MLS Attendance has a Hidden Secret
It isn't that the little soccer league is up 11% while baseball is down 2%. Although that makes me smile and cry at the same time, for many reasons.
But something that I noted here ages ago is even more true again.
The top 3 teams in attendance are not part of the MLS Originals. It is the expansion sides that care. The common rebuttal amongst long time league supporters is that it will fade away. Even the early rounds of Garber led expansion do much better than the teams that were founded in the Logan era.
Five of the top eight teams in attendance this year are from Garber's expansion/relocation efforts. His worse team is Chivas USA which is bettering six teams.
What is it about those first three seasons of the league that hurt the love of the game in those cities? They had good numbers then. The LEAGUE had good numbers then.
Here's the data. I did a small amount of rounding, but it is based off of the MLSDaily numbers
| Team | Home Games | Avg Att | Total | Team | Home Games | Avg Att | Total |
| Seattle | 5 | 36,144 | 180,720 | LA | 5 | 19,397 | 96,985 |
| Philadelphia | 2 | 29,954 | 59,908 | NY | 4 | 17,939 | 71,756 |
| Toronto | 3 | 20,144 | 60,432 | DC | 5 | 14,953 | 74,765 |
| Houston | 5 | 15,754 | 78,770 | Chicago | 3 | 14,937 | 44,811 |
| Salt Lake | 4 | 14,949 | 59,796 | Columbus | 4 | 13,270 | 53,080 |
| Chivas | 4 | 14,554 | 58,216 | Colorado | 3 | 10,483 | 31,449 |
| 23 | 497,842 | New England | 5 | 10,119 | 50,595 | ||
| Kansas City | 4 | 9,703 | 38,812 | ||||
| San Jose | 4 | 9,514 | 38,056 | ||||
| Garber | 21,645 | Dallas | 4 | 9,351 | 37,404 | ||
| Logan | 13,115 | 41 | 537,713 |
24 comments
|
Comments
I blame Americanization
That was Logan’s biggest mistake, which came from the idea that you had win over American sports fans who weren’t necessarily fans of soccer, because the base of American soccer fans wasn’t enough, in their view. So early MLS had such fabulous innovations as the 25 yard dribble-n-shoot to break ties, and a clock that counted down and stopped for breaks.
That last one was particularly bad, because it defeated one of the best things about having the ref control the clock: discretion. Refs are supposed to take into account game action that could affect the result of a match in the timing of blowing the final whistle. So if the team in possession could win or draw by continuing their attack, the ref is supposed to give them a reasonable amount of time to do that. In contrast, in early MLS, when the clock ran out, it ran out. I remember seeing the final seconds of a game in MLS where the losing team picked the ball up at the halfway line with a few seconds to go. There was nothing for them to do but to desperately punt towards goal, and of course, nothing became of it. Had it been a normal match, they might have been given enough time to launch one more real attack before the final whistle was blown. Seeing that pretty much killed the credibility of the league for me and I largely ignored it until the Sounders joined.
Those days ended long before the Sounders arrived.
While I also did not like the old clock, it did at least prevent the inconsistent application of stoppage time, a problem in my opinion today.
Of course, you don’t need a clock rule circa 1996 MLS to do that. You just need more clear guidlines regarding stoppage time, universal application of those guidelines, and accountability on the part of those determining and enforcing stoppage time.
That's exactly my point
MLS’s initial mistake was not playing soccer as soccer fans knew and loved it. So we dismissed it and they lost us for a good long time, even after they had fixed the mistake. I saw that MLS wasn’t playing “real” soccer and I didn’t have a reason to care again until the Sounders were allowed in.
stop growing and start moving....
it will be crucial to MLS and Garber to evaluate the relocation options during next year’s season. obviously attendance and popularity will be helped with Potland and Vancouver coming into the league. It extremely confused me when I hear Garber talk about a 2nd NY team…. but if he’s talking about moving a franchise there it’s a different story. NYRB are far from selling out their new digs…although Henry will help attract the masses later this year. consider moving: Dallas and SanJose. move NE into their own house and rename them Boston….i’m baffled by Colorado and Columbus….
by chinsmd on May 18, 2010 7:15 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
Sorry but San Jose just got their stadium plan approved. The stadium they are in is really limited to only 10k people or so. The only team that would be considered relocating is DC cause they can’t get a new stadium.
None of those three will happen....
San Jose was recently moved anyway, to go along with their new stadium plan.
FC Dallas why it would make sense for them to move, especially since they don’t get many supporters since its not even IN Dallas…their stadium is pretty new and thus the league wouldn’t want lose that.
