Diving into Sounders attendance figures (and barely coming up for air!)
In a busy week of Sounders and MLS news and activity, one news story was somewhat overlooked. On Wednesday, Sounder FC management announced that 2010 season tickets would be "capped" at 32,000 (over 31,0000 have been sold). This, along with existing plans to set Qwest/RBP seating capacity for League matches at about 36,000 means that we can reasonably expect Sounders' average attendance figures for this upcoming season to exceed 35,000.
While this would more than double the MLS average attendance for 2009 (16,120) many cynics have hastened to point out that the MLS is a poorly-supported niche sport in the American big-time sports landscape (not necessarily true, more on that later). Added to that is the seemingly endless consternation of many in the sports community that a "sellout" is deemed such even though it only constitutes selling just more than half of Qwest's 67,000 seat capacity.
I am here to point out that these two arguments miss the point entirely. In fact, America's perception of crowd size is completely skewed by the enormous draw of college football and the NFL, and to a lesser extent Major League Baseball. The numerical mathematical facts are, that from a "global" or even "European"perspective, 35,000+ is a shit-ton of people to draw to your games 15+ times a year.
Let's start by looking at some tables -- absolutely every bit of data I am drawing from is easily found by anyone using google and Wikipedia. First is a listing of the attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues, listed by average attendance. The first thing that should jump out at you is the immense popularity of the NFL, although there are always a number of mitigating circumstances with regards to attendance figures, the two biggest being number of games and also obviously the population of the nation involved. (as an aside, it is interesting to note that far and way the most popular league in the world in terms of raw attendance is Major League Baseball, which is somewhat stunning in and of itself).
One thing this list does not provide for is the aforementioned extraordinary popularity if major-college football in America. To begin to gain an appreciation for this, let's look at the list of largest stadiums in the world, ranked by seated capacity. No less than 12 of the top 25 "largest" stadiums in the world are American college football stadiums, or stadiums built or used primarily for that purpose, with an additional 1 more stadium in the top 25 an NFL stadium (Fed-Ex Field, home of the Washington Redskins). And we know from anecdotal knowledge these college teams generally sell out all their home games.
Obviously, there are a lot of people in the United States and Canada attending professional or major-college sporting events, and when you include "indoor" sports figures it all becomes more clear. The combined population of USA and Canada is 342 million people (about 0.05% of the 6.8 billion people on the planet, compare this to Western Europe's 397 million -- 0.06%), but the region is ridiculously wealthy, the GDP of the USA alone is $14.2 Trillion, or about 20.5% of the global GDP of $69 trillion (compare to the European Union -- which includes more than just "western Europe" at $15.2 trillion)
[all figures from Wikipedia] Obviosuly, let's skip altruism for the moment and remember that it really is about the money!
So lets revisit the MLS average attendance figures for 2009. Many cynical or jaundiced members of the sports community would like to dismiss or laugh off this figure as a paltry and insignificant number. It is tempting to look at the table and dismiss the average as a lie, since the Sounders' figures surely skew the average. So lets succumb to this notion and do just this. Its pretty simple math to eliminate the Sounders from the MLS average, and in doing so we get 14,040, which reduces the figure by about 12.9%.
Soccer is the one truly global sport. There are those that would like to sell hockey, basketball, and baseball as global sports, but baseball, frankly falls laughably short, hockey is almost entirely a North American and European endeavor; but basketball has some merit. Unfortunately for us, the NBA is a monolithic entity, arrogant enough to label its champion as a "World Champion" and employing different rules than the international game. In fact, American basketball is severely inbred, something we are seeing more and more as foreigners become established in the NBA. The global reach and significance of international basketball competitions is a fraction of that for soccer, and while soccer boasts multiple high-level domestic leagues, the same simply cannot be said of basketball. Nice try guys, but you don't compare to soccer globally!
So lets look at European domestic soccer leagues, and, in fact, lets go right for the top. Europe is the richest, densest, and most accomplished soccer network on the planet; South America comes in a distant second. Going back to our domestic league attendance table, we can see the 3rd, 5th, 8th, and 11th-most popular sports leagues in the world (by average attendance) are the top-flight divisions in Germany, England, Spain, and Italy, respectively, which also happen to be widely recognized as the top four leagues (in terms of level of play) in at least Europe, if not the World.
Let's look at averages, and in the same exercise as we performed in MLS, throw out the top club and see how that affects the numbers:
England: 35650
without ManU = 31885 or -10.6%
Italy: 25324
without AC Milan = 22388 or -11.6%
Germany: 42736
without Borussia Dortmund = 38549 or -9.8%
Spain: 28491
without Barcelona = 24769 or -13.1%
You do not have to be a mathematician or statistician to come to two obvious conclusions. Claiming Sounders' attendance figures "unfairly" skew MLS averages is stupid, and the projected attendance for the 2010 Sounders' season will be about equal to English Premier League average attendance and exceed Spanish and Italian top-flight average attendance.
