When Success Doesn’t Pay in America: MLS Attendance
By Thomas Dunmore • Oct 25th, 2007 • Category: American soccer • 15 responsesLast week, we posted a pretty positive note about the rising overall attendance in MLS: and it has ended up being an excellent year overall. With the final numbers in, it’s worth mentioning a few negatives as well, with regard to four of the teams that made the playoffs.
Team..G.....Total....Avg.....2006.....Change..Median NER...15....251,812..16,787..11,786 ..42.4%..15,289 COL...15....221,229..14,749..12,056 ..22.3%..14,577 CHI...15....247,356..16,490..14,111 ..16.9%..18,453 LAG...15....363,782..24,252..20,814 ..16.5%..24,333 DCU...15....314,506..20,967..18,215 ..15.1%..18,918 COL...15....228,451..15,230..13,294 ..14.6%..13,572 NYR...15....247,948..16,530..14,570 ..13.5%..13,219 KCW...15....173,784..11,586..11,083 ...4.5%..10,141 FCD...15....227,182..15,145..14,982 ...1.1%..15,059 TFC...15....301,947..20,130...N/A.. ...N/A...20,156 RSL...15....239,395..15,960..16,366 ..-2.5%..14,789 HOU...15....238,240..15,883..18,935 .-16.1%..14,351 CHV...15....214,578..14,305..19,840 .-27.9%..11,253 MLS.....195..3,270,210.16,770..15,504 ...8.2%..15,353
Analysis after the jump.
Firstly, it’s clear the Kansas City franchise is going nowhere: despite a small improvement due to a one game Beckham bonanza, with a mean attendance of 11, 586 they’re still moored well below the rest of MLS. Not to mention they’re barely averaging five figures in a stadium much closer to holding six figures. And this is a team that made the playoffs. Wait — sorry, this is a franchise most definitely going somewhere. Anywhere else. And soon. Sorry, Wizards fan.
Secondly, the New York Red Bulls did increase their crowds too, but most of that was down to the Beckham game anomaly that drew 60,000+. Despite having an intriguing if slightly disappointing team, they’re just not gaining much traction in New York. Or New Jersey, or whatever.
Thirdly, and perhaps most alarmingly, there are the two teams with declining attendance numbers: Houston and Chivas USA. The problem for MLS is that they both finished in the top three. If fans won’t come out in greater numbers to see quality winning teams, then one has to begin to question the point of it all.
Still, it’s worth mentioning two caveats: firstly, both teams numbers last year were inflated by big crowds for doubleheaders with other, more attractive games. Secondly, Chivas USA is a particularly unique basketcase — for a start, MLS isn’t ready to have two teams in one city. Then, they’re competing with Beckham in L.A.. And finally, the whole idea of building off a team’s “brand” in another country to appeal to one section of one ethnic group has clearly not worked very well. Let’s not try that one again, please.
Overall, though, rising attendance (in a season with less doubleheaders and giveaway tickets boosting numbers, by all reports) is a big boost as MLS expansion continues apace.
Photo courtesy of manusilvia on Flickr.
Thomas Dunmore is
Email this author | All posts by Thomas Dunmore
Does this mean you think we’ll be hearing the words “St. Louis Wizards” or “Philadelphia Wizards” within the next three years?
Something like that. I don’t like the idea of shifting franchises around from the fans’ perspective at all, and I hope that perhaps KC can get a new stadium and that might create a buzz to build on.
But right now, if we’re going to have a system without promotion/relegation and call it “major league”, the Wizards look out of place and I fear for their future in KC.
I agree about KC. Instead of focusing solely on expansion teams the league needs to take a hard look at moving the franchise. They’ve had plenty of time to work on getting a new stadium and to increase their fan base but they have been able to do neither.
The attendance numbers do point to an interesting question about US soccer. Are fans really interested in wins and losses or are do they simply go as a way to entertain the family? Considering the considerable marketing MLS does towards families, my guess is that a large portion of the attendance at each game could care less where the team stands in the table. This is different from other American sports. Maybe it is a lack of tradition or maybe people are just happy to have a team in their city. It would be interesting to look at historical data to see how much of a bump, if any, MLS teams get from winning.
It is hard to say, Bob, but it’s a very good point. One has to say it’s not about winning, as crowds for playoff games seem to be very poor (without all the advance group sales, etc).
Tonight, the Fire are expecting a crowd well over 50% larger than their equivalent playoff game last year. Is that down to the buzz about a team that’s gotten its act together? Is it purely the Blanco factor? Is it growing excitement about the MLS playoffs? A combination of the above?
