while playing with the world cup bump charts, i did one combining MLS and NASL attendance from league inception. i was surprised to see that it looks like MLS is better of then NASL ever was. if anyone has NASL median attendance numbers i'll work up another chart. (right click > view image, for full size)
If you run a regression analysis of those stats, I believe it will show that the average attendance for MLS may exceed 20,000 within 3 to five years, which would be tremendous. With the addition of Red Bull's Bull Ring, Seattle, and more DP's, I bet the trend line will move upward even faster from here on out. Very encouraging graphic.
One thing you can learn from this is that the novelty effect is normal, and any new league should expect attendance to go down before it goes up. The NASL started from much humbler roots, as hardly anyone but immigrants knew the first thing about the game. But even they had a novelty related dropoff after Year 1. So if you ever did want to do a least-squares trend line, it would make sense to throw out Year 1 as an outlier (try it, and show the r-squared, I'll bet it's much higher). This would give you a line that says league attendance is growing, but probably not by as much as paladius is guessing.
Simply put, the NASL was a fad and there was very little interest outside a couple big markets for a couple of years. The MLS is here for the long run.
Although NASL can't touch MLS in numbers, but these two guys were special. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfKX7xzL2N0
That's a pretty impressive fad though. Even if you just measure from the time attendance really started rising to the time it started seriously falling, that's 7 years. Given the enormity of the task of turning America on to soccer, it's really amazing they almost pulled it off.
The NASL had some very good markets and a lot of bad ones. Before Kenn removed his attendance stats I remember comparing the last 10 years of the NASL with the first 10 years of MLS. If I remember correctly, the average of the top five NASL teams was greater than the average of the top 5 MLS teams in attendance over 10 years.
As far as I know, no-one has NASL median attendance numbers online. The only place that has full NASL game attendances is a book that was published some time ago. I believe it's the North American Soccer League Encyclopedia. With the extremes in the NASL, it would be interesting to see where the median ended up.
Yeah, I miss Kenn's numbers. It's interesting to compare top 5 to top 5... but why not go top (as many as are in MLS) to that many in the NASL?
The NASL just expanded too quickly. Still, they had some very solid numbers during the five year period from 1977 through 1981 before calling it quits after the 1984 season. Eight clubs drew over 14,000 per game in 1979: New York Cosmos 46,690 Tampa Bay Rowdies 27,650 Minnesota Kicks 24,580 Vancouver Whitecaps 22,962 Seattle Sounders 18,997 San Jose Earthquakes 15,092 Los Angeles Aztecs 14,333 Detroit Express 14,058 They followed that up with a very solid 1980 season, even with the loss of the National TV contract, when 9 of 24 teams drew 14,000 or more: New York Cosmos 42,754 Tampa Bay Rowdies 28,435 Vancouver Whitecaps 26,834 Seattle Sounders 24,246 Tulsa Roughnecks 19,787 Washington Diplomats 19,205 Minnesota Kicks 18,279 Toronto Blizzard 15,043 Fort Lauderdale Strikers 14,279 Even though some of the top numbers were declining and the league had dropped from 24 to 21 teams, 8 teams were still over 14,000 in 1981: New York Cosmos 34,835 Montreal Manic 23,704 Vancouver Whitecaps 23,236 Tampa Bay Rowdies 22,532 Seattle Sounders 18,224 Tulsa Roughnecks 17,188 Minnesota Kicks 16,605 San Diego Sockers 14,802 And, down to the MLS equivalent of 13 teams in 1982, 8 of the teams still had some good numbers by today's standards: New York Cosmos 28,749 Montreal Manic 21,348 Tampa Bay Rowdies 18,507 Vancouver Whitecaps 18,254 Tulsa Roughnecks 14,469 Fort Lauderdale Strikers 12,345 Seattle Sounders 12,539 San Jose Earthquakes 11,012 The NASL gets a bad rap, IMO. There was very little soccer culture in the U.S. when the United Soccer Association (USA) and the National Professional Soccer League (NPSL) two leagues merged to form the NASL, which started in 1968. They didn't control their stadiums and had high costs of operation, they expanded too quickly with undercapitalized owners, and collapsed. But they were successful enough that they forever changed soccer in the United States. And it wasn't just the Cosmos. Teams in Vancouver, Seattle, Tampa Bay, and Minnesota put up solid numbers well above what most MLS teams do today in multiple seasons. Unfortunately, they weren't in big markets, as Los Angeles and Chicago typically drew poorly. Without cable TV or the internet, it was hard to follow the teams, and the league didn't help matters by shifting emphasis to the indoor game as a means of salvaging something. Here are the numbers for those interested: http://www.sover.net/~spectrum/nasl/nasl-standings.html
Too much math? Actually, I knew the bottom half of the NASL sucked, and just wanted to see how the better markets stacked up.
