MLS 2018 Attendance Thread

11882 in Philadelphia for USA vs Bolivia.

 

Mexico - Wales 82,345 at the Rose Bowl

 

I'd say there were some that just knew they were German.

 

10,547 for ATL @ NER.
14,805 for CHI @ PHI.
16,613 for HOU @ RSL.
18,003 for DAL @ LAG.

 

Thats a nice, just over 10k number for new England

 

But, sure! Let's schedule more midweek matches while school is still going, because...

 

10 years ago that number would have been 5k.

 

Maybe they're trying to sneak some games in before the world cup?

 

That's a bit of hyperbole. The worst attendance in 2008 for any game for any team was 6733 for Columbus. New England had 7606, 8159, and 8309. Quite a bit away from 5k.

 

Similarly, quite a bit away from 10K, also.

 

VAN @ COL: 16746
LAG @ POR: 21144
PHI @ ATL: 45140
TOR @ CLB: 12305
HOU @ MTL: 17512
NYR @ NER: 21576
ORL @ NYC: 22103
LAFC @ FCD: 14022
SJE @ CHI: 14138
SEA @ RSL: 18556

 

Pretty good number for the Revs. Is Brad Friedel's style pulling some fans back?

 

They've averaged over 20k the last 2 seasons.

 

Their weekend attendances really pick up when the weather gets warmer.

 

People seem to forget this every single year.

 

Just think what they could be averaging if they had an ownership that cared. I have always thought NER could be close to Seattle if their ownership tried.

 

MNU @ SKC: 20422

 

The last two home games of the seasom always draw very well, 25-32k. Not sure why, but I think it is because season tickets use all their used ticket, but yes it would nice to see how much they could average if they had an owner that cared. I'd like one of those in Chicago also, caring owner that is.

 

SKC continues to defy everything we thought we knew about MLS fandom.
- MLS 1.0 club. Still sell outs.
- Suburban stadium. Still sells out.
- No international stars. Still sells out.
- Not in a top 20 metro area. Still sells out.

— Will Parchman (@WillParchman) June 4, 2018

 

You have to credit the ownership group for this, I'd love it if we had that group in Chicago.

 

And Vermes.

 

Kansas City, the Metrostars and San Jose all successfully re-branded.* I think you could call them MLS 1.5 clubs.

If only Columbus, Colorado, D.C. United, Chicago and New England had learned those lessons.

Hopefully DC United can sell out every match at Audi Field.

*Dallas less successfully

 

So teams must change their name to be considered successfully rebranded? Or should they be like KC and change their name when they open a new stadium? What do you even consider a successful rebrand.

Also, how could Colorado, Columbus or Chicago have learned from KC? All of those teams built their stadiums before KC. How could they have seen the future of KC's success and replicated that?

DC doesn't need rebranded. They needed a stadium. Columbus has an owner who has never had any interest in being successful in Columbus and has been planning a move since he bought the team.

I'd hardly consider NYRB a success at the same level of KC or SJ. They are doing much better than the Metrostars, but still aren't at the level a NY market team should be at.

It seems like you have no idea what happened in the league before 2010 and just started following in the last few years. KC has been a huge success, but part of that came after learning from the mistakes of teams before them. You can't credit KC without acknowledging the benefit they had from rebranding and opening a stadium after so many others.

 

I should have used the term "relaunched".

Let me rephrase. If only Columbus, Colorado, D.C. United, Chicago and New England had learned the same lessons as KC.

But potentially signing a player of Rooney's reputation to coincide with opening a new stadium is exactly what I mean.

But the Metrostars would be a prime example, signing Henry and Marquez to coincide with their move to a shiny new stadium. Unfortunately it's in a sh*t location.

I have become a supporter since 2010 but that doesn't mean I don't know the history.

Isn't that what I implied?