MLS Attendance in Decline: The Old and the New Diverge
No surprise there, then: in a tanking economy where even the nation’s most popular league, the NFL, has had trouble selling tickets and Major League Baseball’s attendance fell 6.9%, it’s not a shock to learn that as Soccer America reports, MLS’ attendance fell overall by 2.9% in the regular season just concluded, falling from 16,460 in 2008 to 16,037. Notably, without expansion team Seattle and their record-breaking 30,897 average, that would have been a 9% fall.
The question is whether the depth of the decline, especially in numerous older clubs, is of serious concern beyond an acceptance of the tough economic times.
Let’s look at the good news and the bad news, by dividing the clubs into two groups: the six newer clubs that have joined the league since it began its second round of expansion in 2005, and the nine older clubs that have been here since the beginning in 1996 or joined in the first round of expansion in 1998 (of whom only Chicago still exist).
The Good: Expansion has Worked with the Newer Clubs
Five of the top seven spots in average attendance are taken by newer teams Seattle (2009), Toronto (2007), Real Salt Lake (2005) and Chivas USA (2005). Houston (2006) can also be considered part of this group of new teams, as a relocated franchise just four seasons old in their new city, and they rank fourth in attendance with 17,074.
It’s clear that MLS’ arrival in four of those cities has been a success (wildly so in Seattle’s case), and Chivas USA in Los Angeles aren’t doing too bad given they share the city with the Galaxy. In terms of appealing to new investors for the league as expansion continues, being able to point to solid crowds in places as diverse as Seattle and Salt Lake is a big plus for MLS.
And it seems as if the recession didn’t impact these places very much, a point supported by the massive attendance at international club friendlies in SUM’s “Summer of Soccer“.
There is one striking exception amongst the newer teams, with 2008 expansion team San Jose still struggling to find their feet: a modest attendance rise of 2.9% was bolstered by 61,572 for a “home” double-header featuring Barcelona and Chivas at Candlestick Park, and their search for a stadium goes on. It’s notable that this may be explained by an older failure, the decision by MLS and AEG to move the original successful San Jose Earthquakes to Houston in search of a stadium there.
In total, the newer teams returning from 2008 (so minus Seattle) collectively defied the recession to have a rising attendance of 1.1%. Only one team that has joined the league since MLS’ first round of expansion in 1998 suffered a fall in attendance, a minuscule 0.1% fall for Chivas USA.
The Bad: Older Teams in Decline
Which brings us to the bad. . .Every single team that had an average attendance decline of over 1% has been in the league for over a decade. And several had declines far beyond what one might expect as an effect of the recession: the Galaxy (-21.5%), D.C. United (-18.9%), Chicago (-13.8%), New England (-21.9%) and New York (-21.6%).
The Galaxy (albeit falling from a high perch), DC United and Chicago, in particular, ought to cause considerable concern: all three have been fortunate to have visionary leadership in their first decade, between them winning no fewer than seven of the league’s first ten league championships and consistently leading the league in attendance. All three appear unable to build on this solid foundation, and are in fact slipping from it.
But none of those three are in as much trouble as the teams that have never managed to establish themselves as successful winning franchises, MLS originals Dallas (-4.5% at 13,024), Colorado (-9.7% at 13,659) and Kansas City (-5.9% at 10,053) prop up the bottom three places in the attendance table, having less far to fall from their terrible 2008 crowds to begin with. Dallas were also massively propped up by a 51,012 for a “home” double-header at the Cotton Bowl featuring Mexico-Colombia — without that, Dallas’ average at Pizza Hut Park was just 9,678, down a whopping 25.7% on 2008. Their woes run deep.
And recent success on the field has done nothing to bump Columbus’ ever mediocre attendance, staying mid-table with a 1.2% fall to 14,447 despite their second consecutive best record in the league.
In total, the older teams saw their average attendance collectively decline by 14.6%, or 16.8% if we take out Dallas’ Cotton Bowl double-header bump.
What’s going on here?
Each case has their own excuses. The Beckham and Blanco effects appear to be wearing off respectively in Los Angeles and Chicago, and this has also impacted the entire league, which benefited greatly from a home attendance bounce from both in 2007 and 2008 when each team visited. New York, for example, had their attendance average considerable bolstered by Beckham-effect crowds of 66, 237 in 2007, 46,754 in 2008 but by only 23,238 in 2009 for the visits of the Galaxy.
