Soccernomics: Timbers in Disarray Edition

Class: Stephen Ireland was clearly the best player on the pitch last night.
His movement, both laterally and vertically, never stopped.

Because I know that this is the first place you turn for your soccer news, I find it my duty to oblige.  It has been a very interesting diversion to watch the Timbers implode this season and no one seems to know what to make of it.  Except me, of course...

The dismissal of John Spencer as Manager Head Coach (it is funny how we adopt some British terms but not all) caught me by surprise.  Sure the Timbers are struggling but they are a second-year expansion team with an incredibly young and inexperienced roster.  What do you expect?  I believe Spencer thought he had some time to build the team and it was my general opinion that he should be given three years and evaluated only at the end.  

So what happened?  My guess is it all comes down to Nagbe.  Well, not just him, but his category: young developing players of which the Timbers have a lot: Nagbe, Mwanga, Alhassan, Renken, Rincon, Valencia, Jean-Baptiste, Mosquera, etc.  If you look at Nagbe today versus a year and a half ago can you really see growth as a player?  No.  Is it Spencer's fault? Probably not entirely, but I suspect that this is why Paulson chose to pull the trigger so quickly.  This is the only reason I can think of that you would make such a drastic move, if you think the development of these players is hurting and needs to be corrected right away.

Spencer's style is to have players play very specific roles on the pitch and he likes to play a very direct version of football. This is probably not a bad thing for a young team but it does limit creativity somewhat.  Still, when Nagbe has been given a free license to be creative he has not been able to be the creative playmaker in the midfield, so I don't really think that is the problem.  What then is?  Not sure. I would have been more patient I think.

As for the Timbers, the aftermath has been pretty interesting to watch.  The Dallas debacle was instructive: players really seemed to sort themselves.  One player who I have maligned in the pans, and who has really started to play his best football, is Franck Songo'o.  He is finally starting to assert himself on the field and put in a full effort.  Well done.  Eric Alexander is a great player until he gets to the box where his shots are, face it, terrible and his passing uninspired.  If he can develop a shot he could really become a top notch player.  On the other hand, Jewsbury is looking a bit tired and old these days and is not the force in the midfield he was.  Palmer is a disaster - wins the ball well, but then rarely does anything useful.  And the new guy - Kimura - who was supposed to solve the right back problem is horrendous.  I liked Jack there better.  

Last night's exhibition was a lot of fun: you get to see a lot of the youngsters like Brent Richards (man that kid's got hops) and Ryan Kawulok.  Raw, but energetic.  The most instructive thing for me was that even though Aston Villa was not as adept at possession ball as Valencia (the previous exhibition), they still possessed the ball better and, especially, moved the ball faster than the Timbers.  The Timbers are still way too ponderous on the ball and way too static when one player is trying to dribble and break people down.

What I expect from the Timbers for the rest of the season we caught a glimpse of last night: playing compact, especially at the start there was only about 10 yards of space between each line of player. Playing youngsters more.  Within the compact team play allowing players more freedom to move out of position and interchange.  It'll be rough perhaps, but entertaining.

Soccernomics: Timbers Practice Facility and Field Size

Photo Credit: Bruce Ely / The Oregonian

Because it is Friday and Timbers game-day is tomorrow I shall cease to worry about the economy and its many woes and instead turn to much sunnier pursuits (especially tomorrow if the weather report is to be believed) - soccer!

So the Timbers unveiled their training facility to the media yesterday and it looks great.  I hope it will be a big help in recruiting and retaining players.  I was also delighted to read last week that they hired a conditioning coach as fitness seems to be a real problem for the Timbers - lack of energy late in games has been a killer.

Anyway the facility looks great and it seems to be a nice public/private partnership - as someone who plays soccer and who has two soccer playing boys, any new turf field in the Portland area is something to celebrate.  But I thought this passage from Geoff Arnold's story on the facility was incredible:

One of the highlights of the facility are the two full size soccer fields - a grass field designated for exclusive use by the Timbers and a second artificial turf field that will be used by the public. The dimensions of each practice field is the same - 70x110 yards - as Jeld-Wen Field.

The whole idea of a grass field is to be able to better prepare for playing the entire MLS away from home (with the exception of Seattle, Vancouver and New England who play on turf) just about all of whom have much bigger fields.  Why don't you have a practice grass field that is of similar dimensions to the actual pitches you'll be playing on?  Odd.  Though any pitch between 70 and 80 yards wide and 110 and 120 yards long is within FIFA regulations, the modern standard is 75 x 115.  Almost all new stadiums built for soccer are using this standard.  Of course the Timbers have opted to make their pitch as small as is allowed by FIFA.  Doesn't sound like a lot but the difference is 12% more space to play in, which is a lot.

What is also interesting is that you hear a lot about how the Timbers want to utilize their speed to their advantage.  But this completely contrary to the size of their pitch.  With such a small area in which to work there just aren't the spaces to run on to.  Now, you can be like the Arsenal of the late 1990s and 2000s, who played on a tiny pitch at Highbury but played a quick passing game which the present day Timbers are trying to emulate.  But this is speed in a very different sense (quick passing and movement in confined spaces and quickness of thought) and requires a supremely high degree of technical ability.  Most importantly it requires exceptionally talented and creative midfielders like Pires, Fabregas and Ljungberg and a withdrawn striker of the Dennis Bergkamp type.  Just watch tomorrow how slowly the Timber switch the ball through the back or through the midfield and you'll see what I am talking about.

In fact most teams that play on a small pitch play a compact defensive style that relies on counter-attacks.  Stoke City famously shrunk their pitch to be able to compete better in the Premiership with a team of limited skill and flair so it is interesting that the Timbers are trying to emphasize skill and flair and yet maintain a tiny little pitch.  Perhaps it is possible to end up playing the Arsenal way in Portland, but I doubt the ability of an MLS team to be able to pay enough to attract a critical mass of players at that level.  I think we are already seeing how a Franck Songo'o, who possesses great technical ability, could end up at the Timbers after a trial: his play and passion are seemingly very inconsistent - at least so far.  Too early to judge, but...

I have accepted that grass is just not going to work at Jeld-Wen but I fail to understand the Timbers dogged insistence on such a small field.  But this is all an exercise in nit-picking.  The Timbers are great the stadium is great and it is great to have them in MLS.  Let's hope they can put in a great performance tomorrow and get back to winning ways.

Soccernomics: Comparing the Euro Leagues and Financial Market Slowdowns During the World Cup

Two soccer related notes today.

First, a set of charts from the The Telegraph of London compares the top European football leagues (aka the top leagues in the world).  English football is often characterized as more physical and less technical than other leagues, particularly Spain, which is generally considered the most technical in the world. Interestingly the statistics do not bear this out.  The English Premiership has the best passing accuracy and the most goals among the top leagues and the fewest tackles:

Which is not to say that the Prem is superior, just that old notions of route one booting the ball and crunching tackles in England are outdated.

