# Average Attendance - All Football Codes



## Outcaster

I begin this thread in hope then it will very interesting for skyscraper users.
Sorry? for my English.

Maybe, you questioning me:
"What's about this thread???"
This thread about atmosphere on stadiums in various countries & various leagues. But it's not Football Fan Emotions.
It's about attendance & stadiums.
For example, football atmosphere in Russia

*Russia 2008
Average Attendance - 13,634*
1. Rubin Kazan
Avg. Attendance - 18,675
Highest Attendance - 28,850
Stadium - Central Stadium
Stadium Capacity - 30,133








_Season Open_








_Match with attendance close to average_








_Match with highest attendance in season_
2. PFC CSKA Moskva
Avg. - 16,243
Highest - 60,000
Stadium - BSA Luzhniki
Capacity - 78,501
















3. Dinamo Moskva
Avg. - 13,067
Highest - 30,000
Stadium - Dinamo Stadium
Capacity - 36,540
















4. Amkar Perm'
Avg. - 16,494
Highest - 19,500
Stadium - Zvezda
Capacity - 20,000
















5. Zenit Saint-Petersburg
Avg. - 20,825
Highest - 22,500
Stadium - Petrovsky
Capacity - 21,576
























6. Kryliya Sovetov Samara
Avg. - 22,400
Highest - 33,000
Stadium - Metallurg
Capacity - 33,220
























7. Lokomotiv Moskva
Avg. - 14,108
Highest - 23,783
Stadium - Lokomotiv
Capacity - 28,800
















8. Spartak Moskva
Avg. - 22,713
Highest - 49,000
Stadium - BSA Luzhniki
Capacity - 78,501
























9. FC Moskva
Avg. - 4,813
Highest - 8,000
Stadium - Eduard Streltsov stadium
Capacity - 13,422








10. Terek Grozny
Avg. - 8,935
Highest - 15,500 (in Makhachkala on Dinamo stadium(16,800)), 10,120 (in Grozny)
Stadium - Sultan Bilimkhanov Stadium
Capacity - 10,200
















11. Saturn Moscow Region
Avg. - 9,460
Highest - 14,000
Stadium - Saturn (Ramenskoye)
Capacity - 16,726
















12. Spartak-Nalchik Nalchik
Avg. - 10,493
Highest - 14,000
Stadium - Republican Stadium Spartak
Capacity - 14,194
























13. Tom' Tomsk
Avg. - 12,820
Highest - 15,000
Stadium - Trud
Capacity - 14,950
















14. FC Khimki
Avg. - 8,347
Highest - 17,000
Stadiums - Rodina Stadium (first 11 matches of season), Arena-Khimki (other 4 matches)
Capacity - 10,054; 18,000
















15. Shinnik Yaroslavl
Avg. - 10,340
Highest - 19,600
Stadium - Shinnik
Capacity - 22,934 (in reconstruction time 19,000)
















16. Luch-Energia Vladivostok
Avg. - 8,413
Highest - 10,200
Stadium - Dinamo Stadium
Capacity - 10,200


----------



## likasz

CSKA's avg. attendance is very low.As I remember at the match with Shakhtar Donieck (UEFA CUP) the attendance was something about 20.000.CSKA doesn't have more fans or tickets are very expensive?I like the most Lokomotiv Moscow stadium and Luzhniki.


----------



## Outcaster

likasz said:


> CSKA's avg. attendance is very low.As I remember at the match with Shakhtar Donieck (UEFA CUP) the attendance was something about 20.000.CSKA doesn't have more fans or tickets are very expensive?I like the most Lokomotiv Moscow stadium and Luzhniki.


CSKA doesn't have more fans. Tickets in Russia, in compare with Europe, very сheap. About 50-500 roubles (2-20 euro)
Spartak is most popular team in Moscow


----------



## ØlandDK

Have a look at this thread:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=103091


----------



## Zeno2

Outcaster said:


>


what is supposed to be fun looks rather like a real punishment for those kids :lol:


----------



## Livno80101

best football atmosphere on stadiums is here in Balkan countries:Croatia (Dinamo, Hajduk) , Serbia (Partizan, Crvena zvezda) , Greece (Olympiakos, Panathinaikos, PAOK, Aris..) and that's that, no discussion more. :nuts:

but these fans are the best *dinamo zagreb fans Bad Blue Boys*





































http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/2563/dinamozagreb0tu.png










:banana:
:banana:
:banana:


----------



## Outcaster

Livno80101 said:


> best football atmosphere on stadiums is here in Balkan countries:Croatia (Dinamo, Hajduk) , Serbia (Partizan, Crvena zvezda) , Greece (Olympiakos, Panathinaikos, PAOK, Aris..) and that's that, no discussion more. :nuts:


really?
but why in this countries avg attensdance only 2,848 (Croatia), 2,438 (Serbia), 6,671 (Greece)? but in Russia 13,634


> Have a look at this thread:


it not about fans, it's about average attendance hno:


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis

Outcaster said:


> really?
> but why in this countries avg attensdance only 2,848 (Croatia), 2,438 (Serbia), 6,671 (Greece)? but in Russia 13,634
> 
> *it not about fans, it's about average attendance hno:*


 bullshit on that

i'll take 15k of Dinamo or Red Star fans over 90k of Barca fans any day 

btw whats the point of this thread? there is already thread like this...


----------



## Outcaster

SpicyMcHaggis said:


> bullshit on that
> 
> i'll take 15k of Dinamo or Red Star fans over 90k of Barca fans any day


but i can't see. official Dinamo Zagreb has avg. 7,615 with highest 20,000
Crvena Zvezda has avg. 5,167 with highest 8,000 (i know then in 2007/08 Derby was played without fans  )

Barca not a here. i know then in Spain on stadiums go very many peoples. it's 3rd in Europe after Germany & England


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis

edit


----------



## Outcaster

ok. but Spartak Moscow has 15-20k fans on his matches & they have one of the most tour crew. In Eastern Europe is the best. On matches in other city they have 2-8k fans. Only in Tomsk & Vladivostok they have 300 & 500 fans. But this cities at the edge of Russia.


----------



## www.sercan.de

So it would be better to call the thread "Average attendances".
Otherwise the user will mix it with the Fan emotion thread?!


----------



## smoo0okie

sweden got decent atmosphere at some games 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_nS4DvB8i8

Look at 2:25 were the tifo and stuff starts


----------



## Patrick

www.sercan.de said:


> So it would be better to call the thread "Average attendances".
> Otherwise the user will mix it with the Fan emotion thread?!


I agree on that.

Avg attendance top 10 in Germany 2008/09 (Feb09):

*1.*
BV Borussia Dortmund 09
Westfalenstadion (Signal Iduna Park)
Capacity: 80,552
Average: 72,934









*2.*
FC Bayern München
Stadion an der Schleißheimer Straße (Allianz Arena)
Capacity: 69,000
Average: 69,000









*3.*
FC Schalke 04
Arena AufSchalke (Veltins-Arena)
Capacity: 61,673
Average: 61,401









*4.*
Hamburger SV
Volksparkstadion (HSH-Nordbank-Arena)
Capacity: 57,000
Average: 54,855









*5. *
VfB Stuttgart
Neckarstadion (Mercedes-Benz-Arena)
Capacity: 55,896
Average: 50,545









*6.*
1. FC Köln
Müngersdorfer Stadion (Rheinenergie-Stadion)
Capacity: 50,374
Average: 49,136









*7. *
VfL Borussia Mönchengladbach
Stadion im Borussia-Park
Capacity: 54,067
Average: 45,313









*8. *
SG Eintracht Frankfurt
Waldstadion (Commerzbank-Arena)
Capacity: 52,300
Average: 45,264









*9.*
Hertha BSC Berlin
Olympiastadion
Capacity: 74,228
Average: 45,007









*10. *
SV Werder Bremen
Weserstadion
Capacity: 42,354
Average: 40,217









*1. in the 2. Bundesliga*
1. FC Kaiserslautern
Fritz-Walter-Stadion
Capacity: 48,500
Average: 34,918









*1. in the 3. Liga*
TSV Eintracht Braunschweig
Eintracht-Stadion
Capacity: 25,000
Average: 13,281









*1. in the 3 Regionalliga-Divisions (4. Liga)*
1. FC Magdeburg
Stadion Magdeburg
Capacity: 27,250
Average: 9,464









*1. in the 9 Oberliga-Divisions and 3 Verbandsliga-Divisions (5. Liga)*
1. FC Saarbrücken
Ludwigsparkstadion
Capacity: 35,303
Average: 3,967


----------



## Outcaster

www.sercan.de said:


> So it would be better to call the thread "Average attendances".
> Otherwise the user will mix it with the Fan emotion thread?!


yes. i want have union of attendance & photos with on matches

German attendance is outstanding


----------



## Delmat

www.sercan.de said:


> So it would be better to call the thread "Average attendances".
> Otherwise the user will mix it with the Fan emotion thread?!


I agree
=======================================================

*Croatian league*

Club / total / average / home games








http://www.hnl-statistika.com/statistika0809.asp

*1.*
FC Hajduk Split
Poljud stadium
Capacity ~35,000
Average 9917

this season pictures


----------



## Sponsor

Patrick said:


>


:eek2: What's the cap. of those stands behind the goal? Looks like 15k !


----------



## npmrsi

Sponsor said:


> :eek2: What's the cap. of those stands behind the goal? Looks like 15k !


Yes, 14,751 (Westtribüne) and 14,959 (Osttribüne)


----------



## bigbossman

npmrsi said:


> Yes, 14,751 (Westtribüne) and 14,959 (Osttribüne)


how much is terracing??


----------



## npmrsi

bigbossman said:


> how much is terracing??


Total capacity is 48,500 and 16,363 of that is terracing


----------



## ØlandDK

Home and Away stats from the Danish SAS league (07/08)
_Average/Sum/Highest/Lowest_









Pics from the top 5:

FC Copenhagen









Brøndby IF









AGF









Odense Boldklub









FC Midtjylland


----------



## Outcaster

ok, something exotic :banana:

*Uzbekistan 2008
Average - 5,698*

1. Bunyodkor Toshkent (RIVALDO :nuts: )
Avg. - 6,902
Highest - 18,210
Stadium - MXSK Stadium
Capacity - 16,000
















2. Paxtakor Toshkent
Avg. - 4,442
Highest - 24,322
Stadium - Paxtakor Markaziy Stadium
Capacity - 35,000








3. Neftchi Farg'ona
Avg. - 12,025
Highest - 15,380
Stadium - Farg'ona
Capacity - 14,600








4. Mash'al Muborak
Avg. - 3,842
Highest - 8,165
Capacity - 10,000







:lol:
5. Andijon FK
Avg. - 8,034
Highest - 14,000
Capacity - 18,360








6. Samarkand Dinamo FK
Avg. - 7,695
Highest - 15,000
Capacity - 15,000

7. Metallurg Bekobod
Avg. - 4,311
Highest - 5,123
Capacity - 5,000

8. Lokomotiv Toshkent
Avg. - 2,776
Highest - 5,522
Capacity - 8,460








9. Nasaf Qarshi
Avg. - 5,648
Highest - 12,156
Stadium - 
Capacity - 20,000








10. OTMK Olmaliq
Avg. - 3,659
Highest - 5,328
Capacity - 6,000








11. So'g'diyona Jizzax
Avg. - 8,284
Highest - 12,453
Capacity - 10,000

12. Sho'rtan G'ozar
Avg. - 3,868
Highest - 5,253
Capacity - 8,000








13. Navbaxor Namangan
Avg. - 8,041
Highest - 25,000
Capacity - 33,000








14. Qizilqum Zarafshon
Avg. - 3,343
Highest - 4,835
Capacity - 5,000








15. Buxoro FK
Avg. - 4,480
Highest - 8,400
Capacity - 25,000








16. Uz-Dong-Ju Andijon
Avg. - 3,486
Highest - 13,000
Capacity - 18,360


----------



## ØlandDK

Uzbekistan is the definition of non-exotic to me ... :shifty:


----------



## JYDA

Delmat said:


> I agree
> =======================================================
> 
> *Croatian league*
> 
> Club / total / average / home games
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.hnl-statistika.com/statistika0809.asp


As much as people rave about the Bad Blue Boys, it appears as though they're the only people attending regular league games for Dinamo Zagreb


----------



## miguelon

im impressed with the Bundesliga,,,, maybe the most attended european league. am i right? Because a lot of English Premier League teams have small capacities ( in the 30 - 40 range)


----------



## polskadan

I read somewhere that the bundesliga is in fact the most attended league in the world


----------



## I_live_cement

Yes it is, with the Premier League just behind.

Some great stadiums in Germany, especially Westfalenstadion and Fritz Walter Stadion.


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis

dead link


----------



## Ganis

are we talking football (Football) or football (Soccer)?


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis

Ganis said:


> are we talking football (Football) or football (Soccer)?


 Football of course, not gridiron.


----------



## Nordmannen

ØlandDK said:


> Uzbekistan is the definition of non-exotic to me ... :shifty:


Was it important for you to tell that? I thought this thread was about attendance. Anyway, I am sure you find Denmark as a very exotic country with great attendance and a fantastic football.


----------



## Outcaster

help, have someone Yugoslavian attendance in 1980's-1990's years?


----------



## Patrick

This is the european top 10 (domestic leagues only), according to www.weltfussball.de:

1. 75292 Manchester United FC
2. 73131 BV Borussia Dortmund 09
3. 73033 Real Madrid CF
4. 69000 FC Bayern München
5. 68867 FC Barcelona
6. 61447 FC Schalke 04
7. 60027 Arsenal FC
8. 58185 AC Milan
9. 57388 Celtic FC
0. 54639 Hamburger SV

I am quite impressed by England's 2nd league (Championship), which averages at 17531 by having 24 teams in it. It is the highest value for a 2nd league in Europe. The 2. Bundesliga averages at 15099. Also the League One (3rd tier in England) must have the highest value in Europe by averaging at 7428, while Leeds Utd must have the highest avg 3rd league attendance at 22763, followed by Leicester City and 19480.


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis

Do you know which second division club (all Euro leagues) has highest attendance?


----------



## Patrick

I guess it's Kaiserslautern with 34,422 followed by Nürnberg and 30,781 because the top attendance in England's championship has Derby County with 28,850 followed by RC Lens (France) with 28,152. I didn't find current numbers for Serie B.


----------



## Ecological

Coca Cola Championship is indeed very well supported. 4th highest in Europe. 


Club
Average 06/07
Division
Average 07/08
Division

Manchester Utd.
75,826
Premier
75,690
Premier

Arsenal
60,045
Premier
60,070
Premier

Newcastle Utd.
50,686
Premier
51,324
Premier

Liverpool
43,561
Premier
43,534
Premier

Sunderland
31,887
Championship
43,343
Premier

Manchester City
39,997
Premier
42,126
Premier

Chelsea
41,542
Premier
41,397
Premier

Aston Villa
36,214
Premier
39,870
Premier

Everton
36,739
Premier
36,955
Premier

Tottenham Hotspur
35,739
Premier
35,966
Premier

West Ham Utd.
34,719
Premier
34,600
Premier

Derby County
25,945
Championship
30,870
Premier

Middlesbrough
27,730
Premier
26,711
Premier

Leeds United
21,613
Championship
26,545
League 1

Birmingham City
22,274
Championship
26,180
Premier

Sheffield United
30,512
Premier
25,630
Championship

Norwich City
24,557
Championship
24,527
Championship

Blackburn Rovers
21,275
Premier
23,943
Premier

Fulham
22,279
Premier
23,767
Premier

Reading
23,829
Premier
23,585
Premier

Leicester City
23,201
Championship
23,506
Championship

Wolverhampton Wanderers
20,968
Championship
23,498
Championship

Charlton Athletic
26,195
Premier
23,160
Championship

West Bromwich Albion
20,472
Championship
22,310
Championship

Ipswich Town
22,434
Championship
21,930
Championship

Sheffield Wednesday
23,638
Championship
21,420
Championship

Southampton
23,556
Championship
21,256
Championship

Bolton Wanderers
23,606
Premier
20,903
Premier

Nottingham Forest
20,615
League 1
19,955
League 1

Portsmouth
19,862
Premier
19,917
Premier


----------



## Patrick

Ecological said:


> Coca Cola Championship is indeed very well supported. 4th highest in Europe.


?

Bundesliga 41000
PremLeague 35000
PrimeraDiv 28000
Serie A 24000
Ligue Un 20000
Eredivisie 19000
Championship 17000

looks more like 7th highest which is still good.


----------



## www.sercan.de

Patrick said:


> I guess it's Kaiserslautern with 34,422 followed by Nürnberg and 30,781 because the top attendance in England's championship has Derby County with 28,850 followed by RC Lens (France) with 28,152. I didn't find current numbers for Serie B.


1860 hat +40k some years ago?!?1


----------



## Republica

The Championship is 4th by total attendance of any league in Europe, as more games are played, and 9th by total attendance for any league in any sport.


----------



## Patrick

www.sercan.de said:


> 1860 hat +40k some years ago?!?1


08/09 | 27,646 | 2. Bundesliga
07/08 | 34,781 | 2. Bundesliga
06/07 | 35,965 | 2. Bundesliga
05/06 | 41,932 | 2. Bundesliga
04/05 | 19,700 | 2. Bundesliga
03/04 | 28,659 | Bundesliga

I guess, in the 2005/06 season, it was the "Arena-Effect", because many people came when the Allianz Arena was brand new.



Republica said:


> The Championship is 4th by total attendance of any league in Europe, as more games are played, and 9th by total attendance for any league in any sport.


this thread is about averages


----------



## bigbossman

the championship wasn't higher than 2. bundesliga last season. 2. bundesliga lost gladbach and koln and gained badly supported teams. The champ lost and gained equally supported teams.

i hate the fact that they use mean as the average rather than median. There is a reason they don't use mean in determining average house prices, as one figure distorts the rest and inflates/deflates the final figure. the best and most accurate is the median.

The championship though had a higher median in both years, the 2. bundesliga has a lot of poorly supported teams in comparison, but also a lot of extremely well supported teams, where is the champ has a pack of teams all close together.



> Coca Cola Championship is indeed very well supported. 4th highest in Europe.


Average is all that counts, total supporters includes multi counting people, and as leagues play different schedules it distorts facts, so it is totally dumb to call it the fourth highest in europe as it is totally inaccurate.


----------



## Patrick

ok, the median (i hope i am right) for the championship is 17,218 (12th Coventry 17,622 and 13th Bristol 16,813). For the 2. Bundesliga it is 14,052 (9th Duisburg 14,203 and 10th Osnabrück 13,900).

Last season the 2. Bundesliga averaged at 18,142 due to the big teams as bigbossman already mentioned (1. FC Köln averaged at 43,763; median for the whole league: 15,580).


----------



## JimB

miguelon said:


> im impressed with the Bundesliga,,,, maybe the most attended european league. am i right? Because a lot of English Premier League teams have small capacities ( in the 30 - 40 range)


The Premiership used to have the highest attendances but it was overtaken by the Bundesliga four or five years ago. There are a few reasons for the Bundesliga's bigger attendances:

1. Since winning the right to host World Cup 2006, there has been a huge stadium building boom in Germany. The average Bundesliga capacity is far higher than the Premiership. This may change over the next ten years or so as the likes of Liverpool, Spurs and Everton, and maybe the likes of West Ham and Chelsea all move to new stadiums. If England wins the right to host World Cup 2018 or 2022, then expect further capacity increases at a number of other stadiums.

2. Ticket prices for Bundesliga games are far, far cheaper than ticket prices for Premiership games. That's one of the reasons why the Premiership is so much richer than the Bundesliga, despite the smaller attendances (and also why the atmosphere is generally worse at Premiership stadiums).

3. Germany's population is 60% bigger than England's and Germany's lower division clubs aren't nearly as well supported as English lower division clubs.


----------



## Ecological

bigbossman said:


> the championship wasn't higher than 2. bundesliga last season. 2. bundesliga lost gladbach and koln and gained badly supported teams. The champ lost and gained equally supported teams.
> 
> i hate the fact that they use mean as the average rather than median. There is a reason they don't use mean in determining average house prices, as one figure distorts the rest and inflates/deflates the final figure. the best and most accurate is the median.
> 
> The championship though had a higher median in both years, the 2. bundesliga has a lot of poorly supported teams in comparison, but also a lot of extremely well supported teams, where is the champ has a pack of teams all close together.
> 
> 
> 
> Average is all that counts, total supporters includes multi counting people, and as leagues play different schedules it distorts facts, so it is totally dumb to call it the fourth highest in europe as it is totally inaccurate.



Here you go again! 

Coca Cola Championship has the 4th highest amount of turnstyles being turned each season. Is that better for you. Yes they play more games but they still turn those turnstyles.


----------



## Stifler

Some attendances for Spanish 2nd Division:

Zaragoza - 25,500
Levante - 18,000
Real Sociedad - 17,114
Hercules - 15,000
.....................
Alicante - 3,500
Eibar - 1,600
Sevilla Atletico - 800

As you see some big clubs are playing there, but others are extremely small.

This year the attendance in La Liga will go down since teams like Numancia (6,500) entered it.


----------



## Ecological

Englands 2nd tier has only 4 teams out of 24 with capacitys smaller then 20,000. These are ....

Watford Vicarage Road 19,920 
Queens Park Rangers Loftus Road 18,200 
Doncaster Rovers Keepmoat Stadium 15,231 (Newly Promoted)
Blackpool Bloomfield Road 9,650 (16,000) (Newly Promoted)


--------------------

Home Club Stadium Name Capacity 
Sheffield Wednesday Hillsborough 39,814 
Derby County Pride Park Stadium 33,597 
Southampton St Mary's Stadium 32,689 
Sheffield United Bramall Lane 32,609 
Coventry City Ricoh Arena 32,000 
Nottingham Forest City Ground 30,602 
Ipswich Town Portman Road 30,311 
Birmingham City St. Andrew's 30,009 
Wolverhampton Wanderers Molineux 28,525 
Charlton Athletic The Valley 27,111 
Crystal Palace Selhurst Park 26,309 
Norwich City Carrow Road 26,034 
Reading Madejski Stadium 24,161 
Preston North End Deepdale 24,500 
Barnsley Oakwell 23,009 
Burnley Turf Moor 22,546 
Cardiff City Ninian Park* 22,008 
Bristol City Ashton Gate 21,497 
Plymouth Argyle Home Park 20,922 
Swansea City Liberty Stadium 20,532


----------



## El Mariachi

enough talk, bust out some more pictures of stadiums and attendances!


----------



## GNU

Outcaster said:


> 4. Mash'al Muborak
> Avg. - 3,842
> Highest - 8,165
> Capacity - 10,000


Havent seen Rivaldo in a while kay:

As for the Bundesliga: The goal should be to go up by 7-10k on average/game within the next decade. However this might proove difficult if teams like Bremen arent increasing their cap.


----------



## JimB

GNU said:


> Havent seen Rivaldo in a while kay:
> 
> As for the Bundesliga: *The goal should be to go up by 7-10k on average/game within the next decade*. However this might proove difficult if teams like Bremen arent increasing their cap.


I guess the Premiership will be looking for something similar - especially if England wins the right to host WC 2018 or 2020.

There'll be an increase of capacity at the following clubs - most of which will be able to fill the vast majority of their new capacity:

*Almost certain*

Liverpool - 44K to 72K.
Tottenham - 36K to 60K.
Everton - 40K to 55K.
Man City - 48K to 60K

*Probable*

West Ham - 35K to 50K+
Chelsea - 42K to 60K+
Portsmouth - 20K to 30K+
Man Utd - 76K to 85K+
Aston Villa - 42K to 50K

*Possible*

Arsenal - 60K to 70K
Newcastle - 52K to 60K
Sunderland - 48K to 60K

That's not to mention the likely improvements and capacity increases at various Championship and lower division stadiums.


----------



## GNU

Quite impressive.
Unfortunately theres not that much reason for optimism in the Bundesliga.
Leverkusen is currently going up to 30k whilst Bremen chose the worst moment for a stadium renovation and didnt expand to 50k due to high steel prices (which have now come down again).
There are a few smaller clubs who are building new stadiums, but most of the bigger clubs ended up with insufficient caps in their new grounds.


----------



## likasz

I will tell you a secret
Why Bundesliga has the biggest attendance in EUROPE?They have everywhere STANDING ROOMS.


----------



## Ecological

Wolves up to 48,000. Big one in the lower leagues that although probably be in the premiership next season.

St james Park, Newcastle.




























Molineux, Wolverhampton





















































Swansea City










Motherwell (Pre season0










Old Trafford champions league semi-final last year


----------



## JimB

GNU said:


> Quite impressive.
> Unfortunately theres not that much reason for optimism in the Bundesliga.
> Leverkusen is currently going up to 30k whilst Bremen chose the worst moment for a stadium renovation and didnt expand to 50k due to high steel prices (which have now come down again).
> There are a few smaller clubs who are building new stadiums, but most of the bigger clubs ended up with insufficient caps in their new grounds.


What would be the chances of increasing capacity further at any of the newer Bundesliga stadiums?

Arsenal are apparently already looking at ways to increase capacity at the Emirates from 60K to 70K. So it's possible that some Bundesliga clubs might do the same.


----------



## GNU

JimB said:


> What would be the chances of increasing capacity further at any of the newer Bundesliga stadiums?


Chances are very slim since there isnt enough money around.
Hertha is considering to build a new football stadium because the Olympiastadion isnt attracting enough fans with its Al-track.
There might be a slim chance that Cologne could expand in the future and, theoretically speaking, I could also imagine that Hamburg might want to do the same at some point. But that would be it I guess.


----------



## bigbossman

Patrick said:


> ok, the median (i hope i am right) for the championship is 17,218 (12th Coventry 17,622 and 13th Bristol 16,813). For the 2. Bundesliga it is 14,052 (9th Duisburg 14,203 and 10th Osnabrück 13,900).


Nice work sir!!



> Last season the 2. Bundesliga averaged at 18,142 due to the big teams as bigbossman already mentioned (1. FC Köln averaged at 43,763; median for the whole league: 15,580).


If Gladbach come back down it will go up again as kaiserslautern might not go up, 1860 and Nuremberg look stuck and Düsseldorf and Union Berlin look like they’re gonna come up from 3. liga. All clubs which should push it up.



JimB said:


> The Premiership used to have the highest attendances but it was overtaken by the Bundesliga four or five years ago. There are a few reasons for the Bundesliga's bigger attendances:


The premier league was only the highest for a 3 seasons 2000-01 to 2003-04. The Bundesliga has been higher for every other season the premier league has existed. And until 1998-99 Serie A was also higher than the premier league.

Obviously all these are taken on mean, so you'd have to read into them to find out if this figures hold true.



> 1. Since winning the right to host World Cup 2006, there has been a huge stadium building boom in Germany. The average Bundesliga capacity is far higher than the Premiership. This may change over the next ten years or so as the likes of Liverpool, Spurs and Everton, and maybe the likes of West Ham and Chelsea all move to new stadiums. If England wins the right to host World Cup 2018 or 2022, then expect further capacity increases at a number of other stadiums.


Great point, although we can still average higher than the bundesliga in theory, we have 9 stadiums with a capacity of over 40,000. And 6 clubs do anyway.

The bundesliga has 12 teams averaging over 40, but no team with a capacity of over 40 is averaging less than 40. There is the difference. The median of the Bundesliga is over 42,000.



> 2. Ticket prices for Bundesliga games are far, far cheaper than ticket prices for Premiership games. That's one of the reasons why the Premiership is so much richer than the Bundesliga, despite the smaller attendances (and also why the atmosphere is generally worse at Premiership stadiums).


Bundesliga makes greater profits though, no club makes a loss. 

I *agree* that if we had their ticket prices and everyone had the right sized stadium them prem could average 50,000+. I also feel if the Bundesliga clubs had the right sized stadiums too, so could their league. 

Schalke and Bayern are both wasting 15,000+ worth of extra fan support. Hamburg too are wasting a sizeable number. Not forgetting Karlsruhe who play in a joke of a stadium, and are still near enough filling it.

Hertha would probably fill a 60,000 stadium which apparently they are looking into, would be good for them they get fluctuating crowds they get at the Olympic as it is too big. There was mention on the boards of Koln expanding. So there is scope to push the averages of the Bundesliga higher.

I think it's relatively equal.



> 3. Germany's population is 60% bigger than England's


I don't think you can take population as a whole into account, that’s far too American. I think you have to take population of the metro areas teams play in. Because Population doesn’t correlate to fan support, clubs are inherently local and by that nature if a large population centre is out of the limelight the source isn’t going to be as tapped as it would be if they had teams in the limelight.

South West England and Eastern Germany are prime examples. These have big clubs who would fill pretty big grounds at the sniff of the top flight, or even just a new modern stadium. 

Theoritically most countries all other things being equal should be able to average the same. PSG are the real crux, they have no competition and play in a 9 million+ urban area, they should have no problem filling 100,000, in theory of course.



> and Germany's lower division clubs aren't nearly as well supported as English lower division clubs.


On the lower divisions that is a distorted point as well, you have taken stats on face value and not read into them.

The Bundesliga for some reason is amateur/semi pro below the 2nd tier and they have only just introduced a national third tier in which reserve teams of the big sides play and ruin averages. If you compare the mean and median averages of both third tiers not including reserve teams the Bundesliga’s averages increase as you don’t have the 709 average of Werder Bremen 2 to account for.