Given both are pretty much irreplaceable in terms of appeal in the U.S., those bounces aren’t likely to be seen again for a while, even if both do flit through the league again in 2010.
D.C. United, New York, Kansas City and New England all have stadium woes, with only one of them (New York) to be resolved for 2010 and none of the others looking likely to be resolved soon, perhaps with the exception of KC.
But new soccer-specific-stadia is not a magic potion for attracting fans at older teams, as Dallas and Colorado are doing well to prove: nobody appears interested in trekking out to either suburban complex, despite two impressive stadiums. Some may say the same for Chicago as well, though I won’t be the one to do it.
Executives at all these older teams are now looking at the marketing success of Seattle and planning to replicate that in 2010. Will MLS clubs attempting to appeal to adult fans of soccer perhaps be the magic potion? This seems to be a common thread amongst both the successful new teams AND the older teams who had initial success, such as DC United and Chicago, who did not go down the foolish marketing routes taken by many other clubs.
Unfortunately, many older clubs have for so long alienated adult soccer supporters that there’s more damage than a “Scarf Seattle” type campaign might be able to repair. Some of them, such as Dallas and Colorado, have had front offices who have outright driven away the kind of soccer fans Seattle and Toronto have embraced with success. New England and Kansas City never have had very strong groups, and for all the press Columbus’ new “hardcore” has attracted, it hasn’t helped their crowd grow despite remarkable on-field performance for two years.
MLS has clearly moved in the right direction since the “Game First” initiative and new round of expansion put the league’s appeal more in line with that of the world’s game; this has had, quite naturally, the most appeal in cities unscarred by the league’s early marketing failures. MLS now needs to figure out how to reinvigorate clubs in crucial cities with strong soccer communities who this year have abandoned MLS in worrying numbers. It can be done, but it will take imagination, creativity and a closer willingness to work with long-time supporters willing to act as evangelists for their clubs.
Here’s the full attendance table courtesy of Soccer America. I’ve marked the older group of teams in bold.
| MLS Average Attendance | 2009 | 2008 | +/- |
| Seattle | 30,897 | – | – |
| Los Angeles | 20,416 | 26,009 | -21.5% |
| Toronto FC | 20,344 | 20,120 | +1.1% |
| Houston | 17,047 | 16,939 | +0.6% |
| Real Salt Lake | 16,375 | 16,179 | +1.2% |
| D.C. United | 16,088 | 19,835 | -18.9% |
| Chivas USA | 15,092 | 15,114 | -0.1% |
| Chicago | 14,689 | 17,034 | -13.8% |
| Columbus | 14,447 | 14,622 | -1.2% |
| San Jose | 14,114 | 13,713 | +2.9% |
| New England | 13,732 | 17,580 | -21.9% |
| New York | 12,491 | 15,928 | -21.6% |
| FC Dallas | 12,441 | 13,024 | -4.5% |
| Colorado | 12,331 | 13,659 | -9.7% |
| Kansas City | 10,053 | 10,686 | -5.9% |
| TOTAL | 16,037 | 16,460 | -2.6% |
Note: I’m aware MLS’ attendance numbers are often skewed by comped tickets, and I may have missed other double-headers impacting on attendance in various places (especially in 2008). But reports suggests it’s the older teams comping more tickets (we know Seattle, Toronto and Real Salt Lake don’t do it much), so the actual gap may actually be wider.
About the Author
Tom Dunmore is the founder and editor of Pitch Invasion. Follow him @pitchinvasion on Twitter.
Email this author | All posts by Tom Dunmore
You might also like:
|
|
|
|
|
Yikes. Take away that friendly double-header and the Timbers averaged more per game in USL-1 than FC Dallas.
It could have been worse. *insert the dreaded E world here*
Re: DC United – I think this might be a hangover from last year’s bad season, combined with the fact that they weren’t any good this year either. They’re a team not living up to their fans’ high expectations, and as long as management continues to ignore the fact that they don’t have a back line and their attack relies on two old guys and someone who has a tendency to sleepwalk through matches, their attendance will continue to be depressed. (Granted, sixth in attendance out of 20 isn’t horrible.)
