(Courtesy of D.C. United)
On Wednesday the MLS team D.C. United reached a tentative agreement with the mayor of Washington, D.C. to develop a 20,000-seat soccer-specific stadium at Buzzard Point in Southwest Washington, not too far from Nationals Park, home of the city’s professional baseball franchise. The Washington Post first reported the news.
United has been pushing for a new stadium for years, as the team currently plays in RFK stadium, which was built in 1961 and used to be home to both the Washington Redskins and the Washington Senators.
The agreement is being heralded by many soccer fans as a major step forward in finally giving United the home it deserves.
(Courtesy of D.C. United)
Critics of the project, which will cost $300 million and be paid for evenly between the club and the city, have repeatedly made one simple argument: not a lot of people go to United games. And it does seem problematic for a city to spend $150 million building a new stadium for a team that not many people are interested in watching.
According to MLS Attendance Stats, DC United has averaged 13,645 fans per game this season, which is the third-lowest mark in all of MLS. Chivas USA, which averages a bit over 8,000 fans a game, has by far the lowest, while the Seattle Sounders, the league’s best attended team, averages over 40,000 fans per game at their home matches.
(Courtesy of D.C. United)
Now, the counter-argument to this is that D.C. United can’t attract a large base while playing in a hopelessly outdated stadium. RFK Stadium was built over 50 years ago, has very few amenities, and has far too many seats, making even well-attended games feel like they’re being played in an empty cavern. By building a modern, properly-sized, attractive stadium, it could attract new fans to the team.
In any event, this stadium is still a long way off from becoming a reality. It is a very tentative agreement reached, and countless things could happen that will derail this project in the coming years. One thing that’s for certain is that debate will rage on, no matter the outcome.
(Thanks to Steven Goff and The Washington Post for sharing)
