Franklin Park - White Stadium Renovation

[shmessy]

We're only about 30-40 years removed from a time when the US Mens National Team was made up of part-time players and the only soccer that was on TV at all in the US was broadcast in Spanish. Today, an American is the best player on one of the biggest clubs in the world and NBC pays the Premier league $450 million per season to broadcast the games (while CBS pays $250 million for the Champions League, on top of owning the rights to Serie A, while ESPN owns the rights to La Liga, the Bundesliga, and even the English Championship, which is kind of the equivalent of AAA baseball). There isn't a single metric that doesn't point to soccer continuing to explode in the US. Your AAA baseball comparison is garbage.

(Before you respond, please look google "AAA baseball TV rights and ratings" and let me know what you find.)

Not sure why you are only referencing non-American leagues and contracts if you're arguing the business of Soccer in America - - Wouldn't it be more relevant to reference MLS and NWSL?

As it happens both are growing quite nicely:

MLS Growth, Excitement Noticeable Among League Stars

Top domestic soccer league in U.S. sets midseason marks for attendance, sponsorship, merchandise and social media engagement.

www.forbes.com

NWSL Commissioner Jessica Berman Talks About Growth In Women’s Soccer

In an interview NWSL Commissioner Jessica Berman talks about the league's growth in media rights and ratings, franchise valuation and more.

www.forbes.com

 

[Equilibria]

We're only about 30-40 years removed from a time when the US Mens National Team was made up of part-time players and the only soccer that was on TV at all in the US was broadcast in Spanish. Today, an American is the best player on one of the biggest clubs in the world and NBC pays the Premier league $450 million per season to broadcast the games (while CBS pays $250 million for the Champions League, on top of owning the rights to Serie A, while ESPN owns the rights to La Liga, the Bundesliga, and even the English Championship, which is kind of the equivalent of AAA baseball). There isn't a single metric that doesn't point to soccer continuing to explode in the US. Your AAA baseball comparison is garbage.

(Before you respond, please look google "AAA baseball TV rights and ratings" and let me know what you find.)

We're not having a conversation about TV rights for English Football, we're having a conversation about stadiums for soccer leagues here, in a country where the sport isn't big enough to own its own name.

When I googled "AAA baseball TV rights and ratings", I got nothing useful: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=AAA+baseball+TV+rights+and+ratings. That's because AAA games are broadcast on MILB.tv, which is owned in-house by MLB and has no incentive to publicize viewership or lack thereof. That does imply that they couldn't get huge money for it, but it's also a regional product with far more teams and games than the Premier League.

I can look up Premier League viewership against other US sports. PL got a record 820K for matches on its opening weekend this year, with 1.85M for the top one, the highest ever for a PL match in the US. The NHL averaged 4.2M for its Stanley Cup Final games last year. The World Series averaged 15.8M viewers per game, admittedly a sharp increase from prior editions due to the teams involved. Since the PL doesn't have playoffs or a championship game, I think it's a fair comparison, particularly because (per NYT) the "surging" Champions League final has viewership only slightly higher at just over 2M. The NFL was pulling 30-40M on Thanksgiving, which obviously isn't the Super Bowl, but we're not really comparing to that. Last month's championship games of both the Mountain West Conference (3M) and American Athletic Conference (2M) got more viewers than have ever watched a Premier League match in the US.

So we're talking about 20 years of just around the corner, guys!, MLS stadium funding, investment from US media conglomerates, and youth soccer (which was big when I was a child and I'm 35) getting the best soccer in the world to a bit behind the viewing audience for the weakest of the top four US professional sports and the second tier of college football. It's growing relative to its own history and it's getting boosting from hopeful broadcasters, but it's not really close to joining the big four US sports at the top of the pile.

 

[FK4]

We're not having a conversation about TV rights for English Football, we're having a conversation about stadiums for soccer leagues here, in a country where the sport isn't big enough to own its own name.

When I googled "AAA baseball TV rights and ratings", I got nothing useful: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=AAA+baseball+TV+rights+and+ratings. That's because AAA games are broadcast on MILB.tv, which is owned in-house by MLB and has no incentive to publicize viewership or lack thereof. That does imply that they couldn't get huge money for it, but it's also a regional product with far more teams and games than the Premier League.

