Code: % of season completed 77.8% Year Average Median %<10K %>20k 1996 17936 15220 22.6% 28.2% 1997 14887 13152 21.0% 16.1% 1998 14444 11820 24.8% 16.1% 1999 14493 13114 31.5% 15.4% 2000 13450 12399 36.2% 10.7% 2001 15003 13391 26.0% 17.9% 2002 15597 13521 18.3% 16.5% 2003 14583 13613 24.1% 17.2% 2004 15068 13122 27.6% 22.4% 2005 14770 12199 30.2% 14.8% 2006 15264 13016 22.1% 17.4% 2007 15965 14577 9.9% 22.5% 2008 16427 15257 11.7% 24.5% 2009 15744 14516 16.0% 20.0% Final Numbers Year Average Median %<10K %>20k 1996 17406 15093 21.9% 26.3% 1997 14619 12733 25.0% 16.3% 1998 14312 11871 26.6% 16.1% 1999 14282 12973 32.3% 15.1% 2000 13756 12690 34.4% 12.5% 2001 14962 13431 26.6% 17.7% 2002 15821 14108 17.1% 18.6% 2003 14898 13641 23.3% 18.0% 2004 15559 13285 24.7% 25.3% 2005 15108 12619 27.1% 17.7% 2006 15504 14175 18.8% 18.8% 2007 16770 15353 8.2% 29.7% 2008 16459 15188 11.0% 24.8%
Code: 2009 TEAM ATTENDANCE REPORT HOME GAMES ROAD GAMES DATES TOTAL AVERAGE DATES TOTAL AVERAGE Chicago Fire 12 169,355 14,113 12 208,529 17,377 Chivas USA 10 161,068 16,107 12 174,028 14,502 Colorado Rapids 13 162,194 12,476 10 162,160 16,216 Columbus Crew 11 150,258 13,660 12 225,754 18,813 FC Dallas 12 111,734 9,311 11 156,770 14,252 D.C. United 10 158,873 15,887 14 206,467 14,748 Houston Dynamo 12 191,255 15,938 13 183,566 14,120 Kansas City Wizards 11 110,113 10,010 11 177,727 16,157 Los Angeles Galaxy 11 220,794 20,072 13 248,008 19,078 New England Revolution 12 158,655 13,221 10 161,933 16,193 New York Red Bulls 12 144,841 12,070 12 204,913 17,076 Real Salt Lake 12 193,091 16,091 12 170,565 14,214 San Jose Earthquakes 12 181,644 15,137 10 138,929 13,893 Seattle Sounders FC 13 397,628 30,587 11 159,951 14,541 Toronto FC 12 243,691 20,308 12 175,894 14,658 MLS Totals 175 2,755,194 15,744 175 2,755,194 15,744 Code: 2008 CLUB ATTENDANCE REPORT HOME GAMES ROAD GAMES DATES TOTAL AVERAGE DATES TOTAL AVERAGE Chicago Fire 15 255,511 17,034 15 264,652 17,643 Chivas USA 15 226,717 15,114 15 255,975 17,065 Colorado Rapids 15 204,884 13,659 15 220,131 14,675 Columbus Crew 15 219,332 14,622 15 227,115 15,141 FC Dallas 15 195,356 13,024 15 281,712 18,781 D.C. United 15 297,531 19,835 15 233,133 15,542 Houston Dynamo 15 254,083 16,939 15 214,773 14,318 Kansas City Wizards 15 160,286 10,686 15 237,319 15,821 Los Angeles Galaxy 15 390,132 26,009 15 421,978 28,132 New England Revolution 15 263,706 17,580 15 211,938 14,129 New York Red Bulls 15 238,925 15,928 15 234,331 15,622 Real Salt Lake 15 242,690 16,179 15 231,367 15,424 San Jose Earthquakes 15 205,695 13,713 15 210,563 14,038 Toronto FC 15 301,793 20,120 15 211,654 14,110 MLS Totals 210 3,456,641 16,460 210 3,456,641 16,460
AAQ: Average: 4th out of 14 Median: 4th out of 14 <10k: 3rd out of 14 >=20k: 5th out of 14 AAQ = (4+4+3+5)/4 = 4
This past weekend was pretty awful for MLS attendance. The upcoming slate of games will have to be better by default. By the way, does anyone have the stats regarding how teams compare vs last year with respect to number of games played. For example, how was Chivas doing last year after they had played 10 games?