Second, and interesting paper about the slowdown of stock market trades during World Cup matches.  It turns out they fall dramatically when the national team is playing, especially in Argentina.  But the US slows considerably too:

During the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, equity trades plunged an average of 45% at stock markets when the national team was playing, according to a new paper by a pair of ECB economists.

A goal reduced trading another 5%. Trading already tapered off even before the match starts, and stayed slow during halftime.

“Overall, there is a strong sense that stock markets were following developments on the soccer pitch rather than in the trading pit,” ECB economist Michael Ehrmann and David-Jan Jansen of the Dutch central bank wrote.

Argentina had the most die-hards. Trades per minute fell 72% when Argentina was playing, second only to Chile in the 15 countries examined. Trading was still down 40% even when Argentina wasn’t playing, tops on the list by far. Trading in Germany was down almost 60% when Die Mannschaft (The Team) played.

What about the U.S., where soccer isn’t as popular as it is in Europe and Latin America? “We also find strong indications of declining activity in U.S. stock markets,” the authors wrote. Trades per minute were down over 40% when the U.S. played, and around 25% during other matches.

So there you go.

Soccernomics: Soccer on Television

Photo Credit: Reuters

An interesting little tidbit from last weekend: a tape-delayed broadcast of the Liverpool-Chelsea English Premier League match on the Fox network drew almost double the viewership of the MLS Cup final.

This illustrates both the good and the bad of American soccer. The proliferation of European sooccer available on American TV over the last decade has completely changed the landscape. Americans are increasingly tuning in to see top flight soccer from the world's best leagues. At least in my neighborhood in Portland I see more grade school aged kids sporting European club and country jerseys than MLB, NBA, and NFL combined.

All of this seems like an incredibly positive thing for the sport in the US. Kids no longer think of it as a kids only sport that is a good pastime until you can play the real sports. And they get to see the world's best players, learning the moves and strategies that will help them progress the game in the states. It also raises the legitimacy of the sport in the eyes of the adults - it is not just a great game to play but a great spectator sport as well.

But there is a significant negative as well: such broadcasts expose the significant gulf between the level of play in the top European leagues and the state of play in the MLS. The MLS has made huge progress in terms of the experience in the stadiums - starting next season all but three teams will be playing in soccer specific stadiums (if we count the special shrinking magic of BC Place in Vancouver). Average attendance this year has grown significantly: up seven percent from the year before - helped by Portland and Vancouver.

For all of the in-stadium progress, the fact remains that MLS still struggles to attract TV audiences: the MLS Cup final drew a underwhelming 0.8 share. And now that top flight European soccer is easily available on US TV there is serious competition for eyeballs. Who would choose to watch a Dallas v. Philadelphia match when Barcelona is playing, or Kansas City v. Chivas USA when the Arsenal is playing Manchester United. The fact is that the product on the screen coming from Europe is far superior. So while the energy, excitement and fun at a Timbers game is second to none, the TV product is pretty lame (and don't get me started again about turf - it is even worse on TV than live).

And this is the economic conundrum: the real money in professional sports is from television. To the extent that European league broadcasts cannibalize the MLS TV market, the development of the MLS will be stunted by the lack of revenues to spend on quality players.

The hope is in those little kids with the Man United jerseys. As they progress and get better so will the US. There is no reason there can't be 20 or even 200 Landon Donovans in the US, and as we develop more players the play in the MLS will improve with them.

Soccernomics: News and Notes

Aaron Ramsey scores the winer for Arsenal, but will the Welshman play for the Great Britain Olympic team?

Timbers Success:

The Timbers have had a great first season in terms of success in the stands.  [I would argue that they have had a great first season on the field as well: an entirely new team that had never played together before, primarily made up of modestly paid youngsters still have an outside shot at the playoffs coming into their last game] But this is not that surprising - Portland is a pretty big city with just one major sports franchise that plays in the winter, the novelty of a new franchise with a revamped stadium was almost bound to draw people in for the first season.  But now something truly remarkable has happened, the Timbers have announced that 97% of season ticket holders have renewed for next year.

This is a testament to three things in my mind:  One, the team itself has struggled at times but the players and coach have connected with fans in a way that most modern sports stars don't.  They are modestly paid, approachable and passionate.  Two, the Timbers Army has created the most unique atmosphere in all of sports.  I used to think nothing could top big time college football for atmosphere in the US, but the Timbers, while different, are just as exhilarating. Three, the Timbers front office has done everything right. This is remarkable considering Civic Stadium is a very difficult venue from a customer service standpoint - inadequate bathrooms, crowded concourses and cramped seats - but the Timbers have had very good attention to detail and have been good at addressing problems.

In addition these three things, and perhaps most importantly, the economics of renewal are right.  The Timbers themselves have shown that the ticket price is good value for money: a great night's worth of entertainment, camaraderie and fun.  And with complete sell-outs and a 5,000 person waiting list, the secondary market for tickets is very strong - thus renewal carries almost no risk.

What is 'British?':

The Great Britain Olympic football team is not going well.  Recall that the countries of the United Kingdom are not that united at all.  In fact, the Guardian newspaper recently ran a series, along with conducting a poll, on what it means to be British in the UK and found that notions of Britishness are fading (I suspect that this is a consequence of the collective memory of the WWII generation fading).  Because of its unique historical place in football, England, Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland are all recognized as separate footballing nations by FIFA - allowed to compete internationally independently as well as have their own national football leagues.  But FIFA and the Olympic movement are not the same thing and the Olympics only recognizes Great Britain as a single country.  So what to do in football?  The answer, since 1972, has been to not compete at all.

But now with the 2012 Olympics coming to London the push is on to create a Great Britain team.  The England FA is all for it, but unfortunately this doesn't sit well with the other national federations.  One fear is that this will eventually lead to FIFA no longer allowing separate national teams despite assurances to the contrary.  But more than that is the fierce nationalism felt in the other countries, most notably in Scotland where an England loss in football is second only to a Scotland win.

On the Pitch:

The Timbers produced a gutty display last night in DC that wasn't pretty and at times relied on luck but got the road point.  Now we are all Philadelphia Union fans!  The Timbers showed once again that when they get to the final third of the field, they run out of creativity and attacking prowess.  Dwyane DeRosario showed just how much difference a quality striker can make when he is on form.  DC could have easily scored three goals all because of DeRo's quality.

Arsenal gutted out an got a quality win in Marseilles in the UEFA champions league last night as well.  They are playing a pale imitation of the possession and quick passing game Arsenal is known for under Wenger right now, but perhaps this will teach them how to win ugly when the beautiful game is not on.  Defensively they were better, and Koscielny was in great form, but there were one or two heart stopping blunders.  And never, ever leave Merteasacker uncovered when he is one-on-one with a winger.  Still, things are improving slowly.