These are the median figures, 5,852 in league 1 and 6.378 in the 3. liga, not significant but the Bundesliga is higher none the less.

The mean average for the 3. liga is 6,383, compared to 7,572. But remember the mean is distorted by Leeds and Leicester. 

Also you can hardly make fair comparisons below that as Germany football is totally regionalised. And if you look below the third tier you see that some massive clubs are lurking Carl ziess Jena, FC madgdeburg and Locomotiv Leipzig who have appeared in European finals. Dynamo Berlin, former Bundesliga clubs like Fortuna koln and stuttgarter kickers. A lot “big” and potentially big clubs lurking low and playing in crumbling stadiums infront of semi pro football. Despite that some still get good crowds.



Ecological said:


> Here you go again!
> 
> Coca Cola Championship has the 4th highest amount of turnstyles being turned each season. Is that better for you. Yes they play more games but they still turn those turnstyles.


That is a better way of putting it. Yes they have more turnstile movements in a season. They may not take more because they probably charge lower. However still not a good way of comparing. That’s the whole point of averages to compare different sized samples effectively.



JimB said:


> I guess the Premiership will be looking for something similar - especially if England wins the right to host WC 2018 or 2020.
> 
> There'll be an increase of capacity at the following clubs - most of which will be able to fill the vast majority of their new capacity:
> 
> That's not to mention the likely improvements and capacity increases at various Championship and lower division stadiums.


What do you reckon can we fill them?? I’d say out of that list Villa surprisingly are the least likely, there crowds have gone down this season and they never struck me as that well supported for their size.

I would love to see it though. Do you think Arsenal would just increase to 70, I’ve heard much higher figures thrown about?? I think much nearer 80 to get positive results on NPV and ROCE and all that jazz



JimB said:


> What would be the chances of increasing capacity further at any of the newer Bundesliga stadiums?
> 
> Arsenal are apparently already looking at ways to increase capacity at the Emirates from 60K to 70K. So it's possible that some Bundesliga clubs might do the same.


I mentioned earlier about some clubs, but also I think the problem is getting to a level where you know that ground is gonna be 90% full every week, your Stuttgart’s and Frankfurt’s will fill 70,000 3-4 times a season but 55,000 is probably about right so that the 50,000 crowd doesn’t make the stadium look and feel empty and damage the atmosphere.

Another problem with the Bundesliga is many of the smaller clubs are richer Wolfsburg, Leverkusen and Hoffenheim so they are near their elastic limit in terms of fan support, if they fucked off and some of the bigger clubs lower down playing in crappy stadiums came up and built modern new ones, we might see some more big new grounds. I am thinking Brauschwieg, and some of those Eastern giants.


----------



## Ecological

Map of Englands 4th division and average attendences for last season.


----------



## JimB

bigbossman said:


> The premier league was only the highest for a 3 seasons 2000-01 to 2003-04. The Bundesliga has been higher for every other season the premier league has existed. And until 1998-99 Serie A was also higher than the premier league.


You have to remember that, in the early days, Premiership clubs generally had severely limited capacities as a result of the recent Taylor report - and as a result of consequent ongoing development (eg. in 1994-95, Spurs' capacity was reduced to 25,000 while the Park Lane was redeveloped; and in 1997-98, capacity was reduced to 28,000 while the Paxton was redeveloped).



> The bundesliga has 12 teams averaging over 40, but no team with a capacity of over 40 is averaging less than 40. There is the difference. The median of the Bundesliga is over 42,000.


Of the 12 Bundesliga teams averaging over 40K, almost all have capacities significantly over 40K. Of the 3 Premiership clubs that have a capacity of over 40K but who average under 40K, one (Everton) has a capacity of only a few hundred over 40K and another (Aston Villa) has a capacity of only 42K. Consequently, it is far more difficult for them to maintain an average of over 40K.



> Bundesliga makes greater profits though, no club makes a loss.


That's a different matter altogether. We're talking about the significantly greater cost of attending Premiership games as opposed to Bundesliga games. 



> Schalke and Bayern are both wasting 15,000+ worth of extra fan support. Hamburg too are wasting a sizeable number. Not forgetting Karlsruhe who play in a joke of a stadium, and are still near enough filling it.


Agreed. In the same way, Man Utd could probably average 15K higher if they had the capacity; Liverpool 25K; Chelsea 15K; Arsenal 20K; Spurs 20K; Newcastle 10K; West Ham 10K; Everton 10K; Portsmouth 10K; Hull 5K; Stoke 5K.



> I think it's relatively equal.


Agreed, though I'm not sure how well Bundesliga attendances would hold up if stadia were made all seater and ticket prices were doubled.



> I don't think you can take population as a whole into account, that’s far too American. I think you have to take population of the metro areas teams play in. Because Population doesn’t correlate to fan support, clubs are inherently local and by that nature if a large population centre is out of the limelight the source isn’t going to be as tapped as it would be if they had teams in the limelight.


You have a point to an extent but, given the big difference in population (Germany 82 million - England 51 million), it will inevitably have an effect. We are not such different cultures. Population density is not so very different. Both countries cover relatively modest areas of land and both have predominantly urban populations. So the comparison is valid.

And because the lower divisions in England are better supported than they are in Germany, the pool of people who are willing and able to pay to watch live football is more evenly stretched across the divisions in England.



> On the lower divisions that is a distorted point as well, you have taken stats on face value and not read into them.
> 
> The Bundesliga for some reason is amateur/semi pro below the 2nd tier and they have only just introduced a national third tier in which reserve teams of the big sides play and ruin averages. If you compare the mean and median averages of both third tiers not including reserve teams the Bundesliga’s averages increase as you don’t have the 709 average of Werder Bremen 2 to account for.
> 
> These are the median figures, 5,852 in the prem and 6.378 in the Bundesliga, not significant but the Bundesliga is higher none the less.


I'm not such a fan of median figures in this instance. As I said, we are talking about a finite pool of potential supporters. It's therefore equally important to consider the lowest and highest average attendances. All supporters who pay to watch live football must be included for the discussion to have any meaning.



> Also you can hardly make fair comparisons below that as Germany football is totally regionalised. And if you look below the third tier you see that some massive clubs are lurking Carl ziess Jena, FC madgdeburg who have won European trophies. Locomotiv Leipzig, Dynamo Berlin, former Bundesliga clubs like Fortuna koln and stuttgarter kickers. A lot “big” and potentially big clubs lurking low and playing in crumbling stadiums infront of semi pro football. Despite that some still get good crowds.


That's just the way that German football is organised. It doesn't alter the fact that more people, on average, attend English football matches at a lower level than they do in Germany. You may say that it's hardly a fair comparison but it is no more unfair than comparing a league which allows standing at football matches to one which insists upon all seater stadia. Nor is it any more unfair than comparing a league in which ticket prices are comparatively cheap to a league in which ticket prices are exorbitantly expensive.



> What do you reckon can we fill them?? I’d say out of that list Villa surprisingly are the least likely, there crowds have gone down this season and they never struck me as that well supported.


I don't suppose that Villa would sell out every game in a 50K stadium. But I think they would average anything up to 45K.



> Do you think Arsenal would just increase to 70, I’ve heard much higher figures thrown about?? I think much nearer 80 to get positive results on NPV and ROCE and all that jazz


I've no idea, to be honest. I just saw something on another thread a while back which mentioned the possibility of increasing capacity to 70K or so.


----------



## bigbossman

JimB said:


> You have to remember that, in the early days, Premiership clubs generally had severely limited capacities as a result of the recent Taylor report - and as a result of consequent ongoing development (eg. in 1994-95, Spurs' capacity was reduced to 25,000 while the Park Lane was redeveloped; and in 1997-98, capacity was reduced to 28,000 while the Paxton was redeveloped).


Yeah same with us, and the North bank bonds scandal

Although having said that until this decade, all but 3 of the regular bundesliga clubs played in old fashioned open bowl athletics stadiums with no cover and bad views, and old crumbling terraces. 



> Of the 12 Bundesliga teams averaging over 40K, almost all have capacities significantly over 40K. Of the 3 Premiership clubs that have a capacity of over 40K but who average under 40K, one (Everton) has a capacity of only a few hundred over 40K and another (Aston Villa) has a capacity of only 42K. Consequently, it is far more difficult for them to maintain an average of over 40K.


Villa did last season, and they went down for some strange reason. they have roughly the same capacity as Bremen who manage to...



> That's a different matter altogether. We're talking about the significantly greater cost of attending Premiership games as opposed to Bundesliga games.


Yeah lol, i just wanted to mention it




> Agreed. In the same way, Man Utd could probably average 15K higher if they had the capacity; Liverpool 25K; Chelsea 15K; Arsenal 20K; Spurs 20K; Newcastle 10K; West Ham 10K; Everton 10K; Portsmouth 10K; Hull 5K; Stoke 5K.


I think your selling a few clubs short, there it would on;y bump you guys up to 55,000 and porstmouth up to 30,000. I reckon both easily have another 10 in them. I also reckon fulham have at least 10 in them.

One thing i'd love to see is a minimum stadium capacity of 30,000 in the big four leagues. I think it's what makes certain clubs look smaller and less attractive when they come up. For instance, palace sell all their season tickets, but then don't fill their ground every week in the prem because when you have choice Bolton at home is not exciting so they don't turn up. If more season tickets were sold they'd average well above 30,000 imho. Croydon is a wash with palace fans they are everywhere.



> Agreed, though I'm not sure how well Bundesliga attendances would hold up if stadia were made all seater and ticket prices were doubled.


Probably would go down now, but if it had been the case since the 1990s like here probably would be similar.



> You have a point to an extent but, given the big difference in population (Germany 82 million - England 51 million), it will inevitably have an effect. We are not such different cultures. Population density is not so very different. Both countries cover relatively modest areas of land and both have predominantly urban populations. So the comparison is valid.


I think it really only effects the supra regional clubs like man united and bayern. 



> And because the lower divisions in England are better supported than they are in Germany, the pool of people who are willing and able to pay to watch live football is more evenly stretched across the divisions in England.


I dunno, if locomotive leipzig suddenly had some success you don't think 40,000 fans would suddenly appear at the stadium?? i can't see that with rochdale or even Bradford can you??

I think the difference is many of these huge clubs have been down there for so long its engrained, it's not like Leeds who've been there two seasons, or even Napoli and fiorentina a few years back in serie C2. If they had an extended spell in the lower tiers i can see leeds slumping to under 10,000, most clubs would.

So personally i wouldn't say they are, when you have some of your biggest clubs in the 5th and 6th tier and smaller ones in the higher tiers then it distorts everything.



> I'm not such a fan of median figures in this instance. As I said, we are talking about a finite pool of potential supporters. It's therefore equally important to consider the lowest and highest average attendances. All supporters who pay to watch live football must be included for the discussion to have any meaning.


I see what you are saying, but if a club averages vastly more or less than others, then surely they are not representative of the league. An average is but it's nature supposed to be what the average club gets, so in this instance for me the median is better. 

Take the example of a team playing in a 100,000 stadium averaging 25,000 every week, then one week averaging 75,000. there average would pe pushed higher, only marginally but they are not averaging more than 25,000 every week that's why the median for me is best in this case. i know it's extreme but it illustrates the point hopefully.

I suppose it represents the relative sizes of clubs, but then the only way we would truely know is every club was in the league there size deserved, but then you have to take differing reactions to relegation and promotion etc etc. Lots and lots of variables.



> That's just the way that German football is organised. It doesn't alter the fact that more people, on average, attend English football matches at a lower level than they do in Germany.


That is true, but how would it be if we had reserve teams in our 3rd division. And many of the clubs who are higher up now were forced down as a result?? The point is we can only really compare the top two divisions effectively as they are similar and professional, but even then as you said, german clubs have cheaper tickets, and bigger stadiums, so it's educated guess work at best.

I don't understand why germany has only a 18 team league though, and all these reserve/amateur teams it restricts a hell of a lot of clubs to the lower levels



> You may say that it's hardly a fair comparison but it is no more unfair than comparing a league which allows standing at football matches to one which insists upon all seater stadia. Nor is it any more unfair than comparing a league in which ticket prices are comparatively cheap to a league in which ticket prices are exorbitantly expensive.


as i said above lol



> I don't suppose that Villa would sell out every game in a 50K stadium. But I think they would average anything up to 45K.
> 
> 
> 
> If you increase your ground even by a little it will always increase your attendances. no doubt if Villa played in a 100,000 stadium they'd get 60-70,000 every week (based on mean).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've no idea, to be honest. I just saw something on another thread a while back which mentioned the possibility of increasing capacity to 70K or so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just want it done, I really think for what it is the emirates could've been better. Don't get me wrong it's a great stadium but it so represents what the Arsenal board want Arsenal to be and not what Arsenal as a whole are aka the gucci or prada of football stylish and expensive at every turn.
Click to expand...


----------



## ØlandDK

Nordmannen said:


> Was it important for you to tell that?


No, not really important.



Nordmannen said:


> I thought this thread was about attendance.


Guess you are right even though it was defined clearly from the beginning of this thread.



Nordmannen said:


> Anyway, I am sure you find Denmark as a very exotic country with great attendance and a fantastic football.


No, not really,

What it important for you to ask that?


----------



## isaidso

SpicyMcHaggis said:


> Football of course, not gridiron.


Well, there are many recognized football codes in the world besides association football, so his question wasn't outlandish. It's not obvious if you live in certain parts of the world. In Canada, football means Canadian football or American football, never association football. The only people that call it that are immigrants, or people who have little respect for the dominant culture here.



likasz said:


> I will tell you a secret
> Why Bundesliga has the biggest attendance in EUROPE?They have everywhere STANDING ROOMS.


German average attendance is very good. As this is your thread, I'll ask you for clarification. Are we free to post average attendance for all football codes or just association football? If you'd rather people didn't post other codes, I won't.


----------



## isaidso

Qaabus said:


> Don't *muck up* this thread with gridiron.


I asked the thread starter, not you, and is it really necessary to be condescending towards other football codes?


----------



## bigbossman

^^ it's not a code of football, it's some bastardised version of rugby which calls itself football.

I enjoy it though, but it really needs to change it's name


----------



## isaidso

bigbossman said:


> ^^ it's not a code of football, it's some bastardised version of rugby which calls itself football.
> 
> I enjoy it though, but it really needs to change it's name


It is a recognized code. If you checked the reference aisle at your local book store, Canadian football is listed as a football code, just like Australian Rules Football, Gaelic football, etc. Even wikipedia recognizes the different codes of football. 

Asking Canadian football to change their culturally entrenched name to suit the wishes of fans of another code is culturally insensitive and rather arrogant. Conversely, I wouldn't expect association football to change their name to soccer to suit my nation's conventions. 

Canadian football has been called football for over a century here. It may be confusing, but a name change is not a realistic expectation. It's like asking Americans to stop calling themselves Americans because America is a continent, not a country.

I have no objection to foreigners calling Canadian or American football, gridiron, but when in Canada, respect the dominant culture and call it football. Canadians have a right to call things what they want. I don't expect people in the UK to call it soccer. The same gesture should be made for us. 

:| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football


----------



## staff

Outcaster said:


> Sweden have lower then in Netherlands, Scotland, Turkey, Russia, Portugal, Norway, Belgium


I know, but it has the potential of having at least as high or higher than most of those. The main problem is the state of the stadiums in Sweden, but that's about to change.


----------



## Outcaster

www.sercan.de said:


> You should remove Turkey because we do not have off average attendances in Turkey.


in Turkey hasn't official attendance. But unnoficial is ~14k


----------



## Mr_Dru

Patrick said:


> ?
> Bundesliga 41000
> PremLeague 35000
> PrimeraDiv 28000
> Serie A 24000
> *Ligue Un 20000
> Eredivisie 19000*
> Championship 17000


Why does France (65 million inhabitans) have a low attendance in comparing with the Netherlands (16 million)? France is a strong footballnation and has big stadiums.


----------



## likasz

Because many teams in L1 has stadiums under 20k.If we will take percentage of attendance, L1 is higher than SerieA 

PS.In 5 years period Polish league will be on the 4th or 5th position


----------



## bigbossman

^^ isn't it because there are lots of teams from tiny places in L1?? 

Like there is 1 team in each of paris, Lyon and marseille, un thinkable eslewhere in the world, no real proper local derbies (outside lille-lens)


----------



## isaidso

Out of respect for the wishes of a number of people on a similar thread, I've decided to start a thread for average attendance figures for teams from all football codes. All football codes are welcome: Canadian football, American football, Australian Rules football, Association football, Gaelic football, rugby league, and rugby union. If I've missed any others, I apologize. Please feel free to add average attendance for them if that is the case.

*The intention isn't to gauge overall annual support of teams around the world, but only as an indicator of crowd size one can expect when one attends home games of teams around the world.*

I'm from Canada, so I'll start with ours. We call it simply by the name 'football', but to those further a field, it would go by the name 'Canadian football', or simply 'gridiron'. These are the average attendance figures for 2008 at the 8 teams in the Canadian Football League. I've added the metro population each team serves as an interesting point of interest as well as stadium capacity. Population figures are for 2006. 









*1. Edmonton Eskimos - 37,383*
Founded - 1895, officially Eskimos since 1949
Metro Edmonton - 1,034,945
Commonwealth Stadium - 60,081 








http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...mmonwealth_Stadium,_Edmonton,_August_2005.jpg

*2. BC Lions - 34,083*
Founded - 1954
Metro Vancouver - 2,116,581
BC Place - 59,478 








http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...-CFL_2006_West_Division_Final_at_BC_Place.jpg

*3. Calgary Stampeders - 32,528*
Founded - 1891, officially Stampeders since 1945
Metro Calgary - 1,079,310
McMahon Stadium - 35,650








http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3096/2820434846_e2eb6700e1.jpg?v=0

*4. Saskatchewan Roughriders - 29,996*
Founded - 1910 as the Regina Rugby Club, officially Roughriders since 1924
Metro Regina - 194,971
Mosaic Stadium - 28,800 (Expanded to 30,945 mid season)








http://farm1.static.flickr.com/21/31614084_84399c7d62.jpg?v=0

*5. Toronto Argonauts - 29,189*
Founded - 1873
Metro Toronto - 5,113,149
Skydome (Rogers Centre) - 52,595








http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1191/690567317_9063955e7e.jpg?v=0

*6. Winnipeg Blue Bombers - 27,191*
Founded - 1880 as Winnipeg Football Club, officially Blue Bombers since 1936
Metro Winnipeg - 694,668
Canad Inns Stadium - 29,533 (To be demolished in 2011)








http://www.astroturfusa.com/resources/images/HPFields/Winnepeg_Canada.jpg

*7. Hamilton Tiger Cats - 20,784*
Founded - 1869 as the Hamilton Tigers, officially Tiger Cats since 1950
Metro Hamilton - 692,911
Ivor Wynne Stadium - 28,830








http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2346/1765829561_7bef9ca1dc.jpg?v=0

*8. Montreal Alouettes - 20,202*
Founded - 1872, officially Alouettes in 1946, then again in 1995
Metro Montreal - 3,635,571
Molson Stadium - 20,202 (Being expanded by 5,000 seats for 2010 season)








http://farm1.static.flickr.com/120/266036812_607e19ffe7.jpg?v=0

Montreal has recorded 89 consecutive sellouts. Olympic Stadium has a far larger capacity, but fans prefer the intimacy of Molson Stadium. Molson Stadium is currently being expanded by 5,000 seats, but further expansion is difficult due to space limitations and opposition by some local residents.

Montreal holds the record for highest attendance at a regular season game. 69,093 took in a game against the Argonauts, September 6, 1977. This was achieved at Olympic Stadium. Here's what it looks like at about 66,000.









http://images.ctv.ca/gallery/photo/CGY_stamps_greycup_081125/image8.jpg


----------



## bigbossman

isaidso said:


> It is a recognized code.


It's a recognised code by who?? There isn't a "football" body that defines what is and what is not a code of the game. It's just convention based on the fact that they derived from the same source. The only reason you talk of codes is because they wrongly share the same name. 



> If you checked the reference aisle at your local book store, Canadian football is listed as a football code, just like Australian Rules Football, Gaelic football, etc.


It's funny because i have never ever in my life seen a section in a UK library or bookshop on canadian football and i've been to a fair few libraries and bookshops. I have seen small sections in some large bookshops on american football, but they are lumped with american sports not football.



> Even wikipedia recognizes the different codes of football.


Even wikipedia LOL, the last resort. 



> Asking Canadian football to change their culturally entrenched name to suit the wishes of fans of another code is culturally insensitive and rather arrogant. Conversely, I wouldn't expect association football to change their name to soccer to suit my nation's conventions.
> 
> Canadian football has been called football for over a century here. It may be confusing, but a name change is not a realistic expectation. It's like asking Americans to stop calling themselves Americans because America is a continent, not a country.


I never said it should change it's name. I said it isn't football. 

If my uncle John had a sex change, no matter what he is still won't be my aunty Joan, no matter if he called himself it.



> I have no objection to foreigners calling Canadian or American football, gridiron, but when in Canada, respect the dominant culture and call it football. Canadians have a right to call things what they want. I don't expect people in the UK to call it soccer. The same gesture should be made for us.
> 
> :| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football


Respect the dominant culture?? They didn't respect our games, they bastardised them and retained the name for their sports. 

At least with rounders they had the courtesy to call it baseball, but then tried to claim it as their own invention :lol:

It's not football so when in canada it should be called canadian football because that's what it is the canadian version of football. I don't know anyone who still calls rugby, football. And i've never heard an irish person (and i know a few) refer to it as anything other than Gaelic football.

Like i said i enjoy NFL (not the CFL lol), it's not football though, it's either gridiron or ameriball.


----------



## andysimo123

I'll just do my club. Manchester United for 2007-2008 season. I don't need to tell you what type of football it is or where its located(btw its not located in London.)









Average for league games 75,691
Average for league cup 75,461 
Average for FA Cup 75,419
Average for Champions League 74,806

Average Total is 75,428.


----------



## isaidso

Thanks! That looks great.


----------



## weava

2008 NFL Average
Washington 88,604 
NY Giants 79,069 
NY Jets 78,482 
Kansas City 74,077 
Carolina 73,210 
Cleveland 72,778 
Buffalo 71,405 
Baltimore71,269 
Green Bay 70,682 
Houston 70,420 
New Orleans 70,092 
Philadelphia 69,144 
Tennessee 69,143 
New England 68,756 
San Diego 68,138
Seattle 67,995 
Indianapolis 66,378 
Miami 65,489 
Jacksonville 65,167 
Cincinnati 64,582 
Tampa Bay 64,511 
Arizona 64,096 
Atlanta 64,065 
Dallas 63,368 
Minnesota 63,267
Pittsburgh 62,890
Chicago 62,034 
St. Louis 59,980
Oakland 57,850
Detroit 54,497 

NCAA D1 2007 top averages
1. Michigan 110,264
2. Penn St. 108,917
3. Ohio St. 105,110
4. Tennessee 103,918
5. Georgia 92,746
6. Louisiana St. 92,619
7. Alabama 92,138
8. Florida 90,388
9. Southern California 87,476
10. Texas 85,144


----------



## en1044

2007 Washington Redskins

Average attendance- 88,934 (NFL record)
Season Attendance- 1,264,890 (NFL record)










and a 360


----------



## isaidso

Did the Redskins add more seats? I thought capacity there was about 80,000. There's nothing like 70,000 people packed in a stadium to increase the adrenaline level. Those pics make me wish Canadian metros were bigger. Going from 30,000 to 70,000 makes quite a big difference in the atmosphere.

Will Dallas have the biggest stadium once their new facility is finished?


----------



## en1044

isaidso said:


> Did the Redskins add more seats? I thought capacity there was about 80,000. There's nothing like 70,000 people packed in a stadium to increase the adrenaline level. Those pics make me wish Canadian metros were bigger. Going from 30,000 to 70,000 makes quite a big difference in the atmosphere.
> 
> Will Dallas have the biggest stadium once their new facility is finished?


FedEx has been steadily adding seats since it opened, going from 78,000 to 91,000. The only thing is they did it without adding any tiers, so the new seats are really squeezed in...some of them suck.

As for atmosphere, it sucks. It could be loud, but the seats are too spread out.

The new Dallas stadium is going to seat 80k, but supposedly will be expandable to 100k for special events.


----------



## KingmanIII

isaidso said:


> Did the Redskins add more seats? I thought capacity there was about 80,000. There's nothing like 70,000 people packed in a stadium to increase the adrenaline level. Those pics make me wish Canadian metros were bigger. Going from 30,000 to 70,000 makes quite a big difference in the atmosphere.
> 
> Will Dallas have the biggest stadium once their new facility is finished?


The stadium opened with about 78,000 seats in 1997, and expansions (the last being in 2004) have increased capacity by around 13,000 seats.


----------



## en1044

bigbossman said:


> It's a recognised code by who?? There isn't a "football" body that defines what is and what is not a code of the game. It's just convention based on the fact that they derived from the same source. The only reason you talk of codes is because they wrongly share the same name.
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny because i have never ever in my life seen a section in a UK library or bookshop on canadian football and i've been to a fair few libraries and bookshops. I have seen small sections in some large bookshops on american football, but they are lumped with american sports not football.
> 
> 
> 
> Even wikipedia LOL, the last resort.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it should change it's name. I said it isn't football.
> 
> If my uncle John had a sex change, no matter what he is still won't be my aunty Joan, no matter if he called himself it.
> 
> 
> 
> Respect the dominant culture?? They didn't respect our games, they bastardised them and retained the name for their sports.
> 
> At least with rounders they had the courtesy to call it baseball, but then tried to claim it as their own invention :lol:
> 
> It's not football so when in canada it should be called canadian football because that's what it is the canadian version of football. I don't know anyone who still calls rugby, football. And i've never heard an irish person (and i know a few) refer to it as anything other than Gaelic football.
> 
> Like i said i enjoy NFL (not the CFL lol), it's not football though, it's either gridiron or ameriball.


I think we can call it what we want. We invented it, we have the right to name it. Cricket has nothing to do with bugs (yes i know where the name comes from), so what does it matter if we call it something that seems irrelevant?

Before you go and criticize the game, saying we "bastardized" it, maybe you should go and read up on the history of the game. As a matter of fact, everyone should. We didnt go "Presto Chango! It completely different now!" The game evolved so slowly that we didnt really realize the difference between the games. At the time there were tons of "football" organizations...you should know that. As a matter of fact, Rutgers University claims to be the home of the first college football game ever, but the game they played was basically a soccer game (yes, I called it soccer, you have your fellow countrymen to blame for that) Also, since our game was evolving at the same time as your football was, it was even harder to tell the differences between the two.

American football, football...does it really matter what we call it to you? Do you think we're going to say to our friend "Hey did you watch the American football game last night?" No, we arent going to say American, we're just going to say football. For something thats been around as long as it has, I think football is a perfectly acceptable name for the game. You expect us to just all of a sudden change the name of our national sport? Seriously? Its football, whether you like it or not.


----------



## isaidso

en1044 said:


> As for atmosphere, it sucks. It could be loud, but the seats are too spread out.


Spread out in what manner? Do you mean too far from the field because they didn't add a tier?


----------



## carlspannoosh

Arsenal - Emirates Stadium - Ashburton Grove - London
Capacity - 60,335
Average Attendance 2007/2008 - 60,070








http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris-beaumont/2601266703/sizes/o/


----------



## GunnerJacket

bigbossman said:


> ^^ That's not what i was implying, i was implying that you've got family everywhere. maybe some sort of smiley would've been a timely addition, but i didn't think you'd take it that way.


I'm glad to hear that's the case. No, not everywhere, but I have a sizable family in France (mostly northern), the British Isles, Denmark and Sweden. Though distant in terms, I've tracked down 32 cousins in northern Europe. Most importantly I chat with several of them often thanks to the internet, especially since we share a passion for footie. They balance my news from conventional channels. 

Anyway, glad there's no animosity intended. Cheers. :cheers:


----------



## JYDA

bigbossman said:


> For the upteenth time, *I NEVER SAID THAT YOU SHOULD CHANGE THE NAME OF THE GAME*


Actually you did



bigbossman said:


> I enjoy it though, but it really needs to change it's name


----------



## parcdesprinces

GunnerJacket said:


> You don't think Lyon would see a bump in season tickets if their club won the ECL and appeared poised to mimic ManU levels of success?


European cups won't change attendance in France, a lot of clubs will never play in Champions League or Europa League (UEFA cup) and have a great attendance/capacity (Nancy, St Etiennes, Grenoble...), about big teams, their stadiums are already almost sold-out every weeks (Marseille, Paris, Lyon, Lens) and about the other clubs, their stadium isn't enough attractive (Lille, Strasbourg, Nice, Valenciennes, le Mans...) or there isn't a big enough football culture (Monaco, Bordeaux, Toulouse a rugby city...).



> That's the word from my family in Metz and Nantes, *that the French powers aren't viewed with the same love/hate* as the likes of Milan, ManU, Bayern, etc. And that, in turn, limits the local enthusiasm that could otherwise be stirred when such French clubs (Lyon, PSG...) come to town. True there'll be some heightened attention but not always the guaranteed sell-out or overall vitriol. That's all I'm saying.


