Ives sounds off about traveling fans, but states that the only traveling support in MLS to date is between New York and D.C. and New York and Boston.
I know everyone is on the Ives bandwagon these days, but this is shoddy journalism, period. Chicago - Columbus? Los Angeles - San Jose? Toronto's trip to Chicago last year? Chicago Fire fans dominating the MLS Cup crowd in Columbus that one year when we weren't even playing?
Seriously, just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it never happens.
Tith regard to the specific Chicago-Toronto issue, Tom at Pitch Invasion actually answers my biggest question about this right here:
In other countries, such as England, a certain proportion of the stadium is guaranteed for away support in all competitions: in the Premier League and Football League, it’s 3,000 or 10% of the stadium, whichever is lower. It’s true that there would be little point reserving large numbers of seats for Kansas City fans in Los Angeles, for example — the distances and culture are different from Europe — but a sensible solution to deal with organised groups should be properly explored.
What this comes down to is Toronto calling Section 8's bluff on the number of people they can get across the border. I don't know that it's an indictment -- Peter Wilt more reasonably flags it as a warning sign -- of how MLS handles traveling support, unless you firmly believe that Section 8 can get 500 people for the trip. Knowing how big the Fire supporters association talks sometimes, it's not a wholly unreasonable position. It's still kind of a dick move, but again, not wholly unreasonable.
In the short term, you've got to prove you can back up your numbers before anyone will give you the benefit of the doubt, especially when it comes to North American soccer support. It may be an unfortunate truth, but it's the current state. If things like a New York - Philadelphia rivalry in 20,000-seat stadiums can change that, then great. But right now, supporters clubs often exist in a bit of a bubble where they severely overestimate their reach and their numbers. This may simply be a reminder that we're not there yet.
So that would be the other way of looking at this. I know Tom and maybe Peter are reading this, so I'm curious to hear their response.
Section 8 took over 200 to Toronto last year and turned down a few dozen more tickets (disappointing quite a few people) because they were trying to parcel some of the fans into the middle of another section, something S8C wasn't comfortable with. Given that game was in May and was the first of two in Toronto, whilst this season's is in October and is the only one, at least 300 is a given for any objective observer.
Toronto's the second shortest away trip for Chicago, so it's a kick in the teeth to not be able to build on the momentum and make it a big regular trip like Columbus. I don't think asking for 500 is overestimating reach, but if Toronto has said here's 300 or maybe even 250, that wouldn't have seemed as unreasonable as halving the allocation from last year that we more than matched.
The issue is that we've gone backwards in the year since Ben Burton first asked Don Garber to start dealing with the issue. Ben is looking to the future, true, but that seems wise to me to forestall problems and encourage a culture friendly to travelling support
But at no point has Toronto explained their decision by expressing any doubt about S8C selling the tickets. Moreover, I think the allocations should and will exceed what can be sold at times -- you just give a deadline for them to be sold and then put leftovers on general sale.
One rough idea I have is that each team could create an Away Supporters Club for a nominal annual subscription through which you buy tickets for away games. Everyone interested in travelling signs up for that and could put down deposits for individual trips before the season starts, thus giving you a good idea of the likely numbers each team will take for each trip. I'm not sure that's a solution, but we need to think about something. Section 8 is receiving advice from the Football Supporters' Federation in England on the issue.
Overall what concerns me more is not that supporters' groups aren't being given the benefit of the doubt on away support, but that MLS (until this week, as the article's made them take notice) has just not wanted to even talk about it at all, as if it doesn't exist and isn't going to grow soon. When it's the supporters talking more about safety and planning it seems to me something is backwards.
Check me if I'm wrong, but 200 is not 500, is it?
Even 200 and a few dozen more is not 500.
I agree with Coz in that y'all overestimate your reach and your numbers.
Sucks that you are used to a league where tickets are readily available for the asking. But Toronto's first obligation is to Torontonians, not Chicagoans. It would be nice if we had a soccer culture (and a small enough country) where away support was a given instead of an anomaly.
We're not there yet. And outside of the close trips like NY-DC or NY-PHI or DC-PHI or CHI-CLB or CHI-TOR, we're not at the point where it is realistic to expect MLS to set a policy that would also cover NY-LA when New Yorkers ain't going to LA en masse (or vice-versa).
I feel your pain. But let's be realistic here. If Chicago sold 17,000 season tickets and could only give Toronto fans 100 tickets to a game, you'd say all's fair.
The Shape of Things To Come, 2013 Edition
posted to
February 11, 2013
Firing Away: Chicago Fire at DC United
posted to
August 22, 2012
A Few Thoughts On The Home Opener
posted to
March 26, 2012
Firing Away: Chicago Fire at Montreal Impact
posted to
March 17, 2012