Soccernomics: To Be or not To Be

Jere Longman and Sarah Lyall have a very nice piece in the New York Times today about one of the more curious quirks of international sport.  The International Olympic Committee, along with the United Nations, recognizes the United Kingdom as a country for their participation in the Olympics. Thus, athletes complete for Great Britain under the Union Jack for the purposes of the Olympics.  The United Kingdom, however, is an entity for external purposes only, inside the UK are four fiercely independent counties.  And in soccer, the four countries that make up the UK, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland play independently under FIFA rules.  As soccer is a major sport of all four countries, the national teams are closely related to each country's national identity and pride.

Those familiar with the UK will know that there is a very strong sense of parochialism in Great Britain, where virtually no one considers themselves British in the larger sense, but English, Irish, Scots and Welsh.  The separate identity of their soccer teams is thus vitally important to all the four nations and most fans of Scotland, for example, will actively root against England and vice-versa.  There is also the considerable concern that if Great Britain fields a team at the Olympics, FIFA (despite assurances to the contrary) will stop recognizing the independent national teams of the four UK countries and force them to merge.  So, for the last half decade there has been no Great Britain soccer team at the Olympics.

Which has been pretty much fine and well with all parties involved.  The Olympics is not a major event in the soccer world which has its own international championship: the World Cup.  In fact, to make the Olympics relevant, it has become an under 23 tournament in which professionals are allowed to participate.  But now the Olympics are coming to Great Britain and the prospect of hosting a soccer tournament on British soil without the participation of the British themselves - the inventors of the game - is causing some consternation.  There is a movement afoot to field a Great British team for this Olympics and FIFA have assured the national authorities that their independence as separate footballing nations would not be put in jeopardy if it came to pass.  But few believe it - and anyone who follows FIFA in the slightest will know how corrupt, arbitrary and unpredictable is the governance of the body.

And then comes the players for whom their national identity is sacrosanct, but for whom the Olympics may be their only chance to compete in a meaningful national tournament. This is a tension not easily resolved. Here is a nice excerpt from the NYT piece:

It has also divided players. Some, like Julie Fleeting, Scotland’s career-leading female scorer, have said they will not risk their futures by competing on Team GB. “I am Scottish through and through,” she told reporters in June.

But other high-profile players — including Aaron Ramsey, the captain of Wales’s national team, who plays for Arsenal in England’s Premier League, and his Welsh teammate Gareth Bale, who plays for Tottenham Hotspur — have said they would like to play. (David Beckham, the onetime England star, has also expressed interest.)

“I don’t see why anyone would want to stop a player from playing in a massive tournament like the Olympics,” Kim Little, a top Scottish women’s midfielder, told The Guardian.

One incentive to play for Britain, noted by Bale, could be that the non-English national teams have such woeful international records. Wales, for instance, has only ever qualified for one major international competition: the 1958 World Cup.

But the federations resist and many worry that this will lead to the erosion of relevance for the smaller nations.

Scotland, for instance, already worries that its soccer federation is “by and large forgotten” and that “for many people abroad, England is Britain,” said Raymond Boyle, a professor at the Centre for Cultural Policy Research at the University of Glasgow. Many Scots, it seems, sympathize with Craig Brown, the former Scotland manager who now coaches Aberdeen. “I would rather lose as Scotland than win as Great Britain,” he told The Guardian.

And in Wales, Neville Southall, the national team’s former goalkeeper, told reporters recently that he could not conceive of supporting a non-Welsh team. “The whole point of going to the Olympics is that special moment when your flag goes up,” he said.

“What flag are they going to put up if Team GB win the football? The Union Jack? Well, it’s not my flag; my flag’s a Dragon.”

As a personal note, my grandfather's family emigrated from Scotland to England (and even then the ancestors were probably part of the great Irish migration to Scotland) and then to the US.  My grandfather used to fly the Royal Standard of Scotland, the Union Jack and the US flag at his house in California which made him unusual in his embrace of the Union flag (though perhaps less unusual in the expat community).  I would imagine that WWII had a lot to do with his perspective.  As a veteran of the war, having served in the RAF, I think the experience of fighting off foreign would-be invaders under the Union flag must have an impact.  But perhaps the youngsters have lost this memory and are back to the tribalism of old.  I, for one, think it would be cool for all the young stars of the four countries to play together, but then my family spans Scotland, England and Wales so I don't put much emphasis on national identity.

Okay, so there is not a lot of 'nomics to this soccer post...

Soccernomics: A Tale of Two Sports in New Jersey

The New York Times had a fascinating article on a tale of two stadiums in New Jersey over the weekend.  One, a $34 million dollar stadium built for minor league baseball 13 years ago is a complete flop.  No one goes to the games.  The other, the new Red Bulls Arena is a big success (though, truth be told, the Red Bulls should not have to work had to sell it out, which they still do).

This has a lot of resonance in Portland, given its own struggle with the baseball vs. soccer question.  The Newark experience suggests Portland got it right:

Given the large soccer constituency in the city’s Portuguese and Latino strongholds, did Newark get its demographics crossed and build the wrong field of commercial dreams? Did the city bet on the wrong sport?

A Yankees fan who said his priest’s salary was better preserved by spending a few dollars at a minor league game than paying a small fortune at Yankee Stadium, Kwiatkowski, 54, who has a Roman Catholic parish in Glen Rock, N.J., has attended Bears games because he once lived in Newark’s Ironbound district and hoped that a successful team could contribute to the city’s revitalization.

“I was within walking distance, right over there,” he said, lifting his chin in the direction of the outfield fence.

Within the hour, a multitude of fans “over there,” in the Ironbound, would stream from restaurants on Ferry Street and across a nearby bridge to help pack another area sports facility, the 17-month-old Red Bull Arena, in the neighboring town of Harrison.

While Major League Soccer was growing in Harrison, minor league baseball appeared to be dying in Newark, along with the expensive dream of restoring a slice of its vintage past.

***

Although the Newark-Harrison story is an extreme and somewhat unusual case, it reflects an urban cultural shift on which soccer hopes to capitalize as an emergent and faster-paced sport in 21st-century America. Still enormously popular in many markets, baseball has lost traction with young people, especially African-Americans, with a 26 percent decline in youth participation between 2000 and 2009, according to the National Sporting Goods Association.

“In terms of drawing people, the soccer stadium in Harrison has been a success,” said Rick Cerone, a former Yankees catcher and the Bears’ original owner, who grew up in Newark and lobbied county and city politicians for the return of the Bears, a popular Yankees farm team more than half a century ago.

He acknowledged that misjudgments might have been made about the Newark of then and now.

“Probably the best thing to do would have been a soccer stadium or maybe coordinate one stadium that could have been used for both,” Cerone said. “But, you know, it’s easy to look back.”

The demographics are entirely different here than in Newark, of course, but one only had to attend a typical Portland Beavers game and see the emptiness of a 20,000 seat stadium with less than 2,000 other spectators to understand what a perfect fit MLS has been.

