Footie Canada Blog

Earlier this month 7,535 fans showed up to the 13,000 Saputo Stadium to watch Canada (CMNT) v. Honduras- a large percentage of the fans were Honduran. A similarly small number of fans and empty seats were observed days earlier for the CMNT match against Peru. Even worse, for the Montreal game this was a record- it was the largest ever turnout for a national friendly in that city.

With such small numbers of Canadian supporters showing up in Toronto and Montreal, it occurred to me that maybe the CSA should give another venue a chance, as a test, with improved marketing. I made the following post on the CBC website in this regard, which got 25 “thumbs up” clicks and only one “thumbs down”.

Posted 2010/09/08 at 10:57 AM ET

juvi177 wrote:

Best place to TRY an international friendly would be Moncton.

With a new 10,000 seat stadium, that has real grass, and a relatively minuscule immigrant population, a match there if properly marketed could be sold out, with 95% of the fans cheering for the home side.

If a friendly there went well this could be a good spot for future WCQ matches.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/story/2010/09/07/sp-canada-honduras-friendly.html#socialcomments

Of course I cannot be 100% certain that this match would be a success. But the main point is, it’s worth a shot, as there’s a tremendous potential upside.

I’m not the only one who has had this idea. Apparently similar posts were made on the Voyageur website and a few days later squizz at Some Canadian Guys Writing About Soccer posted an articled titled “Why Canada Should Play in Moncton”, which can be viewed here:

http://canadiansoccerblog.ca/2010/09/16/why-canada-should-play-in-moncton/

Some Canadian Guys have also started a petition to the CSA calling for a match in Moncton:

http://www.petitiononline.com/nbsoccer/petition.html

I didn’t think anyone could disagree with the logic of having one friendly match in Moncton, as a test run, until I read the a “The 24^th Minute” article. In this article Duane Rollins suggests that the idea of playing a game in Moncton is “misguided”. The article can be found here:

http://www.24thminute.com/2010/09/geographically-correctness-and-other.html

What is misguided however is Rollins’ entire criticism of the idea of a match in Moncton itself. Why do I think it’s Rollins who is misguided? How about I start at the beginning, the very beginning; the title: “Geographical Correctness and other problems in Canadian soccer.” The use of the words “Geographical Correctness” is obviously a play on “political correctness”. The suggestion is that Moncton advocates are saying it’s only fair that we spread around CMNT games instead of always having them in Toronto-Montreal. This suggestion is obviously misleading. There is not a single argument being advanced that Moncton should host one match for “correctness”. The argument is clear: that it would be in the best interest of Canadian soccer.

Rollins’ next point is the CMNT should play in the best possible place where it can win games. One could argue that a 10,000 seat stadium filled with 95% Canadian supporters would be more conducive to a home win than would playing in a stadium where 50% of the seats are unfilled or filled by fans loudly cheering for the opposing team.

Of course no one can guarantee that no or few Hondurans will travel to Moncton to support their team. Logic dictates however that it would be a small number, compared to the prospect of simply riding a bus/subway across town in Montreal, for example.

Rollins next points out that a match in Moncton would be spreading the gospel to the Maritimes. As if soccer players/fans in the Maritimes did not know about the CMNT or were unable to watch CMNT matches on TV already.

He then goes on to say support for the CMNT needs to be solid in the core before we take it to the hinterland. Rollins is missing the point. There is no core and if Toronto is the “core” then the core is obviously rotten. He next says there is no pent up demand for soccer in Moncton. I have no idea what information he relies on for this statement, but I doubt there is any factual basis. By contrast, there is obviously no pent up demand for the CMNT in Toronto or Montreal either, as evidenced by the “record setting” recent attendance(s) and empty seats.

Rollins next says you don’t see many countries spreading matches around the country, other than the USA, out of a misguided sense of fairness. First, why would we want to emulate anything the US has done in soccer; what success have they had recently? Second, and again, no one is suggesting one match be played in Moncton out of fairness. The suggestion is to see if Moncton is a superior location for CMNT success.

Rollins then indicates it is slightly cheaper to fly to Toronto and slightly faster by plane. If however there are only 7,000 fans showing up in Montreal and 10,000 in Moncton (which we don’t know for sure; that is the point of one test match) any extra expense for travel would be offset by fan revenue for tickets, swag, etc. With regard to flights, the Halifax airport is only two hours from Moncton which would expand the list for travel options. This, I concede however, is Rollins’ strongest point (although I have not done research into just how much longer it would take to get to Moncton, if at all, and rely solely on Rollins’ expertise as a travel agent). If true, I believe it is offset by the other factors favouring Moncton.  Additionally, and possibly even tipping the scale in favour of Moncton is Rollins’ point, but apply it to, say, Honduras.  While it’s slightly inconvenient to fly from England to Moncton, or Toronto to Moncton, it’s a lot more inconvenient flying from Honduras to Moncton.  Honduras to Toronto is about as simple as you can get for inter-CONCACAF travel.  Why not make our opponents work a bit for once?  Why not tire them out a little through extra travel.  Rollins seems to suggest the travel is bad for Canadian players only.  That’s simply not the case.  The wear and tear for Central American players travelling to Moncton is either equal or harsher than it is for Cdn. players.  As such, Rollins’ best point is neutral, or favours Moncton slightly.

Rollins next states that Toronto is a better location because it has a bigger population, thus a bigger potential fan base. He applauds the 500 active Canadian fans who filled the South End. Rollins’ is obviously well aware that this was not the first friendly in Toronto. If the active fan base is only 500 by now, it is shocking that Rollins’ does not concede it might be worth a shot, one time, to see what kind of fan base could be developed elsewhere. It also should be obvious to anyone who follows sports that a bigger population does not always correlate to greater attendance.

The next point in Rollins’ piece is that if you neglect Toronto CMNT fans the support will “go away”. Frankly, this is absurd. First, the statement that Moncton hosting a game would be “neglecting” Toronto is downright pathetic. Second, would a true Torontonian CMNT supporter stop supporting the team if one game is held in Moncton. If that game was a sell out, with 95% fans being Canadian, would that Torontonian CMNT fan actually stop cheering for Canada and lose interest in future CMNT games if there were more games in Moncton? I do not believe he or she would. But if I am wrong, and Rollins is correct, Toronto CMNT fans would be the most fickle fans in Canada- which might explain why the attendance in Toronto has been and continues to be poor. If Rollins is correct, he may have made a strong case that no future matches should ever be played in Toronto; not the converse.

Rollins’ final point is that it’s a “TV World”. It is a TV World. And just about everyone in Canada has a TV. What would be of more interest to a casual or potential future fan, watching a match on TV played in a half empty stadium in Montreal, or a packed house in Moncton, loudly cheering for the home side?