This week should be decent. 1) LA and TFC both at home. Should get a pair of 20k's there. 2) DC (2), RSL, and CHV all have home games. All average 15k +. Though DC does have a midweek vs. KC game, hopefully revenge vs. Seattle will balance it out. 3) Crew vs. Houston. Should be a big attendance game for Columbus, we are making people buy 2 other games with Galaxy tickets, and we only have three non LA games left (Houston, Seattle (Sigi's back) and the finale vs. NE). I'd expect all to be in the 16k+ range, if not higher. Only other game is NY vs. KC. That will hurt, but NY has won 2 in a row.
Not a big fan of the site, but here you go: http://www.majorleaguesoccertalk.com/take-me-out-to-the-ballgame-week-25/5998
Code: 2008 Chicago Fire 12 207,087 17,257 Chivas USA 10 155,572 15,557 Colorado Rapids 13 176,341 13,565 Columbus Crew 11 149,257 13,569 D.C. United 10 199,925 19,993 FC Dallas 12 161,931 13,494 Houston Dynamo 12 193,864 16,155 Kansas City Wizards 11 122,302 11,118 Los Angeles Galaxy 11 282,132 25,648 New England Revolution 12 214,461 17,872 New York Red Bulls 12 197,570 16,464 Real Salt Lake 12 178,663 14,889 San Jose Earthquakes 12 175,621 14,635 Seattle Sounders FC Toronto FC 12 241,758 20,147
Thanks for those numbers. Looks like Chivas and RSL are the biggest gainers from last season. (So far at least.) Dissappointing to see 6 teams with big double digit drops from last season.
The big drops: FC Dallas -31.00% NE Revolution -25.52% N.Y./N.J. Red Bulls -24.49% LA Galaxy -21.74% D.C. United -20.53% Chicago -18.22% On a positive note, LA has nudged back over 20,000 announced and Chicago has been better of late. Still, of the 9 surviving original MLS markets, five are down substantially and KC and Colorado are also down, albeit less so.
I can't believe we're seeing (big) drops this year in a handful of MLS markets -- it is almost as if people have less money for discretionary spending or there has been some (temporary) change in the consumerism and sports consumerism culture in the US. Is there something going on in the US economy in 2009 that I haven't heard about, and is that affecting ticket sales and attendance for MLS? Or does MLS (and its game-day attendances) operate in a vacuum and it should be very easy to do a simple comparison of 2008 to 2009?
It's worth noting that today is the one-year anniversary of Lehman Brothers failing, setting off a stock market crash and turning what had been a nasty housing slump into the subsequent recession we're still mired in today. In short - inferring anything from these numbers without taking the state of the economy into account is a huge mistake. Context matters.
For comparison, MLB numbers: Arizona: -16.0% Atlanta: -6.1% Baltimore: -3.7% Boston: 0.6% Cubs: -1.9% White Sox: -8.5% Cincinnati: -17.8% Colorado: -2.0% Detroit: -19.8% Florida: +6.0% Houston: -11.4% Kansas City: +14.6% Anaheim: -2.2% Los Angeles: -0.7% Milwaukee: +0.2% Minnesota: +1.3% Mets: -23.5% (Increased % of Capacity, however) Yankees: -13.7% (Also decreased % of capacity) Oakland: -13.5% Philadelphia: +5.0% Pittsburgh: -3.6% San Diego: -19.6% San Francisco: +0.7% Seattle: -4.2% St. Louis: -3.7% Tampa: +8.3% Texas: +13.4% Toronto: -19.3% DC: -21.0% Last year MLB had 7 clubs over 40k; this year they have 5. Last year MLB had 6 clubs below 25k; this year they have 11. The median has shifted around ~30k to about ~28k.
This can't be the case, for it would mean that the Federal government, the biggest employer in Washington DC, contracted in size and laid off people.
They're numbers. Assuming they are even accurate (which, for purposes of this thread, we do), how the owners deal with those numbers is their business. But yes, in light of what has happened Dallas is certainly free to assume its marketing efforts have nothing to do with a 31% drop in average attendance and chalk it up to the economy. Hand out bonuses all around. RBNY can convince themselves their crappy team had nothing to do with a double digit drop in attendance and assume all is well in their new stadium next year if the economy picks up. No roster changes needed there. Or they might reflect, just for a minute or two, on whether their sharp decline in attendance was fueled by more than the economic downturn and make some adjustments over matters that are in their control for next year. Nah.