Of course they are !! Don't you know about PSG and Marseille, the two greatest French clubs ?
although the French aren't interested in football, they have an opinion about these two clubs, they choose a side !

This is a big fight between two different cities, two different ways of life, two different clubs...A long story of HATE :
Paris: financial & political capital and Marseille: the Mediterranean city, 2nd city of the country, both separated by a world and 850 km (3 hours by TGV). 
The game opposing Paris and Marseille is called Derby of France, nothing less, and there is a lot of troubles inside and outside the stadium every years. 
This is the biggest event of the season even if the clubs aren't in the top of the league!


----------



## bigbossman

^^ Preach parc de princes!



JYDA said:


> Actually you did


you not notice the wink??


----------



## bigbossman

GunnerJacket said:


> I'm glad to hear that's the case. No, not everywhere, but I have a sizable family in France (mostly northern), the British Isles, Denmark and Sweden. Though distant in terms, I've tracked down 32 cousins in northern Europe. Most importantly I chat with several of them often thanks to the internet, especially since we share a passion for footie. They balance my news from conventional channels.
> 
> Anyway, glad there's no animosity intended. Cheers. :cheers:


90% of my family live in London. And i am not even of European ethnicity. I feel ashamed


----------



## isaidso

HoldenV8 said:


> *Carlton Blues* - *Home* 48,589 *Away* 48,729
> Melbourne Cricket Ground - 100,000 / Telstra Dome - 56,347
> 
> *Collingwood Magpies* - *Home* 59,213 *Away* 54,186
> Melbourne Cricket Ground - 100,000 / Telstra Dome - 56,347
> 
> *Essendon Bombers* - *Home* 46,368 *Away* 48,552
> Melbourne Cricket Ground - 100,000 / Telstra Dome - 56,347


So, the top 3 in attendance are Carlton, Collingwood, and Essendon? It's very impressive how many teams Melbourne supports. Top 3 and is it 4 others from Melbourne? I often look to the AFL as a structure the CFL should try and emulate. Rather than one team per city, have a few teams in the bigger cities, and 1 in the rest. Perhaps, Montreal could develop into the CFL's Melbourne, if you know what I mean. Thanks for your contributions!


----------



## HoldenV8

isaidso said:


> Thanks for your contributions!


No probs mate


----------



## CharlieP

isaidso said:


> So, the top 3 in attendance are Carlton, Collingwood, and Essendon? It's very impressive how many teams Melbourne supports. Top 3 and is it 4 others from Melbourne? I often look to the AFL as a structure the CFL should try and emulate. Rather than one team per city, have a few teams in the bigger cities, and 1 in the rest. Perhaps, Montreal could develop into the CFL's Melbourne, if you know what I mean. Thanks for your contributions!


Yes, but what is now the AFL (Australian Football League) began as the VFL (Victorian Football League), i.e. a league for teams in Victoria. It remained that way until 1982, when South Melbourne moved to Sydney to become the Sydney Swans (meaning 11 of 12 teams were in Victoria), then in 1987 the Brisbane Bears and the West Coast Eagles (in Perth) joined (making it 11 of 14).

It was renamed the AFL in 1990, and subsequently Fitzroy was incorporated into the Brisbane team and three more non-Victorian teams joined, meaning 10 of 16 teams are in Victoria, and any future changes will surely see that proportion fall further. I think it would be very hard to go the other way as you're suggesting.


----------



## GunnerJacket

parcdesprinces said:


> European cups won't change attendance in France, a lot of clubs will never play in Champions League or Europa League (UEFA cup) and have a great attendance/capacity (Nancy, St Etiennes, Grenoble...)


I understand what you and bossman are saying, from my perspective it merely seems like a chicken-and-egg situation: If clubs win more games/compete for more trophies then fans grow more interested. But clubs on the fringe will often struggle to achieve that success without the additional boost that comes from money and increased support. Obviously my theory relies on clubs like Nantes, Auxerre and others not only qualifying for Europe but also really advancing, as well. And until that happens, it will remain but a theory. 


> about big teams, their stadiums are already almost sold-out every weeks (Marseille, Paris, Lyon, Lens) and about the other clubs, their stadium isn't enough attractive (Lille, Strasbourg, Nice, Valenciennes, le Mans...) or there isn't a big enough football culture (Monaco, Bordeaux, Toulouse a rugby city...).


I know Marseille draw very well and just updated my notes on Lyon. Where I previously thought they averaged about 37k in their 42k venue I see it's most recently hovered in the 38-39k range. Fair enough, they're doing well, as is PSG. For many of the others with 30-40k venues, however, they begin to trail off at 5k short of capacity or more: St. Etienne, Bordeaux, Nantes, Toulouse... Granted, a lot of this is the culture thing you and bossman have alluded to, and I get that. And I'll concede it would help if I could view more French games live. Either way, French clubs has made nice strides the past few years and if the proposed new venues are realized that should help things evolve tremendously. Count me among those who'd love to someday see French soccer be viewed as on par with, or better than, Serie A!


> Of course they are !! Don't you know about PSG and Marseille, the two greatest French clubs ?
> although the French aren't interested in football, they have an opinion about these two clubs, they choose a side !...


Agreed about this rivalry but what I'm speaking about is the nature of how it is when one of those clubs visit places like Toulouse, Auxerre, etc. Again, I'll preface this by saying it's what my cousins describe as the feeling in Nantes and Metz, where as you've inferred culturally there may not be the same general passion for the sport as elsewhere. As they put it there is not the elevation in atmosphere by the home fans when those clubs come to town. Not automatically, anyway. Conversely in many American sports and in many cases in England, Italy, Germany, etc, there is an enhanced electricity to the local fanbase when one of the more polarizing clubs comes to town. Please note, I'm not at all suggesting the fan response in France is bad, but am merely suggesting how I see that in other, more soccer-mad cultures, there are seemingly more opportunities to fill the stands and build the atmosphere. Heck, as it is I'm stuck here wishing US fans could match the support of our French counterparts! 

Bottom line, as I see it: French fan support is good and growing stronger, but falls short by comparison due largely to cultural perceptions. Is that fair to say?


bigbossman said:


> 90% of my family live in London. And i am not even of European ethnicity. I feel ashamed


Have you tried to explore your family roots? That's how we've discovered these connections and thankfully most of them have panned out very well. After my grandfathers passed away in '90 and '92 select relatives of mine became real interested in our genealogy. We knew of many relatives still in Europe but hadn't really talked or visited with them except on rare occasions. But persistent aunts + advancements in communications technology = expanded family circles. This also came about at a time when many of my generation were in/fresh out of college, so we were ripe for travel. Thus, Islington became base camp for those of us scouting Europe while Hartford CT served that role for visitors coming to the States. 

Given the forum I'll add the architectural twist. My great, great, great grandfather was an architect from Germany who plied his trade in New Jersey in his final years. Since then many of his descendants have been in architecture or related fields like civil engineering and city planning (that's me, after struggling in architecture). Anyway, only one church and one house of his design remain in NJ, thus part of my Aunt's investigations in Europe also had to deal with finding out if any of his works were still standing there. To date we've discovered one other church and one modest civic structure (now a house), but did get some great photos of former homes we strongly suspect were his handiwork. If nothing else this has been wonderful learning about our heritage and other cultures.

The Swedish connections are my wife's side, who we're planning to visit in 2011. Not quite the soccer powerhouse, but man can they bake! kay: 

If you do some digging and can't find more expansive family connections then perhaps you should start visiting friends or just travel. And if you're ever in the southeastern USA I'll at least buy you a drink and guide you to some novel sites! :cheers:


----------



## Republica

Whats this home and away thing in Australia all about? I dont understand.

Soap related attendance madness?


----------



## parcdesprinces

GunnerJacket said:


> And I'll concede it would help if I could view more French games live


Maybe not live but.....

*Lille Olympique SC-Olympique Lyonnais: Best moments* (Ligue 1, 03/07/2009)
*Stade de France
Attendance 78,056* (visitors 737, included)





*Paris Saint-Germain FC-Olympique de Marseille: Best moments from stands* (Ligue 1, 03/15/2009)
*Parc des Princes
Attendance 47,334* (myself & visitors 1,960, included)


----------



## Isaac Newell

I've seen Essendon play Collingwood in front of 87,000.

Nice pies too


----------



## CharlieP

*Super League (Rugby League)*

(2008 regular season only)

*1. Leeds Rhinos - 16,756*
Headingley Stadium

*2. Wigan Warriors - 13,955*
JJB Stadium

*3. Hull FC - 13,432*
Kingston Communications Stadium

*4. St. Helens - 10,740*
Knowsley Road

*5. Bradford Bulls - 10,287*
Odsal Stadium

*6. Warrington Wolves - 9,496*
Halliwell Jones Stadium

*7. Hull Kingston Rovers - 8,554*
Craven Park

*8. Catalans Dragons - 8,488*
Stade Gilbert Brutus

*9. Huddersfield Giants - 7,846*
Galpharm Stadium

*10. Castleford Tigers - 7,501*
The Jungle

*11. Wakefield Trinity Wildcats - 7,000*
Belle Vue

*12. Harlequins RL - 3,773*
Twickenham Stoop Stadium

*Overall average - 9,819*


----------



## isaidso

CharlieP said:


> Yes, but what is now the AFL (Australian Football League) began as the VFL (Victorian Football League), i.e. a league for teams in Victoria. It remained that way until 1982, when South Melbourne moved to Sydney to become the Sydney Swans (meaning 11 of 12 teams were in Victoria), then in 1987 the Brisbane Bears and the West Coast Eagles (in Perth) joined (making it 11 of 14).
> 
> It was renamed the AFL in 1990, and subsequently Fitzroy was incorporated into the Brisbane team and three more non-Victorian teams joined, meaning 10 of 16 teams are in Victoria, and any future changes will surely see that proportion fall further. I think it would be very hard to go the other way as you're suggesting.


I was aware of the AFL's roots in Victoria, but you're right that it may be hard for a league to expand in the opposite way than the experience in Australia. 

One of the issues facing the CFL is that there are only 8 teams resulting in the same teams playing each other over and over again. The league isn't that interested in setting up in cities with less than 500,000 population although exceptions may have to be made. Ottawa and Quebec City represent the only untapped markets larger than this. Ottawa has been awarded a franchise, while Quebec City is rumoured to be a likely addition in the not too distant future. That would only bump the CFL up to 10 teams.

How does the CFL move beyond 10 teams and have these new franchises draw the 25,000/game deemed necessary to be profitable and competitive? A situation exists where there is one team in cities as large as Montreal, Vancouver, and Toronto competing against cities with population bases far smaller. 

The CFL brand is far stronger in Montreal than in Toronto due to a football boom in Quebec. The Montreal Alouettes play in tiny Molson Stadium which is being expanded to 25,000 due to sell outs every game for many many years. The fans love Molson Stadium, but the stadium can't be expanded much further due to space limitations and opposition by some local residents. 

I've advocated that a second team be put in Montreal down the road. Ideally, that template could be used in Vancouver and Toronto as well, but the CFL would have to grow much stronger in both those markets first for that to be successful. In essence, a move away from the current structure towards one that more closely resembles the AFL would solve the CFL's current limitations while maintaining attendance levels.

The Saskatchewan Roughriders sell out their 30,945 stadium despite playing in a city of only 198,000. The hope is that passion for football like exists there can be duplicated in one of Canada's 3 big cities. If this can be realized, the CFL could grow and become a far stronger league than it is today.


----------



## CharlieP

I know hardly anything about the CFL and I'm not an expert on the demographics of Canada, but if I had to invent a league from scratch, it would probably have teams in:

Toronto x 2
Montreal x 2
Vancouver
Victoria
Calgary
Edmonton
Quebec
Saskatoon
Winnipeg
Hamilton
Windsor
London

What do you think?


----------



## HoldenV8

Republica said:


> Whats this home and away thing in Australia all about? I dont understand.


Fairly simple mate. The home and away season is what you guys call the premiership. Only the champion team isn't the one that finishes on top of the table, they are just called the minor premier. The top 8 then go through the finals and the champion team is whichever wins the grand final. Home and away just means the games played at home and played away during the season, but doesn't include finals.


----------



## isaidso

CharlieP said:


> I know hardly anything about the CFL and I'm not an expert on the demographics of Canada, but if I had to invent a league from scratch, it would probably have teams in:
> 
> Toronto x 2
> Montreal x 2
> Vancouver
> Victoria
> Calgary
> Edmonton
> Quebec
> Saskatoon
> Winnipeg
> Hamilton
> Windsor
> London
> 
> What do you think?


Besides the omission of Halifax and Ottawa, that's a very sensible list. Eventually an Okanagan Valley team in Kelowna and another team in the Lower Mainland in Vancouver or just outside in Abbotsford would be an ideal situation.

The Canadian Football League has always been an east vs. west showdown. 10 in the east and 6 in the west is a little lopsided, but 10 in the east and 8 in the west would be workable.


----------



## Wilko

Republica said:


> Whats this home and away thing in Australia all about? I dont understand.
> 
> Soap related attendance madness?


I'm an Essendon supporter so if I go to a match and it's Essendon vs West Coast, then it is Essendon's home match and vise versa.

If Essendon travel to Perth to play West Coast, then it is West Coast's home match as it would be West Coast vs Essendon.

The home team has full rights in terms of reserved seating for it's members and admission fees etc. Hope I explaied that ok lol


----------



## isaidso

So, 'away' attendance is a good way to gauge the interest of teams in other markets in the AFL? Is there any other significance to it? What if 2 Melbourne clubs meet, it's really a home game for both if they use the same stadium. I understand the statistic, but find it rather odd that they keep tabs on it.


----------



## aaronaugi1

isaidso said:


> So, 'away' attendance is a good way to gauge the interest of teams in other markets in the AFL? Is there any other significance to it? What if 2 Melbourne clubs meet, it's really a home game for both if they use the same stadium. I understand the statistic, but find it rather odd that they keep tabs on it.


Which is why teams like Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon etc draw the largest crowds; becuase when they play a "home" match, they're playing in a city where the "away" fans can still attend in large numbers. I guess the same thing would happen in London if the big Premier League team didn't sell out with just the "home fans".

As a note, I am Collingwood supporter


----------



## KingmanIII

CharlieP said:


> I know hardly anything about the CFL and I'm not an expert on the demographics of Canada, but if I had to invent a league from scratch, it would probably have teams in:
> 
> Toronto x 2
> Montreal x 2
> Vancouver
> Victoria
> Calgary
> Edmonton
> Quebec
> Saskatoon
> Winnipeg
> Hamilton
> Windsor
> London
> 
> What do you think?


I've been suggesting they put a team in Anchorage, Alaska for the longest.


----------



## CharlieP

HoldenV8 said:


> Fairly simple mate. The home and away season is what you guys call the premiership. Only the champion team isn't the one that finishes on top of the table, they are just called the minor premier. The top 8 then go through the finals and the champion team is whichever wins the grand final. Home and away just means the games played at home and played away during the season, but doesn't include finals.


Ah, so it's what most sports call the "regular season".


----------



## CharlieP

isaidso said:


> Besides the omission of Halifax and Ottawa, that's a very sensible list.


Damn it, I could have sworn I put Ottawa on the list. Certainly meant to before the likes of Windsor and London. With Halifax too that's a nice round 16 teams.


----------



## parcdesprinces

*France, Top 14 Orange (Rugby Union)*

*Average Attendance 2007/2008: 10,346 *(Stade Français-Paris played some games at the Stade de France)
*Average Attendance 2008/2009: 11,585 *(until 18th week, Stade Français-Paris played some games at the Stade de France)

*Average attendance 2007/2008 by Clubs:*

1) STADE FRANCAIS-PARIS, 20,324 (Stade Jean Bouin & Stade de France)
2) STADE TOULOUSAIN, 19,127 (Stade Ernest Wallon & Stadium Municipal de Toulouse home of the football team)
3) CLERMONT, 14,072
4) PERPIGNAN, 12,660
5) TOULON, 12,377
6) MONTPELLIER, 12,071
7) BAYONNE, 12,060
8) BIARRITZ, 9,459
9) BRIVE, 8,682
10) BOURGOIN, 7,977
11) CASTRES, 7,418
12) DAX, 7,291
13) MONT-DE-MARSAN, 6,772
14) MONTAUBAN, 6,638


----------



## BobDaBuilder

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Don't you mean rugby union or just 'rugby'.

'Rugby league' as opposed to 'rugby' is practical dead in France.


----------



## isaidso

aaronaugi1 said:


> As a note, I am Collingwood supporter


Living in Perth, do you not go to Freemantle or West Coast games?



CharlieP said:


> Damn it, I could have sworn I put Ottawa on the list. Certainly meant to before the likes of Windsor and London. With Halifax too that's a nice round 16 teams.


I assumed omitting Ottawa was just an over sight. What channel is the Grey Cup on in Australia? I heard it's broadcast on one of the pay television channels there.



KingmanIII said:


> I've been suggesting they put a team in Anchorage, Alaska for the longest.


I was trying to remember who I posted that idea. It's a brilliant proposal, especially due to the lack of large cities in the west. Anchorage is bigger than any of the western Canadian cities currently without a pro football team.


----------



## en1044

Not only would Anchorage be a good place for a canadian team, but it would also make for a good place for Seattle to play a couple of preseason games of the course of a few years, bringing in even more money.

Of course, theres no chance of the Seahawks ever moving to Alaska so it really wouldnt infringe on anything. Unlike the situation in Buffalo. Im sure that in Alaska, the more money the merrier.


----------



## CharlieP

isaidso said:


> I assumed omitting Ottawa was just an over sight. What channel is the Grey Cup on in Australia? I heard it's broadcast on one of the pay television channels there.


I have no idea - I haven't been to Australia in nearly ten years...


----------



## parcdesprinces

BobDaBuilder said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Don't you mean rugby union or just 'rugby'.
> 
> 'Rugby league' as opposed to 'rugby' is practical dead in France.


Sorry I meant "Rugby Union" I made a confusion with translation Because in France, professional championships of Rugby Union are parts of the "Ligue national de Rugby" (Rugby National league) we don't use the name "Rugby Union".
Indeed your "Rugby league" is called here "Fédération Française de Rugby à XIII".


----------



## Patrick

German Football League attendances:

Braunschweig Lions: 5,560
Kiel Baltic Hurricanes: 4,133
Hamburg Blue Devils: 2,514
Cologne Falcons: 1,843
Dresden Monarchs: 1,550
Berlin Adler: 1,219
Stuttgart Scorpions: 946
Munich Cowboys: 926
Schwäbisch Hall Unicorns: 800
Marburg Mercenaries: 767
Weinheim Longhorn: 609
Darmstadt Diamonds: 390


The german teams in the last season of the NFL Europe in 2007 had these attendances:

Frankfurt Galaxy: 33,043
Düsseldorf Rhein Fire: 24,473
Hamburg Sea Devils: 20,874
Berlin Thunder: 15,710
Cologne Centurions: 14,352


----------



## staff

^^
European teams are adopting those silly names like "Hurricanes" and "Thunder" now? hno:


----------



## tony8

What is the info of Liverpool FC's stadium, Anfield ? Please post them.


----------



## Republica

I'm still completely confused.

What is the away attendance figure? The average attendance at the away games in which that team plays? What is the point of that?

In england that figure would be almost identical for each team. if thats what it is.


----------



## CharlieP

I guess it shows how popular various teams are - for example in English soccer just about every club will have a sell-out crowd for the visit of, say, Manchester United, but empty seats for a team like Norwich...


----------



## isaidso

Patrick said:


> German Football League attendances:
> 
> Braunschweig Lions: 5,560
> Kiel Baltic Hurricanes: 4,133
> Hamburg Blue Devils: 2,514
> Cologne Falcons: 1,843
> Dresden Monarchs: 1,550
> Berlin Adler: 1,219
> Stuttgart Scorpions: 946
> Munich Cowboys: 926
> Schwäbisch Hall Unicorns: 800
> Marburg Mercenaries: 767
> Weinheim Longhorn: 609
> Darmstadt Diamonds: 390
> 
> 
> The german teams in the last season of the NFL Europe in 2007 had these attendances:
> 
> *Frankfurt Galaxy: 33,043*
> Düsseldorf Rhein Fire: 24,473
> Hamburg Sea Devils: 20,874
> Berlin Thunder: 15,710
> Cologne Centurions: 14,352


That's quite impressive. Frankfurt's attendance is better than that of Toronto's football team, the Argonauts. Ontario has an abysmal record when it comes to support for their pro football teams though. I also noticed that the 12 teams in the GFL beats the 8 in the CFL, but granted, average attendance in the CFL is around 29,000. Still, when you consider gridiron's roots are in central Canada, it's an eye opener to see a form of gridiron drawing better in Germany.


----------



## Isaac Newell

Republica said:


> I'm still completely confused.
> 
> What is the away attendance figure? The average attendance at the away games in which that team plays? What is the point of that?
> 
> In england that figure would be almost identical for each team. if thats what it is.


It's because more visiting supporters can get to see their team play away. Especially if the home team is using a huge stsdium that it would never fill on it's own.

When I saw Essendon v Collingwood it was an Essendon home game at the ground they shared with Collingwood, but the 87,000 crowd was roughly split 50/50

It also shows which teams are the biggest draw away from home.


----------



## Republica

Riiight. So this stat would be pretty much redundant in football in England seeing as no teams have that much spare capacity. And also there are almost no ground shares (are there any in the professional leagues now?).

Also are supporters not segregated?

Why isnt the stat just the average away attendance for that teams fans?

As for the Man utd example CharlieP, I get it, but i dont think it would have much of an effect. Most teams highest attendances will be in their own leagues against either their local rivals, or at the end of the season when big games are played, or if a promotion is done, such as dirt cheap tickets.


----------



## El Mariachi

Patrick said:


> The german teams in the last season of the NFL Europe in 2007 had these attendances:
> 
> Frankfurt Galaxy: 33,043
> Düsseldorf Rhein Fire: 24,473
> Hamburg Sea Devils: 20,874
> Berlin Thunder: 15,710
> Cologne Centurions: 14,352


those numbers were actually quite impressive, considering the general hatred towards American style football in Europe. Are these numbers inflated due to American servicemen going to games while stationed in Germany or was the league that popular with Germans?


----------



## El Mariachi

I am impressed with the Aussie Football league attendance figures.

And a bit suprised about the numbers for the rugby leagues in the U.K. Considering how popular seems to be there, those figures seem to be a bit lower then expected.


----------



## woozoo

How does Rugby League compare to Rugby Union in terms of popularity in England??

Are there regions of England which are predominantly Rugby union (even over football), as there are which are predominantly Rugby League?


----------



## isaidso

El Mariachi said:


> I am impressed with the Aussie Football league attendance figures.


It's even more impressive when you realized that it's largely on the backs of one city, Melbourne. Melbourne is smaller than Phoenix yet supports 7 football teams.



Republica said:


> Also are supporters not segregated?


I realize segregating fans is common in some parts of the world, but the practice is an eye opener to a Canadian. I remember during the FIFA U-20 World Cup that Canada hosted, some of the fans from other countries were surprised that all fans were mixed together. We have intense rivalries in Canada, but fans from opposing teams seem to get along fine with one another. You even find fans of different teams within the same family.


----------



## CharlieP

El Mariachi said:


> And a bit suprised about the numbers for the rugby leagues in the U.K. Considering how popular seems to be there, those figures seem to be a bit lower then expected.


The national sides have always been very well supported, especially in the Six Nations competition, but club attendances were historically very low in comparison, as the game used to be amateur. When the game turned professional there was a surge in popularity at the club level that the stadia couldn't handle - clubs with their own grounds can't expand them quickly enough to meet demand (Bath, Gloucester, Leicester and Northampton are sold out every week), and some of those that have moved to soccer stadia are still finding them too cramped (cf Sale and Wasps). Average attendances would be a lot higher if the grounds could hold more...



woozoo said:


> How does Rugby League compare to Rugby Union in terms of popularity in England??
> 
> Are there regions of England which are predominantly Rugby union (even over football), as there are which are predominantly Rugby League?


Rugby union is more popular when you take the country as a whole, but in the areas where rugby league is predominant (parts of West and East Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cumbria) it's a lot more popular compared to other sports. Rugby union is most popular in the West Country, but not massively more so than soccer.

Think of country music and alternative rock as analogies for rugby league and rugby union (bear with me here!) - you get regions of the US where country music is the biggest ticket in town, everybody's immersed in the culture and doesn't understand how the rest of the world can't see it's the best thing ever, and just about everywhere else alternative rock varies from mildly to very popular. Overall alternative rock is more popular, but doesn't have the "hotspots" that country music does.


----------



## ArchieTheGreat

CharlieP said:


> Rugby union is more popular when you take the country as a whole, but in the areas where rugby league is predominant (parts of West and East Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cumbria) it's a lot more popular compared to other sports. Rugby union is most popular in the West Country, but not massively more so than soccer.
> 
> Think of country music and alternative rock as analogies for rugby league and rugby union (bear with me here!) - you get regions of the US where country music is the biggest ticket in town, everybody's immersed in the culture and doesn't understand how the rest of the world can't see it's the best thing ever, and just about everywhere else alternative rock varies from mildly to very popular. Overall alternative rock is more popular, but doesn't have the "hotspots" that country music does.


So that's Wakefield, St Helens and possibly Hull. Everywhere else the football clubs are a hell of a lot bigger than the RL teams, even Bradford! Before you ask I'm from Huddersfield, you couldn't pay me to watch the Giants and most people feel the same way.


----------



## deranged

isaidso said:


> Melbourne is smaller than Phoenix yet supports 7 football teams.


It is actually 9 in the Melbourne metropolitan area (Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Hawthorn, Melbourne, North Melbourne, Richmond, St Kilda, Western Bulldogs).


----------



## El Mariachi

isaidso said:


> It's even more impressive when you realized that it's largely on the backs of one city, Melbourne. Melbourne is smaller than Phoenix yet supports 7 football teams.


wow, that is pretty impressive that so many teams could get that much support in a city that size.


----------



## El Mariachi

CharlieP said:


> The national sides have always been very well supported, especially in the Six Nations competition, but club attendances were historically very low in comparison, as the game used to be amateur. When the game turned professional there was a surge in popularity at the club level that the stadia couldn't handle - clubs with their own grounds can't expand them quickly enough to meet demand (Bath, Gloucester, Leicester and Northampton are sold out every week), and some of those that have moved to soccer stadia are still finding them too cramped (cf Sale and Wasps). Average attendances would be a lot higher if the grounds could hold more...


ah, I see. I figured they played in larger stadiums, similar to size as those in the Premier League.


----------



## woozoo

CharlieP said:


> Think of country music and alternative rock as analogies for rugby league and rugby union (bear with me here!) - you get regions of the US where country music is the biggest ticket in town, everybody's immersed in the culture and doesn't understand how the rest of the world can't see it's the best thing ever, and just about everywhere else alternative rock varies from mildly to very popular. Overall alternative rock is more popular, but doesn't have the "hotspots" that country music does.


Thats a great analogy! thanks


----------



## CharlieP

ArchieTheGreat said:


> So that's Wakefield, St Helens and possibly Hull.


There are probably a lot more Leeds United fans than Wildcats fans in Wakey! :lol: I was thinking more along the lines of Castleford, Featherstone, Workington, Whitehaven etc. Possibly Wigan in the 1980s too.


----------



## CharlieP

El Mariachi said:


> ah, I see. I figured they played in larger stadiums, similar to size as those in the Premier League.


Of the 12 Guinness Premiership teams, eight have stayed in their old grounds (Bath, Gloucester, Harlequins, Leicester, Northampton and Worcester fill theirs all the time though Bristol and Newcastle don't get as good crowds), and the other four have gone to share with soccer teams - London Irish and Saracens have available capacities over 20,000 that is more than enough, although they pull in a bumper crowd now and again (Irish have a big "party" for the game closest to St. Patrick's Day and get 21,000+), and Sale and Wasps constantly fill the 10,000-seater grounds they're using.

Apparently there will soon be a minimum capacity of 15,000 for Guinness Premiership clubs, which is going to cause a problem for a few of them...


----------



## isaidso

deranged said:


> It is actually 9 in the Melbourne metropolitan area (Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Hawthorn, Melbourne, North Melbourne, Richmond, St Kilda, Western Bulldogs).


Thanks for the correction. I've done a little bit of researching around the world, and no city seems to come close to Melbourne in this regard. It would be like Toronto supporting 14 football teams, each with average attendance of about 30,000 or better. Toronto barely manages to support one.

Even in football mad Ohio, could you imagine 4 teams in Cleveland drawing 60,000 each? That's what it would take to match Melbourne. See below:

Adding up the average attendance at the 9 Melbourne football teams gives you 363,447 people; that's in a city of 3.8 million. Cleveland is about two-thirds the size of Melbourne, so that would translate into about 240,000 people attending football games in Cleveland, or 4 NFL teams drawing 60,000 each!

Doing a similar calculation for Toronto would mean that about 550,000 Torontonians would need to attend their own football teams, or put another way, 9 CFL teams drawing over 61,000 each on average!


----------



## Axelferis

Duck Manson said:


> To increase demand and ticket prices. If a 60k stadium was built that would likely not be possible. Just like if Man United had a 80k stadium 30 years ago they wouldn't have the match day revenue they have today. They expanded it little by little to keep demand at a peak.


