Manchester United to Play at Wrigley this Summer?

[Mark Priors Calves]

From the Trib

There have been discussions about bringing soccer power Manchester United to Wrigley Field for a friendly match this summer. There is still a long way to go before it's a done deal, but Chicago-based AON Corporation is Man U's jersey sponsor and AON Chairman Patrick Ryan has a great relationship with the Cubs.

 

One soccer source told us "the game is currently on the 1-yard line with 99 yards to go. But it is a definite possibility."

[UMFan83]

How are they gonna fit a soccer field at Wrigley if they couldnt fit a football field? Isn't it longer and wider?

[USSoccer]

How are they gonna fit a soccer field at Wrigley if they couldnt fit a football field? Isn't it longer and wider?

 

Yeah, this isn't happening. Wrigley is way too small to fit a proper field onto. It barely fit the football field.

[Roast]

How are they gonna fit a soccer field at Wrigley if they couldnt fit a football field? Isn't it longer and wider?

 

Yeah, this isn't happening. Wrigley is way too small to fit a proper field onto. It barely fit the football field.

Aren't the dimensions of soccer fields somewhat negotiable? I was posting this story at work the other day and the place I was linking from said something about it. Is it possible to play if it's a slightly smaller field perhaps?

 

 

ETA:

http://www.hottimeinoldtown.com/2011/1/3/1889286/manchester-united-in-my-wrigley-field-its-more-likely-than-you-think#add-comment

 

There it is.

[J.R.]

Not watching, but I hope the Cubs make a nice haul.

[Soul]

I presume since it would be an exhibition the dimensions of the field would be variable, and it wouldn't be a big deal.

 

Also - the Chicago Sting used to play their home games @ Wrigley. So this wouldn't be the first soccer played there.

[USSoccer]

The Sting and NASL are bad examples to cite, as NASL jerked around with their fields and rules and generally ignored guidelines.

 

FWIW, FIFA regs and the laws of the game do give fields some variance, but in this case it's not the length that would be an issue; it would be the width. A soccer field is usually 110-120 yards long, but international dimensions for width are supposed to be between 70 and 80 yards wide. The minimum width required for a non-international match (which is what this would be) is 50 yards, but that's at minimum. The average EPL field is 114x74. If they tried to use the NW/IL layout as a rough template, it still wouldn't work, because the corner of the pitch that would fall in RF wouldn't give enough room beyond the touchline for corners or throw ins down the right field line. If you tried to shift the layout more towards the center, you end up having to confront the curve of the CF wall.

 

United and the other EPL teams sans Arsenal stress flank play. The point of a summer tour would be to strengthen the brand, maximize revenue and get ready for the season to start. Playing on a 115x50 or so field in a facility with a maximum capacity of slightly over 40,000 is a poor way to do two of those things. If they played here, they'd play in Soldier Field to maximize revenue and actually have a playable field. (FWIW, Soldier Field will likely have some open dates as the CONCACAF Gold Cup-our regions version of the European Championships-didn't select Chicago as either a SF or Final venue.)

 

Finally, United were just here this past summer touring. Barca's going to be here this coming summer. United just signed some deal or another in Asia to market their brand there. I'd bet this is where they end up this coming summer.

[davearm2]

I dunno looking at the photos from the Northwestern-Illinois game, it seems to me that the fitment issues would be greatly mitigated if you had the option to make the field 110 yards long rather than 120. Obviously the issue they had for football was the length; there was a ton of room for additional width in LF and CF. Shortening the length by 10 yards would open things up quite a bit IMO.

[Soul]

The Sting and NASL are bad examples to cite, as NASL jerked around with their fields and rules and generally ignored guidelines.

 

FWIW, FIFA regs and the laws of the game do give fields some variance, but in this case it's not the length that would be an issue; it would be the width. A soccer field is usually 110-120 yards long, but international dimensions for width are supposed to be between 70 and 80 yards wide. The minimum width required for a non-international match (which is what this would be) is 50 yards, but that's at minimum. The average EPL field is 114x74. If they tried to use the NW/IL layout as a rough template, it still wouldn't work, because the corner of the pitch that would fall in RF wouldn't give enough room beyond the touchline for corners or throw ins down the right field line. If you tried to shift the layout more towards the center, you end up having to confront the curve of the CF wall.

 

United and the other EPL teams sans Arsenal stress flank play. The point of a summer tour would be to strengthen the brand, maximize revenue and get ready for the season to start. Playing on a 115x50 or so field in a facility with a maximum capacity of slightly over 40,000 is a poor way to do two of those things. If they played here, they'd play in Soldier Field to maximize revenue and actually have a playable field. (FWIW, Soldier Field will likely have some open dates as the CONCACAF Gold Cup-our regions version of the European Championships-didn't select Chicago as either a SF or Final venue.)

 

Finally, United were just here this past summer touring. Barca's going to be here this coming summer. United just signed some deal or another in Asia to market their brand there. I'd bet this is where they end up this coming summer.

 

Of course, which is what they would have to do to make a game happen at Wrigley.

 

There's so much space to work with. That's it. If a game were to happen at Wrigley, obviously it would require someone to waive guidelines, make adjustments, etc.

[Guest]

This is getting a bit silly. Wrigley is a baseball stadium, trying to shoehorn in every sport you can think of to try and capitalize on the novelty is at best lame, at worst dangerous/costly.

[Guest]

Maybe they could set it up to play just one way.

[apete6]

This is getting a bit silly. Wrigley is a baseball stadium, trying to shoehorn in every sport you can think of to try and capitalize on the novelty is at best lame, at worst dangerous/costly.

