Okay after some of the talk late last week the disclaimer is back. Its an oldie but a goodie. Remember in this thread we discuss the: (AAQ = Attendance Analysis Quotient. This figure is an overall attendance assessment, calculated from the weighted values of average attendance, median attendance, <10K percentage and >20K percentage. A lower figure represents a better attendance performance.) This is a slight change from Andy's old formula which used simple ordinal values and provided a full ranking point separation for two numbers that may have been within a percentage. This ordinal system did not allow for fine differences to be seen, and may have painted a somewhat skewed view of the numbers (though to be honest there is not much difference in the two end of season sets). The formula to find the weighted value for each column is: Take the annual value and subtract it from the Max value for it's column. Then take that result and divide it by the (Max-Min) for its column. For example, for the average column 17410 is the max 13756 is the min 3654 is the difference To calculate the derived value for 2010 Subtract 16675 from 17410 to get 735. Divide 735 by 3654 then mulitply by 100* to get 20 *Note that this step is new as some people thought whole numbers would be easier to read. MLS Attendance is based on tickets distributed not tickets scanned. Therefore if a team sells or distributes X number of tickets, then X is the attendance for that match. Even if 0 people showed up for whatever reason, X would still be the official attendance. There are a number of reasons actual attendance may be lower or higher than the announced. If you believe that the attendance was more or less than reported please use the Perceived Attendance thread to discuss that. Okay so I guess you guys aren't ready for that, but your kids are gonna love it.
Now on to the numbers. Holy (()&*)*#*$*%^#&%*(&$#&*(^(#(^*(*&(^%$#. I think that that sums it up. This season is so effing amazing. 1996 had 6 of the top 50 attendances all time, this season will have 2 unless Vancouver opens more for any of their last matches. And yet this year is going to obliterate the 1996 numbers. And depending on how the numbers fall we could actually end up first in each of the four categories. This past weeks matches: Code: Kansas City 17838 Real Salt Lake 20762 Philadelphia 17963 Houston 17544 Toronto FC 20132 New England 21022 Colorado 13920 San Jose 10525 Los Angeles 27000 Columbus 15566 Vancouver 21000 Chivas USA 16134 [B]Total 219406 [COLOR="Red"]Average 18284[/COLOR][/B] This upcoming week is a mini week but I am not going to combine it with next week, because of how split up the matches are this week.
Now for those amazing numbers. 281 of 306 matches are done or 91.8% of the season. Of those 281, 178 have topped 15k. We have not had a sub 10k match in 96 matches, or since mid July. Assuming New England stays strong this weekend we will hit 100 this week! Current Season: Code: Current Average Median <10k >20k AvgPts MedPts <10kPts >20kPts AAAQ AAAQRnk Date 1996 17458 15209 22.4% 26.5% 3 37 55 2 98 3 9/11 1997 14398 12524 25.2% 15.0% 76 83 65 74 298 13 9/17 1998 14208 11522 27.3% 15.3% 81 100 72 72 325 15 9/16 1999 14339 12973 33.0% 14.8% 78 75 91 75 319 14 9/25 2000 13422 12544 35.8% 10.8% 100 83 100 100 383 16 8/30 2001 14735 13361 26.2% 16.6% 68 69 68 64 269 11 8/26 2002 15418 13665 18.6% 16.3% 52 64 43 66 224 8 9/7 2003 14724 13439 23.9% 18.1% 69 67 60 54 251 10 10/11 2004 15384 13122 26.8% 24.6% 53 73 