Rubbish!!!! Manchester U could EASILY fill in a 80k stadium!!!

It's the most INAPROPRIATE answer i've heard :lol:

It's not because you can't that everybody can't!! :cheers:


----------



## bigbossman

^^ i don't think you understand, what they are saying is if you build a stadium with a capacity under the peak of demand it can create more demand, so all future expansions wouldn't take the stadium to the demand limit. 

Juventus may have the demand for 50,000 but building 40,000 is safe as they know they can fill it, if the demand goes to something like 60,000, they can increase again to maybe 50,000 as they have that buffer. 

The difference with manchester united was the demand was probably 80,000 when they increased to 55,000. The difference being that manchester united increased incrementally when the money came available.

Yaha?

In theory you should always build a stadium slightly too small for yourself so you can guarantee it is always full. That's why i am worried about valencia surely 75,000 is right at their limit. (irrelevant in this thread i know)


----------



## www.sercan.de

But 30 years ago?


----------



## bigbossman

yeah that was probably a slip up there, it's irrelavant as it was a different era without luxury seating, large scale season ticket sale etc. You have to comapre from when English stadiums compulsarily became all seater


----------



## Duck Manson

Axelferis said:


> Rubbish!!!! Manchester U could EASILY fill in a 80k stadium!!!


Not 30 years ago.


----------



## parcdesprinces

Duck Manson said:


> Not 30 years ago.


You're wrong ! 
Especially, 30 years ago, stadiums in Europe were bigger than today, but nowadays, I agree it's better to rebuild smaller, for being sure to fill it, and then extend, for follow the demand (not precede it). 
And, you already know, in Italy, where stadiums are too big and, like ours in France, very dilapidated, it is better to have new ones smaller but more suitable.


----------



## (fabrizio)

Kampflamm said:


> Why would they want to expand it to 70k when they hardly ever need more than 40k seats?


yes, you made my point. 



Axelferis said:


> i still ask then: Why they don't build right now a 50k or 60k stadium?? :lol:
> 
> Too big ? :lol:


yes! they must have been doing some research while drawing their business plan, found out how many will go seeing matches at a given price level, and found out how big the stadium will be. 
prices, i'm afraid, won't be lower than today, maybe they'll even rise up, since the stadium will be filled with things "normal" stadiums, here, can't even dream of. 
so, higher prices will mean less people willing to go there. those who use to go to matches are, here and everywhere else I think,are mostly working class males. the strong industrial crisis which hit Torino from the late '80s also affected stadium's attendance: less cash in, less people in town, lower attendance. So I'm thinking Juventus is planning to have a stadium for middle class and for families, which is not a bad idea. don't call me classist, but i wouldn't take my loved ones to a stand packed by a weed smoking, brainless crowd. 
been there a couple of times, there was a nice smell I have to say, but people was quite intimidating. 

anyway, can you please stop being so snobbish 'bout this stadium? it's clear you don't like juventus and the serie A as a whole.


----------



## BobDaBuilder

Actually on Manchester United, I can recall in the mid 1980s that they would get less than 50,000 and there were noticable gaps in the terraces. It was the days when there were still troubles and hooligans. I am sure there was occasions in the old First Division that only 30,000 were turning up. Actually, if you think about it there is a lot of parallels with the current situation in Italy and how it was in England up to the late 1980s around the time of the Hillsborough incident when authorities said enough was enough. You cannot do that in Italy because the place is so chaotic it is hard to enforce the law.

That era pre dated pay television mega tv contacts and there was even a season around the time Ferguson took over the reigns that there was a good chance Man U were going to be relegated.


----------



## Duck Manson

parcdesprinces said:


> You're wrong !


I'm not wrong. It's only the last 20 years that Man United have had a need for a major expansion.


----------



## GNU

bigbossman said:


> ^^ i don't think you understand, what they are saying is if you build a stadium with a capacity under the peak of demand it can create more demand, so all future expansions wouldn't take the stadium to the demand limit.


But a new stadium only increases demand by itself in the beginning after it has opened (usually quite heavily so). Afterwards its down to the performance of the club and the league.



> Juventus may have the demand for 50,000 but building 40,000 is safe as they know they can fill it, if the demand goes to something like 60,000, they can increase again to maybe 50,000 as they have that buffer.


Well it can be quite a waste of money to have a number of extensions instead of going bigger right away.


----------



## bigbossman

BobDaBuilder said:


> Actually on Manchester United, I can recall in the mid 1980s that they would get less than 50,000 and there were noticable gaps in the terraces. It was the days when there were still troubles and hooligans. I am sure there was occasions in the old First Division that only 30,000 were turning up.


Hooliganism was largely outside the grounds by the mid 1980s. The stadium only held around 55,000 in the 1980s, and as season ticket sales were a lot less attendances duly went up and down based on who you were playing. When Arsenal won the league in 1989 we our crowds ranged from 29,000 to 45,000 because of this. 



> Actually, if you think about it there is a lot of parallels with the current situation in Italy and how it was in England up to the late 1980s around the time of the Hillsborough incident when authorities said enough was enough.


Hillsborough was nothing to do with hooliganism!!!!!

Italian averages haven't gone down to the levels they scraped in England and Germany in the mid 1980s, and are now back on the rise. The italian attendances problem is partly down to television which takes fans away from live games. 



> You cannot do that in Italy because the place is so chaotic it is hard to enforce the law.


do what?? reform stadium quality principles. I think you can if UEFA steppped in and made it compulsory if competing in european competition.



> That era pre dated pay television mega tv contacts and there was even a season around the time Ferguson took over the reigns that there was a good chance Man U were going to be relegated.


since when has 1986 been 30 years ago. And since when has having a bad start and finishing 11th with your new manager a good chance of being relegated.

If you are trying to suggest relegation would effect their crowds then you are mistaken, they averaged the hihest in 1974/75 when they were in the second division.


----------



## bigbossman

parcdesprinces said:


> You're wrong !
> Especially, 30 years ago, stadiums in Europe were bigger than today,


30 years ago was 1979. Englands grounds weren't that much bigger than they are now for most clubs.




> but nowadays, I agree it's better to rebuild smaller, for being sure to fill it, and then extend, for follow the demand (not precede it).
> And, you already know, in Italy, where stadiums are too big and, like ours in France, very dilapidated, it is better to have new ones smaller but more suitable.


those same stadiums in Italy weren't to big 20 years ago. it's television i tell ya!


----------



## parcdesprinces

Duck Manson said:


> I'm not wrong. It's only the last 20 years that Man United have had a need for a major expansion.


About Man Utd they already had attendance of 75k in the 30's.

Anyway, I meant all stadiums in Europe were bigger in the past, than today, and attendances bigger especially due to terraces:



parcdesprinces said:


> *Old Stamford Bridge:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------
> 
> *Old Hampden Park:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------
> 
> *Old Ibrox Park:*


----------



## bigbossman

GNU said:


> But a new stadium only increases demand by itself in the beginning after it has opened (usually quite heavily so). Afterwards its down to the performance of the club and the league.


Yeah but the length of "hangover" varies from club-to-club. Also not all clubs need a well performing team to maintain good attendance.

I'd hope the new juve stadium is so amazing that it creates unprecendented demand and they have to increase and other clubs begin to see the value of modern club owned football only stadiums and it sparks the revival of Italian football. 



> Well it can be quite a waste of money to have a number of extensions instead of going bigger right away.


That was a crude example. 

Man united have increased old trafford 5 times in the last 17 years. And i think that model has worked best for them

roughly
30,000 > 44,000 > 55,000 > 63,000 > 68,000 > 76,000


----------



## bigbossman

parcdesprinces said:


> About Man Utd they already had attendance of 75k in the 30's.


no they didn't man united's record crowd at old trafford was only 70,000. The record attendance at old trafford was for a cup semi final and was 77,000.

Also those pictures are a small selection and the massive crowds were pre 60/70s.


----------



## parcdesprinces

bigbossman said:


> no they didn't man united's record crowd at old trafford was only 70,000. The record attendance at old trafford was for a cup semi final and was 77,000.


Ok, I thought it was for Man Utd games but other clubs had really impressive attendances even in the 70's/80's like Benfica, Real Madrid or Schalke !


----------



## parcdesprinces

OK, but take a look at the average attendances of serie A for 2008/2009 :

Average attendance by Percentage of Capacity:











Average attendance by club:












Anyway it's not only due to live games on TV (I saw audiences and they aren't so big). The main reasons, IMO, are the very dilapidated state of stadiums and security troubles, that's why people (especially families) stay at home.


----------



## parcdesprinces

*Italian League: Lega Calcio, Serie A TIM :*

*Average attendance by club 2008/2009 :*










*Average attendance by Percentage of Capacity 2008/2009 :*


----------



## bigbossman

parcdesprinces said:


> OK, but take a look at the average attendances of serie A for 2008/2009 :
> 
> Average attendance by Percentage of Capacity:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Average attendance by club:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway it's not only due to live games on TV (I saw audiences and they aren't so big). The main reasons, IMO, are the very dilapidated state of stadiums and security troubles, that's why people (especially families) stay at home.


1. An audience of 10,000 stops 10,000 people going to the game. 
2. Those same stadiums used to be full
3. The stadiums are the right size for the clubs in the right circumstances, the same thing happened in England and GErmany in the 80s, half empty dilapidated stadiums and a fear of violence, all it took was modern stadiums to bring most fans back. Same can be said of Italy.
4. Showing current stats doesn't prove anything, all it shows is right now people aren't attending and that's it, it doesn't prove that people will never attend, especially as history tells us they will.
5. If you are arguing that it's the stadiums then all you need is to give teams modern safe stadiums with the same capacity and they'll fill them. It's a no brainer really.


----------



## parcdesprinces

Yes ! But the topic here is about Juventus and NO, as I already told, they don't need a 70k stadium, for the moment, like the old one (even if I miss it)...

I also told , in France, Germany, Spain and even in UK, the stadiums were bigger in the past, than today !


----------



## Ecological

Wolves are taking thier 5th, 5,000 + away support this season for the trip to Oakwell, Barnsley. 

All 5,790 away tickets were sold before general sale and 12 days before the match.


----------



## PedroRibeiro

Here are portuguese average attendances, on our "Liga Sagres" (our top-flight division):










Unfortunately, the numbers are not good at all. My club (Vitória de Guimarães) is an honorable exception besides the "big" three, but the vast majority of clubs have very low attendances.

You can see the current official data here: http://www.lpfp.pt/futebol/pages/espectadores.aspx?epoca=20082009&info=Clube&competicao=Liga_sagres


----------



## bigbossman

Duck Manson said:


> It was pretty much the same stadia 15 years ago. A little wear and tear isn't gonna stop someone from going to the game. But when you have a stressless, 50 inch tv and cold beer two feet from you it's not easy to get sold on going to games any more.


exactly for once i agree with the duck.

they need the same mentality on football on telly as we over here. We still manage bumper TV contracts without every game being broadcast live!


----------



## bigbossman

parcdesprinces said:


> I'm not so sure !
> 
> For many stadiums in Italy it's more than "a little wear and tear", this is the same problem with the Stade Vélodrome in Marseille (rebuilt in 1998) and most of stadiums in Italy have useless athletics tracks.
> 
> hno:


Stadiums generally don't stop you going to a stadium, especially if you have a good team or are playing a good team.

As mentioned many times the reasons why attendance is down is a combination of the Safety (threat of violence), comfort, television and cost. The former two can be remedied with new high quality, well maintained stadiums, the latter two are cultural and would need a major overhaul to change. 

And tbf the averages aren't that bad in these bad stadiums. Which points to the fact that if teams had good stadiums, averages would be comparable with at least the premier league!


----------



## ØlandDK

^^
Damen, there's a huge difference in the average attendance in the portugese league.


----------



## Duck Manson

parcdesprinces said:


> I'm not so sure !
> 
> For many stadiums in Italy it's more than "a little wear and tear", this is the same problem with the Stade Vélodrome in Marseille (rebuilt in 1998) and most of stadiums in Italy have useless athletics tracks.


The tracks were there before as well. That's no excuse for the drop in attendance. What really has changed since the mid 80s? TV. That's it. The stadia sucked back then too. People didn't care back then. Today it's more difficult to sell the experience because of TV.


----------



## KingmanIII

ØlandDK said:


> ^^
> Damen, there's a huge difference in the average attendance in the portugese league.


I wonder if people talk about Benfica and Porto joining La Liga the same way they talk about the Old Firm joining the EPL...


----------



## JYDA

KingmanIII said:


> I wonder if people talk about Benfica and Porto joining La Liga the same way they talk about the Old Firm joining the EPL...


I know there's been talk of the Portuguese big 3 joining the superclubs of Scotland, Belgium, Netherlands and Scandinavia to form an "Atlantic League". UEFA doesn't want it since it will devalue European competitions.


----------



## Ecological

PedroRibeiro said:


> Here are portuguese average attendances, on our "Liga Sagres" (our top-flight division):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the numbers are not good at all. My club (Vitória de Guimarães) is an honorable exception besides the "big" three, but the vast majority of clubs have very low attendances.
> 
> You can see the current official data here: http://www.lpfp.pt/futebol/pages/espectadores.aspx?epoca=20082009&info=Clube&competicao=Liga_sagres


Thats amazing. I know Portugal is only a small country but the fact probably about 20 clubs in England have a higher average away attendence then all but 6/7 off Portugals biggest clubs home and away support is amazing. 

The occupation off those stadiums must not be very nice for the players to play in. 

All but 91 our of Englands 92 league clubs would make it into that graph. Bradford in Englands 4th division manage on average 12,659 this season and thats down 7.6% this season.


----------



## parcdesprinces

^^ Ok but how do you explain the attendances are growing up in France since the refurbishment of stadiums ????

Grenoble is a great example, before the new stadium, their average attendance was 9,000/match and with the new Stade des Aples (another one with Delle Alpi ) their attendance is more than 18,000/match (even in Ligue 2) ????

Same in others cities in France....

I think, in the past, people didn't care about Athletics tracks, for example, but today they care, and want confortable stadiums, people and times change !


----------



## JimB

bigbossman said:


> ^^what??
> 
> 1. Italian stats only go back as far as 1962-63, when there is evidence of massive crowds way before that, but nothing concrete so how can you compare and therefore how can you make that statement...?
> 
> 2. You said
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have evidence to back that up, and what evidence there is refutes the statement.
> 
> 3. Where do you get spain from, germany from, and brazil from... Germany didn't even have professional football or a national league until 1963.
> 
> 4. Sheffield FC, "the f*ck?" why are you moving the goalposts, and what does the 19th century and amatuer football have to do with the 20th century and professional football
> 
> 5. I re iterate, you have no evidence to back up your statement.


Regardless of average attendances in the top divisions, I think you'll find that, thoughout the divisions, more people have, on average, followed English football than Italian football - this despite England having a population of getting on for 10 million less than Italy.


----------



## bigbossman

Ah jimB it's been a while... i don't understand why you are quoting a post and arguing something different...



JimB said:


> Regardless of average attendances in the top divisions, I think you'll find that, thoughout the divisions, more people have, on average, followed English football than Italian football -


1. can you actually prove it?? if so what does that prove?? where do you draw the line?? have you got stats from every italian division going back?? 

2. More people may watch now that we have statistics for a lot of the divisions in each country, but you can't make wide sweeping statements like that without proof...

3. If you argue that league A has a better supported top division than league B, but league B has better supported lower divisions, then all that proves is that the peak of League A is higher than the peak of league B and the depths of League A are lower. In italy top division football is near enough the be all and end all, in England top division football is massive but for many clubs it doesn't change much. So it doesn't really prove anything.

4. Hence why you get such a massive drop off between serie a and serie b, Two different cultures that you can only really compare at top flight level if anywhere. And at top flight level serie a invariable comes out on top. 



> this despite England having a population of getting on for 10 million less than Italy.


That doesn't mean much, as we have debated before having a larger population doesn't mean you should get larger crowds as it depends on where teams are located, how many are located in large population centres etc etc

And JimB this isn't an England vs Italy argument, he brought in Spain, Germany and Brazil with no basis. I don't disagree lower league football in England is more popular, but i don't believe it proves anything, I just don't believe that he can make wide sweeping statements with no evidence.


----------



## JimB

bigbossman said:


> 1. can you actually prove it?? if so what does that prove?? where do you draw the line?? have you got stats from every italian division going back??
> 
> 2. More people may watch now that we have statistics for a lot of the divisions in each country, but you can't make wide sweeping statements like that without proof...


I didn't make any wide, sweeping statements. I wrote: "I think you'll find that.....". In other words, if you were to do the research (and I know that you love that sort of thing and have a seemingly unlimited amount of time to do it  ), I think you'll find that, overall, more people have, on average, watched football in England than they have in Italy.



> 3. If you argue that league A has a better supported top division than league B, but league B has better supported lower divisions, then all that proves is that the peak of League A is higher than the peak of league B and the depths of League A are lower. In italy top division football is near enough the be all and end all, in England top division football is massive but for many clubs it doesn't change much. So it doesn't really prove anything.
> 
> 4. Hence why you get such a massive drop off between serie a and serie b, Two different cultures that you can only really compare at top flight level if anywhere. And at top flight level serie a invariable comes out on top.


Indeed. Two different cultures. One which demonstrably has a love of football at every level and another which, as you say, is only really interested in watching football at the highest level. However, given the finite pool of potential attendees at football matches in either country, it wouldn't be representative to judge attendances purely on top flight figures - reason being that the relatively high attendances and unswerving passion for the lower divisions in England has inevitably had a negative impact on historical attendances for English football's top flight - a phenomenon not experienced to any great degree by the top flight in Italian football.

Merely to cite, in isolation, the historically bigger attendances in serie A tells only half the story and is therefore worthless in a discussion such as this. You either have to look at the whole picture or none at all.


----------



## plasticterminator

Someone on here is very upset, when the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown in to the sea.:lol:
If I had an argument with a player we would sit down for twenty minutes, talk about it and then decide I was right!

More sweeping statements for your pleasure-

England-worlds oldest football team, Sheffield fc, worlds oldest football ground, Hallam, currently worlds most popular league, credited with inventing game.
Brazil- worlds most succesful national football team, arguably worlds best player, pele, arguably have produced majority of worlds most gifted players.
Germany-worlds most consistent team and majority of fifa organisation has been german nationals for past 25 years (yes i know hq is in switzerland) thus fifas influence on world game has been predominantly german.


----------



## bigbossman

JimB said:


> I didn't make any wide, sweeping statements. I wrote: "I think you'll find that.....". In other words, if you were to do the research (and I know that you love that sort of thing and have a seemingly unlimited amount of time to do it  ), I think you'll find that, overall, more people have, on average, watched football in England than they have in Italy.


1. You assume I research most of this…

2. Are you insinuating (I sound like lampard d'oh) that I have unlimited free time? If so I’d implore you to look at my post times of late (except today of course) and understand I am deeply intelligent and type like at the speed of secretary... (the last two points may be subjective and untrue)

3. I still think that is a wide sweeping statement as the evidence isn't there. There are only Serie A and Serie B figures down to 1962. And lower than that is only from this decade, where I will concede. 



> Indeed. Two different cultures.


And thus two different ways of viewing football 

I am under no illusion that loyalty is much higher in England, but you must see that loyalty is sometimes irrational. I'd recommend _the Italian job_ by Gabriele Marcotti and Gianluca vialli, it real gets under the skin of the difference between our football cultures. And it really hits home that in England we are motivated by effort, so we'll keep turning up to see clod hoppers trying hard, and in Italy it's by the result, and obviously the higher the level the better, hence why unsuccessful teams get a drop off, as why would you want to associate yourself with inferiority.



> One which demonstrably has a love of football at every level and another which, as you say, is only really interested in watching football at the highest level.


I didn't really say that. I said that the power of Serie A is greater than that of the premier league (within each country) and you can argue that that is to the detriment of the lower leagues. There are still very well supported lower league clubs and there always will be, but those very well supported lower league clubs are extremely well supported within Serie A that was the point aka The drop off. In England man united will (as proven) get the same crowds in the top two divisions, whereas in Italy Man united may lose half their fan base, until the promotion party of course. 



> However, given the finite pool of potential attendees at football matches in either country, it wouldn't be representative to judge attendances purely on top flight figures -


For me in a way I agree, but I’d disagree on how to analyse. The way to do it is maybe to look at every clubs peak average since 1963, and lowest average. Then you can see who is better supported at their peak and at their lowest ebb. The point being that at your peak that is likely you tapping into the fullness of your potential and for me it seems potential in Italy for many clubs is greater, and at your lowest ebb that are you scrapping the barrell.

I do think we have the same north/south schism in football. Smaller northern clubs are smaller than smaller southern clubs but smaller northern clubs seem to do better, hence why when smaller southern clubs are in Serie A and The Prem their average crowds tend to be far bigger than smaller northern... bit of a digression



> reason being that the relatively high attendances and unswerving passion for the lower divisions in England has inevitably had a negative impact on historical attendances for English football's top flight - a phenomenon not experienced to any great degree by the top flight in Italian football.


Can I first clarify that this hasn't always been the case, in the 80s Serie A had better lower division support than most of our top flight it's all swings and roundabouts.

You are assuming that by Serie A having higher attendance figures it is leaching potential fans from lower league football and that in England it is the other way. I disagree with that, I would argue that the difference is that fans stick around for lower league football in England and not Italy. Look at Palermo, Napoli (for the most part) etc, when not in Serie A their crowds disappear, but when in Serie a they generally reappear. 

The point being that we have the same supporter base, but in Italy this generally only manifests in the upper reaches of Serie B and Serie A in Italy before tailing off sharply, and tailing of much more slowly in England. 

Like I said previously I think it all stems from Italy’s league having capitalist leanings earlier than ours. From the onset it was a win Serie A league at whatever costs in England it was play hard and if you win and the end then great, some would argue it wasn't till the 1960s that we truly got a cutting edge and started to demand winning football and that was when the crowds generally went down. The point being that in England we go to watch our team try and win and in italy they go to watch their team win and who they are playing has a bearing on the satisfaction of the win hence why a team who gets poor crowds all season will see legions appear for the big derby or against the big clubs. This is because the result in beating them matters. This is the "casual" fan, of which there seem to be more in Italy than in England.

I think a point needs to be raised about population to team ratio the point being that If you have more population than capacity possible then of course you will lose attendance value, i.e. if your country has 2 million, 1 million people in 1 city and the rest scattered around 7 cities. Each city has 1 team, and each has the support of 50% of their city. The team from the 1 m city has 500,000 fans but realistically can't play in a stadium more than say 100,000 meaning that attendance value is lost and it looks like the league is worse supported. Relating that back Naples has realistically one team for nearly 1 million people. You could argue that they should sell out every week and until the mid 90s they did more or less. If Naples has 2-3 teams then maybe the attendances would be more spread out and the averages would be larger but they don't. Leeds is in a similar situation but football isn't for my money as big in leeds as really most of England. Therefore I would disagree with any assertion that if you have more fans spread over more clubs it affects the growth potential of clubs’ when having fans centred on less clubs does also in a different way. However I would argue that in italy they have similar sized clubs to us.



> Merely to cite, in isolation, the historically bigger attendances in serie A tells only half the story and is therefore worthless in a discussion such as this. You either have to look at the whole picture or none at all.


But what is the discussion?? 

You seem to be trying to assert that football is more popular in England because lower league football has bigger attendances?? I would assert that football is *EQUALLY* popular in both nations but the way the popularity manifests is different. In Italy it is the result and attendances are linked to that, in England it is the performance and trying hard. This is seems to be why lower league football seems to be more popular.


----------



## bigbossman

plasticterminator said:


> Someone on here is very upset, when the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown in to the sea.:lol:


If you're assuming i am upset, then i can assume your aim was to upset somebody, which is very adult of you.

anyway I am preturbed by the ignorance and arrogance of a lot of English football fans.



> If I had an argument with a player we would sit down for twenty minutes, talk about it and then decide I was right!


Brian Clough quoted myself on that one. 



> More sweeping statements for your pleasure-
> 
> England-worlds oldest football team, Sheffield fc, worlds oldest football ground, Hallam,


do you expect to find disagreement??



> currently worlds most popular league,


define popularity, i'd say the bundesliga is more popular in real fan numbers, i don't count Barry in Bangkok as a real fan.



> credited with inventing game.


codifiying



> Brazil- worlds most succesful national football team, arguably worlds best player, pele, arguably have produced majority of worlds most gifted players.


1. In world cup terms, but i don't think we can ever truely identify which national team is the best at any given period because of the transcient nature of the teams and the unpredicatable knock out nature of the tournaments.

2. how does producing the worlds best player make you the best?? 

3. argentina for me produces more great footballers per head than brazil, it has less than 4 times the population after all. Give England, Italy, spain etc 150 million and you wouldn't expect to see their players everywhere...




> Germany-worlds most consistent team and majority of fifa organisation has been german nationals for past 25 years (yes i know hq is in switzerland) thus fifas influence on world game has been predominantly german.


1. what has consistency got to do with anything?? and surely Brazil is as consistent if not more. 

2. majority of the FIFA organisation what?? that is the most bull crap statement i have ever read and shows what scraping the barrel is.

Your german arguments are laughable bruv!!


----------



## bigbossman

Look Europe and south american have equal love for the game, no country loves the game more than another, it is just manifested in different ways. What in England we might consider an indicator of love for the game, in another country they might not consider it that way.

most countries have contributed a lot to the culture and game play since the war, and for me out of the major nations England has probably contributed least, afterall it has taken the foreign invasion for our league to gain top spot.


----------



## KiwiBrit

bigbossman said:


> most countries have contributed a lot to the culture and game play since the war, and for me out of the major nations England has probably contributed least,


Who do you qualify as 'the major nations'?



> afterall it has taken the foreign invasion for our league to gain top spot.


What and it didn't take foreign players to make Spanish and Italian leagues gain top spot in the last 20 years? Remember when English teams (Liverpool, Forest and Villa) dominated from the mid 70's until the Heysal tragedy, they were probably 95% British players if not higher. So what's your point with the above statement?


----------



## JimB

KiwiBrit said:


> Who do you qualify as 'the major nations'?
> 
> 
> 
> What and it didn't take foreign players to make Spanish and Italian leagues gain top spot in the last 20 years? Remember when English teams (Liverpool, Forest and Villa) dominated from the mid 70's until the Heysal tragedy, they were probably 95% British players if not higher. So what's your point with the above statement?


Quite right.

English clubs also had a very good record in the UEFA Cup and Cup Winners Cup prior to Heysel. In fact, prior to Heysel and prior to the big influx of foreign talent, English clubs were significantly ahead of any other nation's clubs in terms of European trophies won:

Total European Cup trophies, by nation, up to and including 1985 (year of Heysel and England's ban from European club competitions):

England - 8
Spain - 6
Italy - 5
Germany - 4

Total UEFA Cup / Fairs Cup trophies, by nation, up to and including 1985:

England - 9
Spain - 7
Germany - 3
Italy - 2

Total European Cup Winners Cup trophies, by nation, up to and including 1985:

England - 5
Spain - 4
Italy - 4
Germany - 4

Total European trophies, by nation, up to and including 1985:

England - 22
Spain - 17
Italy - 11
Germany - 11

As to culture and game play, I suspect that European teams learnt an awful lot from English clubs' dominance in the 70's and early 80's. Most notably, they learnt the importance of pressing opponents.

Back in the 70's and 80's, continental European teams were accustomed to having plenty of time on the ball. They therefore found the intensity and athleticism of English teams a rude shock. They couldn't cope with the speed that they had to release the ball and how quickly space was closed down.

However, during English clubs' enforced five year absence, continental teams learnt the art of pressing. And now you see clubs all over Europe closing down space. Ironically, you notice it especially when they play against English clubs or the England national team. That's because continental clubs (usually correctly) reckon that English teams aren't especially technically accomplished or comfortable on the ball and will therefore easily concede possession if put under pressure.


----------



## bigbossman

^^ i wil reply to you Jimb and you kiwibrit a bit later on... Let me just clarify i think you are both wrong but i will explain later... and i love how you left my last post alone jim!!


----------



## JimB

bigbossman said:


> ^^ i wil reply to you Jimb and you kiwibrit a bit later on... Let me just clarify i think you are both wrong but i will explain later... and i love how you left my last post alone jim!!


I left your last post alone because it was so long winded that I fell asleep while reading it! If you could attempt to write more concisely, I'd happily respond.


----------



## bigbossman

^^ that's what they all say it's barely 1000 words, I put it to you that it just disproved what you were saying... Especially given your last post which has changed the gist onto your agenda once again...


----------



## JimB

bigbossman said:


> ^^ that's what they all say it's barely 1000 words, I put it to you that it just disproved what you were saying... Especially given your last post which has changed the gist onto your agenda once again...


Nope....your post genuinely was boring! Sorry....I can't put it any more gently than that!

Besides, there's not a great deal that we disagree about on the matter of Italy / England levels of support. It's just that we approach the matter from a different perspective. I offered my perspective, not so much to disprove what you were saying, but merely to emphasise that your theory was only half the story.

As to my last post, it related directly to KiwiBrit's post. No agenda.


----------



## bigbossman

KiwiBrit said:


> Who do you qualify as 'the major nations'?


Well it's subjective but I’d say those who've played in a world cup final post 1966 and spain. Maybe a couple of others but they are the major ones!