Context matters? Dallas and New York are but one-third of the clubs posting big attendance losses. That their losses are especially severe can be chalked up to more than the economy, doubtless, but what about the other four? Here's how to not have lost attendance this year: a) be new to MLS b) have a pre-existing huge waiting list for tickets (oh and be in a country which didn't enter recession until almost a year after the US) c) open a new stadium d) play in sub-market capacity stadiums e) be a mega-cheap off-brand alternative
absolutely. and I think dealing with their business is their business, and I think they (the owners/investors in the league) know their business is and is not affected in different ways by the domestic/global economic conditions. "attendance" is just one set of numbers that I think the owners are looking at. but certainly it (the league attendance figures) is an important set of data (perhaps more so to the BS types than to the actually I/Os themselves). there are other numbers as well related to the business of MLS and MLS teams. league match attendance is just one data set that is regularly announced/published and is therefore very easy about which to have a (recurring) thread. I'm not arguing against better business or against the idea of trying to raise/improve attendance/revenue in all markets -- I'm just attempting to point out that a straight and simple 2008 to 2009 analysis is somewhat limited in its scope. I don't think anyone here was arguing for the points in your first paragraph. Nor do I think anyone is arguing against the points in your second paragraph. I think the broader point being that while some (or many) markets are down (and down significantly at this point) vs last year's averages yet the league as a whole is having a relatively good year (historically speaking in terms of league-wide attendance) is a fair point. yes, people can focus on the poor/bad numbers in some/many markets, but I think the business of the league needs a fuller analysis than is available within the scope of any single weekly attendance update or analysis of the six markets with "big drops" in MLS 2009 (relative to 2008). perhaps an additional interesting or useful analysis would be to compare those same six markets (or all MLS markets available) and their 2009 averages to date to the 2004 or 1999 averages.
Sure, but you have to start somewhere, and when you see a team off over 30% it should get some one's attention. Of those six, LA seems understandable to me. They had a great year last year that would be hard to duplicate, they demanded compensation in the Beckham loan because they thought it would hurt their numbers and still they are posting one of the best attendance numbers in the league. Okay, makes sense (to me). New England actually makes sense too. They had a huge double header last year that inflated their number to the fourth highest attendance in the league. Adjust for that, and they typically announced 14,945 for league games. They're down this year, but for a regular league game probably not as much as it appears. The other four? They have some questions to ask of themselves IMO. There's some simmering frustration in both DC and Chicago IMO which may play a part, and I also think WPS might have had an impact on those franchises too. I don't see reason to panic, but they need a better response than to wait for the economy to improve. Economy or no, Dallas looks like a disaster, and it started with a sharp decline last year before the economic downturn. Every corporate board of any size I've ever served on or advised as an attorney compared their performance to a peer group -- competitors in roughly similar markets that faced roughly similar conditions. Well, if I'm FC Dallas I'm looking at Houston, Colorado, Chicago and Chivas USA -- teams that have good sized Hispanic fan bases playing in decent sized (but not new) stadiums and wondering why even those who have seen a decline aren't seeing the same level of collapse. Bells should be going off that this looks to be more than the economy. RBNY just isn't very good, and they know it.
i don't disagree with much or any of this post (and I especially enjoyed the parts were "the economy" was at least mentioned in passing -- and there was also a mention of a few teams/markets that were doing well in 2009, relative to 2008). and this new/fuller post (as was the earlier post by someone else of MLB's comparative data) certainly is more useful and analytical than the original list of "6 big drops" in MLS in 2009.
I agree with this, but this doesn't change the situation. If you're looking at the numbers and you're trying to explain what's happened (i.e. a purely analytical approach), then the most likely explanation is simply the economy. If you're looking for ways to improve, then that changes your interpretation. For me, I'm approaching this from an analytical perspective. In DC, the economy has clearly played a role. There's been plenty of anecdotal observations of fewer hispanic fans at games than in previous years - it's a perfectly reasonable theory that those fans have been hit harder by this recession than the rest of the white collar workers in DC. From the front office's perspective, they've clearly adjusted their marketing this season. They put a lot of eggs in the Read Madrid basket (and later for the Open Cup). Considering the current economic conditions, I can't blame them for focusing on one thing - easier to promote the one-off event. With that said, I'm not certain that bells should be going off. Combine the economy with a relatively lackluster season on the field, and I'm satisfied with that explanation. Anyway, the whole point was that to be 'disappointed' in these attendance numbers without even mentioning the economy is stupid. That isn't an attempt to put all the blame on the economy, merely a realization that the economy matters. If blaming everything on the economy is a mistake, then surely saying it has no impact is just as serious of a mistake.
TFC and Seattle have kept MLS afloat. imagine where it would be without expansion into those two markets. adding three more will help add new fans and invigorate the league..while those other markets stabilize. relocation is coming to MLS