PDA

View Full Version : MLS Attendance moves past NHL NBA



Commie Red
04-14-2010, 11:07 AM
MLS Daily: Mls Attendance Moves Past NBA NHL (http://www.mls-daily.com/2010/04/mls-attendance-moves-past-nba-nhl.html)

Fueled by rapid growth in soccer-crazed cities such as Toronto, Seattle and Philadelphia, Major League Soccer has now moved past the NBA and NHL in terms of average attendance, based on figures from each sport's most recent full season. Have a look at the #'s below.

1. NFL - 67,508.69 (2009 season)
2. MLB - 30,213.37 (2009 season)
3. MLS - 18,452.14 (2010 season, as of 04/11/2010)
4. NBA - 17,110.64 (2009/10 season)
5. NHL - 17,004.53 (2009/10 season)

Nodoubtguy
04-14-2010, 11:08 AM
wow....that's pretty amazing

RedsYNWA
04-14-2010, 11:10 AM
Pish Posh talk to me when you can beat out the NFL....NHL and the NBA are BUSH LEAGUE ;)

Oldtimer
04-14-2010, 11:11 AM
TV is no where close, though. Still, it's a good sign.

Whoop
04-14-2010, 11:13 AM
That is a good sign.

Eventually TV will have to notice.

It would be good if MLS could pass MLB in a couple of years.

NFL is untouchable.

Kevvv
04-14-2010, 11:15 AM
It's like deja vu all over again

TorCanSoc
04-14-2010, 11:16 AM
Taking attendance figures for season opening games is no where near reflective of an entire season. Need 8 more expansion teams at the Seattle success levels to even get near the NBA after an entire season.

drewski
04-14-2010, 11:19 AM
the other consideration is venue size. NHL & NBA venue's are inherently smaller and some, like the Lakers, TO (in past years), etc, could probably have filled twice as many seats per game.

ensco
04-14-2010, 11:19 AM
Ummm, get real. You need to recognize that NBA and NHL teams play 80+ games, not 30.

Plus all three leagues fudge their attendance figures (NHL and MLS especially).

Local TV ratings for in market games is the only apples to apples way to compare these sports. MLS is still far, far behind by this measure.

stugautz
04-14-2010, 11:21 AM
Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that

Pookie
04-14-2010, 11:21 AM
That is a good sign.

Eventually TV will have to notice.

It would be good if MLS could pass MLB in a couple of years.

NFL is untouchable.

Considering stadium sizes, it is next to impossible to pass MLB's averages.

James17930
04-14-2010, 11:22 AM
Taking attendance figures for season opening games is no where near reflective of an entire season. Need 8 more expansion teams at the Seattle success levels to even get near the NBA after an entire season.

Especially when two of those have been in Seattle and one was the Philly opener at the Linc (which drew 34,000).

Nazzer
04-14-2010, 11:25 AM
MLS Daily: Mls Attendance Moves Past NBA NHL (http://www.mls-daily.com/2010/04/mls-attendance-moves-past-nba-nhl.html)

Fueled by rapid growth in soccer-crazed cities such as Toronto, Seattle and Philadelphia, Major League Soccer has now moved past the NBA and NHL in terms of average attendance, based on figures from each sport's most recent full season. Have a look at the #'s below.

1. NFL - 67,508.69 (2009 season)
2. MLB - 30,213.37 (2009 season)
3. MLS - 18,452.14 (2010 season, as of 04/11/2010)
4. NBA - 17,110.64 (2009/10 season)
5. NHL - 17,004.53 (2009/10 season)

The data is skewed because it is not based on the most recent full season. For MLS it is based on the first 2 weeks of a season. Which I believe has featured two home games from Seattle, as well as Philly's home opener which got 36,000 fans (not held in their home stadium which will have a max capacity of 18,500).

This number will likely be lower once the data is actually representative of what it claimes to be, the whole season.

Commie Red
04-14-2010, 11:33 AM
The average first week MLS attendance for 2010 is up 23% (http://www.mls-daily.com/2010/03/2010-mls-attendance.html) from last years first week (and we haven't played a home game yet). And even if you factor out Philly (who didn't play last year, of course) average attendance is up 17%. I believe if we sell out our extra 1,400 seats that will contribute a 7% increase from us.

ManUtd4ever
04-14-2010, 11:40 AM
Regardless of all the variable factors, it's a great sign for the future viability of the league. The inclusion of Vancouver, Portland, and possibly Montreal will only fuel the exponential growth of MLS attendance over the next several years...

mastermixer
04-14-2010, 11:40 AM
Does anyone know what the average attendance was in the MLS last year? I imagine its around the 16000 mark.

Beach_Red
04-14-2010, 11:40 AM
Ummm, get real. You need to recognize that NBA and NHL teams play 80+ games, not 30.

Plus all three leagues fudge their attendance figures (NHL and MLS especially).

Local TV ratings for in market games is the only apples to apples way to compare these sports. MLS is still far, far behind by this measure.


Sure, but MLS is going to pass the NHL - in tickets sales and TV ratings - in the next couple of years.

Let's just be glad college football and basketball aren't on this list.

mastermixer
04-14-2010, 11:41 AM
Average attendance for 2009 was just over 16000.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/stats/attendance?league=usa.1&year=2009&cc=5901

Super
04-14-2010, 11:46 AM
Average attendance for 2009 was just over 16000.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/stats/attendance?league=usa.1&year=2009&cc=5901

LOL well - there we go. In comparing ourselves with the others for the 2009 season, we're beaten by them all.