[NB: Ironically, I was clued into this interesting article by Jack Bog who was using it as evidence to criticize Milwaukie for proposing to develop a minor league baseball stadium.  Ironic because he is a vitriolic critic of, well, just about everything, but especially about the re-purposing of Civic Stadium for MLS.  Surely he sees the irony: The Timbers are a runaway success, filling the stadium and breathing new life into what was a dying city asset?  I doubt it, he seems to be almost entirely irony free...]

Soccernomics: Size Matters Redux

Emirates Stadium - Home of the Arsenal

I see the Timbers are getting a little touchy about the size of their field:

Portland are 5-1 in league play at their home. And yet, over the past month, a couple of opposing coaches have publicly taken issue with JELD-WEN Field’s size and suggested that it plays into the Timbers’ favor.

“The pitch, because it’s a little bit too small, when you watch the games they played at home, it’s a little pinball,” Philadelphia Union coach Peter Nowak told local reporters prior to the May 6 game in Portland. “[The Timbers] press the other team, and we’ve got to figure out a good plan for that.”

Too small?

At 70 yards wide, 110 yards long, the pitch at JELD-WEN Field is FIFA certified and meets the governing body’s guidelines as well as those of MLS. Field dimensions are not fixed from one pitch to the next and are a bit like Major League Baseball ballparks in that sense.

The oldest club in English Premier League soccer, Stoke City, play in a stadium with exactly the same dimensions as JELD-WEN. Do other EPL teams complain that it is too small?

Less than two weeks after Nowak brought it up, Columbus Crew coach Robert Warzycha chimed in with his thoughts on Portland’s success at home.

“More than anything, it’s the [artificial] turf and the field dimensions,” Warzycha told the Columbus Dispatch. “And the way they play at home. They’re scoring on set pieces.”

For the record, Portland did score on set pieces to beat both Philadelphia and Columbus. But was the size of the field really working against the opponent?

At JELD-WEN Field, the dimensions are dictated to some degree by the configuration of a stadium footprint that dates to 1926. It also has to do with sight lines for spectators. (From the press box, it is difficult to see the near touchline with out standing up.)

They doth protest too much.  Of course the quote from Ben Olsen that was in my last post was from the coach of a winning team so there is no suggestion of making excuses with him.

Anyway, what strikes me in all of this is the explanation that sight lines are to blame, but not from the stands mind, from the press box!  Are you serious?  You would shrink your field just so those in the press box don't have to stand up?!?  That is so lame.

And by the way, bringing up Stoke City is neither here nor there, but since they did, there is a big difference between the level of play in the Premier League and the MLS for one, and for two Stoke City is grass so the size is not amplified by a fast bouncy plastic surface.  I don't believe that any other Premier League team has a pitch smaller than the 75x110 yards (the modern stadium standard).  Arsenal did have a Jeld-Wen size field and used to be known for cynical defensive football, but then Arsene Wenger came in and instilled a possession, quick passing style of play utilizing world class players who could pull it off.  Still, when they built their new stadium they went to 75x115.

Just sayin'

Soccernomics: Size Matters

An interesting blog post from Steve Goff, the Washington Post soccer reporter, on the DC United win in Portland (which was a dismal affair with almost no quality soccer to speak of). For a while I have been raising the issue of the tiny field at Jeld-Wen, and mostly being chided for worrying about it. But my point - that a small turf field is not conducive to beautiful soccer - is being echoed now by those who are covering and playing the matches.

First, here is Goff himself wondering why (as I have) the field cannot be expanded by a couple of yards in all directions:

On Jeld-Wen Stadium’s narrow pitch, two assists came off throw-ins (by Chris Pontius and Jeremy Hall) and the Dejan Jakovic penalty came off a throw. On United’s final goal, Bill Hamid could’ve been credited with a secondary assist. The dimensions are listed at 110 yards long, 70 yards wide. Oddly, there seems to be ample room to expand the playing surface to a more suitable size. The Timbers have conformed well to these tight quarters, but the matches lack elegance.

"Lack elegance" is one (nice) way to put it... A couple of yards sounds like nothing right?  But the difference between 70 by 110 and 74 by 114 is 10% more playing area.  The international standard right now for new stadia is 75 by 115, I think Portland should work with the league to allow for slightly less room behind the goals and out of touch or else this type of ugly ping pong and punting soccer is going to be the norm. Here is Goff quoting DC United coach Ben Olsen who mentions the field:

“It was about dealing with set pieces, and that’s what this field is about. Unfortunately, that’s what it is. It’s not fun to come here and play because it’s tough to play soccer. It’s about getting the balls into the box, but that’s the reality when you come here. Historically, we have lost when the field is small, when it’s turf, when it’s a real gritty game. The guys today were fed up with that and showed that they can compete physically with any team in the league.”

The emphasis is mine. Note that he doesn't say it is tough to come and play against the Timbers or in front of the Army, but that it is tough to actually play the game: control, passing, movement.  Instead what we get is a lot of punting the ball.

Ajax last wednesday showed that with players of enough quality you can play good soccer even on a small plastic field, but MLS is not up to this level yet and won't be for a long time.  I think this is a real potential problem for the business that is Portland Timbers.  Folks are not going to continue to spend money and time going out to the stadium and watching the match on TV if the game is going to be so sloppy and dull.

Soccernomics: Home Field Advantage

Rachel Bachman in The Oregonian has a nice article on home-field advantage in sports and how it is a bigger factor in MLS than in other major league sports.   Andrew Patterson, a Las Vegas oddsmaker, claims that the data show that:

In the NHL, home ice alone is worth about a 3-4 percent advantage. In Major League Baseball, home field is worth 5-6 percent. In the NBA, homecourt is worth 7-8 percent. In the NFL, home field is 8-10 percent.

In MLS, home field generally gives teams a half-goal advantage, Patterson said.

"A half-goal is worth more than 10 percent," he said. "It's huge. It's really big."

Economists have studied home field advantage, perhaps most prominently in soccer, where research from Europe suggests that referees are influenced by home crowds.  And there is also a literature that looks at sports betting behavior and whether such betting markets are efficient by adjusting prices to reflect such biases.

But as far as the particular advantage in soccer, I think it is less about the referees (there is no reason to believe that soccer referees are more or less influenced than in other sports I would suggest) but about the nature of the game of soccer with is a continuous flow with few substitutes.  There is no stopping and starting and momentum plays a big role so the crowd can help get the team going earlier in games.  Players also need to stay energized both mentally and physically for 90 minutes of almost constant running and the crowd can play a big role in keeping the players 'up' especially in the latter parts of the second half.

Soccernomics: Does it Pay to be Professional? Timbers Salaries

Ever wonder what soccer players (not named Beckham and Henry) get for playing professionally in the MLS?  Well, here are the Timbers salaries this year (you can find all MLS salaries here).  I know that the order and formatting is terrible, but being a man of an advanced age, this is about as good as my technological abilities get.  Actually and more to the point: the opportunity cost of doing more than this quick clip is too high.

