Football Discussion Forums

While I do think that MLS stadiums (ones that seat between 15,000 and 30,000 seats) is ideal for the UFL, I think that people are forgetting that not every MLS team is open to spring football as the DC United have with the Defenders at Audi Field.  It's likely one of the reasons the Stars and Generals did not survive the merger, as the Philadelphia Union and New York Red Bulls may not be open to the UFL.  Yes, many of these teams do not own their stadiums, but they are the primary tenant, with the right to refuse if they want to.  I had heard that the UFL considered placing the Roughnecks in the smaller 22,000 seat Shell Energy Stadium but that the league ultimately chose Rice Stadium.  That is probably because of scheduling at that stadium with the Houston Dynamo and Houston Dash occupying most of the dates in the spring, otherwise, the Dynamo might have been open to it.  

If the UFL was to bring back the Denver Gold, I would think that they would try the 18,000 Dicks Sporting Goods Park over the 76,000 Invesco Field at Mile High (where the Broncos play).  But any agreement to play in the Smaller Dick's Sporting Goods Park would have to require the MLS Colorado Rapids to be open to allowing their field for spring football and there's no guarantee of that.  Now with the rumors of an expansion team in Nashville, the logical option would be Geodis Park (30,000) but Nashville SC would have to sign off on it.  

It's unknown at this point how many MLS teams would allow UFL teams at their stadiums.  There's a chance that DC United might be the only one or there may be others open to it, we just don't know it yet.  I am not counting Lumen Field in this because this is only for MLS stadiums with 15,000 to 30,000 seats and Lumen Field seats 68,000.  Also the primary tenant at Lumen Field is not the Seattle Sounders, but the Seattle Seahawks.

Personally, I think the league should be looking to go this route. Seeing 7-8,000 fans in stadiums that seat 60,000+ is not a good look. Unfortunately, right now the only teams I could see moving into an MLS stadium are Houston and Arlington. Arlington could play at Toyota Stadium in Frisco (Home of FC Dallas) which seats 20,000 and is where the FCS national championship is played. The Roughnecks play at the home of the Dynamo. All other teams don't have an MLS team nearby, except STL and they have shown to be successful in getting crowds. I think as the league expands, they should really try to look for alternatives to larger stadiums. If a team ends up in Nashville, Geodis Park (30,000) would be a good location. A stadium like Hall of Stadium in Canton is the perfect size for a spring football stadium at 23,000 capacity. Like mentioned above, it is up to the MLS teams to allow them to play there. It also depends on costs and where rent might be the cheapest for the league to operate.

mciver40 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2024 7:53 pm Personally, I think the league should be looking to go this route. Seeing 7-8,000 fans in stadiums that seat 60,000+ is not a good look. Unfortunately, right now the only teams I could see moving into an MLS stadium are Houston and Arlington. Arlington could play at Toyota Stadium in Frisco (Home of FC Dallas) which seats 20,000 and is where the FCS national championship is played. The Roughnecks play at the home of the Dynamo. All other teams don't have an MLS team nearby, except STL and they have shown to be successful in getting crowds. I think as the league expands, they should really try to look for alternatives to larger stadiums. If a team ends up in Nashville, Geodis Park (30,000) would be a good location. A stadium like Hall of Stadium in Canton is the perfect size for a spring football stadium at 23,000 capacity. Like mentioned above, it is up to the MLS teams to allow them to play there. It also depends on costs and where rent might be the cheapest for the league to operate.

This is a great idea, and is honestly how the league should have been set up from the beginning.

The problem is that almost all of the soccer specific stadiums are owned by their resident MLS teams.

As these fields are also required ( by MLS ) to be grass, few, if any, of these teams would allow them be to be chewed up by football games.

( in case you were wondering Audi Field is owned by The District of Columbia, and not the team )

BattleHawks wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2024 11:37 pm This is a great idea, and is honestly how the league should have been set up from the beginning.

The problem is that almost all of the soccer specific stadiums are owned by their resident MLS teams.

As these fields are also required ( by MLS ) to be grass, few, if any, of these teams would allow them be to be chewed up by football games.

( in case you were wondering Audi Field is owned by The District of Columbia, and not the team )

Thank-you for pointing out the problems with assuming that the UFL can easily get into MLS stadiums.  It is definitely a situation where MLS teams don't want the turf torn up... and for that matter, don't want the lines painted on the field as strongly as they normally wood (look at DC's field last year, those markings were so faint.. no painted endzones...)

I get tired of all the expansion talk that says, "Oh look, they've got an MLS stadium we can use!" (looking at you San Diego Fleet fans!)  I'm sure the UFL has an agreement in place to heavily maintain the field in DC so it is acceptable to the MLS franchise, but I'm sure that's expensive and not a route a fledgling league wants to go down for every market.

Ultimately, medium-sized multipurpose venues in the 15-30k range need to be built in more cities for rugby/lacrosse/soccer/UFL usage from the outset (hardier grass/turf that's acceptable to all types of play).  Until that happens, we'll be playing ball in cavernous stadia or lower-tier fields.

Agreed, vamanos _brahmas!

If only it were that easy.