More growth needed, but I'm still very pleased with the average attendance. I bet we beat the Serie A attendance.

ensco
04-14-2010, 12:06 PM
Sure, but MLS is going to pass the NHL - in tickets sales and TV ratings - in the next couple of years.

That's a good one.




NHL Revenue last year (this is a disclosed figure per the revenue sharing deal with the NHLPA, btw) was $2.8 billion. Here's the detail.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/31/hockey-values-09_NHL-Team-Valuations_Revenue.html

MLS Revenue is not disclosed, but TFC revenue was approx $9 million in 2007 (I can post detailed calculation if someone cares, it was $6.4 million from ticket sales, $500K from naming rights, $500K from boxes, $850K from concessions, plus a few hundred thousand in merchandising, parking, and the mgmt fee they earn at BMO)

So let's say it's $12 million today, ticket prices are up, stadium is a bit bigger, just for arguments sake.

TFC are a far-above-average team. League wide revenue for 15 teams probably $150 million at best.

NHL is 20x bigger than MLS.

mmmikey
04-14-2010, 12:13 PM
I bet we beat the Serie A attendance.

fans can be legitimately afraid of Ultras in Serie A... but your not far off especially outside of the top couple of clubs.

Mikey
04-14-2010, 12:16 PM
Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that

Yes 42.573% of statistics are made up....

Super
04-14-2010, 12:18 PM
That's a good one.




NHL Revenue last year (this is a disclosed figure per the revenue sharing deal with the NHLPA, btw) was $2.8 billion. Here's the detail.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/31/hockey-values-09_NHL-Team-Valuations_Revenue.html

MLS Revenue is not disclosed, but TFC revenue was approx $9 million in 2007 (I can post detailed calculation if someone cares, it was $6.4 million from ticket sales, $500K from naming rights, $500K from boxes, $850K from concessions, plus a few hundred thousand in merchandising, parking, and the mgmt fee they earn at BMO)

So let's say it's $12 million today, ticket prices are up, stadium is a bit bigger, just for arguments sake.

TFC are a far-above-average team. League wide revenue for 15 teams probably $150 million at best.

NHL is 20x bigger than MLS.

I think you're way off on that mark. Let's say the average income per year, per seat (single sales and season tickets combined) is around $500. That's a pretty realistic figure actually. The income of 21,000 sold tickets is $11 million. Add to that luxury boxes. Add to that food and drink - and if the average person spends $20 per game, you'd have a little over $7 million in income. So we're up to $18 million. Add to that merchandise sales. This number is difficult to predict. Add to that sponsorships. Add to that TV, radio revenue.

I think I read somewhere that TFC is a $25 million business per year. Obviously a lot of that has to go to the league, salaries, and buying the stuff they sell to us. But I don't think it's unrealistic to think that TFC is pocketing a good $5-8 million per year.

Beach_Red
04-14-2010, 12:22 PM
NHL is 20x bigger than MLS.


Yes, but it's as big as it can get.

Hey, I'm not sayaing it's going to happen next year, but someday soccer is going to pass hockey in the USA. It's going to ride on worldwide popularity and it can grow in every region in the US.

I remember when people said football would ever pass baseball and that basketball (which wasn't as popular as hockey) was a regional midwest sport that would never go national (sheesh I am old ;)).

Mark in Ottawa
04-14-2010, 12:32 PM
Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that
19 times out of 20!

dannyd
04-14-2010, 12:35 PM
That's a good one.




NHL Revenue last year (this is a disclosed figure per the revenue sharing deal with the NHLPA, btw) was $2.8 billion. Here's the detail.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/31/hockey-values-09_NHL-Team-Valuations_Revenue.html

MLS Revenue is not disclosed, but TFC revenue was approx $9 million in 2007 (I can post detailed calculation if someone cares, it was $6.4 million from ticket sales, $500K from naming rights, $500K from boxes, $850K from concessions, plus a few hundred thousand in merchandising, parking, and the mgmt fee they earn at BMO)

So let's say it's $12 million today, ticket prices are up, stadium is a bit bigger, just for arguments sake.

TFC are a far-above-average team. League wide revenue for 15 teams probably $150 million at best.

NHL is 20x bigger than MLS.

I think you are missing the point. NHL has been around for what, 100+ years. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a hockey guy. MLS has been around for less than 15 years.
NHL gets more money pumped into marketing the league, and has the best players in the world at it's sport. For hockey, it's the most elite league in the world without question.
Even will all these advantages NHL has - embedded in Canadian culture, long history, unquestioned quality of play, media attention - the fact is MLS has around the same attendance per game. Americans for the most part aren't interested in hockey. I know that pisses some Canadians off but it's a fact.
The point of the post is that MLS will surpass NHL in popularity, it's just a question of when.

J .
04-14-2010, 12:36 PM
It will be awhile before the MLS surpasses the other leagues in term of revenue. However, I can see it becoming much more popular in terms of events people to go and see. Lots of people I know love going to TFC games, but rarely watch them on tv. I think that will change as generations grow up watching the game. Seattle, PU, Vancouver, MTL and Portland will help the league grow.

The league needs to get DC on track and relocate Columbus to a location where people would care to go to the game regularly.

Blizzard
04-14-2010, 12:38 PM
Taking attendance figures for season opening games is no where near reflective of an entire season. Need 8 more expansion teams at the Seattle success levels to even get near the NBA after an entire season.

True ... and I'd go a step farther and say that taking average attendance figures comparing a 30 game season to an 82 game season or even a 181 game season is comparing apples to oranges.

Ticket prices and revenues for clubs and league should also be part of any valid comparison of this sort.