I don’t think it’s the stadium – ever since the Nats left RFK they do actually have a soccer-specific stadium, albeit by default. And Seattle doesn’t have a soccer stadium and they seem to do fine.
If you look at this based on Metro Population I’d say Salt Lake and Columbus are doing really well, while Chicago, NY and Dallas are even more embarrassing.
Houston has never had a comped game (that I can remember), and they do quite quite QUITE well in the play-offs. I think the Rob could hold more than the current soccer-max at Qwest, maybe? wouldn’t that be a feat if we had a higher attendance.
Jeff — I’m not sure DC really doesn’t have a stadium problem, especially compared to Seattle, whose stadium is far newer and was also designed for soccer. But of course, I see your point that RFK isn’t a serious issue here. It will be interesting to see if this decline turns out to be a temporary blip for DC. I think the big three older clubs (LA, DC & Chicago) all do have a good chance to improve attendance next year, but the five at the bottom of the table don’t seem to be on the right path, unless Red Bull Arena really does have a dramatic impact.
The problem in Dallas and Colorado, as you mentioned, is the suburban stadiums (and I’m using the term ’suburban’ loosely). Focusing on Dallas specifically, we see two problems with the organization. 1) Moving the team from the cotton bowl. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting a soccer specific stadium and obviously concessions must be made in order to secure financing with various cities. Getting soccer specific stadiums is great progress for MLS. However, to take a futbol team away from an area easily accessible by pretty much everyone in the city (especially the passionate hispanic community) is suicidal in terms of attendance. Not only is Pizza Hut Park MULTIPLE suburbs away from downtown Dallas, it is almost an hour away or more in traffic on the highway. FC Dallas might as well be branded FC Frisco. After all, their attendance and support shows exactly what they are: a tiny suburb team. Dallas is one of the largest cities in America and there is certainly a big soccer market as youth programs, club teams, and high school soccer are vibrant.
This move is obviously the first and major part of their attendance problem. Frisco is the suburbs OF the suburbs, that’s how out of the way and up & coming it is. It might be a great place to have a stadium, say 10 or 20 years from now as Dallas continues to expand outward. FCD now caters directly and pretty much only to families. While I give the utmost respect to the hardcore fan groups like the Inferno etc, they have an uphill battle with the type of fans coming out to the games. Essentially giving up an overwhelming majority of their (passionate) fans by leaving the downtown area, FCD also screwed up with the re-brand. While having the term ‘fc’ in a club’s name makes it more recognizable to true football fans, the whole re-brand was a disaster. The ‘Burn’ had a lasting brand and a cultivated fan base and experience even though the name sucked as well. It’s not so bad that they got rid of the ‘Burn’ but the fact that they couldn’t come up with anything good and instead went to a completely plain name of just FC Dallas (with a picture of a longhorn). Back in the day, you could ask a casual person who the ‘Burn’ were and they knew. Nowadays, ask them who FCD is and the odds go way down they know what you’re talking about.
Not to mention the ‘hoops’ brand image represented by their uniforms showcases more questionable decisions. While many could easily argue that the ‘hoops’ differentiate them from any other team (which is true), red was a horrible color to use (where’s waldo?) and it screams ‘wannabe Celtic’. Even more shocking is the fact that after building up the ‘hoops’ brand for years, last I heard the FCD front office was trying to get rid of the ‘hoops’ name and wanted to ensure everyone just called them plain jane FC Dallas.
Last, but certainly not least, I won’t even write a long-winded paragraph about the team itself. It can be summed up as follows: Constant. Revolving. Door. No real superstars attained/kept and no identity. They traded away their two Dallas home grown’s Kenny Cooper & Drew Moor who were arguably both the face of the team. Kenny’s departure was inevitable so there’s no real problem there. But getting rid of the last speck of identity you had with the community with Drew? They’re constantly in search of a new identity it seems with each year that passes.