We'll never know, but had the NASL gone more slowly and concentrated on their 12 strongest markets, plus Los Angeles and Chicago, they had the nucleus of a strong, 14 team league: Eastern Conference: Chicago Sting Fort Lauderdale Strikers Montreal Manic New York Cosmos Tampa Bay Rowdies Toronto Blizzard Washington Diplomats Western Conference: Minnesota Kicks San Diego Sockers San Jose Earthquakes Seattle Sounders Tulsa Roughnecks Los Angeles Aztecs Vancouver Whitecaps Those markets are at least as strong as MLS currently.
But "top five" means that Cosmos numbers were included, and Cosmos were a statistical outlier. That distorts the comparison so much as to make it meaningless. As a matter of fact, if Cosmos data is a full 20% of the universe of numbers you are looking at, the "average" is even more deceptive.
If it makes you happy then throw them out. I believe even without the Cosmos there were more NASL teams with 20,000+ attendance years than MLS teams in the time frames I indicated.
His point was that it's distortionary to discount the outliers on the low end but not the high one. As a fraction of the number of teams in the league? I mean, by raw numbers, it seems clear MLS could have a shot at more 20k teams if they let every Tom Dick and Harry give it a try and fold if they're unsuccessful. It's just that this method isn't worth the cost.
Yep -- at least five other clubs did it in multiple years: Minnesota, Seattle, Vancouver, Tampa Bay and Montreal.
These stats drive me nuts because I can't fathom why MLS hasn't made it a priority to get back in Minnesota, Vancouver, Tulsa and Tampa Bay where the attendance at one point in the NASL was fantastic. Okay, so Minnesota has political/stadium/ownership issues, but there still should be a way to make it happen when you have a proven base of potential MLS fans. Tulsa was always strong in attendance, even though they didn't really have any stars and they couldn't pull from an ethnic base. That says something. Tampa had Rodney Marsh and some slightly above average talent, but they still drew well. Vancouver had knowledgeable fans. Montreal? I totally missed that one. I can't believe the attendance figures for Montreal that appeared on this post. Amazing.
Let me see. If they try to get back into those 5 cities, I believe we'll run up against something that we've seen before. I think it was called the NASL. By that, I mean 'expanding too fast too soon.' I really don't see how you can be driven nuts by a league that is being successful. And, apparently, being successful because they're doing things the way they are. Now, as far as I can tell, the way they're doing things is by demanding solid, deep-pocketed ownership and a good stadium situation. As far as I can tell, you're being driven nuts because MLS is refusing to drop their standards and worked to get back into cities that drew well... um... [scroll down]... nearly 30 years ago. If I remember right, MLS included 'fan support' among THREE things they needed for expansion. I'm as excited as the next person about how things are going. But I'm even more excited about the notion of MLS being here past the 17 years the NASL was. It would be awesome for MLS to return to the cities the NASL was successful in. But this isn't 1980 (though I did see a punk girl walking down Guadalupe the other day). It'll happen, if they can find the right people. Meanwhile, live in today, dude.
We have to get over this notion that the NASL was the Cosmos and 23 other teams. There were 22 times in the NASL where teams averaged over 20,000 fans per game per season, and 15 of those were by teams not named "Cosmos". 1. New York Cosmos 47,856 (1978) 2. New York Cosmos 46,690 (1979) 3. New York Cosmos 42,754 (1980) 4. New York Cosmos 34,835 (1981) 5. New York Cosmos 34,142 (1977) 6. Minnesota Kicks 32,775 (1977) 7. Minnesota Kicks 30,928 (1978) 8. Vancouver Whitecaps 29,166 (1983) 9. New York Cosmos 28,749 (1982) 10. Tampa Bay Rowdies 28,435 (1980) 11. Tampa Bay Rowdies 27,650 (1979) 12. New York Cosmos 27,242 (1983) 13. Vancouver Whitecaps 26,834 (1980) 14. Minnesota Kicks 24,580 (1979) 15. Seattle Sounders 24,228 (1977) 16. Seattle Sounders 24,246 (1980) 17. Vancouver Whitecaps 23,236 (1981) 18. Montreal Manic 23,704 (1981) 19. Vancouver Whitecaps 22,962 (1979) 20. Seattle Sounders 22,578 (1978) 21. Tampa Bay Rowdies 22,532 (1981) 22. Montreal Manic 21,348 (1982) In addition to the Cosmos, the Kicks, Whitecaps, Rowdies, Sounders, and Manic put up phenomenal numbers. Just to give you some context, here is the attendance of the top half from the English First Division in 1980 -- the midpoint of the NASL's run from 1977 to 1983: 1 Manchester United 45,071 2 Liverpool 37,547 3 Aston Villa 34,117 4 Manchester City 33,587 5 Arsenal 32,480 6 Tottenham Hotpsur 30,724 7 Sunderland 26,477 8 Everton 26,105 9 Ipswich Town 24,619 10 Nottingham Forest 24,483 11 Wolverhampton Wanderers 21,551 Link: http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm Look at those numbers closely. The Cosmos numbers were comparable to Manchester United -- actually higher in 1978 and 1979. The Kicks, for heavens sake, had attendance equal to, or better than, Arsenal for two years. Vancouver, in 1983 when the NASL was gasping its last breath, had attendance that would have been just behind Spurs. Yes, the NASL was in some terrible markets, but in several markets they achieved a level of popularity that MLS has not matched to this day.