For me the best value-for-money by far is Kalif Alhassan who is my vote for MVP at this point in the season.  The worst is probably Kevin Goldthwaite who has not seen much action and doesn't look to see much more as well as Futty is playing.

The Timbers, by the way, have the lowest payroll in the league:

Soccernomics: Timbers Army and Soccer City

Its Friday, I am busy and don't have time for anything serious.  [By the way part of the reason I am busy is I was taping a Think Out Loud show this morning that will air tonight at 9 on OPB]  Anyway, two Timbers related things from this mornings Oregon stood out to me.

The first was John Canzano's hit piece on the Timbers Army in which he confuses complements and substitutes.  To me he has a point that the Army will have to tone down its act and understand that things have changed with the move to MLS.  I think the Army gets this - just look at their blog where they openly discuss snuffing out overly offensive chants.  But he seems to think the whole Army is a substitute to a more mainstream audience.  I think this is entirely wrong - the Army is a vital complement to the general audience, creating atmosphere that attracts other fans and is vital to keeping the overall experience exciting.

Generally a good thing in that it gets people interested and attracted to the sport, this is the one problem with the proliferation of European soccer on US television: it highlights the enormous gulf in the quality of play between top Euro leagues and the MLS.  Apparently the Timbers field will be at the very small end of the FIFA guidelines at 110 by 70 yards.  Mix a small field with plastic turf and quality but not world-class players and you have a recipe for a pretty dull spectacle of the ball ping-ponging around until it eventually goes out.  So the TA creating a lively atmosphere is going to be vital.

The second is the ridiculous article on which MLS city has the best claim to "Soccer City USA."  The first problem is that the metrics that really matter are not quantifiable and the proxies the O used are not at all good.  Attendance at USL games does not compare to MLS and the fact that there is a huge TA section going crazy is not something that shoes up in attendance figures.

But the most laughable part is who they identified as Soccer City, USA: San Jose.  You have got to be kidding.  They have some of the worst attendance in the league and have already lost their franchise once because of it.  And then there is this line:

Although the Earthquakes averaged an MLS-worst 9,659 in average attendance last season, they rated better than average in that category when the data were adjusted for San Jose's 1.8 million people -- third-smallest metro area in the league.

What? San Jose is a part of the Oakland-San Francisco bay area (one of the biggest metro areas in the US) and is the only soccer franchise in town. There is no other way to view their attendance than as completely woeful.

So, it may not be Portland, but it sure 'aint San Jose.

Go Timbers!

Soccernomics: The United States Refusal to Embrace the World's Game is Responsible for Our Trade Deficit

The United States is the greatest sporting nation in the history of the world.  We dominate the Olympics, we produce top talent in just about every sport imaginable (okay, not cricket).  But, even more than Obama, it is our sports provincialism is destroying America!  When have we ever exported american football players, or baseball (save for a few to Japan)?  Basketball is pretty good - it is pretty popular around the world - but ice hockey? I don't think so.  And Washington sits on its hands as out trade deficit gets ever worse-er!

No, like Nero, we fiddle as our trade deficit burns a hole in our economy.  And at last we have to suffer in the ignominy of the knowledge that it is Argentina, not the USA (nor Brazil for that matter) that is the worlds number one exporter of footballers:

Argentina sold more than 1,700 players last year, almost 300 more than Brazil.

Argentina's trade has grown by almost 800% in five years after European clubs eased restrictions on foreign players.

Last year the football player export business was worth $117m (£74.5m) to Argentina.

A total of 1,716 Argentine players were sold, compared with 1,443 sold by the next biggest provider, Brazil.

Trade growing 800%! $117 million! C'mon Washington, we need a soccer trade policy and we need it now!

Soccernomics: Timbers Sponsor and MLS TV Ratings

Good and bad news on the soccer front:

First the good: the Timbers have just announced that Alaska Airlines will be their shirt sponsor (i.e. the company whose logo will grace the front of their shirts) when they become an MLS franchise.

Considering only about half of MLS teams have a shirt sponsor, this seems significant.  Obviously Alaska Airlines thinks that the team will garner enough media attention (especially in the Northwest) to warrant the investment.  This is in stark contrast to the new Philadelphia MLS franchise that still does not have such a sponsor.  The Timbers still have the stadium naming rights to sell as well, so economically speaking the Timbers are off to a pretty good start, which doesn't surprise me as from what I can tell Paulson has assembled a first-class front office.

Now the bad: according to the Sports Business Daily, MLS is struggling with TV ratings.

"MLS games on ESPN2 are averaging 257,000 viewers for 18 telecasts through Aug. 17, down 9.5% from 284,000 viewers through the same period last year (17 telecasts) and down 10.1% from the same period in '08 (16 telecasts)."

Given that attendances are up this year and another major TV market was added to the league, there is no way to sugarcoat this news.  It is terrible.  Modern professional sports are all about TV these days and you would hope that MLS would be making progress.  ESPN is doing better at promoting the games and even mentioning them once and a while on SportsCenter.  A big reason for the expansion push was to increase the TV footprint.  It is a work in progress but the movement is in the wrong direction.

Which brings up an interesting economics question: are domestic MLS games and the World Cup complements or substitutes? There was the thought that the World Cup would raise interest in soccer in general and that this would spill over to the MLS once it was over.  But this hasn't happened.  Perhaps then people got their soccer fix early in the summer and now have no use for more.  Or they saw what top class soccer looks like and noticed that MLS still has a ways to go to match that level of play.

And speaking of level of play, the NY Red Bulls with Rafa Marquez, Thierry Henry and Juan-Pablo Angel suddenly look like a top class and classy team.  Beautiful to watch.

Soccernomics: The Timbers, The Beavers and Paulson

Ross William Hamilton/The Oregonian

The folks that think that the PGE Park makeover for soccer is folly must believe that Merritt Paulson is a naive rube. I think they misunderestimate him. Paulson appears to be a sharp businessperson and, from my small sample of personal interactions with the Timbers front office, he appears to have created an top-class organization, at least on the business end of the deal. I recently purchased my season tickets and had a few questions and concerns was very impressed by the response I got. I even complained recently about the abrupt logo change after buying the boy a t-shirt and got a very professional and courteous response from the company contracted to sell Timbers merchandise.  I think Merritt saw an opportunity in soccer and Portland and has been shrewd in exploiting it and navigating the treacherous waters of local politics.

The news that Paulson is likely selling the Beavers comes as no surprise, with no future in Portland and soccer in the ascendancy, Pauslon's best bet right now is to focus on the Timbers. But don't think he is taking a bath on his Beavers investment: he bought the Beavers and Timbers together in 2007 reportedly for around $16 million and is in negotiations to sell off the Beavers alone for $20 to $25 million. Not bad  for a three year ROI - shrewd indeed.