Derko
04-14-2010, 12:48 PM
Pish Posh talk to me when you can beat out the NFL....NHL and the NBA are BUSH LEAGUE ;)

The NFL sucks, in my opinion, a bunch of juiced up pansies,lol
all that padding, huh

kodiakTFC
04-14-2010, 01:09 PM
Certainly wont last, give it another week and we'll be below again.

Pachuco
04-14-2010, 01:14 PM
The NFL sucks, in my opinion, a bunch of juiced up pansies,lol
all that padding, huh

The NFL has by far the best production value out of any major sport. It's so good that none football fans like myself get attracted to the sport simply because of it's production value.

On the other hand, I have to watch the MLS in standard digital (NO HD) with reporters who sound like they are still in high school. If I was a casual fan of soccer and wasn't such a fan of TFC there is no way you could pay me to watch that crap on TV.

TFCREDNWHITE
04-14-2010, 01:15 PM
good to see the numbers are climbing!!...

our next objective should be to burn Sounders fans at the stake!.....Damn you Drew Carey!!!! Damn You!

Mulder
04-14-2010, 01:46 PM
CFL Averaged 28,464 last season.

Blizzard
04-14-2010, 01:51 PM
CFL Averaged 28,464 last season.

That's right. It's in the top ten in the world for professional sports league average attendance numbers.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_attendance_figures#Top_10_in_averag e_attendance

Pookie
04-14-2010, 03:40 PM
That's a good one.

NHL Revenue last year (this is a disclosed figure per the revenue sharing deal with the NHLPA, btw) was $2.8 billion. Here's the detail.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/31/hockey-values-09_NHL-Team-Valuations_Revenue.html

MLS Revenue is not disclosed, but TFC revenue was approx $9 million in 2007 (I can post detailed calculation if someone cares, it was $6.4 million from ticket sales, $500K from naming rights, $500K from boxes, $850K from concessions, plus a few hundred thousand in merchandising, parking, and the mgmt fee they earn at BMO)

So let's say it's $12 million today, ticket prices are up, stadium is a bit bigger, just for arguments sake.

TFC are a far-above-average team. League wide revenue for 15 teams probably $150 million at best.

NHL is 20x bigger than MLS.

That may all be true but profitability is not a function only of revenue.

NHL teams have payroll expenses in the $40-60M range vs MLS teams in the $2.5M range. NHL "revenue" is also a function of 30 teams vs just less than half that number.

The original point about MLS surpassing the NHL one day is plausible if you consider operating profit (revenue - expenses) as the measuring stick.

The NHL and MLS are both gate driven leagues without a major network TV deal. That is a level playing field as far as comparisons and future projections go.

Further, the MLS has demonstrated popularity in US markets such as Seattle and LA and may have some upside coming in NY with a new stadium and Henry. League revenues for the MLS may soon be driven by large US cities. In the NHL, revenue is generally driven by northern US cities and Canadian franchises.

Based on those variables, if MLS attendance increases while costs stay in check, they do have a reasonable chance to overtake the NHL.

Roogsy
04-14-2010, 03:44 PM
Numbers can be used to pretty much prove anything. However, at the very least, this shows an improvement for the league, which is good, period.

That being said...like many have already stated, the REAL important numbers are TV viewership. Then we'd be talking serious money.

Shakes McQueen
04-14-2010, 04:13 PM
MLS Daily: Mls Attendance Moves Past NBA NHL (http://www.mls-daily.com/2010/04/mls-attendance-moves-past-nba-nhl.html)

Fueled by rapid growth in soccer-crazed cities such as Toronto, Seattle and Philadelphia, Major League Soccer has now moved past the NBA and NHL in terms of average attendance, based on figures from each sport's most recent full season. Have a look at the #'s below.

1. NFL - 67,508.69 (2009 season)
2. MLB - 30,213.37 (2009 season)
3. MLS - 18,452.14 (2010 season, as of 04/11/2010)
4. NBA - 17,110.64 (2009/10 season)
5. NHL - 17,004.53 (2009/10 season)

Seems like another example of statistics being manipulated to prove anything.

The MLS average is only comprised of three weeks, one of which would be a season opener - meaning higher than normal attendance, because it's the opener, and because the team would have had months to sell tickets.

Once MLS has had 30 weeks of lower attendance figures to drag that number down considerably, we will see.

Blue Jays average home attendance right now for the season, is roughly 29,000, based on two games - their home opener with approx. 46,000 people, and their second home game with 12,000 people. 78 more games with 12-15k people is going to bring that average down further.

- Scott

profit89
04-14-2010, 06:51 PM
Good sign nonetheless

TFCRegina
04-14-2010, 06:52 PM
Because basing the season on a home opener and one or two other games is totally legit. Posted on my facebook anyway, but really, once the season gets going, that's going to fall...

profit89
04-14-2010, 06:52 PM
I actually think the numbers will go up, particularly in the second half of the season with the influx of Henry and other DPs across the league. And Beckham will return in July/August.

I think the average will be close or even over 20K. We shall see.

ensco
04-14-2010, 08:08 PM
That may all be true but profitability is not a function only of revenue.

NHL teams have payroll expenses in the $40-60M range vs MLS teams in the $2.5M range. NHL "revenue" is also a function of 30 teams vs just less than half that number.

The original point about MLS surpassing the NHL one day is plausible if you consider operating profit (revenue - expenses) as the measuring stick.

The NHL and MLS are both gate driven leagues without a major network TV deal. That is a level playing field as far as comparisons and future projections go.