In the end, it is a business. And I seem to recall reading somewhere that FCD is making decent money, correct? I’ll have to find that link, but you have to hand it to them there. It’s just a shame that more emphasis is put on making money than building a lasting team, fan base, brand, and experience. With such poor attendance, how are they even making money? Looks like corporate partnerships etc was the building block here as more emphasis was put on ad sales than team marketing. Ok, I think that covers it, /end rant.
Welcome to FC Frisco (whoops I mean FC Dallas): the epitome of Front Office folly.
FCD’s money comes from renting the fields out.
Bobby — yep. Which is quite interesting: it was one of only three MLS clubs last year to turn a profit because of the expensive soccer complex built largely from public funding. With almost no punishment existing in MLS for mediocrity, there seems to be little incentive for Dallas to risk investing much to improve on and off the field to attract fans as long as they’re profitable anyway.
Chicago couldn’t win a game at home this year. And they had a massive turnover of sales rep in their front office. The group sales people are who really pack in the youth soccer fans and their parents. This, combined with front office tussles with Section 8, helped keep Toyota Park far from full.
Not winning wasn’t a factor, krolpolski, judging from the season’s trend — the first three home attendances were all abysmal, under 12,000, before we’d even lost an MLS game how or away. I’m sure results didn’t pump attendance up, but they weren’t the cause of the decline coming off a promising 2008 campaign.
The Section 8 comment also doesn’t really apply. Section 8 (117/118) has been more packed than ever at Toyota Park thanks to the hard work of many in Section 8 and including some excellent promotional help from Fire ticket sales staff and marketing. For example, Section 8 Chicago sold over 700 tickets ourselves to one game mid-summer (on top of 300 S8 season ticketholders). It’s generally been the most packed part of the stadium game-in-game-out. It’s amazing this has happened despite some problems with the front office, but many people have worked hard to keep the section alive, including some in the front office.
The broader problem, as we’ve tried to work on with the front office, is that the Fire haven’t managed to work to expand the base of loyal supporters outside Section 8 (who themselves feel poorly treated in many respects). That’s one thing we believe has been neglected as the Fire have been too reliant for too long on group sales, and they’ve neglected to build a community of fans at Toyota Park outside the hardcore.
The biggest issue for the Fire is they have a very poor season ticketholder base. This hasn’t been helped by playing in four different stadiums in twelve years, but after four seasons at Toyota Park it should have been solidified by now. The Blanco bump of the past two seasons was based mainly on group and single game sales, which have dwindled now that effect has worn off.
I think the problem with DC was all the rumors about them moving to St. Louis or Baltimore, which was fueled more by Garber than the DC FO. It’s pretty easy to tell why the Red Bulls attendance has just been awful. Any team that only wins 4 games isn’t going to draw very well. Even without Beckham, they’d been drawing about 17,000 a match on a Saturday. Also, MLS got off to an earlier start when there was still snow in Columbus,Colorado and Salt Lake, so weather definitely played a big part in the low attendances at the beginning of the year. Then you have KC in a Minor-league baseball stadium and San Jose at a college soccer stadium. Attendance should go above 17,000 next year with the Red Bulls getting the new stadium (which will be easier and cheaper to get to from NYC and Newark) and Philly joining the league.
Tom, I think the stadium is a huge part of the problem. I used to live in Chicago and my friends and I would go to a few games a year (this was before I _really_ caught the soccer bug) at Soldier Field. We would take the train downtown, have a few beers at the game, and casually stroll up the beautiful lakefront before heading inland around North Avenue for a night on the town. But after they moved, neither I nor anyone I knew had any interest in heading to freaking Bridgeview on a Saturday night—especially as we were all car-free and Toyota Park isn’t even accessible by transit. It frankly felt like such a slap in the face to all the urban (not to mention Latino) folks who constituted the club’s original fan base that I stopped attending out of spite. They got the temporary Blanco bump, but now they’re paying the price for completely isolating themselves from the city. I understand real estate is ridiculous in Chicago proper, but I think the Fire will be kicking themselves for decades for not at least locating near a Metra station.