 

But Tom Ricketts is a fan and just wants the Cubs to win the World Series!!!!

 

I'm less and less impressed with Ricketts every time one of these dumb ideas comes along.

[Sammy Sofa]

If the Cubs are saddled with having to play this dump for all eternity they might as well get as much money out of it as they can.

[JoshiQ]

This is getting a bit silly. Wrigley is a baseball stadium, trying to shoehorn in every sport you can think of to try and capitalize on the novelty is at best lame, at worst dangerous/costly.

 

But Tom Ricketts is a fan and just wants the Cubs to win the World Series!!!!

 

I'm less and less impressed with Ricketts every time one of these dumb ideas comes along.

 

Agreed 100% I'm starting to get the feeling that he was more a fan of Wrigley than he ever was of the Cubs.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

If the Cubs are saddled with having to play this dump for all eternity they might as well get as much money out of it as they can.

 

This is true. Ricketts' hands are tied right now. The state doesn't want to give him money to renovate Wrigley, and building a new ballpark isn't currently an option. He's got to make as much money as possible..whether it's to pay for renovations or put toward debt or whatever.

 

so, I expect we'll see a lot more of this until someone else agrees to pay to renovate Wrigley.

[Sammy Sofa]

If the Cubs are saddled with having to play this dump for all eternity they might as well get as much money out of it as they can.

 

This is true. Ricketts' hands are tied right now. The state doesn't want to give him money to renovate Wrigley, and building a new ballpark isn't currently an option. He's got to make as much money as possible..whether it's to pay for renovations or put toward debt or whatever.

 

so, I expect we'll see a lot more of this until someone else agrees to pay to renovate Wrigley.

 

Exactly.

[USSoccer]

The Cubs would stand to make very little money after paying United to appear. This is a waste of time idea.

[bcl412]

The Cubs would stand to make very little money after paying United to appear. This is a waste of time idea.

 

That's kind of what I was thinking. It's not like Man U. has anything to gain from playing at Wrigley itself. Why the hell would a soccer team from Europe care about Wrigley?

[daske17]

The Cubs would stand to make very little money after paying United to appear. This is a waste of time idea.

 

Did I miss where they would be paying United to appear? That blurb didn't mention it at all.

[USSoccer]

The Cubs would stand to make very little money after paying United to appear. This is a waste of time idea.

 

Did I miss where they would be paying United to appear? That blurb didn't mention it at all.

 

Euro clubs go on these summer tours to make money and strengthen the brand. They get a nice appearance fee for every match they play stateside, plus a cut of the gate.

 

The team they'd play would get a cut of the gate as well.

 

So how much money would the organization make after the two teams get their cut of the gate? Not a hell of a lot, considering the size of the venue.

[Soul]

I missed that too.

 

It's certainly not a dumb idea for Ricketts to attempt to maximize all revenue streams.

[USSoccer]

I missed that too.

 

It's certainly not a dumb idea for Ricketts to attempt to maximize all revenue streams.

 

I phrased it poorly. It's probably not the Cubs paying United's appearance fee, but likely SUM. When SUM contracts a Euro team to go on a tour, they agree to give the touring club a cut of the gate as well as other rights, etc.

 

So the Cubs would just likely be renting out the field. They wouldn't likely see much of the gate. Not much of the merch either, and probably not concessions.

 

So what's the incentive?

[Soul]

I missed that too.

 

It's certainly not a dumb idea for Ricketts to attempt to maximize all revenue streams.

 

I phrased it poorly. It's probably not the Cubs paying United's appearance fee, but likely SUM. When SUM contracts a Euro team to go on a tour, they agree to give the touring club a cut of the gate as well as other rights, etc.

 

So the Cubs would just likely be renting out the field. They wouldn't likely see much of the gate. Not much of the merch either, and probably not concessions.

 

So what's the incentive?

 

I'm not sure what the actual numbers would look like.

 

But -- beyond the immediate numbers of this event, there the value of successfully branding Wrigley as a venue that can potentially support multiple types of events (i.e. future profit). They've done a pretty good job of this already, but I can see some potential benefit to rolling that idea out to a wider array of possibilities, even if this one event doesn't net much profit.

[SouthSideRyan]

I missed that too.

 

It's certainly not a dumb idea for Ricketts to attempt to maximize all revenue streams.

 

I phrased it poorly. It's probably not the Cubs paying United's appearance fee, but likely SUM. When SUM contracts a Euro team to go on a tour, they agree to give the touring club a cut of the gate as well as other rights, etc.

 

So the Cubs would just likely be renting out the field. They wouldn't likely see much of the gate. Not much of the merch either, and probably not concessions.

 

So what's the incentive?

 

I'm not sure what the actual numbers would look like.

 

But -- beyond the immediate numbers of this event, there the value of successfully branding Wrigley as a venue that can potentially support multiple types of events (i.e. future profit). They've done a pretty good job of this already, but I can see some potential benefit to rolling that idea out to a wider array of possibilities, even if this one event doesn't net much profit.

 

But they didn't brand it as a viable football stadium, and from the sounds of it won't brand it as a viable soccer stadium either.

[davearm2]

It's certainly not a dumb idea for Ricketts to attempt to maximize all revenue streams.

This.

 

Why are folks down on Ricketts for trying to bring more money into the organization?

 

And how is this somehow bad from a baseball perspective?

 

Who the heck cares how they "brand" Wrigley Field, so long as they're putting the best team possible on the field. More $$$ in the bank = better baseball team.

 

If you personally don't care to see soccer in Wrigley, then don't go.