Only teams with the same stadium situation as last year are included. Right now, every team with the same stadium situation has played exactly as many home games as they did all of last year. 2001 Team-by-team mean D.C. United 12 21,518 MetroStars 13 20,806 Columbus Crew 13 17,511 LA Galaxy 13 17,387 Colorado Rapids 13 16,481 N.E. Revs 13 15,654 Dallas Burn 13 12,574 KC Wizards 13 10,954 SJ Earthquakes 13 9,635 2002 Team-by-team mean Colorado Rapids 13 20,311 +23.24% MetroStars 13 18,430 -11.42% LA Galaxy 13 17,984 +3.43% Columbus Crew 13 17,042 -2.68% N.E. Revs 13 16,674 +6.52% D.C. United 12 16,642 –22.66% Dallas Burn 13 12,773 +1.58% KC Wizards 13 11,715 +6.95% SJ Earthquakes 13 9,990 +3.68% 2001 Mean: 15,786 (Pathetic-move MLS) 2002 Mean: 15,721 –0.41% (I thought it looked like more on TV) Overall, attendance was amazingly flat after last year’s nice gain. DC’s on the field performance seems to have been offset by the incredible 4th of July in Colorado. I think that viewed as a consolidation year, this year can be seen as positive. Some other thoughts: Hopefully, DC has bottomed out. Hopefully, NE and DC will both improve on the field nest year. Hopefully, July 4th on Colorado will be as gonzo as it was this year. Hopefully, with LA’s new stadium and slight increases elsewhere, attendance can reach a 16,500 mean next year. That’s the goal I’m looking for in 2003 and 2004. Finally, it would seem that unless two new investors with stadiums join up, and unless two current teams get new stadium deals done (which might push attendance to an 18,000 mean), 2006 will be the end of MLS. An average TV rating of 0.3-0.4 would be nice too. (12 teams, two new investors, 6 SSS, 18,000 mean, 0.3-0.4 TV rating = clearly profitable MLS in 2006)
Chicago lowered their capacity. As of late they have sold the place out. A season full of sell outs would still leave them short of last years averages. Of course you also left them out of your analysis.
I don't recall ever hearing Garber state that chances are good they'd be shutting down the league if MLS doesn't add 2 more teams by 2006 or fails to reach some average attendance milestone like 18,000. In my view, the key factor in whether MLS is still around after 2006 will be if the league can manage to turn around some of its key big market franchises that are presently losing money. I've read that the MetroStars, and I believe United, are two franchises that contribute a great degree to the overall monetary losses of the league. So I would say perhaps the key goal for the league will be to find new homes for NY/NJ and DC that allow them to make a profit or at least break even. If MLS can achieve that, I'd think the chances would be pretty good that the league will continue on. LA and Columbus should be raking in $ with their SSS's; Colorado, Chicago, New England and Kansas City should be doing alright with reasonable lease deals with their NFL landlords, and San Jose and Dallas will hopefully at least be breaking even as key tenants for their college and city-owned stadiums.
Re: Re: Final 2002 Attendance Comparison with 2001 I didn't mean to imply that those were the minimmum that needed to be done for the investors to keep the league going (even though I guess that's what I did imply), but rather that if those things all happened, then we could relax because the league will be around for a long time. Attendance seems to be moving in the right direction, for the most part. Its the other factors that are needed now.
OK, so what was the Crew's average attendance last year? The 2001 league stats page at mlsnet.com states that the Crew's average attendance was 17,511 last year, but did they make a typo? http://www.mlsnet.com/statistics/archive/2001_league.html
I think the comparison is good, but this week is critical. There are six key games in the league, including in NY, Columbus, Chicago, LA and San Jose. The comparison of 2000 with 2002 regular season (sans TB and MIA) will be what I look for. And clearly the crap of a season in DC and NE (until two weeks ago) took the numbers down. To me, the entire season has been good. Why? While Goon did get hosed out of a new Firehouse, they will be back in their original home and be making money. And even bigger, San Jose finally came around. Once you get critical mass, you tend to keep it. But like TB and Miami, there never was a critical mass. DC and NY, NE and LA will go up and down depending on their play, but SJ was a problem and stayed that way. It seems SJ finally achieved some inroads into the market. Two additional stadiums might mean the end of Wednesday games. Once LA has their stadium, they are good to go. Before LA plays their first game in the their new stadium, someone else will finalize plans for a new stadium, and set a date to break ground. That changes the entire landscape of the league; in just two years we'll have: Columbus in their digs LA in their digs NE making enough at Gillette Chicago making money in Soldiers DC likely breaking ground, or at least not sucking Expansion team with stadium Expansion team with stadium Burn likely breaking ground KC perhaps breaking ground Colorado making some money in Invesco NY...stadium announcement in 60 days SJ...please tell me they can move out of Spartan!
Is this a poke at Nick S., or have the MetroStars actually made an announcement lately to this effect?
Spartan isn't perfect but its not the issue. Marketing and promotion are the issue. Take a look at attached: http://206.180.237.199/san_jose_state_university/spartans_stadium/football/ I can name 8 MLS teams that would take a 30k seat stadium with boxes right now. The field should be larger but that's not why attendance stinks.
If my post offended you, you need to visit the Burn forum see how much smack gets dished out by Fire fans in there. Now, back to the point. Yes, the Metrostars comment was a poke at Nick S. But, reports from the Metrostars forum said that in the next legislative session there is a good chance it will happen. So actually, there should be news in the next 60 days. It was a joke that fit. When the league has enough venues to eliminate Wednesday games, the average will go up considerably. But right now everyone has a solid average that stands up to time. To me, every team is at bedrock, even KC. And I want the Quakes out of Spartan because the field is too small. It has nothing to do with anything but the size of field.
Attendance is up again this year. 2001's average attendance was 14962. This is the figure I got from MLS. This years average is 15493.
another part of chicago's move back, IIRC, is that they'll get a share of concessions and merchandise, compared to nothing before. Then yeah, maybe you can talk about chicago creeping towards a profit.
I remember when the league first began I was listening to a national sports radio show that was hosted by some guy that called MLS games on Fox for a couple of years. He also called German Bundesliga games, I don't know what his name is but anyway, it was the day before the leagues first game and I remember him saying MLS only expected to average about 5,000 people a game. Current attendance has to be much better than what any of the investors dreamed of when they signed up for the league. If every team played in a stadium of 22,000 which I think is what the league wants and attendance is at say 16,000 the stadiums would be about 75% full. You would have to be a fool to not be able to turn a profit if your selling out 75% percent of your available seats. And nobody gets to the point of having enough money to invest in an MLS team by being a fool. MLS is doing fine.
Maybe MLS is sticking it out in Spartan Stadium because the San Jose State football team is eventually going to get cut. And then MLS can buy the stadium from the university and retrofit it. - Paul