I will be the first to concede that there are a ton of contingencies to the data. Population, wealth, number of clubs, number of games are just a few of dozens. You cannot look at the data absolutely, although numbers tend not to lie. Anybody familiar with statistics in sports knows this well.
I would like to address the sense of the competition for butts in seats, which is to say how can we filter the data to address the options to the sports fan. For instance, in Italy, Turin, Milan, and Rome each had two clubs in Serie A last season, so surely that must be taken into consideration somehow, as well as the litany of lower-division clubs the fan has to choose from. This argument is all well and good, but I hasten to point out that these are the 4 leagues that supposedly "rule the roost" in Western Europe, a region the numbers shown above compares to USA/Canada in terms of population and wealth, whereas the MLS is considered a relatively lowly and unpopular "niche sport" in North America.
But lets take a quick look, specifically in Italy and specifically at Turin, the home of historic European soccer giants Juventus and lesser-renowned Torino, a lower-level club that was relegated to Serie B (Italy's second division) this past season.
Torino: 22973
Juventus: 21329
First of all, lets take a moment to appreciate that a club relegated after the 08/09 season outdrew powerhouse Juventus. Beyond that, the combined numbers for these two teams is about 44,000, a number which would be considered an abject failure at the NFL level. The worst-drawing NFL team, the Oakland Raiders, drew on average 44284 fans. Detroit, a team with a dismal recent history and playing in an economically depressed region with astonishing unemployment rates, drew an average of 49,395. Granted, Serie A teams play 19 league home games, compared to 8 for an NFL team, but I've already established that NFL and major-college football crowd sizes alter our perception of sports attendance.
Turin is a city of 909,000 people, and an urban area of between 1.7 and 2.2 million (figures from Wikipedia) and is considered a cultural and economic hub, and as the center of the Italian automotive industry (including the headquarters of Fiat, the world's 6th largest carmaker) is one of the major industrial centers of Europe. Turin is the 4th-largest city in Italy and 78th wealthiest city in the world by GDP (58 billion).
Seattle, on the other hand, has a municipal population of 602,000, and an urban population of between 2.7 million ( as defined by the "urban area") and 3.3 million (as defined my the "metro" area). It is the 15th-largest metro area in the US, and in the always important TV market rankings it is 13th. Seattle is the 24th wealthiest city in the world with a GDP of $235 billion. (Remember, its about the money. To put the enormous wealth of the US into perspective, Seattle doesn't crack the top 10 in the US, but would rank ahead of Rome and Milan, the two wealthiest cities in Italy!)
So what does this all mean? Now that I've bored you to death with numbers, what conclusions can we draw from this? First of all, given the population and wealth of Western Europe, it seems a shocking amount of people are not attending soccer matches. Also, MLS attendance is surprisingly strong, despite its lowly stature in the sports landscape -- but also perhaps not so surprising due to the astounding wealth of the US from a global perspective.
But what about the stature of the sport, and the number of teams and matches played. For that, lets just focus on the 4 major western European countries discussed above.
(all figures from Wikipedia)
Germany: 82.33 million, GDP = $3.67 trillion
Italy: 60.23 million, GDP = $2.31 trillion
England: 51.45 million, GDP $2.2 trillion (note, this is for England only, not all of Britain)
Spain: 46.66 million, GDP = $1.6 trillion
totals 240.67 million, GDP = $9.78 trillion
USA/Canada: 342.58 million, GDP = $15.94 trillion
The "Big four" sports in USA/Canada are NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL, which combined are 122 teams, and across our Wikipedia sample set drew a combined 133.3 million fans over 5147 games, for an average of roughly 25,800 spectators per event (keeping in mind the "indoor" nature of NHL and NBA limits attendance compared to NFL and NBA). This is .388 by factor of population and 1 person for every $119 thousand of GDP
The "Big 4" domestic leagues consist of a combined 78 teams, drew 46.9 million fans over 1446 games, for an average of roughly 32,400 spectators per event. This is .195 by factor of population and 1 person for every $208 thousand of GDP.
There are certainly other sports in Europe of note, including rugby, basketball, and hockey, and there are lower divisions of all the domestic soccer leagues. It is worth noting that the second division in English soccer, the Championship, averaged 17891 fans (24 teams, 552 games) making it the 18th most popular domestic league in the world, and the 10th most popular soccer league in the world, 7th in Europe!
In USA/Canada, this also leaves out the prodigious influence of major-college football and the lesser but still significant influence of the Canadian Football League (the world's 7th-most popular domestic league by average attendance). But we can see that Americans and Canadians absolutely love attending professional sports in their major domestic leagues, at a rate nearly double the population factor and wealth factor of Italy, Germany, England, and Spain, even given the indoor limiting nature of hockey and basketball!