My initial comments mentioned that the bottom half of the teams in NASL sucked. It wasn't meant to be a top to bottom comparison. My intention was to show that the NASL did have some great markets and that they put up numbers not yet matched by MLS. However, I will freely and happily state that MLS is a much stronger league overall.
This is more of a long-distance run than a sprint. MLS is doing it right - by and large. Time and demographics are on their side. One day MLS will be any of the other four major sports - perhaps not as rich or powerful, but given the same level of coverage and respect. I think they're on the right track.
Just wanted to point out that Tulsa was in the top 5 or 6 NASL teams in average attendance from 1979 to 1983... Of course, 1983 was twenty five years ago... a completely different time. The Minnesota Kicks had hammond organ music playing at the old Metropolitan Stadium in Bloomington... the Tulsa Roughnecks played on an awful, narrow astroturf field with football lines, a wicked "crown," and scraps/pieces of astroturf on the sidelines to extend the field a few extra feet on either sideline... all the teams had cheerleaders... Tulsa was the only NASL city that actually bailed out its team with fans literally going door-to-door in late 1983, coming up with over $60,000 in donations that helped the team make payroll... how many MLS cities would do that for their teams today?... rumors swirled that the team would be sold to Tulsans in a "public stock offering" but the team ended up being purchased by a cable TV company... that said... Paladius, Major League Soccer did give Tulsa and Minnesota (and several other successful NASL cities) chances to get in early... did you fail to notice that Tampa and San Jose got in the original MLS over... Atlanta and Oakland and Philly, etc...? Seattle is in the league now... and Vancouver is still being talked about, all they need is a new stadium... lol... But in 1994, it was Columbus, Ohio that came up with 11,000 season ticket requests, much thanks to Kroger. Tulsa only got around 2,000... Seattle got about 1,700... I think Tampa had over 4,000 and we all know how that ended... MLS was kinda silent on comparisons at the time because they initially asked ALL candidates to have a goal of 15,000 season ticket deposits sold... then lowered it to 10,000... the new league was supposed to start with 12 teams, then reduced it to 10... then put off their inaugural season by a year... the first weekly MLS "extra time" show was filmed at Winnercomm studios in Tulsa, OK... MLS wanted teams playing in cities with a grass field of reasonable width... so MLS went to the Cotton Bowl in Dallas, Arrowhead in KC, and Mile High Stadium in Denver. If the locals in Tulsa could have ponied up $1.8 million dollars to widen the field at Skelly Stadium and replace the astroturf with grass, the NASL's smallest market would have had a league-owned team in MLS, which yours truly would put in the "be careful what you wish for" catagory ... MLS officials were still in communication with Tulsa in the late 90s, when a soccer/track&field stadium was included in a '97 bond issue... it failed... MLS again gave little ol' Tulsa a shot in 2002, when league officials including Mark Abbott and Lamar Hunt proactively came to Tulsa and asked for a feasability study and support from a newly elected mayor... despite around 5,000 season ticket requests and donors promising $10mil in private donations towards a soccer stadium, a 22k seat proposed downtown Tulsa SSS failed to make the list of projects for "Vision2025"... instead, a 18k indoor arena is being built so T-town won't be outdone by OKC or the gazillion other cities that have large indoor arenas... even in 2005, MLS evidently gave DC United's new owners' Tulsa's number, and if Global Development Partners/Tim Kissler had been the type of group that MLS and Tulsa thought they were, Tulsa may have had a TIF district setup for a downtown stadium and come into the league alongside Toronto... but my guess is that local ownership just wasn't strong enough... or at least not as strong as the current ownership group that bought KC from Lamar Hunt... MLS's business plan has been to play in 20,000 to 30,000 capacity stadiums with grass fields and reasonable revenue streams from Day One. They want committed local ownership and at the very least, a demonstrated potential fanbase. Trust me, Tulsa and several other previously successful NASL cities have had multiple chances to get in. MLS has set the bar very high. Do I believe Tulsa could be as successful in MLS as Oklahoma City has been in the NBA?... sure. But this is 2008... and we've had plenty of chances...