with the world cup vs world series thread, I can't help but wonder if MLS has made a huge mistake by going after media markets instead of having a few southern teams.
I did a little research (wikipedia) and apparently outside of texas there has only been one major soccer team to play in the south and that was a memphis team that played indoor league back in the early 80s. Still, from what I've read (wikipedia) they had decent attendance, and this was back when soccer was a lot less popular than it is now (and that's saying something). If you ask me, Atlanta, Nashville, New Orleans, Charlotte, hell especially Florida has some cities that would do well with a soccer team.
The argument against MLS and the US team is that there isn't enough good talent playing soccer because most young athletes choose football, basketball, or baseball. And yet MLS has never had a team even in Florida, where many of the best athletes in the US reside.
Would an MLS team do well in the south in the major cities? Would it help overall soccer more than setting up a new franchise in say...Hartford??
I did a little research (wikipedia) and apparently outside of texas there has only been one major soccer team to play in the south and that was a memphis team that played indoor league back in the early 80s. Still, from what I've read (wikipedia) they had decent attendance, and this was back when soccer was a lot less popular than it is now (and that's saying something). If you ask me, Atlanta, Nashville, New Orleans, Charlotte, hell especially Florida has some cities that would do well with a soccer team.
The argument against MLS and the US team is that there isn't enough good talent playing soccer because most young athletes choose football, basketball, or baseball. And yet MLS has never had a team even in Florida, where many of the best athletes in the US reside.
Would an MLS team do well in the south in the major cities? Would it help overall soccer more than setting up a new franchise in say...Hartford??