Seattle is a town with and NFL team, the Seahawks, that averaged 67995 for 8 homes games for 2009 (16th of 32 in NFL), a major college football team, the Washington Huskies, that averaged 64,355 for 7 homes games, a Major League Baseball team, the Mariners, which averaged 27,105 for 81 homes games (18th of 30 in MLB), as well as reasonable, relative, attendance rates for lesser sports such as college basketball, women's professional basketball, and minor league hockey. The loss of the NBA team, the Sonics, probably helped Sounders attendance figures, but 35,000+ a game is an impressive figure, no matter how you frame it, from a local, national, global, economic, or social perspective.
In fact, the Sounders last year became one of the top 50 soccer clubs in the world with an average of 31,203, and will probably rise up the rankings this year. It is easy for "mainstream" pundits to dismiss, or even laugh at, the Sounders' claims, and the overall MLS attendance figures, but to buy into this cynicism is a huge mistake. The ultimate, and only proven effective, means of fans and supporters to convey what is important, on a global scale, is butts in seats (or standing in front of seats), and in that regard, the Sounders community has spoken loudly!
FanPosts only represent the opinions of the poster, not of Sounder at Heart.
5 recs |
15 comments
Comments
Now that is a FanPost
Jake,
Well fricking done. I Rec:ed and Featured it.
But great use of the space and opportunity to share.
I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
by Sounder At Heart on Jan 30, 2010 7:51 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
slight correction
OOPS! I realize I made an error in how I computed the league attendance averages without the top drawing clubs. Here are the corrected figures:
MLS: 16210
w/o Sounders: 15402 or -6.7%
Germany: 42610
w/o Borussia Dortmund: 40817 or -4.2%
England: 35650
w/o Man U: 33563 or -5.9%
Spain: 28941
w/o Barca: 24769 or -8.5%
Italy: 25324
w/o AC Milan: 22388 or -6.9%
As you can see, this doesn’t change my arguments one bit. I merely present for accounting purposes!
...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!
by malcontentjake on Jan 30, 2010 10:37 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Nice work.
Very interesting read. And MLB is not surprising because they play twice as many games as the next most “active” leagues (NBA, NHL). And by twice as many, we would mean “1,200 more games.”
It is impossible to ignore the support we give our Sounders. It has to feel good, as a player, to know that fans of less than 50 clubs in the world support their team more.
Makes me dream/salivate of the day when we fill the whole place. Selling out all of Qwest would put us 6th in the world.
by Cornchops on Jan 30, 2010 11:08 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
MLB attendance
I was farting around for a week looking at attendance figures and whatnot before I wrote this, and this is all concurrent to reading the book “Soccernomics” where I just started to become curious. I should elaborate on what I mean by “stunning.” I think in “popular culture” baseball is seen as a “dinosaur” of a sport, and the prevailing winds have it blowing in the direction of an “older” demographic. The fact is, “popularity” is a complete abstract to sports attendance. It is about 1) wealth and 2) population. Baseball is “popular” because there are a lot of games, and a lot of people with (relatively) a lot of money!
I don’t know a single person who would argue that baseball is the most popular sport ANYWHERE, even in a place like Boston or New York, by an order of 5 TIMES over NFL or NBA!
...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!
by malcontentjake on Jan 31, 2010 8:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Yankees RULE in NYC
They get more attention in media, and popular cultural than any two other NYC teams (maybe not than both Jets & Giants)
But you can’t judge the popularity of sports with such divergent number of games based on their attendence numbers
I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
by Sounder At Heart on Jan 31, 2010 9:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Awesome job
I must say that as I was reading this several questions popped into my head and sure enough a graph or two later, you would answer them. It’s really marvelous work.
I would only offer that I think what maybe keeps attention on a team like the Sounders down, though, is that the league as a whole is not seen in the same light as even the NHL. The Sounders could start filling Qwest and there would still be members of the media who would dismiss them because “it’s only MLS.”
by BayAreaRefugee on Jan 31, 2010 9:50 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
doesn't help...
…that we’re over here in the upper left corner. If we were selling 35k seats in Philly or any east coast market, that would be harder to dismiss.
by jamesington on Feb 2, 2010 3:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
NFL and MLS
The numbers that the NFL puts up should tell you more than just the NFL is popular.
It should tell you the reason the US could be THE place for soccer very quickly.
IF, big huge IF, the rest of MLS catches up to the Sounders, we are drawing the same attendance as the EPL. Let say money is the same, probably not, as US is richer.
Now consider MLS will have less variance in attendance as the league is a parity type league. So the bottom teams in MLS have better means than bottom in EPL.