I can look up Premier League viewership against other US sports. PL got a record 820K for matches on its opening weekend this year, with 1.85M for the top one, the highest ever for a PL match in the US. The NHL averaged 4.2M for its Stanley Cup Final games last year. The World Series averaged 15.8M viewers per game, admittedlly a sharp increase from prior editions due to the teams involved. Since the PL doesn't have playoffs or a championship game, I think it's a fair comparison, particlarly because (per NYT) the "surging" Champions League final has viewership only slightly higher at just over 2M. The NFL was pulling 30-40M on Thanksgiving, which obviously isn't the Super Bowl, but we're not really comparing to that. Last month's championship games of both the Mountain West Conference (3M) and American Athletic Conference (2M) got more viewers than have ever watched a Premier League match in the US.

So we're talking about 20 years of just around the corner, guys!, MLS stadium funding, investment from US media conglomerates, and youth soccer (which was big when I was a child and I'm 35) getting the best soccer in the world to a bit behind the viewing audience for the weakest of the top four US professional sports and the second tier of college football.

I do think this is a bit of a static take (ie, not taking into account the impact of what happens once you get the stadium and the events)... not that "if you build it, they will come" is necessarily always the case, but I do think that in an urban area, particularly one where sports are popular in general, and also one with a lot of college kids (who seem, just based on my own impressions, to be on average a lot more into soccer than the older/average American), building the infrastructure to promote and support a certain sports ecosystem certainly seems to have the potential to induce more demand. Life is dynamic. Trends often change once major investments are made. Im not saying this is necessarily the case or will be enough but worth considering as a factor.

 

[Equilibria]

I do think this is a bit of a static take (ie, not taking into account the impact of what happens once you get the stadium and the events)... not that "if you build it, they will come" is necessarily always the case, but I do think that in an urban area, particularly one where sports are popular in general, and also one with a lot of college kids (who seem, just based on my own impressions, to be on average a lot more into soccer than the older/average American), building the infrastructure to promote and support a certain sports ecosystem certainly seems to have the potential to induce more demand. Life is dynamic. Trends often change once major investments are made. Im not saying this is necessarily the case or will be enough but worth considering as a factor.

I agree with that. My observation is that in this case those anecdotal measures, incliding my own that I'm sure you can find on aB, haven't translated as much or as quickly as was expected. None of the things you cited there are new - I've been hearing them and saying them the whole of the 21st Century through generations of young people and rounds of immigration.

 

[Wonk]

They are paying for half of it, and in return get to use it about 25 times a year. They will also be paying for maintenance as part of their lease terms. It's a good deal for the city, because it gets a complete renovation for half the price, without giving up too much field time for BPS athletes.

It's for Boston to decide, but from a non-resident's perspective it seems like the choice (question) is about whether the good deal being offered is an affordable one. If I can only afford $250k house but someone offers to pay half of a $1m house, I still can't afford it. It does sound like the NWSL is trying to be a good neighbor, but the question remains is a less costly alternative the better long-term outcome for the city? And I still haven't heard a convincing business case for why the NWSL wouldn't benefit more from being a tenant in Everett until they get a better understanding of their actual revenue streams once the team starts playing games. Realistically even under the most positive assumptions they won't be able to play in White Stadium initially. Have they announced where they will be playing, yet?

 

[Stlin]

Lease formally signed today, globe article linked with selected excerpts on the financial terms.

NWSL’s BOS Nation FC signs lease to become tenant of City of Boston at White Stadium - The Boston Globe

Provisions in the lease include guarantees that the team will pay up to $45 million in construction costs if the project gets delayed. The team will share naming rights and concessions revenues with the city, and rent will increase after each year.

www.bostonglobe.com

Should the team’s mission to complete the project be derailed for legal or financial reasons, provisions in the lease include guarantees that the team will be responsible for paying up to $45 million so the city can finish renovations.