70 14 209 7 10/2 2005 14947 12409 29.0% 17.0% 63 85 77 61 287 12 10/1 2006 15060 13196 21.0% 16.5% 61 72 51 64 247 9 9/30 2007 16497 15033 8.4% 26.8% 26 40 9 0 75 2 10/6 2008 16330 15024 11.4% 24.9% 30 41 19 12 101 5 10/12 2009 15845 14525 16.0% 19.9% 42 49 34 43 168 6 10/7 2010 16532 15050 7.7% 22.3% 25 40 7 28 100 4 10/9 2011 17575 17418 5.7% 26.0% 0 0 0 5 5 1 10/2 Historical End of Season: Code: EOS Average Median <10k >20k AvgPts MedPts <10kPts >20kPts AAAQ AAAQRnk Date 1996 17410 15093 21.9% 26.3% 0 7 54 20 81 4 9/22 1997 14606 12733 25.0% 16.3% 77 75 65 78 295 12 9/28 1998 14312 11871 26.6% 16.1% 85 100 71 79 335 14 9/27 1999 14282 12973 32.3% 15.1% 86 68 92 85 331 13 10/10 2000 13756 12690 34.4% 12.5% 100 76 100 100 376 15 9/9 2001 14961 13431 26.6% 17.7% 67 55 71 70 263 10 9/9 2002 15821 14108 17.1% 18.6% 43 36 36 65 179 6 9/22 2003 14900 13719 23.3% 18.0% 69 47 59 68 242 9 10/26 2004 15549 13223 24.7% 25.3% 51 61 64 26 202 8 10/17 2005 15112 12619 27.1% 17.7% 63 79 73 70 284 11 10/16 2006 15426 14113 19.3% 18.2% 54 36 44 67 201 7 10/15 2007 16767 15353 8.2% 29.7% 18 0 3 0 20 1 10/21 2008 16460 15188 11.0% 24.8% 26 5 13 28 72 3 10/26 2009 16037 14686 14.7% 20.9% 38 19 27 51 135 5 10/25 2010 16675 15332 7.5% 22.5% 20 1 0 42 63 2 10/16
And finally the miscellany. Just one milestone, Portland topped 250k in road attendance in match 15. Tied for 5th fastest, so Portland appears to be a pretty good road draw as well. Columbus closed the gap a bit but finished down nearly 17% from last season and 21% all time. New England is now up 5% in a very bad season on the field, however, that number is still down 15% all time. So New England has room to improve, and seem to be heading in that direction. The numbers in KC are just amazingly strong, and San Jose has a good sellout streak going at the end of this season. Comparison to Last Season and All-Time: Code: ----Team---- Current Last Diff Alltime Diff Chicago 14143 15814 -10.6% 15636 -9.5% Chivas USA 14373 14575 -1.4% 16053 -10.5% Colorado 14749 13329 10.7% 13907 6.1% Columbus 12185 14642 -16.8% 15465 -21.2% DC United 15127 14279 5.9% 17343 -12.8% FC Dallas 13026 10815 20.4% 12154 7.2% Houston 16924 17310 -2.2% 17245 -1.9% Kansas City 17678 10287 71.8% 10909 62.0% Los Angeles 23106 21437 7.8% 21973 5.2% New England 13292 12608 5.4% 15787 -15.8% Philadelphia 18201 19252 -5.5% 19252 -5.5% Portland 18733 New 0.0% New 0.0% Real Salt Lake 17420 17095 1.9% 16686 4.4% Red Bull NY 18967 18441 2.9% 16971 11.8% San Jose 11928 9659 23.5% 12902 -7.5% Seattle 36932 36173 2.1% 33535 10.1% Toronto FC 20183 20455 -1.3% 20263 -0.4% Vancouver 20615 New 0.0% New 0.0% Overall 17543 16566 5.9% 15502 13.2% And now the predictive which thinks we will clear 17600. Completely totally possible. In fact I think we will fall just 50k in attendance short of averaging 18k for the year. Meaning I am guessing roughly 17835 as the average. Current Point to Seasons End and Prediction: Code: Year Current End Diff % Diff 1996 17458 17410 -48 -0.3% 1997 14398 14606 208 1.4% 1998 14208 14312 104 0.7% 1999 14339 14282 -57 -0.4% 2000 13422 13756 334 2.5% 2001 14735 14961 226 1.5% 2002 15418 15821 403 2.6% 2003 14724 14900 176 1.2% 2004 15384 15549 165 1.1% 2005 14947 15112 165 1.1% 2006 15060 15426 366 2.4% 2007 16497 16767 270 1.6% 2008 16330 16460 130 0.8% 2009 15845 16037 192 1.2% 2010 16532 16675 143 0.9% 2011 17575 17688 113 0.6% To top the 1996 average the final 25 games need average only 15568, meaning only 389204 more in attendance is needed.