Plus as a parity league would you rather play for Bolton or the Dynamo ? Holdon just made that choice (or the money made it for him ). Even if were Bolton or Red Bulls, you chose Red Bulls all else equal. They just about won it two years ago. Bolton ? Never, ever, ever.
The crazy thing is I don’t think we are that far from that. Seattle is there. The catch 22 being, if the league had talent, they would have that many fans, but they don’t have that many fans because the league can’t afford the talent.
by Charles J on Feb 4, 2010 10:59 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
If you see talent as a major barrier...
then the MLS has a huge disadvantage in this area drawing talent here to the US.
1) Europe all grow their talent from a very young age to a much larger extent than we do here in the US. So a lot of their talent have been developing in their youth and reserve leagues for years.
2) Consider the proximity of all the big leagues (and even some of the not as big like the Scandinavian leagues) they are all very close together and have a lot more access to seeing each others youth players. The only Major League MLS really has near them is the Mexican one. We do have the South American american leagues closer to the US than Europe I guess but they are still a ways away.
3)Even if we did have the money, Europe is also so far away from us there is also the issue that not many people necessarily want to move thousands of miles overseas to play soccer when they can just move a couple countries over to play in a really great league.
So I see talent at least for a couple more years pretty hard to come by… but we have gotten a good amount of star talent (even though they are older) in the last few years. I mean Blanco, Ljungberg, Beckham (-_-), Juan Pablo Angel. that’s a lot more than we’ve had before the last couple years. So I think it’s slowly coming but more money to be able to spend would always help of course.
It’s still pretty cool to see how the MLS stacks up against other leauges, and even cooler that Seattle is one of the top 50 supported clubs in the world. There are a lot of things the MLS needs to work on but I think they are slowly moving in the right direction.
Seattle has definitely raised MLS’s status in the world. Another thing that could raise MLS’s status is teams actually being able to compete against the Mexican first division teams in the Concacaf Champions league. That would also draw so attention our direction. It’ll be an exciting next few years especially with Vancouver and Portland next year. I can’t wait
by majora999 on Feb 9, 2010 10:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Nice job
Very thorough and a lot of good points. The only thing I wold take issue with is your referencing a couple times the limiting effect smaller arenas for the NBA and NHL have. Most games in those leagues do not sell out, so I think this is somewhat overstated. In fact, it is the NFL whose attendance is most skewed downward by limitations in stadium capacity, and it’s the NFL that would most benefit if somehow you could simply allow in everyone who wanted to see games.
by WendellGee on Feb 5, 2010 12:19 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Is there any data on how much the average ticket price is league by league? Team by team?
I would assume they’d be highest in England, Spain, and Italy, but there might be some surprising data there.
by Scrupio on Feb 6, 2010 9:57 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Well done,but
Great look at the success of Seattle and I find it humorous that most sports fans fail to realize that MLS’s average attendance is very similar to the NBA or NHL, but the issue is never about how many people show up at events. Butts in seats is great but the difference between MLS and the EPL is TV, the difference between MLS and the NBA is TV, until MLS gets a way to translate their product into one that casual sports fans in the US will watch on TV, it will consider to be a niche sport.
I wrote about the Nielsen report “”http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/press/FaceOfSports_US_rpt.pdf" target="new">Changing Face of Sports Media" When the World Series gets 22 million viewers for game 4, it makes the 1.14 million who watched MLS Cup look like a niche sport. I think a change is coming, with Fox airing the UEFA Champions League on their over the air channel instead of FSC, or FX. It could be the most watched soccer match in TV history in the US, it will likely get beat this summer by the US vs. England match, but those two will both let us know how far soccer has to go to catch the other top sports.
by denz on Feb 12, 2010 6:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
PitchInvasion.net
Took a look at changing media coverage of soccer in America, and brought up some of those same points
But he ignored that here at SBNation we are in the year of soccer!
I can’t wait for the USA v England TV #s
I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
by Sounder At Heart on Feb 12, 2010 6:43 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
True
I think the move by Fox is monster and could set the way for a huge new deal with MLS, think if we were able to get weekend matches on FX. I love FSC and will love it more in HD but it is still going to be part of the sports package for most people and that eliminates a huge chunk of the population. If MLS could get on FX it would be a game changer for the league, you could easily see the average jump from under 200,000 to an average of half a million. That difference would be massive for sponsors, advertisers and TV revenue, in fact that could be the first change that would move soccer from a fringe to the mainstream.
by denz on Feb 13, 2010 12:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Going to Four National Games a Week would be good
ESPN2 with their weeknight
FX with one on Sat midday/afternoon
Telemundo with Sat midday/afternoon
FSC with Sat night
Or have the FSC and FX at the same time with FX getting the preferred of a regional match like the networks do for college football/basketball
I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
by Sounder At Heart on Feb 13, 2010 12:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs










