs are just another element of that global dimension that makes it truly the world's game.
Dunmore is also worried that these teams will be "farm operations run for the benefit of foreign clubs", and not "locally rooted clubs that stick around for a long time". I don't see how a team could do very well as the former without also being the latter. Stoke City isn't going to have much of a farm operation here in Austin if Aztex doesn't have strong local support.
On the same topic, we also have As Americans Buy Into Premier League, Englishmen Buy Into American Soccer, on the AOL sports blog, "Fanhouse". The author, David Warner, makes this excellent point:
To me, that's further rationale for why foreign support of U.S. soccer is not just not bad, it's downright good.
In addition to Aztex owner Phil Rawlins, who of course is also an owner and director of the English Championship side Stoke City FC, Dunmore points out the comments of USL president Francisco Marcos, with regard to further internationalization of USL. Marcos talks about the USL-2 team Crystal Palace Baltimore, and their obvious tie to the Crystal Palace of the English Championship.
Dunmore wonders if this foreign ownership is good for American soccer, invoking one last example in the California Victory, which folded last year -- its first year -- when it lost the support of its parent club, Spain's Deportivo Alavés.
Okay, enough Wikipedia links; sorry about that. I'm still new to a lot of the USL teams & stories, and those reference links are for me as much as anyone. ;-)
It seems to me that foreign ownership is no problem at all. If someone has the money and the energy to invest in soccer here in the U.S., and they can make a go of it, then why not? It may not turn out well, as seems to be the case with the Victory, but couldn't that happen just as well with American backers?
In fact, I'll go further, and say if it were up to me, we'd have more teams backed with foreign owners and affiliated with foreign teams. American soccer teams are still struggling for their place in our crowded pro sports landscape, all the way up to MLS, to some extent.
Meanwhile, more or less every other country in the world has already seen the light about what a great sport soccer is. Thousands of people around the world, in the U.S. and abroad, are already Deportivo Alavés fans, Crystal Palace fans, Stoke City FC fans. Why not tap into and draft off of some of that established fandom -- not to mention the management & marketing experience of the partner club?
I'm a late-comer to being a fan of the beautiful game myself, and I came mainly via the World Cup in 2006. But one of my very favorite parts of soccer is the international aspect. The other dominant U.S. sports have a little of that, but it's never much more than a Cuban baseball player here and a Chinese basketball player there. Not so with soccer, of course. Players, club teams and national teams hop around the globe like crazy, and to me, that's really cool. Foreign owners and partner clubs are just another element of that global dimension that makes it truly the world's game.
Dunmore is also worried that these teams will be "farm operations run for the benefit of foreign clubs", and not "locally rooted clubs that stick around for a long time". I don't see how a team could do very well as the former without also being the latter. Stoke City isn't going to have much of a farm operation here in Austin if Aztex doesn't have strong local support.
On the same topic, we also have As Americans Buy Into Premier League, Englishmen Buy Into American Soccer, on the AOL sports blog, "Fanhouse". The author, David Warner, makes this excellent point:
There seems to be a key difference here between American ownership of clubs in England and English ownership of clubs in America. While the Americans talk about developing "global brands" in England, the English seem more focused on developing actual soccer players in America. Some talk of using their clubs as conduits for South American and Mexican players, while others seem genuinely interested in nurturing American talent.
To me, that's further rationale for why foreign support of U.S. soccer is not just not bad, it's downright good.
Labels: Stoke City
// posted by Chris @ 12:34 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Dunmore may look at the Victory as an example of foreign ownership being a problem. But he should, in that case, also look at the Rhinos, who are in a financial fight for their lives, with two local Rochester owners being the problem, and rumors of a Brit being the savior.
Dunmore must be a latecomer to the USL. If he'd been around longer, he'd know that the USL is a transient organization. The Sounders are one of the few teams that have been around a long time. Even at the USL-1 level, there have been a number of failures, and, until the Victory, every single one of them were home-grown failures (Milwaukee Rampage being the first to come to my mind.)
Dunmore must be a latecomer to the USL. If he'd been around longer, he'd know that the USL is a transient organization. The Sounders are one of the few teams that have been around a long time. Even at the USL-1 level, there have been a number of failures, and, until the Victory, every single one of them were home-grown failures (Milwaukee Rampage being the first to come to my mind.)
FYI, someone posted on BS the following: "With the USL 1 teams your looking at budgets of 1.5 to 2.5 mil, with USL 2 under 1 mil, with PDL 50k to 200k."
Thought you might find the numbers interesting.
Thought you might find the numbers interesting.