> What and it didn't take foreign players to make Spanish and Italian leagues gain top spot in the last 20 years?


It didn't actually it's an amazing myth perpetuated by the English media, to make us feel better that our league isn't actually English.

Serie A was the top league according to UEFA from 1991 to 2000. IF you analyse European finals in that period, this what we see

An Italian team made the final of the European cup every year from 1992-98, how many foreigners on the sides?? 

1992- sampdoria- 2 non Italians
1993- Milan- 2 non Italians
1994- Milan- 3 non Italians
1995- Milan- 2 non Italians
1996- Juventus- 2 non Italians
1997- Juventus- 5 non Italians
1998- Juventus- 4 non Italians

UEFA cup finals in the 1990s

1991- inter vs Roma- 6 non Italians (3 per side)
1992- torino- 3 non Italians
1993- Juventus- 3 non Italians
1994- Inter- 3 non Italians
1995- Parma vs Juventus- 5/6 non Italians 
1997- Inter- 4 non Italians
1998- Lazio- 2 non Italians, Inter had only 3 italians a one season transformation
1999- Parma- 5 non Italians

Cup winners cup finals in the 1990s

1993- Parma- 2 non Italians
1994- Parma- 3 non italians
1999- Lazio- 5 non Italians

So you can see when Italian football DOMINATED European football 18 of 27 finals between 1990/91 and 1998-99 featured an Italian team. They did so with Italian dominated sides and squads, so STOP MAKING SHIT UP

Spain was similar in It’s dominant period, the Spanish UEFA cup and Champions league finals feature 13 and 14 Spaniards starting respectively. That’s well over half!!

So as you can see these leagues did it with majority Italian and Spanish talent. As recently as 2007 Milan won the champions league with 7 Italian starters (9 finishing) Liverpool started with a paltry 3 (crouch came on later).

Last year there were 9 Englishmen (Hargreaves is Canadian) on the field in the all English final, this year if it’s Chelsea vs. Arsenal it will be even less



> Remember when English teams (Liverpool, Forest and Villa) dominated from the mid 70's until the Heysal tragedy,


When you say dominated you mean the European cup right, because English teams didn’t dominate European football in that period. The teams barely registered in competitions outside of the European cup, hence why we only got to number 1 in 1985. 

Between 75/76 and 84/85 our teams reached 6 (non EC) euro finals (Liverpool, west ham 76, Arsenal 80, Ipswich 81, Tottenham 84, Everton 85) outside of the European cup and that’s in 20 possible, and reaching finals doesn’t even paint the whole picture. For example in 1979-80 Germany had 5 Quarter finalists in the UEFA cup and all four semi finalists, the losing finalist in the European cup etc, and that’s why during the period UEFA classed it as the number 1 league. 



> they were probably 95% British players if not higher. So what's your point with the above statement?


95% British players, but it’s an English league so non Englishmen are foreigners regardles. 

Oh and Forest won with 5 non Englishmen in 1980, and Liverpool won with 7 non Englishmen in 1984. They were both playing against domestic dominated Hamburg and Roma each with two foreigners.

Get your facts right!!


----------



## bigbossman

JimB said:


> Nope....your post genuinely was boring! Sorry....I can't put it any more gently than that!


each to his own... not constructive though is it really...

although something is usually only boring when you don't (or don't want to) understand it... 



> Besides, there's not a great deal that we disagree about on the matter of Italy / England levels of support. It's just that we approach the matter from a different perspective. I offered my perspective, not so much to disprove what you were saying, but merely to emphasise that your theory was only half the story.


To me it seemed/seems that you are trying to big up England way too much, if not England then Tottenham, that's all.



> As to my last post, it related directly to KiwiBrit's post. No agenda.


But what you posted isn't wanted kiwibrit said.


----------



## bigbossman

JimB said:


> Quite right.
> 
> English clubs also had a very good record in the UEFA Cup and Cup Winners Cup prior to Heysel. In fact, prior to Heysel and prior to the big influx of foreign talent, English clubs were significantly ahead of any other nation's clubs in terms of European trophies won:


Irrelevant as he only mentioned from the mid 1970s



> Total European Cup trophies, by nation, up to and including 1985 (year of Heysel and England's ban from European club competitions):
> 
> England - 8
> Spain - 6
> Italy - 5
> Germany – 4
> 
> Total UEFA Cup / Fairs Cup trophies, by nation, up to and including 1985:
> 
> England - 9
> Spain - 7
> Germany - 3
> Italy - 2
> 
> Total European Cup Winners Cup trophies, by nation, up to and including 1985:
> 
> England - 5
> Spain - 4
> Italy - 4
> Germany - 4
> 
> Total European trophies, by nation, up to and including 1985:
> 
> England - 22
> Spain - 17
> Italy - 11
> Germany – 11


Listing all of this doesn’t paint the picture, for example almost all our UEFA/Fairs cup wins happened in a row in the late 1960s/ early 1970s other than that we hardly registered in the competition, the same to a lesser extent in the European Cup. Domination should be based on incremental periods not on the whole shebang 



> As to culture and game play, I suspect that European teams learnt an awful lot from English clubs' dominance in the 70's and early 80's. Most notably, they learnt the importance of pressing opponents.


I’d disagree seen as it was only in the European cup there was any form of domination and a lot of games were won with away goals or by the odd goal hardly maulings. It’s a myth that we dominated Europe!



> Back in the 70's and 80's, continental European teams were accustomed to having plenty of time on the ball. They therefore found the intensity and athleticism of English teams a rude shock. They couldn't cope with the speed that they had to release the ball and how quickly space was closed down.


Yes only when playing good English teams though.



> However, during English clubs' enforced five year absence, continental teams learnt the art of pressing. And now you see clubs all over Europe closing down space. Ironically, you notice it especially when they play against English clubs or the England national team.


once again you make it look like we are the ones that created this shift, when it was just the natural evolution of the game.



> That's because continental clubs (usually correctly) reckon that English teams aren't especially technically accomplished or comfortable on the ball and will therefore easily concede possession if put under pressure.


Yeah that would be the case if English teams contained English players but they don’t, hence why our teams do well, continental technique with English intensity. 

The format of European football suits the way we play, knockout football requires a higher intensity and when we have a team better than or (nearly) as good as the chances are we’ll go through. This is why in my opinion Liverpool overwhelmed Real Madrid who had a slightly better side but English tactics put paid to that! This is also why when our teams used to come up against superior opposition they’d lose and hence now why when they do they park the bus, a la Chelsea last night!


----------



## JimB

bigbossman said:


> each to his own... not constructive though is it really...
> 
> although something is usually only boring when you don't (or don't want to) understand it...
> 
> 
> 
> To me it seemed/seems that you are trying to big up England way too much, if not England then Tottenham, that's all.
> 
> 
> 
> But what you posted isn't wanted kiwibrit said.


1. There's nothing hard to understand about what you wrote. It's just that what you wrote was three or four times longer than it needed to be. Seriously, mate, I hope that I never have the misfortune to attend a wedding at which you are one of the speakers! You need to learn the value of brevity.

2. Tottenham?.....have I mentioned Tottenham?

3. So I have to limit what I write precisely to the parameters that a previous poster has chosen for himself? Really? Good conversation and debate depend upon free association and expanding upon a theme. In improvisation parlance: "yes, and....".


----------



## bigbossman

JimB said:


> 1. There's nothing hard to understand about what you wrote. It's just that what you wrote was three or four times longer than it needed to be.


I wanted to make sure you understood where I was coming from unequivocally, because on forums it seems that unless you explain everything to people comprehensively you leave youself open...



> Seriously, mate, I hope that I never have the misfortune to attend a wedding at which you are one of the speakers! You need to learn the value of brevity.


making assumptions about my character based on what I write about football on a forum... The internet, bloody hell.



> 2. Tottenham?.....have I mentioned Tottenham?


not here but a lot of your posts on this forum seem to be about bigging up tottenham, which there is nothing wrong with but you seem to be like SSCs official tottenham cheerleader! 



> 3. So I have to limit what I write precisely to the parameters that a previous poster has chosen for himself? Really? Good conversation and debate depend upon free association and expanding upon a theme. In improvisation parlance: "yes, and....".


You're twisting it again, what I am saying is that he made a wide sweeping statement and your post was agreeing with him, but the facts that you added were on something different so it looked like you were trying to hold those points up as part of Kiwibrits argument when they weren't.

I take it you weren't but you didn't make it clear.


----------



## JimB

bigbossman said:


> Listing all of this doesn’t paint the picture, for example almost all our UEFA/Fairs cup wins happened in a row in the late 1960s/ early 1970s other than that we hardly registered in the competition, the same to a lesser extent in the European Cup. Domination should be based on incremental periods not on the whole shebang
> 
> 
> 
> I’d disagree seen as it was only in the European cup there was any form of domination and a lot of games were won with away goals or by the odd goal hardly maulings. It’s a myth that we dominated Europe!
> 
> 
> 
> once again you make it look like we are the ones that created this shift, when it was just the natural evolution of the game.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that would be the case if English teams contained English players but they don’t, hence why our teams do well, continental technique with English intensity.


1. So what if most of England's UEFA / Fairs Cup wins were within a short period? So were Spain's (and most of them were before it became a proper European competition). Most of Italy's successes in all competitions occurred in the 90's. Most of Germany's in the 70's and early 80's.

2. A win is a win.

3. If pressing was only a natural evolution of the game, then so was every other evolution and, consequently, you cannot claim that any country has contributed more to "culture and game play" than any other.

4. Chelsea's team last night consisted of 9 foreign players (10 by the end) and they were unable to keep possession for more than two passes at a time. They just passed back to Cech for him to hoof up field - time and time again.


----------



## JimB

bigbossman said:


> Well it's subjective but I’d say those who've played in a world cup final post 1966 and spain. Maybe a couple of others but they are the major ones!
> 
> 
> 
> It didn't actually it's an amazing myth perpetuated by the English media, to make us feel better that our league isn't actually English.
> 
> Serie A was the top league according to UEFA from 1991 to 2000. IF you analyse European finals in that period, this what we see
> 
> An Italian team made the final of the European cup every year from 1992-98, how many foreigners on the sides??
> 
> 1992- sampdoria- 2 non Italians
> 1993- Milan- 2 non Italians
> 1994- Milan- 3 non Italians
> 1995- Milan- 2 non Italians
> 1996- Juventus- 2 non Italians
> 1997- Juventus- 5 non Italians
> 1998- Juventus- 4 non Italians
> 
> UEFA cup finals in the 1990s
> 
> 1991- inter vs Roma- 6 non Italians (3 per side)
> 1992- torino- 3 non Italians
> 1993- Juventus- 3 non Italians
> 1994- Inter- 3 non Italians
> 1995- Parma vs Juventus- 5/6 non Italians
> 1997- Inter- 4 non Italians
> 1998- Lazio- 2 non Italians, Inter had only 3 italians a one season transformation
> 1999- Parma- 5 non Italians
> 
> Cup winners cup finals in the 1990s
> 
> 1993- Parma- 2 non Italians
> 1994- Parma- 3 non italians
> 1999- Lazio- 5 non Italians
> 
> So you can see when Italian football DOMINATED European football 18 of 27 finals between 1990/91 and 1998-99 featured an Italian team. They did so with Italian dominated sides and squads, so STOP MAKING SHIT UP
> 
> Spain was similar in It’s dominant period, the Spanish UEFA cup and Champions league finals feature 13 and 14 Spaniards starting respectively. That’s well over half!!
> 
> So as you can see these leagues did it with majority Italian and Spanish talent. As recently as 2007 Milan won the champions league with 7 Italian starters (9 finishing) Liverpool started with a paltry 3 (crouch came on later).
> 
> Last year there were 9 Englishmen (Hargreaves is Canadian) on the field in the all English final, this year if it’s Chelsea vs. Arsenal it will be even less
> 
> 
> 
> When you say dominated you mean the European cup right, because English teams didn’t dominate European football in that period. The teams barely registered in competitions outside of the European cup, hence why we only got to number 1 in 1985.
> 
> Between 75/76 and 84/85 our teams reached 6 (non EC) euro finals (Liverpool, west ham 76, Arsenal 80, Ipswich 81, Tottenham 84, Everton 85) outside of the European cup and that’s in 20 possible, and reaching finals doesn’t even paint the whole picture. For example in 1979-80 Germany had 5 Quarter finalists in the UEFA cup and all four semi finalists, the losing finalist in the European cup etc, and that’s why during the period UEFA classed it as the number 1 league.
> 
> 
> 
> 95% British players, but it’s an English league so non Englishmen are foreigners regardles.
> 
> Oh and Forest won with 5 non Englishmen in 1980, and Liverpool won with 7 non Englishmen in 1984. They were both playing against domestic dominated Hamburg and Roma each with two foreigners.
> 
> Get your facts right!!


For all that much of what you write is true, it can't alter the fact that, before Heysel, English clubs had won 33% more European Cups than Spain; 60% more than Italy; and 100% more than Germany. Overall, English clubs had won 30% more European trophies than Spain and 100% more than Italy and Germany.

Even now, after missing out on five years of European competition and having had to spend most of the 90's catching up as a result of the ban, English clubs' overall trophy wins in European football is equal first with Spain, one ahead of Italy and far ahead of Germany.

That is the crucial bottom line.

I therefore fail to see how you can legitimately claim that England has contributed less than any other major nation since the war.


----------



## bigbossman

JimB said:


> 1. So what if most of England's UEFA / Fairs Cup wins were within a short period?





> Most of Italy's successes in all competitions occurred in the 90's.


Most of Italy's successes didn't occur in the 90s the largest amount did, but not most of, as most of would indicate more than half. Whereas more than half of England's fairs/uefa cup wins at the date which you mentioned *1985* occured within a 6 year span. 2/3rds in fact. 

the point being that the fairs cup wins didn't show a trend, they showed a small splurge and little outside of it.



> So were Spain's (and most of them were before it became a proper European competition).


It was always a proper European comp, it just wasn't recognised by UEFA. However i do agree spain won most of the competitions then, i didn't say they hadn't i was referring to England!!!



> Most of Germany's in the 70's and early 80's.


10+ years isn't 6 straight years. which was the point

I also wouldn't count winning as de facto to dominance, if you have 3 semi finalists ever year but don't win would that not make you dominant?? then again cup football is so iffy in proving anything...



> 2. A win is a win.


Yes a win is a win, but a win doesn't tell the story of the game does it... 



> 3. If pressing was only a natural evolution of the game, then so was every other evolution and, consequently, you cannot claim that any country has contributed more to "culture and game play" than any other.


My point was that teams didn't start pressing because the English taught them to, England used the tactic they didn't invent it. 

Just like the dutch didn't invent total football and the italians didn't invent catenaccio. They just refined them in their own images.

Exactly how Milan adopted the pressing game in the late 1980s



> 4. Chelsea's team last night consisted of 9 foreign players (10 by the end) and they were unable to keep possession for more than two passes at a time. They just passed back to Cech for him to hoof up field - time and time again.


they parked the bus, it was their tactic, they believed that if they gave barca the ball and they maintained shape and limited the space barca would just play in front of them, and for the most part they did. Chelsea got lucky on a few occassions but they obviously trust in cech.


----------



## bigbossman

JimB said:


> For all that much of what you write is true, it can't alter the fact that, before Heysel, English clubs had won 33% more European Cups than Spain; 60% more than Italy; and 100% more than Germany. Overall, English clubs had won 30% more European trophies than Spain and 100% more than Italy and Germany.
> 
> Even now, after missing out on five years of European competition and having had to spend most of the 90's catching up as a result of the ban, English clubs' overall trophy wins in European football is equal first with Spain, one ahead of Italy and far ahead of Germany.
> 
> That is the crucial bottom line.
> 
> I therefore fail to see how you can legitimately claim that England has contributed less than any other major nation since the war.


i don't dispute what you are saying but trophies don't equal culture... and that's what i was referring to.

I feel all we really contributed is 3 points for a win and 4-4-2 and *organised* hooliganism.

I don't really feel we've contributed anything innovative on the playing side (i don't consider the pressing game innovative), or any special players to the game. Gazza could and should've been, but that's all you get with Gazza, could and should!!

Our great managers are all scottish, and our great players are all Scottish and irish!!


----------



## JimB

bigbossman said:


> Most of Italy's successes didn't occur in the 90s the largest amount did, but not most of, as most of would indicate more than half. Whereas more than half of England's fairs/uefa cup wins at the date which you mentioned *1985* occured within a 6 year span. 2/3rds in fact. the point being that the fairs cup wins didn't show a trend, they showed a small splurge and little outside of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 10+ years isn't 6 straight years. which was the point I also wouldn't count winning as de facto to dominance, if you have 3 semi finalists ever year but don't win would that not make you dominant?? then again cup football is so iffy in proving anything...Yes a win is a win, but a win doesn't tell the story of the game does it...
> 
> 
> 
> My point was that teams didn't start pressing because the English taught them to, England used the tactic they didn't invent it. Just like the dutch didn't invent total football and the italians didn't invent catenaccio. They just refined them in their own images. Exactly how Milan adopted the pressing game in the late 1980s.



1. Pedantry, mate! Okay, so ONLY 13 of Italy's 28 trophies were won in the 90's. My bad. However, Italian teams also won two trophies in 1989 - which means a total of 15 of 28 trophies won in an eleven year period. A disproportionate number, I'm sure you will agree.

2. Winning is what counts.

3. In which case, please explain what you mean by "contributing to game play", since you claimed that England has contributed less to game play than any other major nation.


----------



## JimB

bigbossman said:


> i don't dispute what you are saying but trophies don't equal culture... and that's what i was referring to.
> 
> I feel all we really contributed is 3 points for a win and 4-4-2 and *organised* hooliganism.
> 
> I don't really feel we've contributed anything innovative on the playing side (i don't consider the pressing game innovative), or any special players to the game. Gazza could and should've been, but that's all you get with Gazza, could and should!!
> 
> Our great managers are all scottish, and our great players are all Scottish and irish!!


1. So what has any other nation contributed, then?

2. Bob Paisley, Alf Ramsey, Bill Nicholson, Brian Clough, Howard Kendall, Don Revie.

Stanley Matthews, Bobby Moore, Gordon Banks, Bobby Charlton, Jimmy Greaves, Kevin Keegan, Glenn Hoddle, Chris Waddle, Paul Gascoigne, Steven Gerrard, Rio Ferdinand, Wayne Rooney. Just to name a few...


----------



## Benvir

Maybe some contributions: 
Kick and rush + making football big business


----------



## bigbossman

JimB said:


> 1. So what has any other nation contributed, then?


do we need to get into this...?



> Bob Paisley,


inherited more or less shankley's team. Although kept it ticking over.



> Alf Ramsey,


won the world cup on home soil woopie die doo, won the title with clod hoppers woop die doo



> Bill Nicholson,


shut up



> Brian Clough,


I agree on cloughie!



> Howard Kendall,


Leave it out! 



> Don Revie.


Good manager yes, great one nooooo



> Stanley Matthews, Bobby Moore, Gordon Banks, Bobby Charlton, Jimmy Greaves,


All from the same era bruv! But all greats of that era agreed. But in cultural terms it's really players from the 70s onwards which have the awareness of the public.



> Kevin Keegan,


A very good player, but hardly a great.



> Glenn Hoddle, Chris Waddle,


Leave it out, you cannot be serious :nuts:



> Paul Gascoigne,


never fulfilled his potential



> Steven Gerrard,


A collosus, but i dunno i don't think he'll go down as one of the great world players of his generation.



> Rio Ferdinand, Wayne Rooney.


**** off with these two mate!!



> Just to name a few...


England has never produced a Baggio, Never produced a Beckenbauer a cruyff the list goes on. 

Look at the calibre of italian strikers in the 1990s....


----------



## bigbossman

JimB said:


> 1. Pedantry, mate! Okay, so ONLY 13 of Italy's 28 trophies were won in the 90's. My bad. However, Italian teams also won two trophies in 1989 - which means a total of 15 of 28 trophies won in an eleven year period. A disproportionate number, I'm sure you will agree.


you gotta be a pedant on the net.

Yes a disprportionate number but not 2/3rds. 

But 11 years is not 6 consecutive years as repeatedly mentioned.



> 2. Winning is what counts.


are you sure you support spurs?



> 3. In which case, please explain what you mean by "contributing to game play", since you claimed that England has contributed less to game play than any other major nation.


culture...


----------



## bigbossman

Benvir said:


> Maybe some contributions:
> Kick and rush + making football big business


kick and rush lol

making football big business is one of the worst things ever. I like it having more media exposure but not at the expense of the integrity of the game!! i'd also say most countries have done this it's just that the English model has worked best in making the whole league wealthier.


----------



## Alemanniafan

In the year 1907 my team introduced a tactic to soccer in the west of Germany that was feared because of its success and called "Dreiinnenspiel" ( it translates somewhat like this:"three-inner-play") sadly today noone happens to know what that very successfull tactic was anymore. Chronics say it must have been some type of play where the three inner attackers were not playing on a line with the two outer attackers. Yes, they commonly used to play with 5 attackers back in those times. 
Behind those 5 attackers there were two outer runners on the sidelines and one center runner in the middle and 2 defense players before the goalkeeper.

So I suppose my team contributed quite a lot to soccer back then. 
Well sadly this tactic doesn't seem to be very effective in the professional soccer nowadays. But maybe we should try reintroducing that... our club used to be far more successfull in soccer back in those times than we are now  and that system was played succesfully in slight modifications up until the mid fifties (the worldcup in switzerland 1954).
So, now you keep having your fun showing off what great achievements and contributions to soccer your club or country came up with. :cheers:


----------



## flierfy

I don't know why you, bigbossman, can seriously down-write the English contribution to the game. The undeniable facts are:

the English contributed:
the rules
the passion
Wembley Stadium
end to end football
singing on the stands and terraces

The French added
the World Cup, the Euros
and all European cup competitions

and the Italians?
cynical play
time wasting
play acting
and cheating


----------



## JimB

bigbossman said:


> do we need to get into this...?
> 
> 
> 
> inherited more or less shankley's team. Although kept it ticking over.
> 
> 
> 
> won the world cup on home soil woopie die doo, won the title with clod hoppers woop die doo
> 
> 
> 
> shut up
> 
> 
> 
> I agree on cloughie!
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it out!
> 
> 
> 
> Good manager yes, great one nooooo
> 
> 
> 
> All from the same era bruv! But all greats of that era agreed. But in cultural terms it's really players from the 70s onwards which have the awareness of the public.
> 
> 
> 
> A very good player, but hardly a great.
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it out, you cannot be serious :nuts:
> 
> 
> 
> never fulfilled his potential
> 
> 
> 
> A collosus, but i dunno i don't think he'll go down as one of the great world players of his generation.
> 
> 
> 
> **** off with these two mate!!
> 
> 
> 
> England has never produced a Baggio, Never produced a Beckenbauer a cruyff the list goes on.
> 
> Look at the calibre of italian strikers in the 1990s....


It's all opinion, of course. But the players I mentioned were all England greats and among the best players in the world in their time.

Likewise the managers - all of whom created outstandingly good teams.

Gerrard, Ferdinand and Rooney still have much to give and win - despite having already won an incredible amount. And all are, without a doubt, among the best players in the world for their position. There isn't a country in the world that wouldn't have each of them either in the team or on the bench.


----------



## Alemanniafan

flierfy said:


> I don't know why you, bigbossman, can seriously down-write the English contribution to the game. The undeniable facts are:
> 
> the English contributed:
> the rules


mostly, yes the Abseits or offsides comes from Germany



flierfy said:


> the passion


Oh and I allways thought the brasillians contributed that...



flierfy said:


> Wembley Stadium


well if that really is a contribution worth mentioning... maybe you should also mention that they were the ones who tore it all down to replace it with some enormeous pile of dung under a gigantic arch.



flierfy said:


> end to end football


ok yes.



flierfy said:


> singing on the stands and terraces


You serious? I haven't heard the english sing on terraces for years...
and singing... that was invented by... Mozart wasn't it???




flierfy said:


> The French added
> the World Cup, the Euros
> and all European cup competitions


yes even though they never played in those competitions all by themselves.




flierfy said:


> and the Italians?
> cynical play
> time wasting
> play acting
> and cheating


Oh yes, some wonderfull contributions... but not all only Italian I supose.
Let me go through all these tons of historic film material to see who was the first player ever to dive, getting a penalty.
I'll start with the Italian material, because that seems to be most adequate after your suggestion.
Maybe someday when I'm really old and grumpy I'll let you know the results of my historic research project...


----------



## parcdesprinces

flierfy said:


> *The French added*
> the World Cup, the Euros
> and all European cup competitions


Yes, and also FIFA in 1904 (for prevent the hegemony of the brits in football)


----------



## bthj

flierfy said:


> singing on the stands and terraces


what a joke.


----------



## JimB

Oh, yes, bigbossman, I forgot to ask - please tell us what the other major countries have contributed to game play and football culture.


----------



## bigbossman

JimB said:


> It's all opinion, of course. But the players I mentioned were all England greats and among the best players in the world in their time.
> 
> Likewise the managers - all of whom created outstandingly good teams.
> 
> Gerrard, Ferdinand and Rooney still have much to give and win - despite having already won an incredible amount. And all are, without a doubt, among the best players in the world for their position. There isn't a country in the world that wouldn't have each of them either in the team or on the bench.


Hoddle and waddle some of the best players of their time?? drop me out

i don't think the litmuss test for a manager is creating a good team, it's longeivity and creating more than one team out of the ordinary for that club. Hene why bill nicholson in my opinion shouldn't be classed as a great manager..

Gerrard of course, ferdinand yeah ok. But rooney one of the best strikers in the world?? that is unbelievably laughable!!


----------



## bigbossman

flierfy said:


> I don't know why you, bigbossman, can seriously down-write the English contribution to the game. The undeniable facts are:


from the 1960/70s onwards FFS, can you not fucking read



> the English contributed:
> the rules


yeah but that was before the 1970s



> the passion


don't say shit like that



> Wembley Stadium


one over rated dumb replaced by another



> end to end football


ohhh kayyy



> singing on the stands and terraces


yeah and they never did that anywhere else did they...



> The French added
> the World Cup, the Euros
> and all European cup competitions


all before the modern era, but all infinately greater than the english contribution you mentioned bar the rules



> and the Italians?
> cynical play
> time wasting
> play acting
> and cheating


ignorance is a funny old thing...


----------



## bigbossman

JimB said:


> Oh, yes, bigbossman, I forgot to ask - please tell us what the other major countries have contributed to game play and football culture.


alright, a bit bitty as i think of them...

Italy contributed largely to the Ultra phenomenom which has swept across the continent, some of the best and most stylish footballers ever to grace the game from Roberto baggio, gianfranco zola, Franco Baresi, Paola Maldini etc.

Germany, italy and France have played in the most iconic games in world cup history. italy-germany (1970), Germany-France (1982), Italy-Brazil (1982). 

Holland contributed the cruyff turn and made the world aware of total football. Germany contributed total football with a tuetonic twist. The attacking sweeper.

Germany redefined how to run an international tournament, great stadiums, great cities, great atmosphere.

Spain reminded us that modern football doesn't have to forget it's past. Attractive passing football, Athletic Bilbao. 

Italy showed the world that good defence doesn't mean defensive football. Costacourta, Baresi, Tassoti and Maldini.

Scotland gave us sir alex, france gave us mr wenger, italy gave us il trap, holland gave us rinus michels...

Czechoslovakia (Czech rep) gave us Panenka!!

there is loads more but i can't really think after the arsenal game


----------



## bthj

JimB said:


> Oh, yes, bigbossman, I forgot to ask - please tell us what the other major countries have contributed to game play and football culture.


I would qualify english football as pretty irrelevant. Without the money it is virtually non-existend.


----------



## bigbossman

^^ i would agree and disagree with that. Without money it is back in the pack, as we don't have talent on these shores.


----------



## JimB

bigbossman said:


> Hoddle and waddle some of the best players of their time?? drop me out
> 
> i don't think the litmuss test for a manager is creating a good team, it's longeivity and creating more than one team out of the ordinary for that club. Hene why bill nicholson in my opinion shouldn't be classed as a great manager..
> 
> Gerrard of course, ferdinand yeah ok. But rooney one of the best strikers in the world?? that is unbelievably laughable!!


Hoddle - most talented English player of his generation by a mile. Ask Wenger what he thought of Hoddle, the player. Ask Michel Platini. Ask Johann Cruyff.

Waddle - the star creative player for a Marseilles team that was one of the two or three best teams in Europe in the late 80's and early 90's. Along with Hoddle and Gascoigne, one of very few English players whose skills were on a par with the best in Europe.

Nicholson created two teams, winning 8 trophies in 16 years. His early 60's team broke countless records - some of which still stand. It won the first proper double (ie of the modern era) at a time when it was generally considered nigh on impossible. His was the first British team to win a major European trophy and the first to win two major European trophies. It was a team that played a brand of football that was unlike any other seen before in Britain - a style, incidentally, that your team now copies to a great extent. I think he has earnt the right to be considered in the company of British greats.

Rooney - why not? He is, after all, one of the best players for the current best team in the world. He has a lot of everything - skill, strength, pace, vision, technique, aggression, passion, versatility. There isn't another striker like him in world football. Without a doubt, there is not a country in the world that wouldn't have him in their starting line up or on the bench.