Further, the MLS has demonstrated popularity in US markets such as Seattle and LA and may have some upside coming in NY with a new stadium and Henry. League revenues for the MLS may soon be driven by large US cities. In the NHL, revenue is generally driven by northern US cities and Canadian franchises.

Based on those variables, if MLS attendance increases while costs stay in check, they do have a reasonable chance to overtake the NHL.


Attendance + TV Ratings = Revenues = Relevance.

Profitability has zero connection to relevance.

If profitability or ROI is that important to you as a fan, then the sport for you is NASCAR. Enjoy.

ensco
04-14-2010, 08:17 PM
I think you're way off on that mark. Let's say the average income per year, per seat (single sales and season tickets combined) is around $500. That's a pretty realistic figure actually. The income of 21,000 sold tickets is $11 million. Add to that luxury boxes. Add to that food and drink - and if the average person spends $20 per game, you'd have a little over $7 million in income. So we're up to $18 million. Add to that merchandise sales. This number is difficult to predict. Add to that sponsorships. Add to that TV, radio revenue.

I think I read somewhere that TFC is a $25 million business per year. Obviously a lot of that has to go to the league, salaries, and buying the stuff they sell to us. But I don't think it's unrealistic to think that TFC is pocketing a good $5-8 million per year.

Here's the detail (remember, this was 2007). Revenues are nowhere near that high. Many "revenues" are shared....you may not be far off on the bottom line.


Ticket Revenue
• Regular Season Game Tickets:
• $685,500/regular season game at 100% of face value
o West stand: 10000 seats @ avg $40/seat = $400,000/game
o East stand: 7000 seats @ avg $35/seat = $245,000/game
o South stand: 3000 seats @ avg $13.50/seat = $40,500/game
• $541,500/regular season game actual
o Seasons’ tickets (70%) at 30% discount
• $8,122,500/season pre City/MLS share
• Friendlies:
o 6,000 seats @ avg $75/seat = $450,000/game x 2 games
o $900,000/season pre City share (no MLS share assumed)
• Total Ticket Revenue:
• $9,022,500 gross
• Revenue to City: $255,000 (7% , but capped at $15,000/game x 17 games)
• Revenue to MLS: $2,360,000 (30% of remainder ex boxes, ex friendlies)
• Revenue to MLSE: $6,407,500

Luxury Boxes:
• $1,050,000/season (30 boxes @ avg $33,500/box/season) pre City/MLS share
• Revenue to City: $577,500 (55%)
• Revenue to MLSE: $472,500 (45%)

Food/Beverage Concessions
• 20,000 seats @ avg spend $10/seat = $200,000 gross/game
• 25% of gross to City, or $50,000/game
• 25% margin on gross to MLSE, or $50,000/game
• Revenue to City: $850,000 (17 games)
• Revenue to MLSE: $850,000 (17 games)

Total Merchandise Sales: $1,000,000 gross
• this is hard to estimate (estimate based on news report of Tampa Bay Lightning total merchandise sales of $945,000 in 2003 and $4.1 million in 2004)
• Merchandise Sales at BMO
o 100 jerseys/game @ $150 = $15,000 gross/game
o T shirts/bags/hats = $5,000 (?) gross/game
o $340,000 gross/season, less cost of concession operations:
o $1,000/game or $17,000/season
o Revenue to City: $48,000 (15% of $323,000)
o Revenue to MLSE: $160,000 (?) (50% of remainder, rest to MLS/adidas)
• Merchandise Sales ex BMO: $680,000
o Revenue to MLSE: $170,000 (25% of gross, rest to MLS/adidas and retailer)

BMO Naming Rights
• Revenue to MLSE: $500,000/season
o excluded from City sharing calc, offset to $10 million capital commitment

Parking
• 3,000 spots @ $10/game = $30,000/game gross
• $450,000/game gross
• Revenue to MLSE: 1/3, or $150,000
• Revenue to City: 2/3, or $300,000

MLSE Management Fee (per agreement with City)
• $200,000

Stadium Advertising and Carlsberg Sponsorship
• Shared by MLSE and City more or less equally (along with stadium profits and losses)
• MLSE gets first $250,000 of profit, then City get next $250,000, then profits shared 50/50
• Unknown

scooterTFC
04-14-2010, 08:30 PM
A comparison of the multi year trending of key metrics for live game attendance and TV ratings/viewership by league is a valid method of assessing the relative change in popularity of the various leagues/sports over time.

Key metrics would have to include:
1. avg game attendance (measure draw of individual games
2. total league wide attendance for a season (measure total draw of the league and credits leagues that can sell tix to more games)
3. avg local/national ratings per game (which would zero for non-televised games)
4. total combined TV viewership for all games per league per season.

But any suggestion that these metrics are indicative of the revenue or profitability of the leagues or teams is incorrect.

Macksam
04-14-2010, 08:58 PM
Sure, but MLS is going to pass the NHL - in tickets sales and TV ratings - in the next couple of years.

The NHL is having a resurgance.


More growth needed, but I'm still very pleased with the average attendance. I bet we beat the Serie A attendance.
Serie A averages like over 20 000 so no.

Yes, but it's as big as it can get.

Hey, I'm not sayaing it's going to happen next year, but someday soccer is going to pass hockey in the USA. It's going to ride on worldwide popularity and it can grow in every region in the US.

I remember when people said football would ever pass baseball and that basketball (which wasn't as popular as hockey) was a regional midwest sport that would never go national (sheesh I am old ;)).
That's not necessarily true. If the NHL can't make it in certain markets like the sun belt areas, they can always grow the game in places like Seattle, Baltimore, Indianapolis and what not.