I, for one, will be sad to see them go and sad at the loss of the lazy summer evenings and afternoons in PGE Park watching baseball.  It is great to know you can walk up, buy a general admission ticket and find a great seat.  But the fact is that PGE Park just doesn't work for baseball in Portland but is great for soccer and soccer is on the rise.  The World Cup ratings bonanza experienced by ESPN and Univision evidences a growing appetite for the sport in the US.  Here is a great recent article from Fortune about the Timbers and Beavers:

FORTUNE -- Portland, Ore. is the city of a thousand nicknames. "Stumptown," perhaps its oldest, harkens back to the region's logging roots. "Beervana," a nod to the city's renowned craft brew scene, is another favorite. Rumor has it, violent protests prompted George H. W. Bush's staff to christen the city "Little Beirut." But if Henry Merritt Paulson III has his way, "Soccer City USA," may become Portland's next big moniker.

The son of former Treasury secretary Henry Paulson, Merritt, who goes by his middle name, bet big on Portland's underserved sports market in 2007, when he convinced his family to buy the AAA baseball Portland Beavers and minor league soccer Portland Timbers for an estimated $16 million. Four years later, the investment may begin paying off when, riding the wave of post-World Cup popularity, the Timbers become Major League Soccer's 18th franchise in 2011, and Paulson, a 37-year-old former NBA and HBO executive, becomes the league's youngest owner.

"The timing is terrific," says Paulson, overlooking the field from his PGE Park office. Tall, thin, and with a collection of baseball and soccer gear strewn about his office, he looks like he could rip off a batting practice session at any moment -- but the constant ding of emails hitting his inbox shows how unlikely that is.

"Anybody who's doubts soccer's relevance need only look at the ratings and the attention that the World Cup has received here in the states," he says. "The awareness and the interest is at a high point."

On the other hand, interest in Portland Beavers baseball couldn't be any lower. Since being named a charter member of the Pacific Coast League in 1903, the team has existed as various franchises under a slew of different owners, and it has been affiliated with an array of major league teams.

Currently, the Beavers are the top farm team for the first place San Diego Padres. But on this day, most of the Beavers' 19,566 seats will sit empty as fewer than 2,500 fans tip the turnstiles to watch the team's ninth inning rally fall short. The Beavers have played in multi-use PGE Park since 1956, and currently share the stadium with the Timbers. But next year, under the MLS's $35 million expansion agreement, they will be evicted. The MLS mandates that their teams play in soccer-specific stadiums. So after $31 million of public and private-funded renovations, there will be a new pitch in Portland, but it won't be for baseball.

MLS's Game Plan

The MLS's edict is grounded in savvy business planning, as the league hopes to dodge financial troubles that have plagued past, now-defunct American soccer leagues. "The MLS has built itself for the long haul," says Paulson. "It's been fiscally conservative and prudent, as well as successful in developing soccer specific venues, which is crucial." According to MLS Commissioner Don Garber, soccer-specific stadiums are necessary to maximize revenue through premium seating, television-optimized sight lines, scheduling priority, and increased advertising opportunities, including naming rights.

Considering the league's track record, it's hard to argue with Garber's recommendations. Founded with the proceeds of the U.S.-hosted 1994 World Cup, the league began with ten teams in 1996 and will number 20 teams by 2012. In 2007, MLS also saw considerable growth after the 2006 World Cup, with David Beckham signing with the Los Angeles Galaxy, the signing of a 10 year $100 million clothing and equipment deal with Adidas, and with Toronto -- one of its most profitable teams -- joining the league.

Expansion fees, which are somewhat commensurate with team values, have also climbed in recent years. For example, Toronto payed $10 million to join MLS in 2007, while the Seattle Sounders paid $30 million to join in 2010. Montreal, the next team to join after Portland and Vancouver, B.C. launch in 2011, will pay $40 million to become a member in 2012. The fees give teams rights to operate a club in their market, the opportunity to join the board of governors, and an ownership share in MLS's marketing arm.

If Seattle's success is any indication, the potential for Portland and Vancouver is promising. The Sounders were just named Professional Sports Team of the Year by Sports Business Journal, beating competition from the NBA, NFL, NHL and MLB. Partially owned by Paul Allen, the team plays at the Microsoft (MSFT, Fortune 500) co-founder's Qwest Field, and averaged 30,000 fans per home game in their 2009 debut season. In 2010, the stadium expanded its soccer capacity to nearly 36,000 seats, and has continued to sell out every match along the way. "In my view, this is one of the most successful launches of a pro sports franchise ever," says Garber.

With about 20,000 seats, Portland can't match Seattle's attendance, but the league still expects it to perform well and hopes some Pacific Northwest rubs off on the team. As a minor league soccer squad, they already pack the stadium and recently sold out a "friendly" exhibition match against Seattle in just six days.

A loud, raucous group calling themselves "the Timbers Army" occupies an entire section of PGE Park and stays on its feet the entire game. Away from the pitch, Adidas makes its North America headquarters in North Portland while Nike's (NKE, Fortune 500) worldwide nerve center is in nearby Beaverton. Local youth soccer participation levels are through the roof, and the area's televised soccer viewing is among the highest in the nation, says Garber. "There's clearly something very special taking place in the Pacific Northwest as it relates to soccer," he adds.

[Read the rest at Fortune]

The lingering question is why hasn't Portland supported the Beavers in greater numbers? Theories abound about whether the city is a 'baseball' town and I don't really know the answer, but decent MLB ratings on Portland TV suggest something else about the reality of professional sports in this media saturated age: when the best is easily available in your home, going out to watch minor league baseball feels like a compromise - especially for a town the size of Portland.  I just don't think minor league sports work well in big cities anymore.  I have a sense that a MLB team would be well-supported, but who knows?  We'll probably never find out.

Anyway, as for me, I have my Timbers tickets and am looking forward to the atmosphere that the new PGE Park will provide for soccer and for never-ending advocacy of moving the small time stuff out so that the Timbers can play on grass. I will miss the Beavers though and those lazy nights at the Park with friends and kids.

Soccernomics: Omnibus World Cup Post

Haven't written much for a while so a collection of thoughts:

My first thought about Uruguay's Luis Suarez batting what would have been Ghana's winning goal away with his hands in the last seconds of the extra-time period was that he was an astute student of game theory.  Not using his hands would have meant that Uruguay would have lost and he would have played his last game of the tournament.  Using his hands meant his team still had a very slight chance to win and he would have played his last game of the tournament.  It is a no-brainer - he had nothing to lose.  What it suggests is that there needs to be a more effective punishment for such horrendously cynical behavior - perhaps awarding a goal if it is clear it would have scored.

I was saddened by the USAs ouster, but happy that they escaped the humiliation of 1998 and 2006. Given their consistently terrible starts where they look tentative and tight - I am wondering whether the extremely cerebral and analytical approach of coach Bob Bradley causes them to be thinking too much at the beginning of the match and not just playing the game.  Either way, though Bob has done a great job it is time for a new approach, it is rare for a national team coach to last more than one World Cup and I think a new, perhaps European, perspective might be good for the team and for US Soccer.