----------



## flierfy

bigbossman said:


> ^^ i would agree and disagree with that. Without money it is back in the pack, *as we don't have talent on these shores*.


Your argumentation is ridiculous. May I remind you that England contributed the biggest share of players involved in the 4 most recent European Cup finals.

Here is my count:
18 English
13 Italians
12 Spanish
11 Brazilians
10 French


----------



## bigbossman

flierfy said:


> Your argumentation is ridiculous. May I remind you that England contributed the biggest share of players involved in the 4 most recent European Cup finals.
> 
> Here is my count:
> 18 English
> 13 Italians
> 12 Spanish
> 11 Brazilians
> 10 French



stop talking crap. England also provideds 5 of the 8 participants of the last 4 finals, 18 players from 5 teams averages out at 3.6 per team. Terrible.

all that stat proves is that more english players have played because more english teams have played but their they have been under respresented.

2 italian finalists, and 1 spanish finalist would suggest that also!!


----------



## Alemanniafan

flierfy said:


> Your argumentation is ridiculous. May I remind you that England contributed the biggest share of players involved in the 4 most recent European Cup finals.
> 
> Here is my count:
> 18 English
> 13 Italians
> 12 Spanish
> 11 Brazilians
> 10 French


Which sadly isn't of very much interest, since the french are the ones who contributed the entire conest. Right?


----------



## bigbossman

JimB said:


> Hoddle - most talented English player of his generation by a mile. Ask Wenger what he thought of Hoddle, the player. Ask Michel Platini. Ask Johann Cruyff.


Seriously just because Wenger said hoddle was an excpetional player doesn't mean he is culturally considered as such, for me he never proved anything, and will never go down as one of the legends of the game. Except to yids!

and saying ask so and so, why don't you provide me with quotes coz you know full well i can't ask this people :lol: :nuts:



> Waddle - the star creative player for a Marseilles team that was one of the two or three best teams in Europe in the late 80's and early 90's.


i would say jean pierre papin was the star of that team... i am not saying he wasn't a very good player, but i'd say there were quite a few better than him during that era...



> Along with Hoddle and Gascoigne, one of very few English players whose skills were on a par with the best in Europe.


I never said hoddle didn't have skill and i mentioned gascoigne why don't people on the net read what you say. I said Gazza never fulfilled his potential, and none of these players will go down as greats of their era or otherwise.



> Nicholson created two teams, winning 8 trophies in 16 years. His early 60's team broke countless records - some of which still stand. It won the first proper double (ie of the modern era) at a time when it was generally considered nigh on impossible.


he won *one league title*!!! 



> His was the first British team to win a major European trophy and the first to win two major European trophies.


bully for them, loads of managers have won European trophies being the first doesn't make it special, it just make you the first.



> It was a team that played a brand of football that was unlike any other seen before in Britain - a style, incidentally, that your team now copies to a great extent. I think he has earnt the right to be considered in the company of British greats.


You can argue that both teams play/ed with style but to say we copied them when they played in the days of inside forwards is erm well you know...



> Rooney - why not? He is, after all, one of the best players for the current best team in the world.


that is the dumbest thing i have ever, man united are the best team in the world are they.. because they won that cup, they are the world champions not the best team in the world, BIG DIFFERENCE.

and rooney isn't in the top 3 best players in the united team!! 



> He has a lot of everything - skill, strength, pace, vision, technique, aggression, passion, versatility.


A lot of players have the first 5 and a lot players have the first 5 in greater abundance.

Agression that doesn't make you a great footballer, likewise passion althopugh rooney just wears his heart on his sleeve i don't doubt that ronaldo has any less passion than him for the game or he wouldn't play it, versatility i am yet to see it.



> There isn't another striker like him in world football. Without a doubt, there is not a country in the world that wouldn't have him in their starting line up or on the bench.


Rooney is a poor mans Carlos Tevez, and to say there is not a country that would'nt have him is typical english arrogance.

He wouldn't get into spain team ahead of torres or villa, or the argentina team ahead of messi, aguero, tevez, milito, hugain, or the brazil team or the france team, or imho the italy team either. STOP IT!!


----------



## JimB

bigbossman said:


> alright, a bit bitty as i think of them...
> 
> Italy contributed largely to the Ultra phenomenom which has swept across the continent, some of the best and most stylish footballers ever to grace the game from Roberto baggio, gianfranco zola, Franco Baresi, Paola Maldini etc.
> 
> Germany, italy and France have played in the most iconic games in world cup history. italy-germany (1970), Germany-France (1982), Italy-Brazil (1982).
> 
> Holland contributed the cruyff turn and made the world aware of total football. Germany contributed total football with a tuetonic twist. The attacking sweeper.
> 
> Germany redefined how to run an international tournament, great stadiums, great cities, great atmosphere.
> 
> Spain reminded us that modern football doesn't have to forget it's past. Attractive passing football, Athletic Bilbao.
> 
> Italy showed the world that good defence doesn't mean defensive football. Costacourta, Baresi, Tassoti and Maldini.
> 
> Scotland gave us sir alex, france gave us mr wenger, italy gave us il trap, holland gave us rinus michels...
> 
> Czechoslovakia (Czech rep) gave us Panenka!!
> 
> there is loads more but i can't really think after the arsenal game


All those things are indeed contributions. But they are no more important than the various English contributions to the game (like Sir Alf Ramsey's 4-4-2). If, as you claim, the English style of "pressing" football was just a "natural evolution", then so was a "good defence" that "doesn't mean defensive football". So was attractive passing football (which, by the way, has been around since before the war). As to the position of attacking sweeper, it was a passing trend. The role has now passed virtually into extinction.

Wenger......no more important than Paisley, Clough, Ramsey, Revie or Nicholson at this point in his career.

Rinus Michels....great coach, but it is a lesser known fact that his Total Football concept was largely based on the radical ideas of two Englishman who had previously managed Ajax - Jack Reynolds and Vic Buckingham.


----------



## flierfy

bigbossman said:


> stop talking crap. England also provideds 5 of the 8 participants of the last 4 finals, 18 players from 5 teams averages out at 3.6 per team. Terrible.
> 
> all that stat proves is that more english players have played because more english teams have played but their they have been under respresented.
> 
> 2 italian finalists, and 1 spanish finalist would suggest that also!!


You talk crap actually. English talent progressed to these finals because they were better than their opponents in the previous rounds.

You only prove that you're anti-English and biased. Reason and facts are completely lost on you.


----------



## bigbossman

JimB said:


> All those things are indeed contributions. But they are no more important than the various English contributions to the game (like Sir Alf Ramsey's 4-4-2).


yes but that is all england really contributed to the dynamics of the modern game



> If, as you claim, the English style of "pressing" football was just a "natural evolution",


No i am claiming that it's widespread use is. And i am saying that the pressing game isn't just english, it was developed everywhere, scotland for example. 

I never claimed total football for holland, i claimed raising awareness of it, a key difference



> then so was a "good defence" that "doesn't mean defensive football".


What i am saying is Italians showed us defenders of a level yet to be seen, of a quality yet to be seen. we english weren't the best proponents of the pressing game, the italians were the masters of the defence. 



> So was attractive passing football (which, by the way, has been around since before the war).


Of course it has, i didn't mention the passing game per se. I mentioned spains use of it succesfully in the modern football climate which could be the catalyst for another transition. 



> As to the position of attacking sweeper, it was a passing trend. The role has now passed virtually into extinction.


A passing trend which had a masive cultural impact with germany winning world cups and appearing in finals with it. 



> Wenger......no more important than Paisley, Clough, Ramsey, Revie or Nicholson at this point in his career.


I'd disagree he came into a culture and climate that was alien to him in which he was rediculed at the start and he first gained respect and the admiration. That is a greater achievement than what most of those managers achieved.



> Rinus Michels....great coach, but it is a lesser known fact that his Total Football concept was largely based on the radical ideas of two Englishman who had previously managed Ajax - Jack Reynolds and Vic Buckingham.


Although they contributed they weren't the sole developers of it they were just from the school of it. I'd say Austria wunderteam and Hungary magnificent magyars contributed equally to it's development and the Ajax team of the 70s deployed it in the "modern game".


----------



## bigbossman

flierfy said:


> You talk crap actually. English talent progressed to these finals because they were better than their opponents in the previous rounds.
> 
> You only prove that you're anti-English and biased. Reason and facts are completely lost on you.


WTF teams were majority foreign so how can you say English talent progressed to the finals. FOREIGN TALENT DID!!! The facts are there for you to see, STOP LYING.

I am not anti-English i am anti arrogance and ignorance which is perpetuated most by England fans, if you see me on these boards i've debated with Juventus fans and everyone.... 

I don't discrimanate, it's only ignorance I wish to eliminate!


----------



## JimB

bigbossman said:


> Seriously just because Wenger said hoddle was an excpetional player doesn't mean he is culturally considered as such, for me he never proved anything, and will never go down as one of the legends of the game. Except to yids!
> 
> and saying ask so and so, why don't you provide me with quotes coz you know full well i can't ask this people :lol: :nuts:
> 
> 
> 
> i would say jean pierre papin was the star of that team... i am not saying he wasn't a very good player, but i'd say there were quite a few better than him during that era...
> 
> 
> 
> I never said hoddle didn't have skill and i mentioned gascoigne why don't people on the net read what you say. I said Gazza never fulfilled his potential, and none of these players will go down as greats of their era or otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> he won *one league title*!!!
> 
> 
> 
> bully for them, loads of managers have won European trophies being the first doesn't make it special, it just make you the first.
> 
> 
> 
> You can argue that both teams play/ed with style but to say we copied them when they played in the days of inside forwards is erm well you know...
> 
> 
> 
> that is the dumbest thing i have ever, man united are the best team in the world are they.. because they won that cup, they are the world champions not the best team in the world, BIG DIFFERENCE.
> 
> and rooney isn't in the top 3 best players in the united team!!
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of players have the first 5 and a lot players have the first 5 in greater abundance.
> 
> Agression that doesn't make you a great footballer, likewise passion althopugh rooney just wears his heart on his sleeve i don't doubt that ronaldo has any less passion than him for the game or he wouldn't play it, versatility i am yet to see it.
> 
> 
> 
> Rooney is a poor mans Carlos Tevez, and to say there is not a country that would'nt have him is typical english arrogance.
> 
> He wouldn't get into spain team ahead of torres or villa, or the argentina team ahead of messi, aguero, tevez, milito, hugain, or the brazil team or the france team, or imho the italy team either. STOP IT!!


You've still to take something for that verbal diaorrhia, I see!

1. I said that Waddle was the star *creative* player for L'OM. Papin was an out an out goal scorer. And I never said that you hadn't mentioned Gazza. On both counts, why can't *you* learn to read properly? 

2. For crying out loud! Man Utd are World, European and English Champions. What more can they do? Of course, you can argue that they might not be the best in England or Europe by the end of May. But, at the very least, only an idiot would dispute the fact that they are one of the best two or three teams in the world.

Rooney a poor man's Tevez? Well, you're welcome to your opinion. I'll take Rooney every time. And sure, aggression on its own doesn't make for a great player. But aggression married to skill, pace, strength and vision does. You've yet to see evidence of Rooney's versatility?........okaaaaaaaaaaay.....have you noticed that he can play up front, in the hole or in wide midfield? No?


----------



## JimB

bigbossman said:


> yes but that is all england really contributed to the dynamics of the modern game
> 
> 
> 
> No i am claiming that it's widespread use is. And i am saying that the pressing game isn't just english, it was developed everywhere, scotland for example.
> 
> I never claimed total football for holland, i claimed raising awareness of it, a key difference
> 
> 
> 
> What i am saying is Italians showed us defenders of a level yet to be seen, of a quality yet to be seen. we english weren't the best proponents of the pressing game, the italians were the masters of the defence.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it has, i didn't mention the passing game per se. I mentioned spains use of it succesfully in the modern football climate which could be the catalyst for another transition.
> 
> 
> 
> A passing trend which had a masive cultural impact with germany winning world cups and appearing in finals with it.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd disagree he came into a culture and climate that was alien to him in which he was rediculed at the start and he first gained respect and the admiration. That is a greater achievement than what most of those managers achieved.
> 
> 
> 
> Although they contributed they weren't the sole developers of it they were just from the school of it. I'd say Austria wunderteam and Hungary magnificent magyars contributed equally to it's development and the Ajax team of the 70s deployed it in the "modern game".


You've sort of admitted it in that post. The bigger picture is that, contrary to your initial claim, ALL the major countries have contributed significantly to the "culture and game play" of football since the war. It is a nonsense to claim that England has contributed less than all the others.


----------



## bigbossman

JimB said:


> You've still to take something for that verbal diaorrhia, I see!


wow i didn't even realise it was you who posted that spiele, i thought it was the other guy :nuts:



> 1. I said that Waddle was the star *creative* player for L'OM. Papin was an out an out goal scorer. And I never said that you hadn't mentioned Gazza. On both counts, why can't *you* learn to read properly?


you intimated that i hadn't said gazza by mentioning him in the way you mentioned him tis all.



> 2. For crying out loud! Man Utd are World, European and English Champions. What more can they do? Of course, you can argue that they might not be the best in England or Europe by the end of May. But, at the very least, only an idiot would dispute the fact that they are one of the best two or three teams in the world.


Now it's one of the best, not the best?? you changed quick sharp.

The point is cup competitions don't prove who is best, and they weren't the best team in Europe last year, hell they shouldn't have won the final, that's the point.



> Rooney a poor man's Tevez? Well, you're welcome to your opinion. I'll take Rooney every time. And sure, aggression on its own doesn't make for a great player.


your opinion but i am friends with a lot of Rooney haters, and a few man u fans, but they hate ronaldo too... 



> But aggression married to skill, pace, strength and vision does. You've yet to see evidence of Rooney's versatility?........okaaaaaaaaaaay.....have you noticed that he can play up front, in the hole or in wide midfield? No?


i can play up front, in the hole, wide midfield, right back, in goal or a talking armadillo if i wanted to.

Doesn't mean i can do it well!!! He has no best position because he is not superior in any position.

Flexibility to me means you can play a large amount of positions at a consistently superior level. AKA Messi can play up front, wide right, wide left, deeper and still be amazing...


----------



## bigbossman

JimB said:


> You've sort of admitted it in that post. The bigger picture is that, contrary to your initial claim, ALL the major countries have contributed significantly to the "culture and game play" of football since the war. It is a nonsense to claim that England has contributed less than all the others.


*but that's what i said*, i just said i feel England contributed less, and i will still standby that. 

And i never ever said since the war, hence why i didn't mention a lot of things i said in the modern era, meaning post 1966.

Maybe i should clarify and say, England contributed less than they should have considering their standing in the game.


----------



## plasticterminator

bigbossman said:


> *but that's what i said*, i just said i feel England contributed less, and i will still standby that.
> 
> And i never ever said since the war, hence why i didn't mention a lot of things i said in the modern era, meaning post 1966.
> 
> Maybe i should clarify and say, England contributed less than they should have considering their standing in the game.


Ha Ha you finally slipped up , was waiting in the wings. That last line you just made completely destroys your argument:lol: If you are going win any debate on SC forums then you have to pay more attention!
cue wartime churchill music-
Never in the field of SCf debate has such an argument been so easily destroyed by so few:lol: that few being you!
"england contributed less than they should have considering their standing in the game" that my friend is what we call a catastrophic contradiction in terms:cheers:


----------



## JimB

bthj said:


> I would qualify english football as pretty irrelevant. Without the money it is virtually non-existend.


And you are????

How can English football be irrelevant when English football clubs are so dominant in the Champions League?

How would English football be non-existant without "the money"?

And why should English football be without "the money" any more than Italian or Spanish football, or football of any nationality, for that matter?

Really, yours is one of the silliest post I've ever seen on this forum.......and that's quite an achievement!


----------



## bigbossman

plasticterminator said:


> Ha Ha you finally slipped up , was waiting in the wings. That last line you just made completely destroys your argument:lol: If you are going win any debate on SC forums then you have to pay more attention!
> cue wartime churchill music-
> Never in the field of SCf debate has such an argument been so easily destroyed by so few:lol: that few being you!
> "england contributed less than they should have considering their standing in the game" that my friend is what we call a catastrophic contradiction in terms:cheers:


how does that defeat my whole argument, are you dumb or what...

England contributed to the game, I never ever said they didn't, but they didn't contribute to the game as much as they should've since 1966 considering we are a "major nation". In that we have a large population a well supported league and we codified the game. This all means that we have contributed less than other major nations. yaha? 

I think it is you who doesn't know what he is talking about, and it's quite sad really you were waiting for me to slip up, and you got you bunting all out, but you got it wrong :lol:



> most countries have contributed a lot to the culture and game play since the war, and for me out of the major nations England has probably contributed least, afterall it has taken the foreign invasion for our league to gain top spot.


^^ that's what i said, and that is still what i say...


----------



## JimB

bigbossman said:


> you intimated that i hadn't said gazza by mentioning him in the way you mentioned him tis all.
> 
> 
> 
> Now it's one of the best, not the best?? you changed quick sharp.
> 
> The point is cup competitions don't prove who is best, and they weren't the best team in Europe last year, hell they shouldn't have won the final, that's the point.
> 
> 
> 
> your opinion but i am friends with a lot of Rooney haters, and a few man u fans, but they hate ronaldo too...
> 
> 
> 
> i can play up front, in the hole, wide midfield, right back, in goal or a talking armadillo if i wanted to.
> 
> Doesn't mean i can do it well!!! He has no best position because he is not superior in any position.
> 
> Flexibility to me means you can play a large amount of positions at a consistently superior level. AKA Messi can play up front, wide right, wide left, deeper and still be amazing...


1. I "intimated" nothing about Gazza. You merely inferred, incorrectly, that I had.

2. I gave way on insisting that Man Utd were the best team only because it's really not that important to my argument whether they are actually the best or just one of the best two or three. The point is equally valid either way and I didn't want to get into a pointless squabble (that has no resolution) to deflect from the point I was making.

3. Again, there is no point arguing with you about Rooney. It is a matter of opinion, after all. Personally, I'll go along with Fergie's opinion. If Rooney's good enough for him....


----------



## Alemanniafan

JimB said:


> You've sort of admitted it in that post. The bigger picture is that, contrary to your initial claim, ALL the major countries have contributed significantly to the "culture and game play" of football since the war. It is a nonsense to claim that England has contributed less than all the others.


That might be a good opportunity to stop all this entertaining off topic contribution battle.
Before I start throwing in names like Adi Dassler (the founder of Adidas) who contributed the modern soccer shoe, which Germany won the 1954 WC with.

Or Gerd Müller, Franz Beckenbauer, Oliver Kahn, Pele, Maradonna.... 
You know, Roney and Waddle aren't exactly right up there at the top of the list of the best of the best ever.
And after all, you folks are seriously busy mentioning players and teams winning titles of contests contributed by the french. 
Doesn't that seem a little awkward to you ,too? 
I mean without France all these titles wouldn't have been won right? 
So isn't all this titlecomparison rather useless?
And if you're getting into that title comparison, then fact is: Brazil, Italy, Germany, Argentina, Uruguay they all won more Worldcups than England... did, so I suggest you to think about getting it over with this nonesense here.
Englands major contributions to the sport are mostly of a rather ancient nature. And the sport back then doesn't have all that much in common with what it was when my team successfully played the "Dreiinnenspiel" or what it is today in the soccerworld of the Abramovic type of clubowners, TV-broadcasts, slow motions and digital 3D analysations and reconstructions of the famous wembley goal proving the ball wasn't in and that England shouldn't have won their single WC title the way they did... and with all these dopingtests nowadays...
You know guys, you'll never find out which one of you has got the biggest genitals until you really do get together and pull down your pants.
This hillarious nonesense here sure won't help you answering that question...


----------



## bigbossman

JimB said:


> 1. I "intimated" nothing about Gazza. You merely inferred, incorrectly, that I had.


well you should watch what you intimate and i won't infer incorrectly then.



> 2. I gave way on insisting that Man Utd were the best team only because it's really not that important to my argument whether they are actually the best or just one of the best two or three. The point is equally valid either way and I didn't want to get into a pointless squabble (that has no resolution) to deflect from the point I was making.


You made a statement which may have not been the meat of your point, but it was a significant one at that. This statement I had to clarify, and be it subjective i still had to make a point of to say I disagree. Like you disagreed on me saying Rooney is not great.



> 3. Again, there is no point arguing with you about Rooney. It is a matter of opinion, after all. Personally, I'll go along with Fergie's opinion. If Rooney's good enough for him....


Fergie thought kleberson was good enough for him... i am not saying Rooney isn't good enough, i am saying i don't think he is as good as you think he is. BUt like you said that is all opinion. However surely then there isn't anything more to debate on this issue as it's really all opinion from here on in, until someone posts something incorrect of course...


----------



## JimB

bigbossman said:


> *but that's what i said*, i just said i feel England contributed less, and i will still standby that.
> 
> *And i never ever said since the war, hence why i didn't mention a lot of things i said in the modern era, meaning post 1966*.
> 
> Maybe i should clarify and say, England contributed less than they should have considering their standing in the game.


Oh really?

Then you didn't write post 189 two pages back?



bigbossman said:


> Look Europe and south american have equal love for the game, no country loves the game more than another, it is just manifested in different ways. What in England we might consider an indicator of love for the game, in another country they might not consider it that way.
> 
> *most countries have contributed a lot to the culture and game play since the war, and for me out of the major nations England has probably contributed least*, afterall it has taken the foreign invasion for our league to gain top spot.


Is that a big "oops" I hear?


----------



## bigbossman

Alemanniafan said:


> That might be a good opportunity to stop all this entertaining off topic contribution battle.
> Before I start throwing in names like Adi Dassler (the founder of Adidas) who contributed the modern soccer shoe, which Germany won the 1954 WC with.


Don't forget his borther rudolf, who contributed puma lol


----------



## bigbossman

JimB said:


> Oh really?
> 
> Then you didn't write post 189 two pages back?
> 
> Is that a big "oops" I hear?


yeah maybe i did say that, but if you read on all (i hope) subsequent posts were in reference to post 1966. Hence why i never mentioned hungary in reference to their contributions or the Brazil teams of pre 1966.


----------



## JimB

bigbossman said:


> *well you should watch what you intimate* and i won't infer incorrectly then.
> 
> 
> 
> You made a statement which may have not been the meat of your point, but it was a significant one at that. This statement I had to clarify, and be it subjective i still had to make a point of to say I disagree. Like you disagreed on me saying Rooney is not great.
> 
> 
> 
> Fergie thought kleberson was good enough for him... i am not saying Rooney isn't good enough, i am saying i don't think he is as good as you think he is. BUt like you said that is all opinion. However surely then there isn't anything more to debate on this issue as it's really all opinion from here on in, until someone posts something incorrect of course...


I repeat, I intimated nothing.

The mistake was all in your inference. But never mind. It's not important.


----------



## bigbossman

^^ lol if it's not important why did you waste a post on it??


----------



## JimB

Alemanniafan said:


> That might be a good opportunity to stop all this entertaining off topic contribution battle.
> Before I start throwing in names like Adi Dassler (the founder of Adidas) who contributed the modern soccer shoe, which Germany won the 1954 WC with.
> 
> Or Gerd Müller, Franz Beckenbauer, Oliver Kahn, Pele, Maradonna....
> You know, Roney and Waddle aren't exactly right up there at the top of the list of the best of the best ever.
> And after all, you folks are seriously busy mentioning players and teams winning titles of contests contributed by the french.
> Doesn't that seem a little awkward to you ,too?
> I mean without France all these titles wouldn't have been won right?
> So isn't all this titlecomparison rather useless?
> And if you're getting into that title comparison, then fact is: Brazil, Italy, Germany, Argentina, Uruguay they all won more Worldcups than England... did, so I suggest you to think about getting it over with this nonesense here.
> Englands major contributions to the sport are mostly of a rather ancient nature. And the sport back then doesn't have all that much in common with what it was when my team successfully played the "Dreiinnenspiel" or what it is today in the soccerworld of the Abramovic type of clubowners, TV-broadcasts, slow motions and digital 3D analysations and reconstructions of the famous wembley goal proving the ball wasn't in and that England shouldn't have won their single WC title the way they did... and with all these dopingtests nowadays...
> You know guys, you'll never find out which one of you has got the biggest genitals until you really do get together and pull down your pants.
> This hillarious nonesense here sure won't help you answering that question...


Thanks for blundering into the discussion. Perhaps you'd like to know a bit about it before getting yourself in too deep?

You see, I'm not claiming that England's contribution to football since the war has been greater than any of the other major nations. I think that Germany, Brazil, Italy, Spain, France and Argentina - to name a few - have all made fantastic contributions. I'm merely disputing bigbossman's claim that England's contribution has been the least of all major nations.

Nice of you to drop in the point about "that goal" in the 1966 World Cup final, by the way. You know, you're absolutely correct. It was never a goal, as proven by TV replays. But then........West Germany's last second equalizer in normal time came directly from a free kick awarded to West Germany which, as proven by TV replays, should never have been awarded. So you're right. England shouldn't have won our only World Cup in the way that we did. We should have won it 2-1 in normal time. But hey...it was worth it for the added drama, wasn't it?

As to people getting together to pull down pants and look at other men's genitals, we tend to leave that sort of thing to the Germans. Thanks for the offer, though.


----------



## JimB

By the way, Alemanniafan.........Oliver Kahn???????????????

I presume you only included that name in the list of all time greats to make sure that I was paying attention?


----------



## flierfy

bigbossman said:


> WTF teams were majority foreign so how can you say English talent progressed to the finals. FOREIGN TALENT DID!!! The facts are there for you to see, STOP LYING.
> 
> I am not anti-English i am anti arrogance and ignorance which is perpetuated most by England fans, if you see me on these boards i've debated with Juventus fans and everyone....
> 
> I don't discrimanate, it's only ignorance I wish to eliminate!


You are a complete muppet. Not only that you deny the obvious. You are in fact clueless and the most ignorant and jaundiced poster in this thread. 

English footballers are highly competitive. Everyone can see this. Just you denies it. Keep living in your own cocoon where English football has no talent if it makes you happy. Just stop spamming this forum with ridiculous claims.


----------



## bigbossman

JimB said:


> I'm merely disputing bigbossman's claim that England's contribution has been the least of all major nations.


The point is Jim, it's subjective so you can't disagree with my POV on this because it cannot be proved incorrect or correct.

As this "debate" has gone on it is clear that everything we say that can't quantifiably be measured has gone round and round in circles. Whereas anything that can has been stopped with fact. 

Therefore like I said earlier, I believe England's contribution is less than other major nations, there is nothing you can do or say to change that opinion, it's the way i feel, you can call me anti English, you can call me a Europhile, or you can just accept that i am a human being with free will and I am going to form my opinions and make my judgements based on what *I* like and perceive as a cultural influence, not what you do... 

Conversely i can't disuade your (or a few of the crackpots on heres) opinion even when the cold hard facts present themselves, this is the internet afterall, so who knows...


----------



## bigbossman

flierfy said:


> You are a complete muppet. Not only that you deny the obvious. You are in fact clueless and the most ignorant and jaundiced poster in this thread.


I think it is quite clear you are the idiot, you are the one who resorts to name calling instead of arguing the points not me. 

Nobody has disputed the fact that foreigners make the premiership, *except you.* In fact others have tried to level that other leagues dominated European because of foreigners, which was proven wrong, and accepted. 

*You need to read the thread and realise you are talking absolute bollocks. *

Less than 40% of players in the premier league are English, our teams that represent us in champions league finals are overwhelming made up of foreigners. 

*IT IS YOU WHO CAN'T SEE THE FACTS*, others have on this at least.

see what i mean JimB, sometimes when you present the facts and evidence, the crackpots on this website still find away to not accept them...



> English footballers are highly competitive.


When did i ever say they weren't??



> Everyone can see this. Just you denies it.


i call bullshit on that 



> Keep living in your own cocoon where English football has no talent if it makes you happy. Just stop spamming this forum with ridiculous claims.


since when does "don't have the talent" = we have no talent. READ WHAT I SAY

Sort out your knickers, then clean those glasses, because at the moment you can't see the wood from trees and you are ranting and raving about something that nobody has said. Chill out and stop being so defensive about things and you might realise nobody is attacking what you are paranoid about.


----------



## Republica

Kevin Keegan, Gary Lineker, Michael Owen


----------



## bigbossman

Republica said:


> Kevin Keegan, Gary Lineker, Michael Owen


??? ??? ??? ???

Michael owen doesn't deserve to be in same setence as the other two!!


----------



## bthj

JimB said:


> And you are????
> 
> How can English football be irrelevant when English football clubs are so dominant in the Champions League?
> 
> How would English football be non-existant without "the money"?
> 
> And why should English football be without "the money" any more than Italian or Spanish football, or football of any nationality, for that matter?
> 
> Really, yours is one of the silliest post I've ever seen on this forum.......and that's quite an achievement!


thank you so much. shall we speak again when the english national team actually makes a win of importance?