For a growing league in desperate need of casual fans, I just don’t think you can overestimate the importance of being accessible by foot and transit, and being located in a neighborhood where 20- and 30-somethings want to hang out before and after the match. I’m in Seattle now, and am lucky enough to have tickets for tomorrow night’s match. I’ll march to Qwest from beautiful Pioneer Square in downtown Seattle with thousands of green-clad and slightly tipsy people. For those who don’t join us for the march, Qwest is well-served by buses, light rail, commuter rail, and Amtrak. Much of our success has to do with the fact that so many casual fans can seamlessly fold attending the game into a great night or afternoon out and about in Seattle, or simply get to and from the game without a huge hassle.
I think that’s all true (there’s no doubt the Fire would have a higher attendance if it were in the city proper), though it’s not really fair on the Fire to say they didn’t do everything to get a stadium built in the city. At some point in comes down to what is actually achievable given economic, political and cultural realities, and without a stadium Chicago might have been San Jose. Seattle is a much different situation in terms of the stadium and the sports situation in the city.
But Bridgeview also isn’t Frisco. It’s a couple of blocks from Chicago’s city limits, and it is not far from some pretty huge hispanic neighbourhoods. To me as a fan, it was much more important for me to go see the Fire in a proper soccer stadium than in cavernous Soldier Field or out in Naperville, which had some pluses to it but was still a distinctly bizarre place to watch Major League Soccer, even if it was near the metra.
Plus, we run beer buses for supporters. That makes it a lot easier for city folk and it’s a damn good and cheap way to get to the game — a 30 minute ride from downtown. You don’t get free beer on the CTA.
Do the cities with huge drops also have women pro teams that started playing this year? Also the recession has hit the latino pop. extremely hard and at FIRE games you can see that.
Noel — yes, the five teams with the biggest drop were all cities where WPS began play this year. That may have hit family and group sales, on which (as I said) MLS has been reliant on for all-too-long in those same cities. It’s hard to imagine Seattle or Toronto being much impacted by a WPS team arriving there.
Kansas City’s drop is directly due to not having a game at Arrowhead this year for Beckham. The stadium capacity is 10,385 so there’s only so much you can do. Attendance hasn’t really gone up or down that I can tell, in spite of the crappy team we’ve been watching. There aren’t a ton of fans here, but the ones that are here are very loyal.
Good point, sazzy, though sadly for KC, even when they played every game at Arrowhead with its massive capacity attendance was often even worse. I really hope the new stadium deal is a saviour for your club. I’ve been to KC a couple of times and even the current tiny stadium hasn’t exactly looked packed out or vibrant.
There’s a good reason why the Galaxy’s attendance is down 21 percent. Fans are tired of being treated like walking vending machines by AEG. Concessions are overpriced and inferior. Parking is too high. Tickets are too high. AEG has all these fancy-pants ideas (like valet parking and a conspicuous VIP entrance at Home Depot Center) designeld to cater to Big Money, not the average fan.
Besides, fans are tired of the Beckham saga. Here today, gone to Milan over the winter, won’t be back until after mid-season. If this is “committment to the Galaxy,” as he claims, then I’m Pele, Maradona, Puskas and DiStefano combined! No wonder that the Riot Squad, the club’s most vocal fans, made banners saying “Go Home Fraud!” with Beckham’s number encircled with a slash through it like a European road sign.
A combination of factors should help out attendance the next 2 seasons:
1. Philly expansion – from what I’ve heard the Philadelphia Union has been selling season tickets like hot cakes, and they’ve adopted the Seattle-style adult oriented marketing. They should have a robust first year that should boost their rivals (NY, NE, and DC).
2. New Stadium for NYRB – Usually the first season in a new stadium gives a boost to attendance. I expect the Red Bulls to clean house and bring in some decent talent possibly with the addition of Viera and/or Henry.
3. Expansion to the Pacific NW – Portland and Vancouver have a long history of supporting soccer and will have bitterly contested matches with Seattle. I expect 18-20K from both franchises at least their first season.
4. Possible expansion to Montreal – The Impact had the highest attendance in the USL and will most likely carry that over to the MLS. They will also have natural rivals in Toronto FC.
5. World Cup – After a successful 2002 run by the USMNT MLS attendance spiked. If the team does well again in South Africa the same effect could follow. It could also free up some aging european talents like Henry to come across the pond since it will most likely be their last WC.
Well Tom Dunmore, I thing after 2 months we will be in better position to say some thing.