Although there are twice as many home games, the Tigers 37,383 average home attendance is 90.6% of capacity, compared to 13,949 and 63.2% for the Pistons...
Here's a couple more shots that Rovell posted from winning NBA teams.. Atlanta with 5 minutes to go in the 1st quarter (they claimed 15k went to the game)... Indiana with 3 minutes to go in the 1st quarter (they reported 11,500 went to the game, which sounds about right)... The overall point is that leagues and teams will almost always overstate how many people actually go to games as to not look bad. Just remember that when anyone slags MLS crowd sizes. It is what it is. The case with the NBA though that it seems to be a far more common occurrence than in the past.
Yes but how much are real loses and how much is just accounting loses? How is the cash flow for each team? positive or negative?
With the NHL it's really simple: their only real strugglers are the Sunbelt teams. Everything else is manageable, or doing fine.
I'm trying, belatedly--but the brutally honest answer to your question is no. Because when the NBA comes up, racial politics, racial prejudices, etc, they enter in. They're often the elephant in the room. To me, yes, Chris Andersen is looked at as a thug. . . but no, he's not looked at the same way as a black player is looked at for the same behaviors (ie there's a double standard). Then again, it's also true that sometimes this is posited as the only reason why people who like basketball don't always like the NBA, and I doubt that's the case. But fwiw, I do also agree fwiw that the 'problems' the NBA is having are concentrated in the bottom 6-8 teams. Most teams don't have much problem most of the time, because the mostly-television-oriented NBA works in most cities most of the time.
In Houston, the Sunbelt Gulf Coast at that, MLS averaged out ahead of our NBA and MLB teams. We get the number of games argument, yet it is us...association football, the niche sport. With such a young league that should be a factor into that algorithm for gauging where MLS perhaps is heading compared to the "big 4". Just sayin'.
Its hard to evaluate the NHL going forward...they use to give a ridiculous share to the players....then the first lockout happened and agreed on what is now seen as a really high share...the next few years they will be at 50% like the NBA/NFL (give or take a few percent). Should help bring a nice chunk of the middle up above red, that and improved revenue sharing.
From an attendance perspective (I know the business reality may be different), it appears to have no regional bias for the bottom 8 or so teams. http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance/_/year/2012
Stupid, stupid argument. Much lower ticket prices and far fewer dates to sell. It's not an apples to apples comparison.
8 of the bottom 13 in attendance are sunbelt teams. Nashville and San Jose average above 95%, so I'll exclude them, which leaves 6 of the bottom 10 in attendance as sunbelt teams. For me that is a clear regional bias. As you say, that doesn't take into account the business side, which makes sunbelt teams look far worse. 7 of the bottom 10 in revenues are sunbelt teams. And let's not forget a sunbelt team moved last year. The situation would look even worse if they were around. The NHL has a problem in the sunbelt partly because they are not great hockey markets, and partly because their northern teams are strong.
If so many people watch them, does it matter? MLB's revenue is increasing, not decreasing. Meanwhile, despite all the racism and empty seats, the NBA estimates its revenue is up 20%, to $5 billion. And the Kings are being sold for a pretty penny.
True, but many of them seem to be improving. Nashville seems to be starting to make a real cultural inroad. And all three Californian teams are doing very well(as far as publicly available information suggests) The financially weaker teams are Carolina, the Florida's, Dallas and of course Phoenix. Last year both Atlanta and Columbus would be on that list. The former moved and the latter signed into a long term agreement that assures it's stability. For anyone interested, Phoenix's shady potential owner Jameson has until January 31 to buy the team. It seems like his investment pitch isn't going so well. If he misses the deadline all sorts of interesting hijinks will ensue.
Sports Business Journal has a good description on the new revenue sharing formula in the NBA: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/...Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NBA-revenue.aspx Of the 15 clubs that will receive money, there is a chart that indicates the Kings, Bobcats, Pacers and Grizzlies would be the big winners with each projected to receive between $18M - $22M. Which begs the question, are those four markets worth an $80M transfer payment, which, in some cases, might be an annual event?
Except that it isn't quite that clear cut right? The revenue share isn't based on profitability (even if it has an impact on such). It is based on revenue compared to league average salary. This means even teams that are recipients can still be profitable without the distribution (may seem unlikely but it is possible). Furthermore, teams that are contributors have an impact on how much they contribute based on both their revenue AND their decisions regarding salary (which conceivably raise the league average). My point being, it isn't necessarily a "prop up payment" as teams can head into fiscal planning with their eyes open and have some control over their fate.
The NBA of today is starting to remind me of the NBA of the 70's. All the talk of expanding to Europe by the NBA and NFL just show how much they know they are tapped out here. Of course they are doing fine, the NFL obviously more so, but they also know they are limited in how they can grow. MLB's baseball classic is another example. It's cute and all, but what else ca they do at this point. They are pretty mature businesses. Let's pray MLS can one day be that mature here.
For the NBA, expansion into Europe is about expanding the brand and organizing and consolidating basketball under the NBA tree and the systems currently in use in the US (imagine Barcelona in an NBA division instead of Liga ACB). For the NFL, it was about expanding the sport and then a professional league that could allow for more experienced officials, coaches and players under the control of the NFL.
The NBA has many problems. Yes they have a huge television contract, but are having problems with people actually attending. The attendance problem with the NBA is a very serious issue. It will be very interesting negotiation between the UNION and the owners at the next NBA collective bargaining agreement talks. The NBA ratings are not that great either. So NBA to Europe, i Feel that is on the back burner. NFL to Europe. Just to expensive and very little TV money. Will never happen again. Oh,the one game a year in London. is about it. Come on MLS, great opportunity to make something happen in the USA. Why is the MLS not playing NASL teams in a full schedule. Not to count in the MLS standings. But to bring MLS clubs to the various NASL venues to promote the MLS and NASL clubs in the NASL cities. Will will probably see a fairly good attendance for such exhibition games. NASL clubs and the MLS would greatly benefit the relations amongst the two leagues.
I'll say they'll be interesting. Owners: We've totally bent you guys over a barrel twice now. NBA players: Yeah, you cried poor, we gave up money, and then your revenue grew by 20%! Owners: Yeah, but the Detroit Pistons and the Charlotte Bobcats are still losing money. What are you waiting for, assume the position.
Meanwhile, Dallas, within the last decade, had a multiseason sellout streak. Of course, that was when the team was at or near the top of the league, while the current team... hasn't been good for several years. This more or less makes it more or less the same as just about every other team in the league. When the team is good, the fans come. When the team isn't good, they don't.
I guess my view is skewed as an armchair resident of sports fandom, but i just don't see the league as a whole in dire straights, likely due to TV money. I think like someone said, it's due to some franchises sucking ass, so many dates and despite the very high percentage of Afro American love for the league they are far less likely to attend games at such prices. Anyways, none of this is going to really affect MLS given soccer's more "exclusive" and "cult" (and fragmented) fanbase and that AAs are so disinterested in soccer generally speaking.