----------



## JimB

bigbossman said:


> The point is Jim, *it's subjective so you can't disagree with my POV* on this because it cannot be proved incorrect or correct.
> 
> As this "debate" has gone on it is clear that everything we say that can't quantifiably be measured has gone round and round in circles. Whereas anything that can has been stopped with fact.
> 
> Therefore like I said earlier, I believe England's contribution is less than other major nations, there is nothing you can do or say to change that opinion, it's the way i feel, you can call me anti English, you can call me a Europhile, or you can just accept that i am a human being with free will and I am going to form my opinions and make my judgements based on what *I* like and perceive as a cultural influence, not what you do...
> 
> Conversely i can't disuade your (or a few of the crackpots on heres) opinion even when the cold hard facts present themselves, this is the internet afterall, so who knows...


Of course I *can* disagree with your POV! That is the very essence of debate.

What you mean to say, I suspect, is that we *will* never agree...........and on that, I can safely say, we are fully agreed.


----------



## JimB

bthj said:


> thank you so much. shall we speak again when the english national team actually makes a win of importance?


Since when was English football limited to the exploits of the England national team? Do I need to remind you that club football is far more important than international football to the vast majority of football fans around the world?

Besides, if English football is "pretty irrelevant" because the national team has been little more than average over the past forty years or so, what does that make the vast majority of countries who have a far worse record than the English national team? You're effectively saying that they are utterly irrelevant.

What a stunningly arrogant thing for anyone to say. 

And I ask again, since you failed to answer:

How can English football be irrelevant when English football clubs are so dominant in the Champions League?

How would English football be non-existant without "the money"?

And why should English football be without "the money" any more than Italian or Spanish football, or football of any nationality, for that matter?

Shall we speak again when you've come up with some remotely sensible answers for those conundrums of your own making?

P.S. Just so as to give me an idea - what's your nationality?


----------



## bigbossman

He's a celtic fan^^



JimB said:


> Of course I *can* disagree with your POV! That is the very essence of debate.
> 
> What you mean to say, I suspect, is that we *will* never agree...........and on that, I can safely say, we are fully agreed.


at least that's one thing we agree upon, until the next time :cheers:


----------



## Ecological

Well after reading pages and pages of ridiculously boring drivel written by an undercover Italian I've come up with my conclusion.

BigBossMan is an idiot


----------



## bigbossman

^^ that post was worth it, really added to the debate. 

You're worse than sitback!!


----------



## Ecological

This isn't a debate. You need to accept facts and points of view for that. Unfortunately, your limited to only listening to yourself which has bored me and thousands others. 

You are an Idiot


----------



## www.sercan.de

Guys this forum is huge and we have a sports bar section


----------



## bigbossman

Ecological said:


> This isn't a debate. You need to accept facts and points of view for that. Unfortunately, your limited to only listening to yourself which has bored me and thousands others.
> 
> You are an Idiot


erm read the thread, and you'll see it's resolved. 

It was as much other people not accepting my POV that was the issue....

I think you should look again as i was the one posting facts...

anyway, you have a track record with all that bullshit you were saying about world cup 1966, so why am i not suprised...


----------



## JimB

GNU said:


> A WC will always ignite a stadium boom within the host country these days.
> That said many people are forgetting that not all venues have been built/redeveloped for the tournament, most notably the stadiums in Hamburg, Gelsenkirchen and Dortmund. Munich can be mentioned aswell since the stadium wasnt built for the tournament either but because Bayern wanted to get out of the Olympiastadion after it became clear that they werent allowed to renovate it. Only minor renovation works have been carried out in Nuremburg and Stuttgart.
> Anyhow, Germany is currently experiencing another building boom without a major tournament in sight.


Building booms tend to develop their own momentum. The World Cup was the catalyst but the effects will continue to be felt for years to come as other clubs realise that their stadiums have to come up to scratch.


----------



## flierfy

JimB said:


> But it was fair to say, I think, that World Cup 2006 was a significant reason for the stadium building boom within German football. It is also fair to suggest that there is now far more room for capacity growth within the Premiership - especially if England is chosen as host for the 2018 or 2022 World Cup.


No, you miss the point. The World Cup was certainly a catalyser for some projects. But it was no reason. The reason is the Bundesliga and the opportunity to raise more money by bigger and better grounds.


----------



## bigbossman

JimB said:


> You were trying to make a point by wishing away something that is. That's la-la land logic. I merely illustrated how nonsensical such thinking was, by way of analogy.


You clearly illustrated nothing as your points only hold water to someone who buys your bullshit. As i am nice, a little bit of education on averages to help you out...

_"In mathematics, an average, or central tendency of a data set refers to a measure of the *"middle"* or expected value of the data set"_

_"The most common method is the arithmetic mean but there are many other types of averages, such as *median* (which is used most often when the distribution of the values is *skewed with some small numbers of very high values*, as seen with house prices or incomes)." _

Yaha

One or two values out of line *skew* an average. Leeds and Leicester's figures skew league 1's average. Thus you use the median or take them out to get the accurate value. 

*We only use mean because it is a convention.* The median provides the typical value for these types of samples and is what we should use for average attendance.



> Oh and....just for info....unless you have an ancient native of France in your service, you don't have the "gaul" to do anything.
> 
> You might, however, have the gall.


And the point of that was?? it doesn't make you look clever it makes you look like you are trying to look clever to mask over the weakness of your point...


----------



## Ecological

bigbossman said:


> Get your facts right
> 
> Munich has 3 teams actually, unterhaching are in 3. liga and all three were in the bundesliga not so long ago.


Well, technically it didnt as only two were fully professional. However, since the change came into play for liga 3 a few years ago this has changed but not that much. Spielverei????? Unterhaching or whatever they are have since cut thier wage bill and pays teens to play for them to keep costs down on basically "non-professional contracts".

They were relegated ages ago -6/7 years? maybe more ... And the difference. Birmingham has Walsall. Since been relegated to Englands 4th tier but was only a few years ago in Englands 2nd division, (back in 3rd tier now) Unterhaching have a capacity only 3 and a bit thousand bigger then the Bescot and thats taking into account terraces. 



> The DFB requires that all 3. Liga stadia accommodate 10,000 spectators, with at least 2,000 seats on offer. (The terraces are alive and well in Germany.) But why does SpVgg Unterhaching need such a stadium when it attracted just 2,394 spectators per match last season? The last time Unterhaching attracted more than 10,000 fans per match was the 2000/01 season, when they attracted 10,906 — in the 1. Bundesliga.


Hardly a big club would you say? and well below Walsall.


----------



## GNU

If you are looking for football enthusiasm (number of clubs per capita) youd be better off with the Rhine-Ruhr area rather than Munich.


----------



## bigbossman

Mate do you ever stop banging on about how "great" England is... Your maths, and examples are as usual *WRONG*!!!



Ecological said:


> Ground improvements have been on going in alot of German and British footballing cities ever since the Taylor report was issued and FIFA/EUFA put legislations down demanding changes to be made. Further improments were made to World Cup venues in Germany which will also happen in England if they are succesful in a world cup bid for 2018.
> 
> Those previous figures are for the combined 2007/08 football season.
> 
> If we take into account the average price off tickets for Bundesliga games
> 
> 19 Euro's compared to
> 51 Euro's for the Premier League it paints a different picture.
> 
> England is categorically not allowed any standing areas unlike top flight German sides which also reduce any possible attendence.


That doesn't follow, I have a mate who's dad spends his dole (social security) money on a millwall season tickets.



> In Germany you also have teams who ground share.
> 
> 
> For instance. Two Munich Clubs ... TSV 1860 München and Bayern Munich both play at the Allianz Arena. with a capacity of 69,000 (with standing)


Yeah two clubs as proven. Also it's happened in England. 

There is no relevance anyway.



> Birmingham (a smaller city) has Aston Villa, Birmingham City and West Bromwich Albion, with Wolverhampton Wanderers just 7 miles away.


lolol Birmingham city has 1 million people and 2 clubs, west bromwich albion play in *Sandwell* which has a further 290,000. 

All in all the west midlands conurbation has a population of 2,284,093, and has 5 clubs, based on your crappy logic, That is 456,819 fans per club. 



> Average attendances for all 4 clubs are
> 
> Aston Villa 39,638 (93.2%)
> West Bromwich Albion 25,810 (92.1%)
> Wolverhampton Wanderers 24,153 (84.6%)
> Birmingham City 19,081 (63.5%)
> 
> The capacitys off all 4 stadiums = 129,195 seats. Thats 1 seat for every 9 people. With so many teams in close proxmity the fan market is split. roughly, lets say 250,000 for each team.


As proven the west midlands conurbation which covers wolverhampton, birmingham, dudley, walsall, west bromwich etc, has a population of over 2 million. so the are actually 1 seat for every 20 people. Although i don't get the relevance



> Munich with 1,400,000 people have two professional football teams to support. thats a possible 700,000 fans for each team.


As proven munich has 3 teams not two. So your maths are off again.



> A reason why stadium capacitys were built minimal in the UK to begin with was due to the number of professional clubs on the board. No other nation in Europe had this "restriction" so to speak.


LOL bullshit. Our teams are representative of our urban areas. Same as in Germany. We have many large towns (100,000+) without a professional club in them, and many small towns (under 100,00) ith professional clubs. Same as Germany same as everywhere.



> English teams are increasing thier stadiums which have already been developed steadily. United for instance.
> 
> Another disadvantage for English teams is the traditional location of the stadium. Many apart from the new new ones (Emirates) have been redeveloped on the original home and just expanded.
> 
> The likes of White Hart Lane, Anfield, Molineux, Villa Park have never moved ... restrictions for expansion have always been there.


Many german stadiums have just been redevelopments of the old grounds. 

This isn't a point or an excuse this is just idle drivel. 

Villa can expand but they haven't, Liverpool are "moving" ground, and tottenham are building a new ground adjacent, wolves have announced an expansion have they not. 

If they want to move they can, nothing is stopping them. Location is not just a problem for English teams, so stop it!



> If England had the same sized stadiums as Germany. Which will never likely happen due to the number of professional clubs and the 30 million less people in the country it would undoubtedly have larger average attendences.


Having a larger population doesn't mean anything. People generally support their local team as in England. The urban areas are no different in size, so the pool of fans for each club is no different. 



> If we got rid of the two lower leagues and just had the championship and the premiership and Bundesliga 1 & 2 ... even out the averages and despite having considerably smaller stadiums England would just come out on top.


what... the top two divisions in germany average more than the top two divisions in England...

Bundesliga 41,446 and 2. Bundesliga 15106 = 28274

PL and Championship 35, 341 and 17,875 = 25, 814

The medians of both are

germany 24,763

England 22,337

You were right :nuts::lol:



> Liverpool, Tottenham both with 60,000 seaters in planning. United with expansion plans etc it wont be long till Stats prove it. but if you look deeper into it the truth is evident for all to see.


Not at all, as many of the smaller teams are buiding new stadiums instead of the concrete bowls, and many of the larger teams are expanding, rebuilding. 

All you need to do is accept that someone is doing better than us. It's not hard!


----------



## woozoo

^^ The mean doesnt work for your argument so you propose using the median...

This is a lost cause argument for you. No other country has such depth in its lower leagues as England.


----------



## bigbossman

It's clear that you are comparing a city against a whole urban area, made of multiple nodes with nearly double the population, just so you can *TRY* and win an argument.



Ecological said:


> Well, technically it didnt as only two were fully professional.


They played one season in the regional league, i doubt for that one season they weren't professiobal... 



> However, since the change came into play for liga 3 a few years ago this has changed but not that much. Spielverei?????


*Cough* this season.



> Unterhaching or whatever they are have since cut thier wage bill and pays teens to play for them to keep costs down on basically "non-professional contracts".


do you have evidence of this?? 

considering they are third and inline for promotion i highly doubt that. 



> They were relegated ages ago -6/7 years? maybe more ... And the difference. Birmingham has Walsall. Since been relegated to Englands 4th tier but was only a few years ago in Englands 2nd division, (back in 3rd tier now)


1. Walsall is not part of birmingham

2. Wallsall have never played in Englands top division and spent barely 5 in the second tier over 3 spells. 

That is the difference



> Unterhaching have a capacity only 3 and a bit thousand bigger then the Bescot and thats taking into account terraces.


So?? 



> Hardly a big club would you say?


did i say they were?



> and well below Walsall.


 in your opinion



>


well done, you can embed images...


----------



## bigbossman

^^

1. LOL go reaserch when & why the mean and when & why the median are applied to statistical samples. I even through in a few mathetmatical terms in the last post to help you out.

2. I never said English football doesn't have depth lower down, however comparing to leagues which have reserve teams and are regionalised to prove how great we are, is wrong as it is not a fair comparison.

3. The championship has a higher median than the 2. bundesliga, even last season when the bundesliga had a higher mean.


----------



## Fizmo1337

It's funny that for England you pick a city like Birmingham (with many clubs compared to their population) and for Germany you pick Munich (big city with not that many teams). If a german would do the same he could pick a small city in Germany with several clubs and compare it to a big city in England with only 1 or 2 teams and prove the same argument. 
It's easy to twist statistics to your own benefit but it doesn't mean your right.


----------



## Republica

Hang on bigbossman.

You accept that the Championship has the 4th highest total attendance and has had the 6th or 7th highest average attendance for the past few years right? And the leagues below that are better attended than comparable leagues.

Its quite simple.


----------



## bigbossman

^^ exactly fizmo you can't really compare

And he even added teams to birmingham, it only has two teams within the city. Though he added 2 more but didn't add the extra population.


----------



## bigbossman

Republica said:


> Hang on bigbossman.
> 
> You accept that the Championship has the 4th highest total attendance


I don't accept the stat as legitimate, total attendance is a bullshit figure to use, as we are working with more teams and more games.



> and has had the 6th or 7th highest average attendance for the past few years right?


I never ever questioned the position of the championship in average terms.



> And the leagues below that are better attended than comparable leagues.
> 
> Its quite simple.


Well there aren't any comparable leagues, so no!!


----------



## Steel City Suburb

There are.
We have 4 main Tiers.

You can easily compare each countries tiers against each other.


----------



## woozoo

bigbossman said:


> ^^
> 
> 1. LOL go reaserch when & why the mean and when & why the median are applied to statistical samples. I even through in a few mathetmatical terms in the last post to help you out.
> 
> 2. I never said English football doesn't have depth lower down, however comparing to leagues which have reserve teams and are regionalised to prove how great we are, is wrong as it is not a fair comparison.
> 
> 3. The championship has a higher median than the 2. bundesliga, even last season when the bundesliga had a higher mean.


Dude u can't ignore Leeds or other clubs with high attendance and use the median. The fact that such big clubs exist and draw big crowds is a credit to the lower leagues and English football as a whole.


----------



## carfentanyl

When it comes to people attending divided by the size of the country, I believe the Dutch Eredivisie has the highest attendance. Or maybe the Scottish league, but their league has fewer clubs, so you should add the 6 highest attendance clubs from the Scottish second league to get a more suitable figure for comparing attendances per capita.

Italy and France with over 3 times as many people as the Netherlands have an average attendance only a couple thousand more than the Dutch Eredivisie. Italy's and France's first division's average attendance are probably the lowest per capita in Europe.


----------



## bigbossman

Steel City Suburb said:


> There are.
> We have 4 main Tiers.
> 
> You can easily compare each countries tiers against each other.


No you can't, you can't compare regional football with national football, and you can't compare leagues with reserve teams to leagues without, and you can't compare semi pro leagues to pro leagues. Unless you make adjustments for this.

The only two divisions we can compare in each country are the top two


----------



## bigbossman

woozoo said:


> Dude u can't ignore Leeds or other clubs with high attendance and use the median. The fact that such big clubs exist and draw big crowds is a credit to the lower leagues and English football as a whole.


I disagree i say it is a credit to the club and their fans. I am in no doubt if manchester united fell to legaue 1 they'd still average above 50,000. Just like when atletico fell into Segunda A they still averaged above 40,000. 

The point is football isn't static divisions aren't equivilent to clubs size. If we swapped the prem teams and league 1 teams around, i'd think league 1 with prem teams would still average more. 

What i am saying is, leagues generally are accurate as for most part teams spend most of their time in the division equivilent to their size, but there are many times when they don't so the only way to get an accurate reflection on how well supported a league is, you have to use the median.

Hope that makes sense.


----------



## JimB

flierfy said:


> No, you miss the point. The World Cup was certainly a catalyser for some projects. But it was no reason. The reason is the Bundesliga and the opportunity to raise more money by bigger and better grounds.


I don't miss the point at all.

Of course, you are correct to say that the need for bigger and better stadia is the main reason why all the new stadia have been built. But without the World Cup, the building schedule would have been less focused. It would have occurred over a longer period. Hence why I wrote, very specifically, that _World Cup 2006 was a significant reason for the stadium building *boom*_.


----------



## JimB

Again, Ecological gets a few things wrong. But, to be fair, if you're going to include the entire urban area of the West Midlands, then you have to do the same for Munich.

And Munich's urban area has a population of 2.6 million. If you include all the suburbs, that figure rises to 4.7 million. And the official Munich Metropolitan region - which includes Augsburg, Ingolstadt, Landshut, Rosenheim and Landsberg - has a population of 6 million.


----------



## Ecological

Which was why I subsequently changed it to the North West. Still they are only 27 miles away. 27 MILES? thats a London Marathon.


----------



## Ecological

Fizmo1337 said:


> No offence but your arguments you make are bullshit. He was talking about NL having the highest attendance in a country in Europe compared to their population so why do you change this and compare the Manchester Metro Area with the Netherlands???


I've asked to see statistics. I really cant see this being the case, sorry to dissappoint you but unless proven different, this is complete bullshit on its own. 



> You just take one of the most densest football area's in the UK (based on footballclubs/population) and compare it to a whole country. If you want to prove your point compare England to the Netherlands and don't just pick an area where you think "oh this must have better statistics than the Netherlands so let's take this".


Shall I compare East and West Midlands for you? or maybe London? England has 50,000,000 people. 34 million more then The Netherlands. 

The majority of areas in England would have superior statistics to Holland. 






> That's just bullshit. I can exactly do the same and pick an area in NL with a high number of clubs compared to their population and compare it to NL and say I'm right.


Do it then. Im waiting. England has 4/5 tiers of professional clubs with many semi-pro below it. There is no doubt football is loved in The Netherlands. However, its rubbish to claim percentage wise they sell me tickets then anyone else when they clearly dont.



> And I saw you in another thread doing exactly the same. You were comparing Birmingham to Munich. What a load of tosh. You just pick the area's that you know that will prove your point and compare them. How on earth can anyone take your arguments even serious??


Umm, Birmingham isn't exactly the hotbed off English football, which shows the dpeth off the game here if you think that is the case. Munich has a Champions League club. Does Birmingham? Munich is the un-official second city. So is Birmingham. I was going to compare Berlin to London, but that would've been embarrassing for the German counter-part.



> The most obvious is to take the COUNTRY and divide the population by the average attendance in each league (in order to prove his point, not that I entirely agree with it because the lower leagues in England are more popular and aren't included in these numbers, etc...) so it would be like this:
> 
> NL: 26 million / 20 000
> England: 52 million / 35 000
> The point he made was correct (at least NL>England in this case) alltho there are many flaws in it.


Of course there are flaws it in. Thats absolute crap. 

1. England have far more professional teams and every major city is littered with at least a couple. 
2. More teams mean less fans to capture. The fact average attendences are so high across the board highlights this even more. 
3. If you took the 5 highest teams from Each of Englands league and add them to Hollands top flight it'll highlight it more. 
4. The fact that will leave 72 LEAGUE clubs and 24 more professional clubs out the equation and just 20 from the Netherland who average little over 2-3,000 makes the statement even more embarassing.




> Any prove of this? How do you know? Which criteria did you use?


Attendances for all major sporting events across the globe. TV audiences also come into the equation. Australia and the UK constantly have huge crowds for every major sport played within the country. Those fringe sports you've mentioned across Europe attract good size crowds but not huge numbers. The BBL in England which has no TV coverage still manages to gain a few thousand at certain matches. Millions turn out for the London Marathon. its all relative but you only have to look at the sport on TV in the UK to recognise this. Horse Racing is another. 



> There are more sports than Rugby, cricket and football.
> In Western Europe (road) cycling is very popular, in southern and eastern countries Basketball and volleyball is very popular, in Central Europe handball is very popular, in Northern Europe hockey is very popular, etc... And how good are you in these sports?? It's not because you only care about Cricket, Rugby and Football and are quite good at it that you are also the most sporting nation the world.


Actually. Australia are the most sporting nation in the world. However, Sport in the UK is probably the most talked about, televised, and watched event. From formula 1, to the Grand National. Wimbledon to Cricket, Rugby union to rugby league. If theres a sport, big crowds turn out to see it.



> I know you want to convince other people that England is the best football country based on stadiums/attendance/passion/depth etc... (and I more or less agree with it) but the way you want to prove it is totally wrong. And the fact you can't admit it when another country is better than England in some cases is quite sad.


Im actually fed up with people continually baiting English football, Bigbossman being the biggest culprit. It doesn't change the fact though that The Netherlands doesn't sell more tickets per capita then any other nation (including England) unless there is evidence for this then I will stick to it. 

England is shit at quite a few things. Believe me im the biggest moaner if somethings not right with the place. But the crap spoke on these forums by foreigners who have little worth but just to put the place down and its football is staggering and petulent.


----------



## Qaabus

Since you are so keen on statistics here you go:

The Holland region of the Netherlands has 6,1 million people. 48 clubs have from that region have played on the highest 3 levels of the Dutch football pyramid during the last couple of years: 

Ajax, Feyenoord, AZ, Sparta, ADO Den Haag, FC Volendam, Dordrecht, Excelsior Rotterdam, Haarlem, Telstar, Quick Boys Katwijk, Rijnsburgse Boys, ARC, Lisse, Leerdam, vv Katwijk, Barendrecht, Westlandia, VVSB, Ter Leede,
Haaglandia, Noordwijk, SHO, ASWH, Excelsior Maassluis, HCSV Zwaluwen '30,
DOTO, TOGR, ADO'20, Argon, Hollandia, Papendrecht, VUC, AFC, DWV, DWS, 
DCV, Huizen, Vitesse Delft, Capelle, Heerjansdam, Geinoord, Scheveningen, Deltasport, Voorschoten '97, Marken, Zwart Wit '28, RKAV Volendam.

England's North-West has 6,8 million people. How many clubs have at least made League One? Probably not even 12, a quarter of Holland's.


Groesbeek in Gelderland with 18996 inhabitants has *6* clubs. Three of those have no problem attracting 2500 supporters on a regular basis. Is there anything equivalent in England?

Bunschoten-Spakenburg in Utrecht has 19752 inhabitants. Its two biggest clubs easily bring 8000 supporters each to big games. No town in England can come even close.

Anyone can twist statistics to support their points.


----------



## bigbossman

JimB said:


> In the interests of brevity (a quality that still eludes you, I see), I won't attempt to respond to your post in your inimitable, piecemeal style.


I still fail to see why brevity is necessary in a discussion on the internet. WE're not having a conversation where we can bounce ideas of one enough etc...



> I will simply say that there is no correct and incorrect. You cannot make up the rules to suit your purposes.


I think you will find if you look at the old attendances thread i was advoacting the median then when people were talking about the bundesliga, there has been no change in policy from me!



> The discussion was about average attendances - by which the vast majority of people usually understand _mean_ attendances. You decided, unilaterally, that that was not allowed - which is a ridiculous stance to take.


No, I used my passable knowledge of statistics (studied it to degree level) to deduce that using the mean is incorrect in this instance. Just because the vast majority of people do it or use it, doesn't mean it is right!



> Granted, the _mean_ figure tells you something very different from the _median_ figure, but it is still, nevertheless, a relevant figure. It's not for you to decide and dictate what is or isn't relevant, useful or legitimate.


No the mean figure only tells you something different when figures are skewed they are generally similar.



> Sigh..............I made no attempt to hide the fact that I was venturing into pedantry. I can assure you that it was not a points scoring exercise. You're clearly intelligent enough not to be a deserving target for that sort of attack even if I was the sort of person who delighted in such a use for pedantry (and I'm not). Believe it or not, I genuinely only wrote what I did in the spirit of education.


Fair enough...



woozoo said:


> I would disagree with this.
> 
> Median: The median can be used when a distribution is skewed, when end values are not known, *or when less importance is attached to outliers*, e.g. because they may be measurement errors. A disadvantage is the difficulty of handling it theoretically. (from wiki)
> 
> Is the attendance of Leeds or Leicester any less important than of the other clubs? No.
> Yes they are outliers, but no less important than any of the other figures.


1. The key word is *or* meaning that only need to satisfy one for usage of the median to be relevant. 

2. It doesn't say anywhere that the median isn't used if there isn't less importance attached to outliers. 



> The median is used to find the middle figure. You would use it when determining how much you could expect to pay for a middle of the range house in a particular city (you want to ignore the value of mega mansions).


No you want to find out what the *typical* house price is within the area.



> In our instance, you are attempting to get an idea of the average attendance of ALL the clubs in a particular league. A total attendance figure is also useful, though due to different number of games and teams, an average - mean - is used.


No in this instance the mean shows us the average distribution of fans per club, the median shows the typical average attendance of a club in the league.

For a total attendance to hold water all you have to do is chop off teams from either end. So to compare the prem to the bundesliga, you chop off manchester united and Wigan.



> Mean>Median in this case.


ok you believe that...



RobH said:


> You might be right, but the very fact that England sustains four (almost five) divisions of pro teams says a lot in itself.


i agree, although you could argue it says a lot about the relatively small size and population distribution of our country compared to others...


----------



## bigbossman

Ecological said:


> Of course im going to get a few things wrong. Im not writing a book on the subject and its being done quickly, But Munich like Birmingham is like someone else pointed out, not exactly the hotbed of English football. If you've ever been to Birmingham Big Boss Man you will understand why West Brom is classified as a Birmingham club. Yes I did however forget to include the population of Sandwell which I shall admit to.


My mate went to Birmingham and said it's the most depressing place he has ever been and we come from South East London! So i doubt i will ever go, i did have a mate at uni who said west brom were bigger rivals to him (villa fan) than birminham because their ground is closer to villa park...



> The fact still remains though, England would trump Germanys attendances if it had a two tier professional structure and had fewer pro clubs per area. By quite a distance.


...and you base that on your superiority complex!

Germany is hindered by it's larger population which doesn't translate to more fans per club, just those extra fans being distributed around more clubs in the same set up! You gotta remember that Germany's large population is massively down to the re-unification, it had 63 million people in 1990!

England is hindered by a smaller population meaning we have more clubs per head closer to the top. 



> Everything is relevant, you just got to take in the advantages and disadvantages of culture, location, etc off each nation and I still suspect if England win the right to host 2018 by those years the EPL will be well ahead of the Bundesliga and The Championship still well ahead of the Bundesliga 2.


1. You are making the wild assumption that given the same conditions more people would go to matches in England than in Germany. I would disagree and say they would be about equal. 

2. The championship on mean figures only went ahead of the 2. Bundesliga this season. And will probably drop behind it next season based on who are getting promoted to and from each league.


----------



## GNU

bigbossman said:


> You gotta remember that Germany's large population is massively down to the re-unification, it had 63 million people in 1990!


Yes, you could take away East Germany and the attendance figures wouldnt be any different.


----------



## bigbossman

^^ Exactly, you should compare England and it's populaiton to west germany not germany as a whole. As many of east germany's clubs have been left to rot!

I mean who are hansa rostock and energie cottbus. The big east german clubs are stupidly low.


----------



## woozoo

You are so wrong. With such a high level of statistics education, I KNOW you know that. Stop trying to fool everyone.

"The median can be used when a distribution is skewed, when end values are not known, or when less importance is attached to outliers, e.g. because they may be measurement errors."

I dont have time to tackle this right now properly, so ill be brief.

1) I doubt the data is skewed. Two clubs with very high attendance in a league of 20 or 18? Thats not skewed. It would be skewed to the right if _many_ clubs had very high attendance, many in the middle, and very few had very low attendance.

I havent seen figures for individual clubs but as you mentioned only two clubs in third tier with very high attendance, Im assuming the data has normal distribution.

2) All values are known.

3) All values have equal importance.

4) There are no significant measurement errors.



there is a reason why mean is most commonly used (even though it is more difficult to calculate than median). That is because it is the best measure of an average, most of the time. It certainly is in this case.


Also, I dont know why you use the word "typical". What does that actually mean? Middle of the range is a *much* more suitable description.


----------



## bigbossman

woozoo said:


> You are so wrong. With such a high level of statistics education, I KNOW you know that. Stop trying to fool everyone.
> 
> "The median can be used when a distribution is skewed, when end values are not known, or when less importance is attached to outliers, e.g. because they may be measurement errors."
> 
> I dont have time to tackle this right now properly, so ill be brief.
> 
> 1) I doubt the data is skewed. Two clubs with very high attendance in a league of 20 or 18? Thats not skewed. It would be skewed to the right if _many_ clubs had very high attendance, many in the middle, and very few had very low attendance.
> 
> I havent seen figures for individual clubs but as you mentioned only two clubs in third tier with very high attendance, Im assuming the data has normal distribution.
> 
> 2) All values are known.
> 
> 3) All values have equal importance.
> 
> 4) There are no significant measurement errors.
> 
> 
> 
> there is a reason why mean is most commonly used (even though it is more difficult to calculate than median). That is because it is the best measure of an average, most of the time. It certainly is in this case.
> 
> 
> Also, I dont know why you use the word "typical". What does that actually mean? Middle of the range is a *much* more suitable description.


