Some NHL teams do play to >100% capacity though, similar to what Philly and KC have done this year in MLS with SRO crowds. Last year 6 teams in the NHL finished with an final average greater than their capacity. http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance/_/year/2011
Yes they do. Pittsburgh had a 100+ because they played an outdoor game. Blackhawks sell SRO every game. But anyways my point was that an NHL team does not have the every game capability to add an additional 30,000 people like Seattle,NE, DC do. Nor do they have the chance to move a big game to a big stadium. (KC,Chic,LA,Chivas,RBNY etc..) The main point is do not compare avg attendance a game when MLS can fit more people in a stadium than NHL teams can. Here in Boston the Bruins could easily draw 20,000+ a game but can only get 17,565 a game. And do not have the capability to sell SRO tickets.
Just for the heck of it I combined this year's MLS attendances with Ligue 1's attendances so far. I think it puts in to perspective some of the complaints people have about some of the teams. Code: Marseille 40,078 Paris Saint-Germain 39,091 [B]Seattle 38,495[/B] Lyon 32,488 [B]Los Angeles 23,335[/B] Stade Rennes 22,390 St Etienne 20,798 [B]Vancouver 20,412[/B] Toulouse 20,380 [B]Toronto FC 20,267[/B] Bordeaux 19,982 [B]Red Bull NY 19,691[/B] [B]Portland 18,827[/B] [B]Philadelphia 18,258[/B] [B]Kansas City 17,810[/B] [B]Houston 17,694[/B] [B]Real Salt Lake 17,594[/B] Valenciennes 16,699 Lille 16,427 Lorient 15,299 [B]DC United 15,196[/B] Montpellier 15,055 [B]Colorado 14,838[/B] [B]Chivas USA 14,830[/B] Caen 14,471 AS Nancy Lorraine 14,439 [B]Chicago 14,273[/B] Brest 13,686 [B]New England 13,222[/B] AJ Auxerre 13,210 Dijon FCO 13,184 [B]FC Dallas 12,861[/B] Evian Thonon Gaillard 12,554 [B]Columbus 12,185[/B] [B]San Jose 11,858[/B] Sochaux 11,539 Nice 11,303 AC Ajaccio 8,331 It is even more interesting when you look at how these numbers stack up to other "lesser" Euro leagues. Players like Collin and Hassli are on teams with some of the best support of any team they have ever played for. We look at these numbers and say "it has to be embarrassing for these Euro players to play in front of the pitiful attendance in New England" when they have played quite a few games in places with worse attendance.
This isn't the right take-home message, IMO. The main point is to recognize that there are differences between the leagues when you do compare average attendance. If you remember those differences, the comparisons are interesting and valid.
I fully agree with the point your making. Of course, every time I look at the attendances at other top soccer leagues, it makes me wish we had at least another team with a 30k+ average attendance. The lower end of the MLS attendance spectrum is spectacular in comparison to the vast majority of leagues, but the upper end seems very strange, with Seattle far higher than everyone else. Most leagues seem to have 2 or 3 teams bundled up there.
And it's usually that traditional powerhouse teams that have the high attendance. Our league is too young and even to have traditional powerhouse teams.
Not to mention that our system, through parity mechanisms, discourages the creation or maintaining of traditional powerhouse teams.
The one thing I think is a valid take away from comparing NBA/NHL numbers is this: Soccer specific stadiums were(are)n't just some vanity project, there is clearly enough demand to support them even in the smaller markets.
Not really. How often do you see a Nice- Ajaccio type game on TV. You dont- if it is on no one is watching it anyway. You see Lyon- Rennes or PSG. The atmoshpere at many of the minnows across Europe sucks. We just see big teams or derbies and figure that many other matches are the same. Our support here is ok. I think we even have as many die hard fans as the mid table teams across europe. What we dont have is a large amount of casual fans that watch on TV- that only comes with time as soccer is more ingrained in the culture.
Speaking of lower end, don't forget that in most of Euro leagues it is formed by teams of small towns, that make Columbus look like a megalopolis. Like in the Ligue 1: Auxerre urban area is about 88K inhabitants, Ajaccio has some 65K, Annecy (Evian TG's home town) is 53K "strong." And in leagues like Dutch or Scottish, good half of the teams come from towns whose population is five-digit. Inb4: I of course do understand that US situation is different, and the aforementioned clubs' matches are probably the most attractive events in their respective towns, contrary to the MLS teams. But nevertheless the size of the home town is a big factor, and must be taken into account.