The initial lease is for 10 years, with two 10-year extensions. After a prorated $200,000 rent in the first season, the team will pay $400,000 in year two, with annual increases of at least 3 percent.

The team intends to sell naming rights to the new stadium, originally named after its benefactor, George R. White. After finding a stadium sponsor, the team will share 10 percent of those revenues with the city.

The team also will share 10 percent of in-stadium advertising revenue and 3 percent of concessions revenue. A portion of those revenues will be dedicated to an operations and maintenance reserve fund.

In addition to the $45 million guarantee, the team will fund a $25 million construction escrow account to pay for direct construction costs.

The modernized facility will include an upgraded home for the Boston Public Schools athletics department, with an 8-lane track — it currently has six — and the upgraded field to be used for BPS soccer and end-of-season football games.

Also among the improvements are student athlete locker rooms, strength and conditioning space, student lounge space, and re-surfaced basketball and tennis courts outside the stadium.

 

[FK4]

I agree with that. My observation is that in this case those anecdotal measures, incliding my own that I'm sure you can find on aB, haven't translated as much or as quickly as was expected. None of the things you cited there are new - I've been hearing them and saying them the whole of the 21st Century through generations of young people and rounds of immigration.

I’m simply saying that it may not really capture a future reality that either does or does not have some major investment, by simply describing a current trend. You might say we’ve heard that Lowell is going to be the next hot city for twenty years too, but it still isn’t, yet if you plunked a bullet train between Lowell and Boston it would become a construction zone overnight. I’m not saying that’s always the case—the impact of an investment depends first on incipient demand and second how much money is actually invested. If the latter is high enough, you can induce more demand, although only up to a point. Again, I’m not saying this will definitely be a success, but that as far as I can tell it’s hard to simply look at trends and project forward when we have not had a comparable investment happen (ie, we’ve not ever had a soccer stadium in Boston).

 

[shmessy]

It's for Boston to decide, but from a non-resident's perspective it seems like the choice (question) is about whether the good deal being offered is an affordable one. If I can only afford $250k house but someone offers to pay half of a $1m house, I still can't afford it. It does sound like the NWSL is trying to be a good neighbor, but the question remains is a less costly alternative the better long-term outcome for the city? And I still haven't heard a convincing business case for why the NWSL wouldn't benefit more from being a tenant in Everett until they get a better understanding of their actual revenue streams once the team starts playing games. Realistically even under the most positive assumptions they won't be able to play in White Stadium initially. Have they announced where they will be playing, yet?

You bring up a couple of key issues. There are still alot of financial questions for both sides (especially after Stlin's post afterward with the news of the lease);

1) $45 million of the $100 million from the team is guaranteed - - I'm not sure what the $25 million construction cost escrow represents, which means if the team doesn't make it someone will be left holding the bag on the additional $30-$55 million

2) From what I've seen, the plan is to increase capacity of White from 10,000 to 11,000. The AVERAGE attendance in 2024 for NWSL games was 11,250. https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/42633495/nwsl-sets-new-attendance-record-2024. So if Bos Nation becomes the hottest ticket in town for people clamoring to pay to watch a game in Franklin Park, IF they sell out every game, they will be drawing 250 below the 2024 average league attendance - - in a league where the attendance increased 6% last year and is forecast to increase over the next 10 years. How does that make this team long-term competitive in a league where they will be competing for talent? Once again, this is for a stadium that Bos Nation would not even own.

There's alot of financial risk there for both parties. If Kraft offered a lease for $400k per year (same terms, and yes, that's an IF), why wouldn't Linda Henry jump at the opportunity to get up to 25,000 fans to the games in a much more glitzy/state of the art stadium?
If someone has a good rationale for Bos Nation choosing the Franklin Park path over Everett (financially) I'm all ears.

 

[DZH22]

....The AVERAGE attendance in 2024 for NWSL games was 11,250. https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/42633495/nwsl-sets-new-attendance-record-2024. So if Bos Nation becomes the hottest ticket in town for people clamoring to pay to watch a game in Franklin Park, IF they sell out every game, they will be drawing 250 below the 2024 average league attendance - - in a league where the attendance increased 6% last year and is forecast to increase over the next 10 years.