Fantastic work, as always. The Mini week shouldn't do any attendance harm: NY hosts LA Seattle hosts Chicago Vancouver hosts RSL NE hosts SJ Seattle hosts Philly Heck, we could average 20k even if no one goes to the NE game.
The NY-LA game was sold out for a while before the original date. Also, at the last home game I noticed people in sections i've never previously seen them in before (tiny sections near the luxury boxes), so i will not be surprised if the attendance number on tuesday is the highest in RBA history. I also won't be surprised if the game has a lot of no-shows because it was moved 5 weeks and is now on a weeknight. And it's plain as day that there has been a regularly sizable amount of no-shows since the opening of the stadium.
Incredible numbers. I think the most significant accomplishment of this season is the larger trends that we could see when they started happening back in '07, are now actually coming into focus. The gripe in '07 of course was that the numbers were simply the Beckham Bounce, and that it was a Novelty set of numbers. It would be hard to argue differently at the time, but now 2007 (and 1996 for that matter) are no longer the Outliers. 2011 is. We will probably have to wait another 4-5 years before we really know what this years numbers mean in the larger context, but for now it is nice to know that they are what they are. 4-5 years from now, we may look back at this 5 year window and attribute it to the Don & Companies shrewd expansion record, with TOR-SEA-PHL-VAN-PDX causing a trend that kept new fans entering the league and boosting numbers, and that hopefully MON follows suit, followed by NY20 or someone else. If that is the case, we may be at the start of a plateau for the next few years unless/until another watershed trend occurs that can move the numbers as effectively. Of course a plateau itself would be a stability indicator, so if we don't continue setting AAAQ standards, that may not mean anything we need to be concerned with. Congratulations, MLS.
Here's what they will say about the last 5 years... 1. Beckham helped bring attention to the league and increased attendance. Like any entertainment business...star power and celebrity helps to draw attention. 2. Television coverage improved markedly in the US as demonstrated by ESPNs coverage of the World Cup. High definition coverage on NBC/Versus was a game changer in 2012. 3. Expansion into the Pacific Northwest was hugely successful and drew on strong regional rivalries. 4. MLS capitalized on larger trends toward urbanization with stadiums near densly-populated downtown centers near transit accesss, nightlife, and millions of sq ft of commercial and residential development. 5. Successful shift from families....to young adults and supporters groups as the core market
I can't remember. Is this the first time average attendance has been higher than 1996? If so, that is a big deal.
"Concerned" is probably too strong a term, but what jumps out to me is that only three "pre-contraction" markets have an average announced attendance over the median. Look further, and you see Chicago is off 9.5% from their historical average, DC United 12.8%, New England 15.8% and Columbus over 21%. So yes, I'd say the Beckham/Blanco bounce is about done, at least as far as league attendance goes. For me, the takeaway is that notwithstanding the dramatic turnarounds in Kansas City and New York, this burst has been and is being largely driven by the expansion teams, as you indicate. That said, it will be interesting to see how well they sustain these numbers over the next decade -- knock 10 - 20% off these averages as has happened in many of the mature markets and the picture isn't quite as rosy. Which isn't to say I think the league is in trouble. Announced attendance is an imperfect proxy for profitability and revenue growth, and I'm not sure it's even it should be the sole measure of whether these teams are becoming valued assets in their communities -- what Garber calls "relevance". For that I think you have to look at other factors too which are beyond this thread (local media coverage, local TV ratings, local sponsorships, social networking) to get a better idea of whether MLS is slowly moving beyond its now comfortable niche. My sense is that (ever so slowly) it is. The bottom line is that this is more good news than bad, but there is still work for MLS to do, and a great deal of making teams "relevant" after the initial surge in interest from a new team or a new stadium or a big name player simply requires time -- it's hard to microwave. People need to set their expectations accordingly IMO.