I think you are missing the point. NHL has been around for what, 100+ years. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a hockey guy. MLS has been around for less than 15 years.
NHL gets more money pumped into marketing the league, and has the best players in the world at it's sport. For hockey, it's the most elite league in the world without question.
Even will all these advantages NHL has - embedded in Canadian culture, long history, unquestioned quality of play, media attention - the fact is MLS has around the same attendance per game. Americans for the most part aren't interested in hockey. I know that pisses some Canadians off but it's a fact.
The point of the post is that MLS will surpass NHL in popularity, it's just a question of when.
No, it's just a pretentious statement. The MLS has around the same attendance as the NBA, what do you conclude from that?

That may all be true but profitability is not a function only of revenue.

NHL teams have payroll expenses in the $40-60M range vs MLS teams in the $2.5M range. NHL "revenue" is also a function of 30 teams vs just less than half that number.

The original point about MLS surpassing the NHL one day is plausible if you consider operating profit (revenue - expenses) as the measuring stick.

The NHL and MLS are both gate driven leagues without a major network TV deal. That is a level playing field as far as comparisons and future projections go.

Further, the MLS has demonstrated popularity in US markets such as Seattle and LA and may have some upside coming in NY with a new stadium and Henry. League revenues for the MLS may soon be driven by large US cities. In the NHL, revenue is generally driven by northern US cities and Canadian franchises.

Based on those variables, if MLS attendance increases while costs stay in check, they do have a reasonable chance to overtake the NHL.
The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Carts
04-14-2010, 09:30 PM
I haven't read this entire thread - but all that really matters is TV ratings, TV revenue & TV $$$numbers...

Thats where the money is...

The NFL could remain the top money maker in the USA with $0 coming from the fans at the stadiums... MLB & NBA could do the same - as long as the $$$ keeps coming in from the networks... Hell, pro-bowling makes money b/c of TV...

Either way - its excellent that MLS is moving forward and getting bigger in the NA sports scene...

Carts...

Beach_Red
04-14-2010, 10:00 PM
That's not necessarily true. If the NHL can't make it in certain markets like the sun belt areas, they can always grow the game in places like Seattle, Baltimore, Indianapolis and what not.




But why does it need to grow? The NHL could find its strongest level and that might be 28 teams or 24. It might mean returning to Winnipeg and Quebec City and putting a team in Hamilton. There's nothing wrong with hockey being a strong regional game. It's expensive to play (not just individually for equipment, but for the arenas) and that limits it. Nothing wrong with that, just the way it is.

TFCRegina
04-14-2010, 10:04 PM
But why does it need to grow? The NHL could find its strongest level and that might be 28 teams or 24. It might mean returning to Winnipeg and Quebec City and putting a team in Hamilton. There's nothing wrong with hockey being a strong regional game. It's expensive to play (not just individually for equipment, but for the arenas) and that limits it. Nothing wrong with that, just the way it is.

Putting a team in Winnipeg is stupid.

Winnipeg was the poorest team, below even Hartford, when it exited the NHL.

The Coyotes are still richer, inflation adjusted, cap or no cap, than the Jets ever would be.

The greatest myth of the NHL is that the most money is to be made in the Canadian markets.

Fact of the matter is outside the Leafs, Canucks and Canadiens, the other 3 teams are merely average when compared to the American teams revenues.

Calgary, distinctly average. Edmonton, distinctly average. Same with Ottawa.

If there was more profit to be made in Canada, the NHL would have a team here. The reason why they don't is simple.

Hamilton draws fans from the Leafs and Sabres, leading to profit diversion, not creation.

Winnipeg would be poorer than any current team in existence.

Quebec City is a government town and lacking of proper corporate dollars.

Any other cities you want to suggest?

Halifax? Piss poor, no corporate base.

2nd Toronto team? See Hamilton.

Beach_Red
04-14-2010, 10:40 PM
^ So Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa are average? You mean middle of the pack? Better than the lower end American teams but not as high as the bigger cities? Of course, you're right.

tfc2007
04-14-2010, 10:57 PM
How big is the population though for this? Are they using the 1st 2 weeks of the season for MLS this year?
This is not accurate.

ag futbol
04-14-2010, 11:14 PM
Ummm, get real. You need to recognize that NBA and NHL teams play 80+ games, not 30.

Plus all three leagues fudge their attendance figures (NHL and MLS especially).

Local TV ratings for in market games is the only apples to apples way to compare these sports. MLS is still far, far behind by this measure.
Not to mention if you were to put a $/seat figure in there MLS would be blown out of the water.

Attendance is up, good sign but it's way too early to start comparing MLS to any major sports in north america.

ag futbol
04-14-2010, 11:17 PM
2nd Toronto team? See Hamilton.
I think most people could easily argue that Leafs by themselves only hit part of the market. Sure a second NHL team in Toronto is going to eat the leafs a bit, but the total size of what you've created would be larger.

TFCRegina
04-14-2010, 11:21 PM
How big is the population though for this? Are they using the 1st 2 weeks of the season for MLS this year?
This is not accurate.

Ding ding ding.

habstfc
04-15-2010, 12:16 AM
I love soccer but come on. Comparing the first 3 weeks of mls attendance to nba and nhl is ridiculous. Mls isn't even on most americans ( or canadians for that matter) radar when it comes to sports down there. I think when comparing attendances you have to consider that seattle's attendance will bring up the average considerably especially this early in the season. Colorado only had 12,000 for their home opener for heaven's sake, what will they get in july in the middle of baseball season when san jose rolls into town.