The numbers are skewed a little bit. Here's some fuller context. It's very popular in specific cities. Are we more of a San Diego/LA/Portland type, or more of a NYC/Seattle/Chicago type? A few other things of note is that San Diego and Portland are 1-team cities when talking about the Big 4 sports, as San Diego lost the Chargers to LA a few years ago. LA is also a weird one because they don't support their major sports teams (ahem Chargers) in the same type of rabid way that Boston does. Washington DC is as saturated with sports as we are in Boston, although their Big 4 teams have been much less successful over the last couple of decades.

It's possible we're analogous to SF in which case the stadium would, in fact, be too small. I'm curious how it's going to end up. Adding in the college teams there's already a LOT of sports options in this city but I guess you don't know until you know.

 

[HenryAlan]

It's for Boston to decide, but from a non-resident's perspective it seems like the choice (question) is about whether the good deal being offered is an affordable one. If I can only afford $250k house but someone offers to pay half of a $1m house, I still can't afford it.

That point probably goes without saying, but the reminder is certainly appropriate. Yes, a good deal is only valuable if it's also affordable. The city's operating budget for FY25 is $4.64 billion. I don't have the financing details, so I don't know whether there will be a bond issue vs some other sort of capital funding, but a reasonable proxy for the cost would be depreciation plus 10% (which assumes expensive financing, they will likely get a better rate due to the ability to issue tax-exempt bonds). The stadium upgrades would probably be depreciated straight line over 20 years. $92M/20*1.1 = $5,060,000. Whether that is affordable is a matter for debate and largely a question settled by opinion, but it would represent 0.11% of the annual operating budget. If the requirement is economic activity adequate to generate that much in annual taxes, then maybe that's not a good ROI. If the requirement is to build a world class student athletic facility, it seems affordable to me.

It does sound like the NWSL is trying to be a good neighbor, but the question remains is a less costly alternative the better long-term outcome for the city? And I still haven't heard a convincing business case for why the NWSL wouldn't benefit more from being a tenant in Everett until they get a better understanding of their actual revenue streams once the team starts playing games. Realistically even under the most positive assumptions they won't be able to play in White Stadium initially. Have they announced where they will be playing, yet?

The team's inaugural season is set for 2026, and supposedly they will be playing at White Stadium. I don't know at what point construction needs to start for that plan to be viable, but for now there is no expectation of an interim location. The team is going to have a similar expense for the facility as the city. We don't know what the Krafts would charge for use of their facility, or how that might change the overall revenue stream (eg concessions). We also don't expect an Everett stadium to be ready in time. But perhaps more fundamentally, the NWSL team doesn't want to be in the shadow of the MLS. For whatever reason, the White Stadium plan works for what the team is trying to accomplish. If that happens to also benefit the city, I'm not going to question whether it's a good idea for the team.

 

[samsongam]

If someone has a good rationale for Bos Nation choosing the Franklin Park path over Everett (financially) I'm all ears.

I think there are 2 main financial reasons why US soccer teams play in smaller stadiums. It drives up demand so you can charge more for tickets and the atmosphere is more intense/marketable for fans when they are close to the action and the singing/chants are better contained. You can see some of that perspective from the higher-ups in this article.

Amid rising MLS popularity, should its teams gamble on bigger stadiums?

With LAFC and the Galaxy playing at the Rose Bowl this week, it's fair to question whether MLS teams should still be playing games in smaller stadiums.

www.latimes.com

This article is MLS-focused but it's the model that the NWSL is leaning on and trying to replicate moving forward. They opened the first NWSL stadium this year, the new Denver expansion team is going to build their own stadium, and although White Stadium isn't fully owned by the NWSL team, it's probably the closest they were going to get in Boston. While the NWSL team is not the first priority when scheduling at White Stadium (important BPS and city events), they are at least not last on the list. Soccer games are mostly scheduled on Saturday afternoons (you'll get a few on Sunday and you'll get a few midweek), so by sharing the venue with the Revs the NWSL is losing a whole lot more of their prime scheduling time compared to White Stadium where most BPS events are during the school week.