I think Chivas should move to San Diego. The experiment I think just hasn’t worked out well. It is not just that they are competing with Beckham, but they are doing so in the same stadium. They should move to San Diego and change their name either to Chivas San Diego or to something with a broader appeal.
The problem there is that a) StL and Philly have their own long-standing and rapidly advancing expansion plans and b) neither wants a retread from some other city. Many of the Philly fans are were at one point dedicated DC supporters, and they’re all resolutely against the idea of taking in DC United as their own if the stadium situation got too bad to remain in the DC Metro area. God only knows what they’d think if someone tried to foist KC on them.
I don’t really know what the long term solution to KC is. Even if they get a stadium, it just doesn’t seem like a viable market. Maybe they’ll drag along until they can be moved to some place that just wants a franchise badly enough. Vegas? Milwaukee?
Max (the first one), Chivas San Diego is an idea I’ve heard before that has some merit to it, and would have made more sense in the first place.
I also think, along those lines, Chivas Los Angeles would have been a better name than the absurdly vague Chivas USA. Teams need to be clearly attached to where they’re based.
Max J.: St. Louis already has a retread NFL franchise, which just happened to play in two Super Bowls and win one of them. If it comes down to Wizards or nothing, I don’t think they’ll object too strenuously to letting the Wizards slide down I-70 into town.
MLS doesn’t look like it’s going to expand beyond 16 teams. Seattle’s a lock to be #15, and Philadelphia should get #16 if the PA Senate passes the necessary legislation to get the stadium built. Either way, you’d have to think that whoever loses the battle between St. Louis & Philly might decide it’s worth it to court the Wizards. The only way that club is going to make any money next year is by selling Eddie Johnson to Reading in the next transfer window.
Hear me out, Mr. Dunmore…it’s likely to sound VERY familiar…
Steps to solve this crisis by 2012:
1. Award expansion franchise “A” to St. Louis at the end of 2007 season. (Total Teams in MLS: 14)
2. Award expansion franchise “B” to Philadelphia at the end of the 2007 season. (Total Teams in MLS: 15)
3. Move Chivas USA to San Diego by no later than 2010. as a means of expanding the Western Conference. (Total Teams in MLS: 16 - I’m now including San Jose)
4. Tell the Kansas City Wizards (in 2007) they have two or three more years to break ground on a new, soccer specific stadium or else they’ll be moved. Not to Seattle, but…
5. When Kansas City doesn’t meet their obligations, move the franchise to Portland, Oregon in 2011. (Teams in MLS: 17)
6. Award the third expansion franchise to Seattle in 2011. (Teams in MLS: 18)
Boom, 18 teams in the MLS. Doug Garber gets his expansion dream fulfilled and can leave things on cruise control for the next decade or so before thinking of expanding to 20 teams.
Let’s not forget that moving franchises is an American tradition. White Sox didn’t start out in Chicago, nor did the Orioles in Baltimore. And let’s not forget that Jackie Robinson played for the *Brooklyn* Dodgers. Fans may poo-poo it now, but I would bet money that no one in Philly would care for more than a season if KC were to be moved there.
As for MLS expansion on a whole, I would not be surprised if the next fifty years see a sea change in the American sports landscape.
Only because Tom inexplicably supports the Pale Hose, I fell obliged to point out that they have never called anywhere other than Chicago home. The current club was one of the founding members of the American League in 1901 (the earlier incarnation of the Chicago White Stockings went on to greater things in the National League before the dawn of the Century of Futility).
The general point is of course true, and since we are talking about St. Louis, it may be worth pointing out that the football Cardinals were originally from Chicago.
[...] Success doesn’t always lead to more MLS fans (Pitch Invasion) [...]
@Dave: True, but you’d think there’d be much more resistance to importing a team from KC of all places. And since this still a niche sport, there’s no massive popular outcry to just get a team and any team. I think KC should and will probably move, but St Louis seems pretty unlikely. The league would be fine with it, I question whether the fans would.
As someone said earlier, Philadelphia absolutely does NOT want someone else’s team. It was discussed a year or so ago when KC was about 2 hours from moving to Philly (the day they were bought by OnGoal). We would rather wait a while and get our own team with a clean slate.
Granted, we’ll take a relocated team, but it’s not our ideal situation.
http://www.sonsofben.com
MLS is close to adding a team in St. Louis. OnGoal is working on a stadium. This combination helped the Rapids, where the Rocky Mountain Cup helped increase attendance, the Dick gave them another boost. I think KC will hold out and hope for similar results. If they don’t get the same results, they’ll remain there till their lease runs out. Look for them to sign a short lease.