MLS Exec VP of Communications dropping attendance comparisons. https://twitter.com/courtemancheMLS/status/237582877913645057
I joined BS in 2006, posted once or twice, then lurked until a couple months ago. I recently went back to my first post, where I marveled at how *great* 14,234 was for a midweek game. MLS looks a lot different if you've paid attention long enough to know how recently <10k games were a regular fact of life. The big, excited crowds we now regularly see coast to coast are not something I think many people in 2006 thought we'd see only 6 years later...
Then obviously you are in no position to comment on someone who has lurked here "for a while", and then decided to join BS mere moments after a distinguished "9 day member" was red carded.
Mea culpa on posting the image. Being 8th in the world is damning to the US for not being exceptional.
Could be bad. They have less teams than MLS too. Why is Brazil's attendance so low - don't they have a crazy league set-up?
Exactly. It's why there were plenty of calls to find some way to either 1) keep Rangers in a new 2 level SPL or 2) just drop them to the first division so that their absence was kept to one season. I don't think talk of various pan-European leagues - especially the top clubs of second tier leagues (Scotland, Holland, Portugal... ) - will ever completely die down. But sort of like Quebecois or Puerto Rico independence movements, there's no guarantee that anything will come of it.
Assuming the numbers on ESPN are correct, they would have dropped to #23. Probably even lower when you consider the team that was promoted to replace the Rangers probably pulls less than 10k.
Average attendance so far is ~3k off that average. On the plus side Hibs, Hearts, Aberdeen and Dundee United are all averaging over 10k, but below that it drops to <6k.
Brazil only reports "pagantes", or paid attendance. This is because they really only care about the "renda", or the gate receits. The big supporter's clubs receive free tickets or package deals and are not counted in the total attendance. In Flamengo's and other big clubs case, this can result in a disparity of 20,000 or more in the reported attendance vs. actual. Which would make a forum like this meaningless.
For one, people should never compare Scotland to MLS and punch the air with glee. It's Scotland: a country that barely has more people than the Seattle metro area. Per capita, its one of the most impressive average attendances on earth. I'm gobsmacked anytime someone pokes fun at them (by the way Im not saying that you are). What's even more outrageous is that the league had reached heights of 16-17,000 in the past. For a country of 5m people, these are insane numbers. If Scotland was part of England, you'd have Rangers and Celtic in the EPL (most likely), with perhaps the Edinburgh clubs yoyoing between the top 2 tiers, and Dundee/Aberdeen loitering in between 4-1st tiers, and everyone would say the "north" of England is doing really well. Instead, we have critics arguing that Scottish soccer is in freefall and on its deathbed. As for Brazil, while they are soccer crazy and have an incredibly large population, their people are still relatively poor. It is also vast, and travel is not as easy like it is in European leagues; compounded by smaller disposable incomes. GDP ppp per capita has a strong relationship with attendance for soccer leagues. As Brazil's people become wealthier, and their facilities improve, expect their attendance to join some European leagues in the 20,000+ bracket.
First, to be a bit nitpicky, it would be more appropriate to compare Scotland to all of western Washington, not Seattle metro, in terms of both population AND geographic size. Second, as someone who has spent most of this summer in Glasgow, many Scots are seriously concerned about the future of their league because of the financial implications, including tv revenue, of the Rangers being dropped.
Did you read that the TV rights/revenue has stayed pretty much exactly the same? The doomsday scenario often sprouted by soccer fans never came to fruition. People are by nature irrational and emotionally driven. There is little perspective applied by the average soccer fan. The league will continue to decline because other leagues are using their natural advantages in demographics and resources to cement their place in Europe more commensurate with their status (for example Turkey, Russia or Poland).
The Scots I talk to are not as concerned about the short term effect, this year, as they are the long term effect of the Rangers punishment. Saying the doomsday scenario didn't come to fruition because things didn't change this year is simply avoiding the problem of how this will impact tv revenue and other sorts of revenue long term. And as I type this I am not sure what this has to do with MLS attendance.
The new contract is 5 years long. That's short term for you? Did you want it to be 20 years, so the Scots you're talking to aren't moaning day and night?
Yes, I consider 5 years short term. And at least one of us personally communicates with Scottish football fans.
Despite that fact that most soccer TV contracts are shorter than 5 years. How much security do you need? They have a 5 year guarantee of TV money. You keep shifting the goalposts dude. Sounds like a lot of straw grasping on your end. You communicate with Scottish fans, who as I pointed out, base their arguments on emotions, rather than actual facts. Most of what you're talking about transpired when the league TV rights were thought be to on the verge of collapse with Rangers going down; lo and behold, nothing changed. Those are the people you take your opinions from. Good for you.
I am pleased you know the people I talk to and know when our conversations occur. That is very reassuring to me.