Kudos to Edward for all the hard work. My favorite thread. Okay, now for something kinda off topic. But it was mentioned. I have argued the good/bad of the Beckham experiment with several eurosnobs. I am in agreement with the above quote. But something brought it home for me this weekend. Have some old friends from way back who are huge sports fans but probably couldn't spell soccer. They took their 10yr old son (who plays soccer) to the LA/RSL game this weekend and started posting pictures (on the facebook) of Beckham on the pitch and Beckham signing their son's 'Beckham' jersey, and what not. They were excited, yes, but probably won't be season ticket holders anytime soon. Their son on the other hand, I suspect will be a LA Galaxy fan for life. That's how it starts. And good week for numbers.
Triplet, Your point is completely understood. I have to wonder given the previous SD Tribune articles about teams padding attendance numbers if that is no longer happening. I know we have largely weeded out the it looked less full on TV crowd from this thread. But when people do take the time to comment on it, the general theme is that the announced no longers seems as far off from the perceived. There are of course occassional exceptions, but the numbers seem more believeable for the most part. So what would attendance have been announced as 6-8 years ago, would it be the same as it was or might the numbers have been a little more accurate? So yes some of the old guard look to be down quite a bit, but how much of that is lost padding?
One interesting factoid is that there were 160 games in 1996 and 306 games this season. The outliers - mainly on the high side had a far greater impact on pulling the 1996 average up than any such games this season. It's good to see the 1996 numbers finally being eclipsed, but if you look deeper, they're being completely shattered. We should pull up the NASL's 16th season for comparison.
I think the next big bump will be when teams either start opening their whole stadium for rivalry games (Seattle, Vancouver) or playing in bigger venues for said games (LA, NY, Phil). Portland @ Seattle could potentially draw 60,000, as could LA @ NY. "Mega Games" (my term) could potentially bump league attendance over 25,000 average.
Not to get totally sidetracked... I know you personally feel the front office is inflating numbers. The Galaxy game was declared sold out literally months before it's originally scheduled date. I also know they did release some other tickets for sale recently. I don't think it's hard to fathom that either 'held' tickets have been released or they are selling sections they hadn't previously (those small sections next to luxury boxes). I just find it hard to believe they would have been turning away customers months ago if this was some elaborate sellout hoax. Is it hard to believe this particular game was indeed sold out at the old capacity? I mean, just look at all the crowds for this game since Beckham joined the league.
The median and average are so close together that our old argument about which one mattered, well, doesn't matter. It's easier to be a good draw by historical standards if you start in 2011 than if you started in 1998, or 2005.
The remarkable thing is that when predicting the attendance for the remaining games I did not have to make any real stretches. I think the biggest 'stretch' I made was 53k for the Seattle v San Jose match. I believe I have read that the match was approaching 50k sold a couple weeks back so I feel comfortable with that guesstimate at least for now. Mostly it was just predicting things like LA and New York selling out their remaining games, Houston pushing 24-25k for their finale, Vancouver maintaining 21k sellouts for the final 3. I think we will get there, which is kinda mindboggling.
There is some truth to that, however, most of the teams that Portland is tied with or bettered by are the original teams, not the newer expansion teams. Now granted Portland gets big road draws in Seattle and Vancouver which helps their cause, but still most of the expansion teams have actually been pretty mediocre as road draws. So far at least. And this remarkably well attended season certainly helps as well.*
Which brings up another interesting point. All of this is happening in an era of greatly reduced capacity. Offhand I'm guessing only Seattle, New England, and DC are using fake capacity numbers. By historical comparison, most teams don't have a lot of extra seats available to sell. Now, compared, to the NFL, NBA, and NHL the capacity percentages aren't terribly impressive across the board, but they're getting there. It's another data point, but I think capacity % is not a relevant marker in most markets. There'll always be the problematic outliers - like when Houston plays at Reliant and so on, but then the NHL now has the Winter Classic that does much the same thing. We've been talking about reduced capacity and demand outstripping supply for 16 years. We're finally getting somewhere in many markets.