In order for the Revs to actually get more attendance/relevance in our area, I guess New England needs more of the regional and local soccer culture shown by the fans of the Sounders, Timbers, Galaxy, Union, Earthquakes, Real, Impact, Toronto, Sporting, Dynamo, etc.
All teams formed after European soccer became readily available, most of them after youtube allowed people to see what that soccer culture over there looked like. If those were the original ten MLS teams in 1996, the league wouldn't be around today.
Great piece in the NY Times on the enormous turn around in KC. Pretty detailed and really paints the picture well just how low things got there. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/24/s...ansformed.html?ref=sports&pagewanted=all&_r=0
Great article, and it just goes to show what a difference it can make to have committed owners. A lot of the descriptions from the Wizards early years could easily be used to describe us. Sigh. I remeber when we used to make fun of Kansas City.
It would be very difficult. They would have to find very deep pocketed, dedicated to the sport owners. And even then they won't have the luxury of public dollars to build a stadium like KC did.
Revs attendance fell (~ 800/game) after 7 straight seasons of increases to 19,367 average. Still, it was their 4th best season ever (21K in 1997, 20K in 2016, 19.6K in 2015). Often Revs attendance hasn't tracked closely with team performance, but I suspect that this decline did have something to do with dissatisfaction with the direction of the club (and it probably offset the local impact of MLS wide trends in attendance growth). And, on a different/related topic, you can tell your soccer-hating friends that MLS has the 3rd highest average attendance among US sports (behind the NFL and MLB). Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Soccer_attendance
Wail, it's a bit misleading to compare indoor sports attendance like hockey and basketball, since, at the most, their buildings hold maybe 20,000 tops. MLS crowds average that amount, but it would be disingenuous to make the argument that the Revs have bigger crowds than the Bruins, when you consider the Bs play 41 home games (plus playoffs) and charge a heck of a lot more for tickets than the Revs do.
It's only misleading/disingenuous if I'm suggesting a conclusion - which I'm not. It's just one interesting piece of data. When people claim that soccer has no foothold here, or appeals only to a select group, one can make the point that on a given Saturday night in October, there very well may be more people taking in the Revs/MLS game than a Celtics or Bruins game at the same time. And, yes, no doubt the number of games has a multiplying effect leading to much larger season-total attendance. But, since MLS plays fewer games, we don't know what the effect of more games would be (certainly if they remained in Foxborough, it would be unlikely to sustain the same average attendance). Capacity isn't really a factor, since most MLS venues also have a realistic cap on capacity (although the Revs cap is close to %30 higher than average attendance). It's not at all clear that Celtics or Bruins average attendance would increase significantly in a bigger arena. Ticket cost is a big differentiator, but the Celtics and Bruins (and Red Sox) have a limited number of cheap[ish] tickets, yet they aren't always in high demand.
It's been at least 10 years since anyone, anyone at all with the ability to think their way out of a paper bag, has claimed that soccer has "no foothold" here. Right now soccer in the US is in a pretty good place, despite the disaster of the US not making it to Russia. Even the haters recognize that soccer and MLS have a significant following. MLS is thriving, and all you need to do is look around the country to see enthusiastic crowds and a growing fan base. Despite all that, it is still the #5 sport, and likely will be for all of our lifetimes. Nothing wrong with that, there is plenty of room, but let's not get carried away like some fool from the Sunbelt who uses those exact same figures to predict that soccer will overtake hockey, because the NHL is only getting crowds that could fit in the smallest MLS stadiums, and only appeals to certain parts of the country and Canada.
Try this article (from February) on for size -- it does mention the attendance numbers and the fact that it is an apples and oranges thing between MLS (outdoor) and the NHL (indoor): NHL broadcasts (94 of them) last year on NBCSN averaged 378,000 viewers. That’s more than MLS games averaged on ESPN and ESPN2 (279,000) or on Fox and FS1 (236,000), but not overwhelmingly so. (Eleven NHL games shown by NBC and its far larger reach, driven by the league’s Winter Classic and Stadium Series, averaged 1.5 million viewers.) But if the TV ratings demonstrate a narrow-but-not-crushing gap, another metric demonstrates MLS has more catching-up to do: franchise valuation. MLS teams are seeing a staggering rise in their assessed worth lately. According to Forbes, the average MLS team in 2016 was worth $185 million, up 80 percent from 2013. Also consider that MLS expansion fees are now set at $150 million. That represents phenomenal growth considering that Toronto FC paid a bargain basement $10 million for MLS entry in the 2007 season. Even with that, MLS is way behind in the chase. According to Forbes, the average NHL team is worth $517 million, almost triple the MLS average valuation. And while MLS can rightly be proud of robust growth in revenue and perception that has potential owners literally lining up to pay the $150 million expansion fee, there’s this: the Vegas Golden Knights just paid a $500 million expansion fee to begin NHL play in 2017-18. The math on that one is pretty clear. Read more at https://www.fourfourtwo.com/us/feat...ts-when-will-mls-pass-nhl#5dTXUMT8BevD6JLV.99 Going to be interesting to me to see the impact on attendance (and viewership) with the USMNT now out of WC 2018. I don't think it will impact us that much, but it certainly could.
The NHL and MLS team valuations is a tricky one because I think they're still apples and oranges due to several factors at play. The NHL (except maybe the Russian league) is the best pro hockey league in the world. Same goes for each of the big 4 sports. MLS is making progress but not even the best league in our hemisphere, let alone the world. In time I expect MLS to surpass the NHL and the put a target on the NBA and even MLB's back. But the valuations should be much, much higher for the big 4 clubs at this point in their history and evolution.
IMHO, looking twenty years out, I'd be really surprised if we surpass the NBA. I'd be less surprised if we surpass the NFL. I think the science on concussions will lead to rule changes that will change the game and people will drift away.
Yeah true. I think the drifting is already happening. Be it for kneeling, concussions, Roger goodell or any other reason, NFL tv ratings experienced a double digit drop this year. It's turning into a league people only follow for their fantasy team. MLB is an older demographic and doesn't have the same pull as it did 20-30 years ago. The NHL could be dogged by the concussion issue if they're not careful. The NBA is probably the most viable long term of he big 4 league's given it's growth internationally. That's where soccer has an edge on every other sport - it's started international and is working outside-in rather than the rest working inside-out.
I don't think the NFL is going anywhere. Ratings/interest are down somewhat, but eventually they'll wake up to what I think are the real reasons ... and fix it: the increasing use of instant replay and inconsistent/over-complicated rules that don't pass the "eye test". Example A, in the super bowl, one of Philly's early touchdowns was ruled complete after replays, even though both announcers and most viewers (I suspect) thought it should be overruled. Similar plays recently were ruled incomplete. This is enormously frustrating for viewers, because the rules don't seem to follow common sense and the interpretations seem overly esoteric and ambiguous. Similarly with rules designed to prevent/reduce injuries. Helmet to helmet is contact is prohibited between certain players under certain conditions? Hello? Why make it so limited and so complex (and the penalties so inconsequential[!])? Just say no helmet-to-helmet hits - and if you injure a player, you can't return until that player is cleared to return.
Wouldn't be that simple. Random rookie cornerback gets stiff-armed by Gronkowski, pretends to be injured the rest of the game.