DC United, move the most “storied” (according to MLS/Garber anyway :-P) franchise in MLS? No way, wont happen. Even if they can’t get a new stadium. That being said, who is going to want to pay for a new stadium when the team is losing almost any game? They’ll base a lot of it on current form and not just what they did 10-15 years ago.
by SounderEvertonRomaFan on May 20, 2010 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions
The Red Bulls number is nice
Considering that last year the average attendance was 12,744. While you’d expect a higher number with the new arena, that shows growth and keeps me optimistic for a higher number once we sign Henry.
Follow me on twitter @thisredengine
Agreed
I hope Henry has a blowout year and gets numbers up. It’s good to see them going big with him and getting a recognized name. I’m glad Seattle won’t have to play NY again until the playoffs ;)
by chrisperry1983 on May 18, 2010 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions
False numbers
I can’t accept these numbers to be true. I watch Dallas play on TV and it looks like 500 people are they and they report 9,000? NY looks to be 1/3 full and they report a 2/3 full stadium?
I bet they are making these numbers up! I bet you somebody is putting down their birthday as the team’s attendance.
Does anybody know someone in the Colorado organization who’s birthday is Oct 4, 1983?
by WestcoastBrian on May 18, 2010 11:39 AM PDT reply actions
EVERY team in American sports reports tickets SOLD
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Exactly, this number includes season ticket holders who were unable to make the game.
Follow me on twitter @thisredengine
by thisredengine on May 18, 2010 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions
European Leagues
Do they report tickets sold or turnstile counts?
Fan of: Cards, Blues, Yellow Jackets, Rams, Wolverines, and Blazers.
by ColinMacLeod on May 18, 2010 12:48 PM PDT up reply actions
Question on that
Why does attendance vary at Qwest? If every game is sold out, wouldn’t we have the same attendance number each time? Same with Toronto. Their attendance varies, but their games are all sold out. Do we really count by tickets sold and not the number of tickets scanned in?
by chrisperry1983 on May 18, 2010 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions
I think it varies based on suite numbers
I don’t think they sell out all the box suites every game this year. I’ve seen several that were dark on a couple dates this year.
I have no evidence for this, I’m just guessing because the numbers add up to seats plus boxes.
gotcha
makes sense. And, attendance has never really varied more than a few hundred. That would maybe account for that. I dunno how they count attendance in the suites.
by chrisperry1983 on May 18, 2010 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions
There is a technical definition for "sold out"
It does not mean that 100% of seats are sold, just that only scattered singles are available.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
dictionary.com
at·tend·ance /əˈtɛndəns/ Show Spelled[uh-ten-duhns] Show IPA
–noun
1.the act of attending.
2.the persons or number of persons present: an attendance of more than 300 veterans.
Counting number of tickets sold instead of people who show up is still cheating.
by WestcoastBrian on May 18, 2010 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions
And yet the world keeps turning.
Seriously, this is the agreed way that all sports track the number. Nobody does it any different.
by blakec on May 18, 2010 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I really think you're missing the point
Like has been stated, every league, at least in the U.S., does it this way. Some teams are much more shady about the practice, minor league baseball being a prime example. In any case, I’m not sure it’s worth getting worked up over. It’s only relevant to advertisers, really, and they are big boys who can judge for themselves how relevant the numbers are.
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 18, 2010 7:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Number are NOT sold
The numbers announced for attendance are tickets distributed, not sold. What that means is all the tickets sold AND all the tickets given away. That’s true of every sport. It has nothing to do with actual attendance.
Does this include the "new" factor?
Teams that have been around for only a couple years tend to get supported more heavily then teams that have been around for a while but arn’t terribly good. Sort of like how a team can be moved to a new area and it will get a sudden spike in attendance. It’s not anything magical, it’s just that the new area isn’t used to having a team and comes out to support them for a little while. But if the team sucks, then after a few years their attendance levels tend to drop to where the teams were before the move. Because casual fans don’t like going to watch a team that sucks (see: old Sonics, Minnesota Timberwolves, Jacksonville Jaguars, Florida Marlins, etc.)
Now with more lemon bars!
That was more polite than I was going to be
My thought was “Wait and see how Toronto and Seattle do if they suck for another five years.” New England had really good attendances for the first few years despite doing poorly. It was only after their attendance had fallen off a cliff that the team started doing well. But by that point, they didn’t have enough of an audience to impress. Now, I know, their ownership is doing a crap job. But these newbies seem to think that their awesome fanbase will survive years of sucking.
It’s still too early to know. But the odds are pretty good that we’ll get to find out with at least one team, considering how big MLS has gotten now.
What would be interesting
Match the attendence progression for years 2 – 5 for all teams and put them side by side.
That way you could normalize out the “new” factor that Fear is talking about. I’d take out year one, just because year one of MLS was such an anomaly it would skew the long term decline for the original teams beyond usefull analysis.

by 












