"attendance at MLS games increased 6% this season over 2001, to about 15,800 per game, but some uptick is probably due to MLS contracting from 12 teams to 10" Huh? How does contracting 2 teams from Florida affect attendance for the 10 remaining teams? Floridian: "hmm, no more games in miami/tampa, let's road trip up to DC to see a game this weekend." yeah, I'm sure plenty of people did that.
His implication is that the lower attendance average of the contracted teams would've brought down the league average, and since they're no longer around this year, the average is (artificially) higher. And that would be valid, if the two teams contracted had the two lowest average attendances. Has anyone calculated what last year's attendance would've been if we didn't count Miami and Tampa, and how that compares to this year's?
This guy Zimbalist, the Smith professor quoted in the article, is a frequent soccer basher. His writings are usually full of factual errors about soccer, so his opinions are worth little.
In the press release announcing MLS attendence, the league ran that calculation. If I recall correctly, attendence was flat for the remaining 10 teams. Of course, Chicago had a forced decline as a result of the stadium situation. Sachin
the level of journalistic expertise that it takes to be published is deplorable today. A good journalism professor would whip that thing out and use it to clean his arse before he even gave that an F. There are so many unsubstantiated facts and opnions in there it makes me wonder what internet degree the guy got on his coffee break at the quarry. The Internet was once thought of as a great learning tool of communication. So far all morons like that use if for is to reduce the amount of effort they take to write "copy" for internet sites. Instead of actually doing real research that might result in information more valuable than space filler, he sits at his desk and pulls together secondary information and passes it off as a revelation to the business world. I hope he researched his company's 401(k) better than he did that article. But probably not.
Yeah, actually most attendances were up slightly. Not counting Chicago (because of moving to a stadium that even while sold out much of the time had lower capacity than their previous year's average) only two teams had declines. One decline was minor, and one was major. The only major decline in attendance was DC United which went down about 20% or thereabouts. I guess going from dynasty to bottom of the league 3 years running finally had an effect. Most of the attendances of the remaining 10 non-contracted teams rose. In most sports over the past year, attendance has been falling. Looking at that as the line of demarcation, MLS had a very strong year. How much of that was caused by the World Cup interest, who knows. Good news, but for those who want to quibble, there's room for quibbling as well, heh. -Tron
Here are a few points worth mentioning regarding MLS attendance: 1. The increase happened during a recession. This is impressive given the fact that ticket spending is highly discretional. It is not as if someone NEEDS to attend a sporting event. 2. The overall increase happened even with the Fire stadium situation. 3. Strong attendance and sellouts at various venues during the latter part of the season were also impressive. The Galaxy attracted very large crowds down the stretch. San Jose actually drew 26M for its final gave vs. LA. The Fire had a couple of consecutive sellouts in Naperville. 4. Colorado actually averaged 20M+ for the season. 5. Next year should be even better with a growing fan base (finally) in Dallas and the new stadium in LA. 6. This is a long term, step by step process. It is great to see the MLS make some progress.
Fairly even handed summary. A few thoughts we all probably have from time to time (and have probably been expressed here numerous times). 1. We like to say how long it took other leagues to establish themselves. But let's keep in mind that the world is much more media saturated today than it was 30 years ago. Will that make it harder or easier to progress? I honestly do not know. It might make it easier to carve out a profitable niche. It might make it harder to really, really thrive and become a major sport. 2. What exactly will it take for the league to attract sponsors. By this it just seems like such a chicken vs. egg problem. We need more mainstream media attention to get more butts in seats and then get more sponsors. And then you just reverse the equation. We need more butts in seats to get more sponsors so we can garner more mainstream attention. I guess if I'm MLS I'm going to push for attendance first and let the rest follow. And that does appear to be their plan of attack. 3. Related to 2, just how difficult will it be to get SSS built. Take Minneapolis for instance. There is now rumor of possible expansion here. A stadium would cost around $20 mm. By constrast the Twins as well as the Vikings/Gophers both want new stadiums too. Cost would be hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. MLS might be able to sneak in and get a deal done just because so little would be asked for from the local governments. By contrast the very fact the other highly established teams have needs may prevent MLS from even getting a look. And we all now that SSS or venues that otherwise provide ancillary revenues are critical. I can't help but think the vision is correct, but it sure does seem like a hard thing to pull off. IF MLS survives and thrives and gets several SSS built it will no doubt be one of the greatest stories of sports management ever.
Um.... everyone here does realize it's a rehash of the Business Week article and contains no new information. Just thought I'd point that out. Sachin
Yes. They guy read that article (and maybe a few others, though I'm not sure) and rewrote it. It's like writing a grade school report by rewriting an article. That being said, it remains an even analysis of the league situations for MLS and WUSA. With the exception of noting that MLS retrenchment (and stadium construction) should help to stem losses and hopefully turn the league toward profitability. It was implied, but not really stated, I think.
That explains that sense of deja vu I experienced reading it last night. And I attributed it solely to the ritualistic appearance of the $250 million that MLS has supposedly lost so far. Actually, I also thought it's a rehash of everything most of us think when we look at the league's weaknesses and not its strengths.
This article was also carried in this week's edition of BusinessWeek with a graphic that detailed that soccer is still foriegn, etc.
Assuming Tampa and Miami were still in the league and their attendance remained the same, then the average would be 14,989. That barely over the 14,961 last year and far less than 15,822 this year. Giving Chicago the average it had last year would have MLS with a 16,168 average this year. Adding in Tampa and Miami would put that at 15,278. So, the contraction did inflate the year-to-year average attendance increase, but not too much if you consider Chicago's smaller stadium pulling it back down.
The "state" of MLS is "alive and kicking". (Get it?) (I'm feeling sort of loopy right now.) Whether it's in its infancy, ready to grow into a long and fruitful life; or whether it's in a slow decay, about to perish in 2006, is anyone's guess. Not even Harley Garber knows.
Here's MLS' breakdown. As stated. Eliminating the Tampa Bay, Miami and Chicago factors. Attendance was up 2%.
Wow, teams are averaging in the 10's of millions! Forget soccer specific stadiums, we need soccer specific cities!
...just think of it this way, calculate the average attendance of top 4 teams , your average would be around 20 k .....get it ? ...in a way average was up but probably less people attended MLS games this season then last season if you add all the numbers up and do not average out