Brazil deserved to lose. The Netherlands, which looked ready to implode - yet again - on Robin Van Persie's petulant outburst, managed to overcome the usual Dutch tempest of egos and play hard for the entire game and find two goals, even if they were soft.  The most striking aspect of the game was how bad the Brazilians looked in the midfield - completely lacking creativity and flair save for the one beautiful counter that lead to their goal.  Such is the state of the team under Dunga, but perhaps it is also indicative of the fact that the best Brazilian players are going to Europe as youngsters and their are fewer and fewer with real flair and talent.  I am left wondering whether Ronaldinho would have made a difference.

I was impressed with Argentina under Maradona until the real competition started and the lack of tactics was painfully exposed.  The manager as cheerleader bit only goes so far.

Speaking of managers, Jurgen Klinsmann is, perhaps rightfully, taking a lot of the credit for Germany's success.  A master plan, implemented prior to the 2006 World Cup, appears to be paying dividends. 

Finally, Spain look good but at times the short-passing deliberative approach seems to stall and they are a bit at a loss.  Paraguay seemed to completely flummox the Spaniards for most of the game and I wonder if Germany will do the same.

If I had to pick right now, I'd pick the Germans - strange as that seems to me. I never gave them a second thought before the cup - too young and inexperienced.  But they are playing as a total team, working hard for each other and staying organized, and they are playing with confidence and verve.  I think they will miss Mueller tomorrow though.  If they win, they will be thoroughly deserving winners.

Soccernomics: The Future of Soccer as a Spectator Sport in the US?

The New York Times' Richard Sandomir has an article on what has so far been a World Cup ratings bonanza for ESPN.  This is striking because the time difference means that all the games are shown during the day in the US.  Here are some excerpts from the article:

For the ESPN empire and Univision, any questions about the return on their investment in the World Cup are being answered by viewers. On Saturday, the United States’ loss to Ghana was seen by 14.9 million on ABC — an American record for the tournament — and an additional 4.5 million on Univision.

That’s 19.4 million viewers for a Round of 16 game on a Saturday afternoon at 2:30 p.m. Eastern — the same number that Fox averaged over six prime-time games for last year’s World Series.

“That’s phenomenal,” said Stephen Master, the vice president for sports at the Nielsen Company. “If the U.S. had kept going, to the quarters and semifinal, you would have gotten really big numbers.”

...

Then, on Sunday, Argentina’s win over Mexico was seen by 9.4 million Univision viewers, a record for any program on Spanish-language television in the United States. An additional 5.5 million watched on ABC.

Also on Sunday, 7.9 million watched Germany beat England on ESPN and Univision.

Executives of both companies said that the tournament’s performance had exceeded their expectations — a considerable claim given ESPN’s assertion that its World Cup marketing campaign was the biggest one it had ever mounted for a single event (and that includes some of its self-congratulatory anniversaries).

“This is a good, sound financial proposition for us,” said John Skipper, ESPN’s executive vice president for content. “We have the 2014 rights in Brazil, at a favorable time that gives us a favorable financial opportunity.” Rio de Janeiro’s time zone is one hour later than New York’s, pushing games to prime time and ad rates higher.

...

Through 52 games, ESPN’s average viewership is up 58 percent to 2.86 million; Univision’s is 2.1 million, up nearly 9 percent. Figure, then, that about five million are watching the games, comparable to the N.B.A. playoffs, excluding the finals, and the Stanley Cup finals. And, as Master said, the games have all been shown in daytime in the United States.

“If you consider that, the World Cup numbers are fantastic,” Master said.

ESPN executives say there are various signposts of the South African World Cup’s success: a 28 percent increase from 2006 in ratings for games not including the United States team; a 38 percent jump in the rating for men 18 to 49; and a 29 percent increase in ratings in Hispanic households, which does not seem to have hurt Univision.

...

He added that ESPN’s investment in the World Cup was “an investment in the future.”

Enoch said, “There is a growing interest in soccer, and there’s certainly growth in the Hispanic population.” How much of the post-World Cup afterglow will be reflected in Major League Soccer attendance and viewership remains to be seen.

ESPN’s devotion to the World Cup may be serving as its audition for the Olympics. ESPN and NBC are the leading bidders for the rights to the 2014 and 2016 Winter and Summer Games, which will probably be auctioned next year. Skipper has vowed to carry everything live from the Olympics if ESPN wins, regardless of the time.

...

“I’m told median age for the World Cup viewers is 37, and the Olympics 52,” said Brad Adgate, the senior vice president for research at Horizon Media, an advertising agency, indicating that the network that could reach younger viewers had an advantage. “The Olympics are a remnant of the cold war, and the World Cup is part of the country’s ethnic diversity, the way this country is gradually moving.”

MLS ratings on ESPN still appear to be pretty awful, from Sports Media Watch:

Sunday's Sounders/Union MLS telecast drew a 0.2 U.S. rating and 331,000 viewers on ESPN2, down 5% in viewership from Dynamo/Galaxy in a later timeslot on the comparable date last year (350,000). To put that in perspective, the network averaged 193,000 viewers for its first seven MLS telecasts of the season (through May 7)

So the huge spectacle of the World Cup may be capturing American's attention, but our little professional league is not yet. It is not too surprising, the MLS may be the top league in the US and Canada, but it is still probably about a third-tier league worldwide and Americans aren't used to that.  Until the big money from TV comes in the league will not have big payrolls and thus few big imported stars.  So the future growth of the league will probably remain the same organic process - slowly improve the American player through involvement in player development and professionalism.  This will still take a few generations, but it is pretty remarkable we have come in less than 15 years.  I think soccer as a big time professional sport in the US is inevitable, but still a long way off.

Soccernomics: New Timbers Crest, Take 2

Now that I have commented about it a couple of times I am kinda locked in to commenting once again (and hopefully for the last time) about the Timbers sudden and abrupt re-jiggering of their new crest.  In case you missed the drama, the Timbers, with lots of pomp and circumstance, introduced their new MLS crest in Director Park, during halftime of the USA-England match.  [Weird to think of the hype now, after both sides were revealed to be decidedly mediocre]  The unveiling did not go well. A vocal group of Timbers Army-types announced their displeasure almost immediately with a profanity laced chant.  Classy.

Here was the original version:

Timbers Army types hated it - but special ire was directed at the axe, which, with the shading and detail, was derided as 'cartoonish.' In fact I got a comment on this blog directing me to a Facebook page dedicated to getting the Timbers to change it. No way in heck, thought I, will the Timbers touch it. To me it represented the Timbers trying to stay in touch with the roots of the team (in reality these roots are entirely erzatz, I mean come on, resurecting ther mame for a second division franchise is not the same thing as having a long-standing team).  I was equivocal about it, but my initial reaction was that the shading on the axe was bad.  In fact it was especially bad when the secondary color was produced as yellow which it was a lot at first. In fact, I thought that the Timbers did this intentionally to ease the transition away from yellow. If so, this was a mistake, because the axe shading works much better in the moss green that is the actual secondary color.  In fact the first logo started growing on me and my eight year old son eagerly grabbed a new t-shirt and has worn it proudly:

Which I think, in the dark/light green colors, looks pretty snazzy. Not at all classic like I prefer, but then it is not about me, and I can be objective.