So I think from the owners' perspective, they are getting more bang for their buck at White Stadium and they can sell themselves as the main ticket. I think if they show that the team could sell out 20K+ consistently then they might make that jump to Everett, but that's not the case anywhere in the league yet. For example, I think the Revs could probably do close to 30K in Everett but they seem set on limiting the capacity to 22,00 - 24,000 right now for similar reasons.

The Revolution averaged 29,000 fans a game this past season. So why build a smaller stadium? - The Boston Globe

In an interview with the Globe, team president Brian Bilello discussed the franchise's latest thinking regarding plans for a new soccer-specific stadium in Everett.

www.bostonglobe.com

 

[Wonk]

If the requirement is to build a world class student athletic facility, it seems affordable to me.

Well, it would certainly be the most expensive by construction cost and apparently Boston's portion alone would move into top three in the nation. As much as maintenance will be paid by the NWSL for the first ten years, the cost of upkeep on a $200M facility after that (when larger repairs typically begin appearing in any construction) will be the city's burden alone unless they can convince the next tenant to pick up the tab in decade. White Stadium is in its current state of disrepair because the Boston was either unwilling or unable to pay to maintain it. Again, maybe it pays off for the city and having a world class facility for the BPS would be great. It isn't without risk, though.

 

[themissinglink]

Will Wu’s late-in-the-game push on White Stadium win over skeptics? - The Boston Globe

The push to have a stadium ready for the 2026 kickoff of BOS Nation FC, Boston’s new professional women’s soccer team, is leading some critics to cry foul.

www.bostonglobe.com

 

[themissinglink]

From the font on signs to game-day rules, here’s a roundup of details in BOS Nation FC’s White Stadium lease - The Boston Globe

If you didn't pore through the legalese-laden, 321-page lease agreement, we've got you.

www.bostonglobe.com

 

[Scott]

Bill Forry, Executive Editor/Publisher of Dot News has seen the lease details dropped over the holiday and strongly supports this project.

Editorial: Mayor Wu delivers on White Stadium deal | Dorchester Reporter

No big city mayor is ever going to make everyone happy all of the time. In fact, if they’re doing the job right, a chunk of the electorate is going to find beef over something, even if they embrace other elements of a mayor’s wide-ranging agenda. Great leaders don’t try to bat a thousand. So it...

www.dotnews.com

 

[themissinglink]

White Stadium project opponents pitch a scaled-down, cheaper alternative - The Boston Globe

The Emerald Necklace Conservancy hired a consultant to draw up a plan for the sports facility that it argues is more in keeping with the character of Franklin Park.

www.bostonglobe.com

 

[Jeremi]

White Stadium project opponents pitch a scaled-down, cheaper alternative - The Boston Globe

The Emerald Necklace Conservancy hired a consultant to draw up a plan for the sports facility that it argues is more in keeping with the character of Franklin Park.

www.bostonglobe.com

NIMBYs are at the third stage of grief: Bargaining

 

[Arenacale]

White Stadium project opponents pitch a scaled-down, cheaper alternative - The Boston Globe

The Emerald Necklace Conservancy hired a consultant to draw up a plan for the sports facility that it argues is more in keeping with the character of Franklin Park.

www.bostonglobe.com

The full proposal: https://www.emeraldnecklace.org/wp-...t-A-Public-Park-Concept-for-White-Stadium.pdf

From said proposal:

In fact, many soccer fans feel that BOSNation would be ill-served by playing at White Stadium

[citation needed]

I find it interesting that even their renders show the existing main grandstand being about half full even after renovation and knocking down the east stand. At that point, what's the use of keeping either of the existing structures? You could put up a separate locker room and restroom building and some standard bleachers and have it cost less, be less maintenance intensive, and be cheaper to replace when the time comes.

 

[ratrare1969]

What’s soccer?

 

[Jeremi]

Honestly, BPS shouldn’t be given any field time for American football anywhere in the city, at any time. We’re essentially paying once to educate kids and then again to shatter their brains.