Lets compare nhl cities that also have a mls team. Colorado, New York, Toronto, L.A., S.J., Dallas, Boston, Chicago, Columbus, Philly and Washington all have a much higher ticket price than their mls counterpart. American society has accepted hockey much more than soccer into their spending habits when it comes to watching them proffessionally.

Don't get me wrong I love soccer but its not even comparable to hockey down there and I don't think that will change anytime soon.

You also have to realize that soccer may be the worlds game, but generally in north america its still light years behind just as gridiron football is outside of north america. I have relatives in england, australia, south africa and the nfl is nothing in those places, they don't even think about that league or sport in those places.

Kaz
04-15-2010, 11:04 PM
Average attendance thanks to KC, Dallas, Colorado and NY was only 16000 last year.

This year the large attendance from the Red Bulls (24k) LA (21k) and Seattle (37k) the opening weekend made the numbers look higher...

if the Red Bulls can maintain their numbers and KC get their numbers up after their stadium is built, then it might jump up to the 17500 level, which would put us on par with the Championship in England.

TV ratings need to be higher and that requires people to actually show the games well.

TFCRegina
04-15-2010, 11:10 PM
KC is so low because they only seat 10k...to say "If they can make their attendance higher" is a pipe dream. That's why they're getting a new stadium. SJ is the same issue.

Kaz
04-15-2010, 11:13 PM
KC is so low because they only seat 10k...to say "If they can make their attendance higher" is a pipe dream. That's why they're getting a new stadium. SJ is the same issue.
Totally forgot that.. editing to suit.

Macksam
04-16-2010, 11:49 AM
Blue Jays average home attendance right now for the season, is roughly 29,000, based on two games - their home opener with approx. 46,000 people, and their second home game with 12,000 people. 78 more games with 12-15k people is going to bring that average down further.

- Scott
If I can add to this:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/04/15/sp-jays-guillen.html
Jays are doing pretty bad right now.



Hamilton draws fans from the Leafs and Sabres, leading to profit diversion, not creation.

Maybe Buffalo, but not Toronto. A team from Hamilaton wouldn't divert anything away from Toronto. They have enough support. Even a second team in Toronto wouldn't hurt them.

I think most people could easily argue that Leafs by themselves only hit part of the market. Sure a second NHL team in Toronto is going to eat the leafs a bit, but the total size of what you've created would be larger.
Exactly.



You also have to realize that soccer may be the worlds game, but generally in north america its still light years behind just as gridiron football is outside of north america. I have relatives in england, australia, south africa and the nfl is nothing in those places, they don't even think about that league or sport in those places.
Well, soccer will make it over here. Gridiron will never make it outside of North America.

Beach_Red
04-16-2010, 12:11 PM
Well, soccer will make it over here. Gridiron will never make it outside of North America.


That's certainly true.

DichioTFC
04-16-2010, 12:15 PM
Of all the sports listed, MLS has the highest potential for growth. Many used to be MLB or NHL or NBA fans but have turned to this new sport in recent years. Where MLS is right now is irrelevant, the question is where will it be in 10-15 years. Portland, Vancouver, Montreal and other teams will bring packed houses and the loss leaders (FC Dallas) could be shuffled away. That will definitely increase the size, revenue and profile of the league.

Its like the growth of MMA, its reflective of a new generation that consider baseball boring and hockey uninteresting.

Last night, we set a record at BMO with 21,000+, the Blue Jays were lucky to hit 10,000.

DichioTFC
04-16-2010, 12:23 PM
Btw, as someone who lives in the States, let me assure you that the sport of soccer is definitely growing even in depressed areas like the Midwest. Kids play soccer growing up and then follow their favourite MLS team at home.

ESPN advertises the World Cup daily. Bars have paid to be the official US Soccer bar of their area. The awareness and knowledge of the sport is surprisingly high. XM Satellite radio has an English Premiership channel that is heavily consumed in the States.

The sport and the league are definitely growing. In 15 years, MLS highlights are going to lead sports broadcasts.

TFCRegina
04-16-2010, 12:24 PM
Of all the sports listed, MLS has the highest potential for growth. Many used to be MLB or NHL or NBA fans but have turned to this new sport in recent years. Where MLS is right now is irrelevant, the question is where will it be in 10-15 years. Portland, Vancouver, Montreal and other teams will bring packed houses and the loss leaders (FC Dallas) could be shuffled away. That will definitely increase the size, revenue and profile of the league.

Its like the growth of MMA, its reflective of a new generation that consider baseball boring and hockey uninteresting.

Last night, we set a record at BMO with 21,000+, the Blue Jays were lucky to hit 10,000.

It's kind of funny. Baseball and Hockey have unrealistically long seasons, and this was done to maximize profit from attendance, back when attendance was the primary source of revenue for teams.

Now, people in our generation see no point to playing 82 hockey games, for example. Why should I be watching hockey into June?

DichioTFC
04-16-2010, 12:29 PM
It's kind of funny. Baseball and Hockey have unrealistically long seasons, and this was done to maximize profit from attendance, back when attendance was the primary source of revenue for teams.

Now, people in our generation see no point to playing 82 hockey games, for example. Why should I be watching hockey into June?

Now its become a joke. I think the European soccer leagues (and MLS for the most part) have it right, play each team twice, once at home and once on the road. It's all that needed to prove who's the best. These "season series" that North American sports leagues have dreamed up are incredibly wasteful. Other than Red Sox-Yankees, it has lost all value for the regular consumer.

dupont
04-16-2010, 01:16 PM
Hockey is bad but baseball is the worst of the worst worst. It's hard to find a day where the Blue Jays don't play. It's pointless and takes that special feeling out of the games.