Next thing you know the Timbers abruptly cave to the Timbers Army and announce the newly redesigned new logo:

Which seems to me an improvement in some ways - the logo is a bit cleaner and simpler - but essentially unchanged, save for the axe which has no detail at all. And now, I am not so sure which I prefer. [What I am sure about is that I am pissed off that I spent $20 on a temporary logo shirt for the boy - I await word about what they are going to do with people like me] The boy hates the new logo compared to the old one, which makes sense to me - the old one seemed more geared to the younger set.  The new one feels less logo-y and more crest-y so I guess if I saw the two and had to pick I'd pick the new one, but it sure has the feel of a compromise - a fully realized design tweaked at the last minute.  I thought a good compromise would have been a refreshed original logo as a secondary crest.  And if you are going to redesign it, you should start from scratch.  So in then end, I think the Timbers should have stuck to their original design and, like Arsenal, the fury would have quickly subsided.

I don't know whether to think the Timbers should be applauded for reposinding to the criticism or if this portends something worse - letting the Timbers Army have too much agency over the team's business decisions. The Timbers should have involved the Army in the design process from the get-go, for sure,  and they blundered on the public unveiling because they didn't.  And the Timbers Army has every right to express their opinion and they matter a lot - a successful MLS Timbers need them.  But come on, is this new new logo so different that before the world was ending and now everything is sunshine and light?  No.  [And of course, lots of folks still hate it]

The fact is that the Timbers Army are great and a big reason that soccer in Portland is unique, but they too often act like adolescents and are going to have to clean up their act if the Timbers are going to be a successful MLS team. Profane chanting in a public square? - c'mon, that is totally bush league. The Timbers are going to have to fill a lot of expensive seats and families don't always like sitting and listening to chanted obscenities for two hours.  So there is going to have to be a middle ground here and I know the Timbers Army feel ownership of the team right now, but they are going to have to learn to share.

So that's all soccer, where is the 'nomics? Well, the Timbers are in the always sticky situation of trying to attract new customers while still keeping the loyal ones happy.  Remember New Coke?  I didn't think so.  There is an additional pitfall when part of the allure of being a customer is that you are part of a small club.  It is similar to a popular underground band that hits big.  All of a sudden some of of the utility customers got from consuming the band's music disappears as part of the fun was knowing about a band only a few others did as well.  Lots of big time companies have trouble with this, so it does not surprise me that the Timbers have too.  A little more inclusion before and a little more spine after would seem to have been a better strategy.

Oh, and as far as merchandise, the Timbers are trying to have it both ways: hawking the old stuff without explicitly disclosing than change.  In fact if you go to their website the front page has the redesigned logo but the merchandise page has the original new logo with lots of gear to match. [UPDATE: They fixed the logo on the store page - good job - but still show merchandise withe the old logo and no explanation] This is not cool.  This seems to me like something awfully close to fraud - deliberately trying to mislead.

Soccernomics: The Economics of the World Cup

Sick of soccer yet? I know I am pushing my luck but never fear, the Oregon jobs report comes out tomorrow. So today I give you another World Cup related post as I am busy trying to finish my grading by the noon deadline. Here are some nifty charts about the economics (really the business) of the World Cup:

Soccernomics: Crests and the Economic Value of a Good Logo

Just because I have posted on this before I thought I had better follow-up, though even I am weary of too much soccer despite the worlds biggest sporting event being only a few days off.

The Vancouver Whitecaps have released their new MLS crest (as seen above).  Pretty boring in my opinion but, and more importantly, inoffensive. [See my earlier post on MLS crests if you care to witness the horrors of earlier logos]  Interesting that they are going for the FC label - seems to be de rigueur these days.  I have no problem with it - but how about someone bucking the trend and going all American with an SC?

Meanwhile the Timbers will be unveiling their new crest on Saturday at Director Park during the halftime interval of the USA - England match being shown on a big screen there.  To get people worked up into logo frenzy thay have released a series of four teaser videos with clues to the new crest.  In them, they have revealed that the new crest will: one, be round; two, have an axe that 'escapes' the confines of the circle; three, have three chevrons; four, be dark green and light green.  So there you go.

Everything fine as far as it goes, but the light green makes me nervous. "Loud and bold" according to the Timbers.  Sounds like it is to replace the yellow so I imagine will be a bit yellow-green, but hopefully nothing neon-ish like the Sounders' nightmarish green which appears to be a way to keep the colors close to the Seahawks and to their current sponsor, XBOX.

But it got me wondering, just how big an economic gamble is this?

Well, fortunately the Sports Business Journal has a recent article on the latest addition to the MLS, the Philadelphia Union (new crest: OEB approved).

Seattle Sounders FC may not be an expansion team any more, but they still lead MLS in merchandise sales.

The Sounders’ continued success combined with strong sales of Philadelphia Union merchandise have combined to drive double-digit percentage increases in MLS merchandise sales this year. Sell-throughs of MLS merchandise at large retail partners such as Dick’s Sporting Goods have been strong, allowing MLS to set a record for the first quarter for merchandise sales, said Stu Crystal, MLS vice president of consumer products.

...

The club has already sold seven figures worth of merchandise and is expected to hit eight figures by the end of the year. It is enjoying 90 percent sell-through on core items such as replica jerseys and scarves.

“It’s been an incredible shot in the arm for our business,” Crystal said. “There’s a lot of competition with other teams in Philadelphia, but fans have been gobbling up their merchandise.”

Crystal credited the team’s logo as being a major factor in sales. [Emphasis mine] The club incorporated a rattlesnake from the famed “Don’t Tread on Me” flag into its shield. It was an image that its largest supporters group, the Sons of Ben, had used in their campaign to get an MLS franchise.
“The merchandise … is some of the hottest-selling gear for the MLS right now,” said Steve Sterhan, soccer category manager for Adidas America. “We are only five weeks into the season, and retailers are reporting double-digit sell-though.” 

So the answer is that it is pretty big business in general, but still how much does a good logo matter over a bad logo? Or in economics terms, what is the marginal value of a good logo? Crystal suggests it matters a lot, but you can't really test these things. Portland is a smaller market than Philly but has less sports competition, so I would imagine similar sales. Let's go with the eight digit floor of $10 million. If a good logo increases that by 10% we are talking real money and that is only in the first year - the present discounted marginal value of a good logo could easily reach eight figures itself.  Hmmm...let's hope Merritt and the rest of the Timbers management chose wisely.