Sure, there are plenty of other failures domestically in the USL, but that doesn't mean foreign owners are the saviour, either.
I don't think I portrayed USL as a raging success, or teams as having been around for decades.
My point is we need ownership of teams run for the sake of developing soccer locally. That could be achieved by foreign ownership, but to me it's less likely for a variety of reasons.
I really don't see people getting attached to Crystal Palace Baltimore or whatever.
People traditionally follow local soccer teams because they represent their community, they provide pride -- if the club's identity stems from another continent and your team is being run ultimately for their benefit, where does that come from?
I don't think I portrayed USL as a raging success, or teams as having been around for decades.
My point is we need ownership of teams run for the sake of developing soccer locally. That could be achieved by foreign ownership, but to me it's less likely for a variety of reasons.
I really don't see people getting attached to Crystal Palace Baltimore or whatever.
People traditionally follow local soccer teams because they represent their community, they provide pride -- if the club's identity stems from another continent and your team is being run ultimately for their benefit, where does that come from?
Let me add, though, that I did point out Austin does have a valuable local connection, and I wish it the best. It's great to see a blog supporting it already.
Thanks for the comments, guys! Tom, glad you were able to give some additional feedback.
Personally, I still think there's a net boost from a relationship to a foreign club, all other things being equal. To me, I'm intrigued by the exoticness, if you will, of such a venture. And I think it adds some interesting flavor for the media, too. Instead of just, "here are some local dudes who think they can make soccer work in this city", it's the bonus of, "here they are, and there's this other interesting aspect to it, too." Plus maybe a little free press when the parent club comes to town for training and exhibition matches for a week or two each year.
But I definitely agree that how the stateside organization plays it -- how they market themselves, if you will -- is crucial. If they rely entirely on that foreign support, and remain little more than a farm team, then yeah, that's no good.
But if they're smart, like I hope the Aztex guys will be, they can serve that same farm team purpose while still becoming a 100% local team. The players will (mostly) be local, the venue, the brand, the rivals, etc.
Thinking about all this, I'm glad at least that we're getting the Austin Aztex, and not "Austin City FC, The Potters". ;-)
Personally, I still think there's a net boost from a relationship to a foreign club, all other things being equal. To me, I'm intrigued by the exoticness, if you will, of such a venture. And I think it adds some interesting flavor for the media, too. Instead of just, "here are some local dudes who think they can make soccer work in this city", it's the bonus of, "here they are, and there's this other interesting aspect to it, too." Plus maybe a little free press when the parent club comes to town for training and exhibition matches for a week or two each year.
But I definitely agree that how the stateside organization plays it -- how they market themselves, if you will -- is crucial. If they rely entirely on that foreign support, and remain little more than a farm team, then yeah, that's no good.
But if they're smart, like I hope the Aztex guys will be, they can serve that same farm team purpose while still becoming a 100% local team. The players will (mostly) be local, the venue, the brand, the rivals, etc.
Thinking about all this, I'm glad at least that we're getting the Austin Aztex, and not "Austin City FC, The Potters". ;-)
c, I think you make a very good point that the exotic element could help convince people like the local media, sponsors and perhaps even fans to see it as a serious and interesting venture.
I also agree it's great that in Austin's case, you have a name that isn't tied to the Stoke "brand".
And to go back to the Victory, my point in that case was more about how they were abandoned, but you could also see it as a positive example in this sense: the fans there did brilliantly "localising" the team, by doing things like naming their club "1906", and tying the Victory to soccer fans in the area generally.
Using their own organic marketing methods, they actually increased crowds while the club were dying (see my interview with their supporters' club founder, here.)
Hopefully, you can do a similar thing in this case.
It's just a shame their ownership and USL haven't been able to work something out for 2008 in San Francisco. We need investors who'll stick around, whatever their nationality; even better, supporters need to own their own teams, as the Victory fans are trying to do.
Post a Comment
I also agree it's great that in Austin's case, you have a name that isn't tied to the Stoke "brand".
And to go back to the Victory, my point in that case was more about how they were abandoned, but you could also see it as a positive example in this sense: the fans there did brilliantly "localising" the team, by doing things like naming their club "1906", and tying the Victory to soccer fans in the area generally.
Using their own organic marketing methods, they actually increased crowds while the club were dying (see my interview with their supporters' club founder, here.)
Hopefully, you can do a similar thing in this case.
It's just a shame their ownership and USL haven't been able to work something out for 2008 in San Francisco. We need investors who'll stick around, whatever their nationality; even better, supporters need to own their own teams, as the Victory fans are trying to do.
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