TFCRegina
04-16-2010, 01:17 PM
Now its become a joke. I think the European soccer leagues (and MLS for the most part) have it right, play each team twice, once at home and once on the road. It's all that needed to prove who's the best. These "season series" that North American sports leagues have dreamed up are incredibly wasteful. Other than Red Sox-Yankees, it has lost all value for the regular consumer.

The thing that's the biggest joke is that it actually hurts TV ratings. If, for example, you had a home and away only, you'd have most games sold out, and TV ratings would be significantly higher.

Teams would play for wins every game, and there would be less incentive to go to overtime. Every game would matter more.

TV is where the dollars are at these days, and with the current length of the schedule, it lowers the average TV rating per game, which in turn decreases the value of the product you try to sell to the TV networks.

Waggy
04-16-2010, 01:29 PM
Of all the sports listed, MLS has the highest potential for growth. Many used to be MLB or NHL or NBA fans but have turned to this new sport in recent years. Where MLS is right now is irrelevant, the question is where will it be in 10-15 years. Portland, Vancouver, Montreal and other teams will bring packed houses and the loss leaders (FC Dallas) could be shuffled away. That will definitely increase the size, revenue and profile of the league.

Its like the growth of MMA, its reflective of a new generation that consider baseball boring and hockey uninteresting.

Last night, we set a record at BMO with 21,000+, the Blue Jays were lucky to hit 10,000.

While I agree in principle, don't go nuts. The jays record low attendence is over 10 000. And over 81 games, they still do fairly well. Also I wouldn't get quite so high up to say its "a new generation that considers baseball boring and hockey uninteresting". North American fans are becoming sports fans, not fans of a sport. I think if you took a survey at every MLS Stadium you would find its ticket holders also go to Baseball, Football (US/Can/NCAA), Basketball and hockey games. I hate this whole mutual exclusivity. Like if you're a 'real' basketball fan in Toronto you have to hate hockey. What kind stupid shit is that? What does hockey have to do with liking basketball? Same applies with soccer. Me liking soccer has NOTHING to do with any other sports, don't cheapen soccers growth as nothing more than the bastard child of poor management in Hockey and Baseball. MLS has done well to grow the games reputation and standing in society, and we should applaud it.

Beach_Red
04-16-2010, 01:30 PM
There's an article in the Toronto Star today about how the Maple Leafs still get big ratings, even when they lose:

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/nhl/mapleleafs/article/796072--zelkovich-lousy-leafs-big-winners-on-television

The scariest part of the article is this:

So how can the NHL’s 29th-best team spawn that kind of interest?
“There’s always something going on with the Leafs,” says King. “Those stories get people interested.”

The soap opera sells, I guess.

ensco
04-16-2010, 01:36 PM
There's an article in the Toronto Star today about how the Maple Leafs still get big ratings, even when they lose:

http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey/nhl/mapleleafs/article/796072--zelkovich-lousy-leafs-big-winners-on-television

The scariest part of the article is this:

So how can the NHL’s 29th-best team spawn that kind of interest?
“There’s always something going on with the Leafs,” says King. “Those stories get people interested.”

The soap opera sells, I guess.

Those "percentage increases" wildly overstate what actually happened. TSN had a much better package of games, that's all.

I'd be curious to know what really happened to the Leafs ratings last year. Of course they were stronger than anything else in sportsland, my question is, did they actually decline?

DichioTFC
04-16-2010, 01:39 PM
^ Baseball TV ratings are tricky to predict because a lot of the time baseball is the only thing to watch on TV other than reruns and movies, but a big part of their market is regularly on vacation or doing something else, so MLB (and by extension, MLS) are choosing a good time to sell their product.

But you're right, FFS they need to limit the season. NHL regular season should be 60 games, NBA should be 65, MLB should be no more than 100. But you'll NEVER see shortened season, the players union wont allow it (limit statistics of their members), and owners wont allow it (on the surface it appears that they would lose revenue, blind to the long-term strength of shortening the schedule).

TV dollars are the reason the each NFL team has a $100M payroll per season, and why each MLS team has a $3M payroll per season. The more TV money that MLS can attract, the more people will come to the games, and the better players we can get as a result.

MLS is definitely a high-growth commodity and if I had $100M lying around, I would be stupid not to invest in this league.

Waggy
04-16-2010, 01:40 PM
You guys want to know the secret as to why MLS has, and will gain on the attendances of other sports? Its WAY more fun to watch a basketball/baseball/hockey/football game at home with a big tv, some beers and some friends then it is to go. Soccer is the opposite, it's WAY more fun to go and actually experience it live than to watch on tv. It loses something in translation to video, I'm sure you all know what I mean.

Beach_Red
04-16-2010, 02:13 PM
You guys want to know the secret as to why MLS has, and will gain on the attendances of other sports? Its WAY more fun to watch a basketball/baseball/hockey/football game at home with a big tv, some beers and some friends then it is to go. Soccer is the opposite, it's WAY more fun to go and actually experience it live than to watch on tv. It loses something in translation to video, I'm sure you all know what I mean.

Maybe. But in some ways what kept soccer back from TV broadcast decades ago now works in its favour - no stoppages in play.

American football really took off on TV because there are so many built-in breaks for commercials so broadcasters liked the sport. But soccer, with 45 minutes until a stop wasn't so good.

But now, with us so used to commercials running on the edges of the screen throughout the game, the lack of stops in play keeps people from flipping channels and broadcasters like that.