Yeah, I understand that but this is something that is only brought up by "Euro-snobs" (and I'm not calling you one, I'm just pointing out how a normal conversation with one goes in regards to attendance) after seeing that not all the big leagues in Europe have people pulling in 50k+ a game. The misconception (and biggest lie used to disparage MLS and individual teams) is that every big league Euro league looks like Bundesliga and BPL. Once it is pointed out that only those two leagues and La Liga are really far ahead of MLS in terms of average attendance, then the "small town teams" factor comes in. Of course the "small town teams" factor is on par with the "MLS is the third, fourth, or fifth sport (or worse depending on college sports in the town)", but most people don't accept that because it undermines their argument. The fact is that while it is fun to slag off on MLS because of numbers like Colorado last night (which is on par with what AS Monaco averaged for several years in Ligue 1 and people thought it was great that Freddy Adu was there learning what a European atmosphere was like) it is ultimately a stupid move to act like MLS doesn't have crowds on par or better than most of Europe. It also is completely stupid for people to say that it must be embarrassing for <insert player> to play in front of that crowd because it is like that in most of the world. The first place team in Serie A right now plays in a stadium that seats 41k and pulls in roughly the same number of fans as Colorado. However, if you told someone that Omar Cummings was going to play over there they would say "I'll bet he is happy to play in front of actual fans for once". The perception is that all the teams in Italy have support like Inter, Napoli, and AC Milan when the truth is that only those teams draw better than Seattle, two more draw better than LA and then the rest are pretty much on par with the rest of MLS (with 3 teams below the worst attended MLS team). I don't pretend that in terms of the American landscape that MLS could be better. I just believe that all of the people that talk about how MLS attendance is embarrassing compared to Europe need to stop thinking Europe is just three leagues and then the top teams in a few others.
The same argument goes for the "quality of the league". If you want to rate the SPL solely on the attendance and quality of Rangers and Celtic, then MLS is going to pale by comaprison. If, however, you want to compare the two leagues based on their entire membership, I'll take MLS every time.
Sometimes excuses are legit. Here are a couple of factors to consider: (1) Week night games = hard to sell in many sports markets in North America once school starts. The only proof to back it up is a friend who worked in ticket sales for the Nashville Predators. He said weekends, they could mostly fill the place. Week nights-brutal. They tried everything. (2) Advanced notice. How many days did Colorado have to market and pre-sell the game? (3) Colorado does not have a huge season ticket base to draw to the game. Philly, Toronto, Seattle, Portland or Vancouver, not the same issue. (1) + (2) + (3) probably made this a challenge for the Rapids.
I agree. I grew up in France and remember going to a Toulon - Lille game when I was in high school. Attendance was around 9k (which was respectable). Crowd was quiet for the most part except the trumpet player who was on a terrace which was located on the top row (not field level like here in Colorado). I know many of you can't stand the thought of Colorado being in MLS but the atmosphere in Colorado is as good or better than what I remember growing up. Caveat: Granted France is not England, Spain, Germany or Italy when it comes to soccer attendance and atmosphere but they do play a high quality game there.
Around 200k sounds about right (pretty big for a French city actually). Only a half hour or less from Marseilles. We lived near Istres at the time which is a bit past Marseilles. I don't know the last time Toulon was in League 1 they have since dropped. Also, since winning 2 European championships and 1 world cup, the French league has grown considerably in attendance and popularity.
I wasn't making my argument to belittle MLS attendance in any way. Just pointing out that a mere numbers comparison is to be made carefully -- both ways of course.
It should be noted that without the game at Stanford, the Quakes only averaged 10,035. That one match inflates their average by 18%. (In other words, 31k of those present were there just for Thierry Henry.)
Or it's also possible that a) some of the increase was there for Thierry Henry b) some of the increase was because it's really hard to get tickets at Buck Shaw as the games are mostly sold out or close to it, and the game at Stanford was a chance to see a game in a better environment c) some of the increase was of the "Stanford is closer to us, let's check it out" d) some of the increase was part of the American "we love a big event" boost that events that are well promoted bring.
I don't understand this comment. This is not fire works This is not a concert This is not a double header This is people coming to watch an MLS player playing in an MLS regular season game. What else are we hoping for if not this??