Soccer ratings, even MLS, are going to increase, but as Ensco says, it's always going to be tough to find out what the real numbers are.

Macksam
04-17-2010, 09:51 AM
Maybe. But in some ways what kept soccer back from TV broadcast decades ago now works in its favour - no stoppages in play.

American football really took off on TV because there are so many built-in breaks for commercials so broadcasters liked the sport. But soccer, with 45 minutes until a stop wasn't so good.

But now, with us so used to commercials running on the edges of the screen throughout the game, the lack of stops in play keeps people from flipping channels and broadcasters like that.

Soccer ratings, even MLS, are going to increase, but as Ensco says, it's always going to be tough to find out what the real numbers are.
Advertising during a soccer game is smart. Reach your demographic 100% of the time since the game is still playing in the background while the ad is in play.

DichioTFC
04-17-2010, 10:24 AM
The jays record low attendence is over 10 000. And over 81 games, they still do fairly well.

Its the first games in April, I'm sure the Jays will bounce back in the summer, but the tides are changing.


I hate this whole mutual exclusivity. Like if you're a 'real' basketball fan in Toronto you have to hate hockey.

Considering the recession, the share of the consumer that spends their income on sports is becoming increasingly limited. As such, they have become more selective with how / where to spend their money (tickets to the game or a better tv to watch it at home). Whether you like it or not, a mutual exclusivity exists due to the scarcity of the situation. People want value for their money, so they're going to go to something where theres excitement in the stands, and entertainment on the field. Hence my theory about the evolving North American sports consumer.


don't cheapen soccers growth as nothing more than the bastard child of poor management in Hockey and Baseball. MLS has done well to grow the games reputation and standing in society, and we should applaud it.

I take nothing away from MLS. In fact, I say in 15-20 years it'll either be the number 2 league in the US behind the NFL or it will be a direct rival of the MLB (so a close 3rd). But be realistic. Would MLS have such a large share of the consumer if people werent turned off my the policies of the NHL, the corruption in the NBA, the ridiculous length / lack of parity of the MLB season? Things don't happen in a vacuum my friend, there are many factors that lead to one result. And the success of the MLS has been (and will continue to be) as a result of their own good policies, maturing market and the failure of other leagues to grow their own product.

Blazer
04-17-2010, 10:27 AM
NFL and MLB teams don’t play in 20,000 capacity indoor arenas. They play outdoors in 40-80,000 capacity stadiums.

This thread is deceiving. Don’t be fooled.

DichioTFC
04-17-2010, 10:27 AM
Advertising during a soccer game is smart. Reach your demographic 100% of the time since the game is still playing in the background while the ad is in play.

It makes sense. There's natural downtime in the game where fans' eyes wander and they're naturally going to look at the logo beside the clock and the banner on the outside of the pitch.

And because its essentially a 45' advertisement, they could theoretically generate more ad revenue than the other sports due to the frequency of the promotion.

DichioTFC
04-17-2010, 10:30 AM
NFL and MLB teams don’t play in 20,000 capacity indoor arenas. They play outdoors in 40-80,000 capacity stadiums.

This thread is deceiving. Don’t be fooled.

Its true, and the success of the NFL is unparalleled. But for MLB, attendance around the league is dropping year-by-year and interest is waning. A better indicator of success would be the percentage of league attendance, how many fans fill up the stadiums. If I'm running at 60% capacity and my competitor is running at 95% capacity, I'm clearly not as successful as my competitor.

Shakes McQueen
04-17-2010, 04:12 PM
Its true, and the success of the NFL is unparalleled. But for MLB, attendance around the league is dropping year-by-year and interest is waning.

No it isn't. MLB attendance has actually fluctuated quite a bit in the past 10 years.

The two best years attendance-wise for MLB were 2007 and 2008, when roughly 79.5 and 78.5 million people attended a game. That dropped to 73.5 million in 2009, primarily due to the recession - but that 73.5m was still higher than any other year prior to 2005.


A better indicator of success would be the percentage of league attendance, how many fans fill up the stadiums. If I'm running at 60% capacity and my competitor is running at 95% capacity, I'm clearly not as successful as my competitor.

But in baseball, this isn't an indicator of anything, regarding the health of the overall product. In 2007 - the best year ever for overall MLB attendance by a large margin - 13 of the 30 teams had an average capacity of 60% or lower.

With the exception of the Phillies and Red Sox right now, no MLB team averages a sell out every game. Not even the Yankees, with their new stadium. MLB teams don't rely on high attendance every game, because they play so many of them. It's cumulative effect.

MLS teams need near sell-outs to be financially successful, because they only have 15 home games per season in which to draw gate revenues. MLB teams play 80 home games.

The reasons for the Jays plummeting attendance this season, are two-fold: (1) this year has been openly stated by ownership to be a rebuilding year, and (2) the team is no longer fudging attendance numbers by giving out thousands and thousands of comped tickets.

- Scott

Lennon
04-17-2010, 08:12 PM
Red Bulls attendance: 13,667

lol, I knew it

TFCRegina
04-17-2010, 08:24 PM
Red Bulls attendance: 13,667

lol, I knew it

New York is SHITE...

Vecchia Guardia
04-18-2010, 08:38 AM
1. NFL - 67,508.69 (2009 season)
2. MLB - 30,213.37 (2009 season)
The real miracle is the MLB around 200 matches(including play-off) with 30,213.37, an NFL team plays only 20 matches so it s quite normal to have 67,508.69 (each match becomes an event ).You should compare it with the Nascar (i e sprint cup) more than MLB /NHL/NBA/MLS.