I don't need to repeat myself, however you have just defeated your own argument by

1. commenting on stats which you haven't seen
2. not knowing the number of teams in the league/sample
3. because you have said you *assume* that the data has normal distribution

Firstly you should look at the stats...


----------



## woozoo

I cbf looking for the stats. 
Until you prove me wrong, I will assume the data has relatively normal distribution (possibly _slightly_ skewed to the right).

As I mentioned I didnt have time to see how many teams are in League 1. That number is 24, which further dilutes the effect of two outliers.

In this instance we are not looking for a central tendency (As you do when searching for average house prices or average wages), but rather we are interested in how well the entire league is attended. It is not right to ignore outliers in this case, so even if the data is skewed, the mean is a better measure of average.

PS, we arent using a sample, but the entire population


----------



## npmrsi

Today a new Bundesliga record was set with 460,000 people attending the 9 games.


----------



## bigbossman

^^ that's just laughable, you cbf because the stats *will* prove you wrong, so here they are. You know for a fact regardless of how many teams are in a league even one outlier can make all the difference. 

Leeds United FC	23.813
Leicester City FC	20.253
Huddersfield Town	12.863
Milton Keynes Dons	10.551
Millwall	8.940
Southend United	7.850
Peterborough United FC	7.599
Swindon Town FC	7.499
Bristol Rovers FC	7.171
Carlisle United FC	6.268
Stockport County	6.130
Brighton & Hove Albion AFC	6.092
Tranmere Rovers	5.820
Oldham Athletic AFC	5.636
Northampton Town	5.200
Colchester United FC	5.084
Scunthorpe United FC	5.021
Leyton Orient FC	4.692
Walsall FC	4.572
Crewe Alexandra FC	4.537
Yeovil Town FC	4.423
Cheltenham Town	3.854
Hartlepool United FC	3.835
Hereford United FC	3.270

As you can see there leicester average double all but 3 teams in the league, and triple around 2/3rds, that's not taking into account Leeds united who average over 20% more than leicester... 

If we are looking for how well the league is attended then we don't use an average!!

And we are using a sample of the football going public in England...

That's me done


----------



## isaidso

Excuse my ignorance, but what is 'Football League'? Is this a grouping of lower division clubs from England? I've heard of the Premiership, but it gets a bit fuzzy beyond that.


----------



## woozoo

Premier league - First Tier
Championship - Second Tier
Football League 1 - Third Tier
Football League 2 - Fourth Tier

Rather confusing if you ask me...

The Football League is the grouping of the three lower leagues.


----------



## isaidso

Championship, FL1, and FL2? OK, thanks.


----------



## woozoo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Football_League

yep


----------



## The Sage

What I really appreciate about the English leagues compared to many others is that reserve teams are kept separate. Having the big hitters' reserve teams dominating the lower leagues in other countries cheapens the whole thing terribly.


----------



## GNU

The Sage said:


> What I really appreciate about the English leagues compared to many others is that reserve teams are kept separate. Having the big hitters' reserve teams dominating the lower leagues in other countries cheapens the whole thing terribly.


I agree. Having reserve teams in the lower leagues (whether they are dominating or not) severely hampers the development of small clubs.


----------



## galaxtico

How come Italian attendances went down?


----------



## Patrick

I guess it's due to the violence and the police, and increased secure aspects for getting tickets (only with ID-card etc).

Btw: New record for the newly introduced 3. Liga in Germany. At this moment, there are 51500 people watching Fortuna Düsseldorf - Werder Bremen II in the new Rheinstadion (LTU-Arena) in Düsseldorf.


----------



## Fab87

Patrick said:


> I guess it's due to the violence and the police, and increased secure aspects for getting tickets (only with ID-card etc).
> 
> Btw: New record for the newly introduced 3. Liga in Germany. At this moment, there are 51500 people watching Fortuna Düsseldorf - Werder Bremen II in the new Rheinstadion (LTU-Arena) in Düsseldorf.


This proves that the german system is the best one. kay: New and comfortable stadium, few barriers, good organization, and so on! 
Respect!
P.S. Fussball, Ficken, Alcohol...perfect!


----------



## Patrick

well, Düsseldorf averaged at 14000 this season, today was the last game, the final game for the promotion 

Düsseldorf won and will play in the 2. Bundesliga next season.


----------



## GEwinnen

Matchday 34 attendances Bundesliga:

Wolfsburg-Bremen 30,000
Frankfurt-Hamburg 50,000
Bayern-Stuttgart 69,000
Cottbus-Leverkusen 22,000
Bielefeld-Hannover 28,000
Karlsruhe-Berlin 24,000
Köln-Bochum 50,000
Borussia-Borussia 55,000
Schalke-Hoffenheim 61,000

=390,000 /43,333

2008/2009: total 13,011,438 / average 42,521

@patrick:



> F U S S B A L L
> F I C K E N
> A L K O H O L


Da wir ja schon seit längerem hier Kenntnis über deine Vorlieben haben: Verrätst du uns, was am besten bei dir geht?


----------



## Ecological

*AWAY ATTENDENCES*

From Leeds United website.

Leeds United's away support has been confirmed as the best in League One and is second only to Coca-Cola Championship title winners Wolves in the entire Football League.

*Wolves 2,808
Leeds United 2,523 
Sheffield United 2,316
Nottingham Forest 2,046
Derby County 2,009
Leicester City 2,002*


----------



## Carrerra

GEwinnen said:


> Matchday 34 attendances Bundesliga:
> 
> Wolfsburg-Bremen 30,000
> Frankfurt-Hamburg 50,000
> Bayern-Stuttgart 69,000
> Cottbus-Leverkusen 22,000
> Bielefeld-Hannover 28,000
> Karlsruhe-Berlin 24,000
> Köln-Bochum 50,000
> Borussia-Borussia 55,000
> Schalke-Hoffenheim 61,000
> 
> =390,000 /43,333
> 
> 2008/2009: total 13,011,438 / average 42,521
> 
> @patrick:
> 
> 
> 
> Da wir ja schon seit längerem hier Kenntnis über deine Vorlieben haben: Verrätst du uns, was am besten bei dir geht?


German football has the best stadium infrastructure, the biggest attendance and very reasonable ticket price range. Every football league in the world should benchmark it.


----------



## Patrick

It might be true for the top league, but unfortunately, the lower leagues are quite in trouble now, especially the fourth league (Regionalliga), that many small teams from the 5th leages don't want to promote although they qualified because it's too expensive to match the DFB standards for getting the license. 

Btw, the season is over now in the 3 top leagues, here are the attendance numbers according to weltfussball.de

1. Bundesliga
BV Borussia 09 Dortmund .... 74,851
FC Bayern München .......... 69,000
FC Schalke 04 .............. 61,387
Hamburger SV ............... 54,774
Hertha BSC Berlin .......... 52,157
VfB Stuttgart .............. 51,979
1. FC Köln ................. 49,316
VfL Borussia Mönchengladbach 47,376
SG Eintracht Frankfurt ..... 47,065
Hannoverscher SV 1896 ...... 41,860
SV Werder Bremen ........... 40,375
TSG Hoffenheim ............. 28,076
Karlsruher SC .............. 28,018
VfL Wolfsburg .............. 27,408
TSV Bayer 04 Leverkusen .... 26,044
VfL Bochum ................. 25,515
DSC Arminia Bielefeld ...... 23,465
FC Energie Cottbus ......... 16,720
*Total ...................... 42,521*

2. Bundesliga
1. FC Kaiserslautern ....... 34,409
1. FC Nürnberg ............. 33,544
TSV 1860 München ........... 28,135
FC Sankt Pauli ............. 22,366
1. FSV Mainz 05 ............ 19,571
TSV Alemannia Aachen ....... 19,377
SC Freiburg ................ 16,427
FC Augsburg ................ 15,577
FC Hansa Rostock ........... 14,812
MSV Duisburg ............... 14,747
VfL Osnabrück .............. 14,242
TuS Koblenz ................ 09,616
SpVgg Greuther Fürth ....... 08,416
SV Wehen Wiesbaden ......... 07,791
FSV Frankfurt .............. 07,222
SC Rot-Weiß Oberhausen ..... 06,842
FC Ingolstadt 04 ........... 05,530
Rot-Weiss Ahlen ............ 04,597
*Total ...................... 15,734*

3. Liga
TSV Fortuna Düsseldorf 95 .. 14,875
TSV Eintracht Braunschweig . 13,268
SG Dynamo Dresden .......... 10,969
FC Erzgebirge Aue .......... 08,089
SC Paderborn 07 ............ 07,718
Offenbacher FC Kickers ..... 07,269
1. FC Union Berlin ......... 07,150
FC Carl Zeiss Jena ......... 06,846
FC Rot-Weiß Erfurt ......... 06,149
Wuppertaler SV Borussia .... 04,172
SV Stuttgarter Kickers ..... 03,647
VfR Aalen .................. 03,507
BSV Kickers Emden .......... 03,329
SSV Jahn Regensburg ........ 03,261
SpVgg Unterhaching ......... 03,195
SV Wacker Burghausen ....... 02,805
SV Sandhausen .............. 02,755
FC Bayern München II ....... 01,536
VfB Stuttgart II ........... 00,984
SV Werder Bremen II ........ 00,750
*Total ...................... 05,614*

Some numbers from the Regionalliga (only clubs with currently +1,500)
Regionalliga Nord
1. FC Magdeburg ............ 08,623
Kieler SV Holstein ......... 03,598
FC Sachsen Leipzig ......... 02,910
Hallescher FC .............. 02,696
VfB Lübeck ................. 02,644
Chemnitzer FC .............. 02,624
SV Babelsberg 03 ........... 01,682

Regionalliga Süd
KSV Hessen Kassel .......... 04,300
SV Waldhof Mannheim ........ 03,668
SV Darmstadt 98 ............ 03,073
SSV Ulm 1846 ............... 02,527
1. FC Heidenheim ........... 02,413
SSV Reutlingen 05 .......... 02,059

Regionalliga West
SC Rot-Weiss Essen ......... 07,247
SC Preußen Münster ......... 03,498
SV Eintracht Trier 05 ...... 02,094
VfR Wormatia 08 Worms ...... 01,597
FC Schalke 04 II ........... 01,507

and to end this post, some numbers from the 5th tier Oberliga (only clubs with currently +1,000) according to transfermarkt.de


Oberliga Baden-Württemberg
none

Oberliga Bayern
TSV Buchbach ............... 01,143
1. FC Schweinfurt 05 ....... 01,116

Oberliga Bremen
none

Oberliga Hamburg
none

Oberliga Hessen
none

Oberliga Niedersachsen-West
SV Meppen .................. 02,867
VfB Oldenburg .............. 02,462

Oberliga Niedersachsen-Ost
none

Oberliga Nordost-Nord
none

Oberliga Nordost-Süd
1. FC Lokomotive Leipzig ... 03,326
FSV Zwickau ................ 01,559
ZFC Meuselwitz ............. 01,265

Oberliga Nordrhein-Westfalen
Sportfreunde Siegen ........ 01,427 

Oberliga Schleswig-Holstein
none

Oberliga Südwest
1. FC Saarbrücken .......... 03,532
FC 08 Homburg .............. 01,002





@GEwinnen, jedes auf seine Art und Weise 
btw, I'm pretty sure, that the Wildpark in Karlsruhe was sold out, so 30,600 and not 24,000 watched the game against Hertha


----------



## bigbossman

^^ surely it's too expensive patrick because half of their games will be against Reserve teams with small crowds. 

Great crowds though, it's amazing to see how a few 70,000+ crowds have distorted hertha's average massively, it was 46,000 not so long ago...


----------



## GEwinnen

Patrick said:


> I guess it's due to the violence and the police, and increased secure aspects for getting tickets (only with ID-card etc).
> 
> Btw: New record for the newly introduced 3. Liga in Germany. At this moment, there are 51500 people watching Fortuna Düsseldorf - Werder Bremen II in the new Rheinstadion (LTU-Arena) in Düsseldorf.



The last seconds and celebrations in Düsseldorf:


----------



## ØlandDK

^^
very impressive!


----------



## GNU

Lets hope that theyll get promoted to the 1st league soon.


----------



## bigbossman

with that sort of potential support and being in a massive city, why did they disappear for so long, over a decade right?

to the German fans, other than the current lot, Nuremberg, kaiserslautern and Dusseldorf what other teams could potentially average 40,000+??


----------



## www.sercan.de

Maybe TSV 1860 München.


----------



## bigbossman

^^yeah forgot them

One of the other Berlin teams?? Dynamo Dresden or one of the leipzig teams if they ever got their act together??


----------



## fanUltras

*World football ranking - average attendance* 

Europe 2008/9 + other continents

I did this ranking. Please amendments...

1. Bundesliga, Germany / 42 565
2. Premier League, England / 35 630
3. Primera División, Spain / 28 276
4. Primera División de México, Mexico (2007) / 25 379
5. Serie A, Italy / 25 045 
6. Ligue 1, France / 21 049 
7. Primera División Argentina (2008) / 20 886
8. Eredivisie, Netherlands / 19 789 
9. J. League, Japan (2008) / 19 278
10. Championship, England / 17 875
11. Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, Brazil (2008) / 16 992
12. Chinese Super League, China (2009) / 16 478
13. Major League Soccer, USA (2008) / 16 460
14. 2 Bundesliga, Germany / 15 730 
15. Scottish Premier League, Scotland / 15 537 
16. Turkcell Super Lig, Turkey / 14 058 
17. Premier Liga, Russia (2008) / 13 334
18. K-League, Korea (2008) / 13 242
19. A-League, Australia / 12 966
20. Liga Indonesia – around 12 000 (?) 
21. Jupiler League, Belgium / 11 039
22. Bwin Liga, Portugal / 10 390
23. V-League, Vietn Nam (2009) / 10 326
24. Tippeligaen, Norway / 9 812 
25. Copa Mustang, Colombia (2009) / 9 552
26. Iranian Premier League, Iran / 9216
27. Tipp-3 Bundesliga, Austria / 9 013 
28. Axpo Spuer League, Switzerland / 8 967 
29. SAS Ligaen, Denmark / 8 814
30. Ligue 2, France / 8 575
31. Allsvenskan, Sweden / 7 787
32. Segunda División, Spain / 7 655 
33. Superleague, Greece / 7 622
34. Visha Liga, Ukraine / 7 574
35. South African Premiership, South Africa / 7 526 
36. League One, England / 7 504 
37. Ekstraklasa, Poland / 7 351
38. J. League 2, Japan (2008) / 7 072
39. Primera Division de Chile (2008) / 6 147
40. Liga 1, Romania / 6 044
41. Serie B, Italy / 5 755
42. Oliy League, Uzbekistan (2008) / 5 698
43. 3 Bundesliga, Germany / 5 621
44. Ligat Toto, Israel / 5 305 
45. Primera Categoría Serie A, Ecuador (2009) / 4 697 
46. Gambrinus Liga, Czech Republic | 4 668

Egypt around 5k
Might be found in the ranking: India (?), Thailand (?), Morocco (?), Algeria (?), Syria (?), Myanmar (?), Peru (?)...


Continental Cups:
UEFA Champions League (2008/9) - 40.080 
UEFA Cup (2008/9) – 20.804
Copa Libertadores (2008) – 19.340 
AFC Champions League (2009) - 12.101
Copa Sudamericana (2009) – 7.373 
CONCACAF Champions League (2008/9) - 7.005
CAF Champions League - ??

Other leagues: 
Kazakhstan - 3 310
Croatia - 3 074
Singapore (2008) - 1 844
Finland - 2 636
Hungary - 2 826
Serbia - 2 851
Russia II - 4 259
Bulgaria - 2 862
Bosnia-Herzegovina (2006/7) - 2 237
Cyprus (2007/8) - 2 738

etc.


----------



## lpioe

^^ Great job.
Where did you find data for non european leagues?


----------



## Patrick

Lol, while I am making a new ranking, this thread got revitalized by someone else, too. 
Great job, fanultras!









Current standings.

If you tell me your sources, I'd like to include more leagues in my ranking, too


----------



## herb21

^^ looking at those figures are pretty interesting. Dont know what its like elsewhere but the SA figures are deff inflated by certain games


----------



## bigbossman

fanUltras said:


> *World football ranking - average attendance*
> 
> Europe 2008/9 + other continents
> 
> I did this ranking. Please amendments...
> 
> 1. Bundesliga, Germany / 42 565
> 2. Premier League, England / 35 630
> 3. Primera División, Spain / 28 276
> 4. Primera División de México, Mexico (2007) / 25 379
> 5. Serie A, Italy / 25 045
> 6. Ligue 1, France / 21 049
> 7. Primera División Argentina (2008) / 20 886
> 8. Eredivisie, Netherlands / 19 789
> 9. J. League, Japan (2008) / 19 278
> 10. Championship, England / 17 875
> 11. Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, Brazil (2008) / 16 992
> 12. Chinese Super League, China (2009) / 16 478
> 13. Major League Soccer, USA (2008) / 16 460
> 14. 2 Bundesliga, Germany / 15 730
> 15. Scottish Premier League, Scotland / 15 537
> 16. Turkcell Super Lig, Turkey / 14 058
> 17. Premier Liga, Russia (2008) / 13 334
> 18. K-League, Korea (2008) / 13 242
> 19. A-League, Australia / 12 966
> 20. Liga Indonesia – around 12 000 (?)
> 21. Jupiler League, Belgium / 11 039
> 22. Bwin Liga, Portugal / 10 390
> 23. V-League, Vietn Nam (2009) / 10 326
> 24. Tippeligaen, Norway / 9 812
> 25. Copa Mustang, Colombia (2009) / 9 552
> 26. Iranian Premier League, Iran / 9216
> 27. Tipp-3 Bundesliga, Austria / 9 013
> 28. Axpo Spuer League, Switzerland / 8 967
> 29. SAS Ligaen, Denmark / 8 814
> 30. Ligue 2, France / 8 575
> 31. Allsvenskan, Sweden / 7 787
> 32. Segunda División, Spain / 7 655
> 33. Superleague, Greece / 7 622
> 34. Visha Liga, Ukraine / 7 574
> 35. South African Premiership, South Africa / 7 526
> 36. League One, England / 7 504
> 37. Ekstraklasa, Poland / 7 351
> 38. J. League 2, Japan (2008) / 7 072
> 39. Primera Division de Chile (2008) / 6 147
> 40. Liga 1, Romania / 6 044
> 41. Serie B, Italy / 5 755
> 42. Oliy League, Uzbekistan (2008) / 5 698
> 43. 3 Bundesliga, Germany / 5 621
> 44. Ligat Toto, Israel / 5 305
> 45. Primera Categoría Serie A, Ecuador (2009) / 4 697
> 46. Gambrinus Liga, Czech Republic | 4 668
> 
> Egypt around 5k
> Might be found in the ranking: India (?), Thailand (?), Morocco (?), Algeria (?), Syria (?), Myanmar (?), Peru (?)...
> 
> 
> Continental Cups:
> UEFA Champions League (2008/9) - 40.080
> UEFA Cup (2008/9) – 20.804
> Copa Libertadores (2008) – 19.340
> AFC Champions League (2009) - 12.101
> Copa Sudamericana (2009) – 7.373
> CONCACAF Champions League (2008/9) - 7.005
> CAF Champions League - ??
> 
> Other leagues:
> Kazakhstan - 3 310
> Croatia - 3 074
> Singapore (2008) - 1 844
> Finland - 2 636
> Hungary - 2 826
> Serbia - 2 851
> Russia II - 4 259
> Bulgaria - 2 862
> Bosnia-Herzegovina (2006/7) - 2 237
> Cyprus (2007/8) - 2 738
> 
> etc.





Patrick said:


> Lol, while I am making a new ranking, this thread got revitalized by someone else, too.
> Great job, fanultras!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Current standings.
> 
> If you tell me your sources, I'd like to include more leagues in my ranking, too


Nice work guys

What is interesting for me is that crowds in Germany and Engladn are both down this season. 

In germany because bremen and stuttgart are redevloping and Hertha and GHannover have leaked fans. In England it's partly because of Newcasltes dissapearance, and the facts that a lot of the midle clubs have seen crowds go down, even West ham. Credit crunch?

One thing i'd love to do or see is comparing stats to GDP and also adding up the metro areas of all the teams in each division, to see the actual base clubs are taking there support from so you can more accurately compare.


----------



## fanUltras

lpioe said:


> ^^ Great job.
> Where did you find data for non european leagues?


Europe leagues & cups: http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm
Uzbekistan http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=833890&page=2 
Mexico (Clausura 2007) - http://www.tigres.com.mx/SalaPrensa/Noticias/Articulo.aspx?Num=225
Japan - http://www.j-league.or.jp/data/view.php?d=j1f&t=visitor&y=2008&l=E
Ecuador (incomplete data) http://www.futbolinmediato.com/inde...22225&umt=barcelona_es_el_que_lleva_mas_gente
Chile clausura 2008 - Anfp.cl 
South Africa - http://soccernet.espn.go.com/stats/attendance?league=rsa.1&year=2008&seasontype=1&cc=5739
AFC Champions L. - http://www.the-afc.com/en/afc-champions-league-2009/25893-attendance-figures-for-2009-acl
Copa Libertadores , Sudamericana http://de.worldfootball.net
Iran - http://www.iplstats.com/
Concacaf Champions League - en.wikipedia
Colombia - http://www.futbolocura.com/blogwp/ausencia-de-publico-en-los-estadios-¿que-esta-pasando/ 

En el año 1993 manejamos un promedio de 12.685 hinchas por juego.Desde entonces no se supera esa cifra. Ahora en el Apertura 2009, el promedio es de 9.552 espectadores. 

and... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...stic_professional_sports_leagues#cite_note-13

Egypt Premier League 23,179... error ? xD over 5000. Morocco end Malaysia is now more. 

Indonesia: 
http://www.goal.com/en/news/1775/as...s-the-indonesian-super-league-ready-to-become

"These new players were not disappointed by an excellent opening day of the season. Over 40,000 were at Balikpapan to watch Persiba defeat Persib Bandung 2-0. Over 50,000 watched Arema Malang down Persija Jakarta 1-0. 

It is such attendances that have local officials quietly satisfied with their jobs. Despite the lack of official figures, Nugraha Besoes, the general secretary of the PSSI assured me that the average attendance in the league outstrips those of Asia’s traditional big leagues such as South Korea, China, Saudi Arabia and Iran – only Japan is ahead and maybe not for long. "

hmmm


----------



## isaidso

fanUltras said:


> *World football ranking - average attendance*
> 
> Europe 2008/9 + other continents
> 
> I did this ranking. Please amendments...
> 
> 1. Bundesliga, Germany / 42 565
> 2. Premier League, England / 35 630
> 3. Primera División, Spain / 28 276
> 4. Primera División de México, Mexico (2007) / 25 379
> 5. Serie A, Italy / 25 045
> 6. Ligue 1, France / 21 049
> 7. Primera División Argentina (2008) / 20 886
> 8. Eredivisie, Netherlands / 19 789
> 9. J. League, Japan (2008) / 19 278
> 10. Championship, England / 17 875
> 11. Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, Brazil (2008) / 16 992
> 12. Chinese Super League, China (2009) / 16 478
> *13. Major League Soccer, USA (2008) / 16 460*
> 14. 2 Bundesliga, Germany / 15 730
> 15. Scottish Premier League, Scotland / 15 537
> 16. Turkcell Super Lig, Turkey / 14 058
> 17. Premier Liga, Russia (2008) / 13 334
> 18. K-League, Korea (2008) / 13 242
> 19. A-League, Australia / 12 966
> 20. Liga Indonesia – around 12 000 (?)
> 21. Jupiler League, Belgium / 11 039
> 22. Bwin Liga, Portugal / 10 390
> 23. V-League, Vietn Nam (2009) / 10 326
> 24. Tippeligaen, Norway / 9 812
> 25. Copa Mustang, Colombia (2009) / 9 552
> 26. Iranian Premier League, Iran / 9216
> 27. Tipp-3 Bundesliga, Austria / 9 013
> 28. Axpo Spuer League, Switzerland / 8 967
> 29. SAS Ligaen, Denmark / 8 814
> 30. Ligue 2, France / 8 575
> 31. Allsvenskan, Sweden / 7 787
> 32. Segunda División, Spain / 7 655
> 33. Superleague, Greece / 7 622
> 34. Visha Liga, Ukraine / 7 574
> 35. South African Premiership, South Africa / 7 526
> 36. League One, England / 7 504
> 37. Ekstraklasa, Poland / 7 351
> 38. J. League 2, Japan (2008) / 7 072
> 39. Primera Division de Chile (2008) / 6 147
> 40. Liga 1, Romania / 6 044
> 41. Serie B, Italy / 5 755
> 42. Oliy League, Uzbekistan (2008) / 5 698
> 43. 3 Bundesliga, Germany / 5 621
> 44. Ligat Toto, Israel / 5 305
> 45. Primera Categoría Serie A, Ecuador (2009) / 4 697
> 46. Gambrinus Liga, Czech Republic | 4 668


Major League Soccer is a Canada-USA league, not a USA league.


----------



## fanUltras

ok. 

Indonesian fans - Persija Jakarta. 









Arema Malang









Myanmar fans - Yadanarbon fc










Yangon United









Attendance is hard to find. 
African leagues only South Africa 7 526 and Egypt - over 5 000. 
There is no data - Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Ghana, Nigeria, Libya etc. 

PS. Ghana fans 
http://www.asantekotokofc.org/Newreel/2007/000707/centres.htm


----------



## fanUltras

Algiers derby (Algeria) - 80.000.






Casablanca derby (Morocco) - 67.000.






Tripoli derby (Libya) - 65.000.






Teheran derby (Iran) - 90.000.






Kolkata derby (India) - 100.000. 






Tunis derby (Tunisia) - 65.000.


----------



## mattec

isaidso said:


> Major League Soccer is a Canada-USA league, not a USA league.


I would call it USA with a splash of canada tossed in, the only true USA=Canada leauge is the NHL



> Major League Soccer is the top-flight professional soccer league in the United States and was founded in 1996, after the country hosted the 1994 FIFA World Cup. MLS kicked off its 14th campaign on March 19, 2009 with the League’s 15th and newest team Seattle Sounders FC making their debut. The new club in Seattle has been a resounding success, averaging nearly 31,000 fans per match. MLS continues to grow as the Philadelphia Union will begin play in 2010 and teams in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and Portland, Oregon will become the 17th and 18th clubs in 2011


http://web.mlsnet.com/about/


----------



## JYDA

fanUltras said:


> Kolkata derby (India) - 100.000.


Good to see the sport drawing crowds like that in India.


----------



## Buffalo

How many game are played in a season for a football team? Do the major leagues differ?


----------



## Calvin W

mattec said:


> I would call it USA with a splash of canada tossed in, the only true USA=Canada leauge is the NHL
> 
> 
> 
> http://web.mlsnet.com/about/


Well Canada has a second team starting soon in Vancouver, With Montreal all but a certain future team. So I would say it is a North American League. Like it or not.


----------



## mattec

Calvin W said:


> Well Canada has a second team starting soon in Vancouver, With Montreal all but a certain future team. So I would say it is a North American League. Like it or not.


I'm only going with what the site says and the fact that there main office is in the us and they were helped in getting started by USSF. 

Not to mention that canada will only have 2 teams in an 18 team leauge... this is like the better Welsh teams playing in English leauges, and we don't say the English leauges are English - Welsh leauges. 


Montreal hasn't been announced, so it doesn't count in this debate.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

fanUltras said:


> *World football ranking - average attendance*
> 
> Europe 2008/9 + other continents
> 
> I did this ranking. Please amendments...
> 
> 1. Bundesliga, Germany / 42 565
> 2. Premier League, England / 35 630
> 3. Primera División, Spain / 28 276
> *4. Primera División de México, Mexico (2007) / 25 379*
> 5. Serie A, Italy / 25 045
> 6. Ligue 1, France / 21 049
> 7. Primera División Argentina (2008) / 20 886
> 8. Eredivisie, Netherlands / 19 789
> 9. J. League, Japan (2008) / 19 278
> 10. Championship, England / 17 875
> 11. Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, Brazil (2008) / 16 992
> 12. Chinese Super League, China (2009) / 16 478
> 13. Major League Soccer, USA (2008) / 16 460
> 14. 2 Bundesliga, Germany / 15 730
> 15. Scottish Premier League, Scotland / 15 537
> 16. Turkcell Super Lig, Turkey / 14 058
> 17. Premier Liga, Russia (2008) / 13 334
> 18. K-League, Korea (2008) / 13 242
> 19. A-League, Australia / 12 966
> 20. Liga Indonesia – around 12 000 (?)
> 21. Jupiler League, Belgium / 11 039
> 22. Bwin Liga, Portugal / 10 390
> 23. V-League, Vietn Nam (2009) / 10 326
> 24. Tippeligaen, Norway / 9 812
> 25. Copa Mustang, Colombia (2009) / 9 552
> 26. Iranian Premier League, Iran / 9216
> 27. Tipp-3 Bundesliga, Austria / 9 013
> 28. Axpo Spuer League, Switzerland / 8 967
> 29. SAS Ligaen, Denmark / 8 814
> 30. Ligue 2, France / 8 575
> 31. Allsvenskan, Sweden / 7 787
> 32. Segunda División, Spain / 7 655
> 33. Superleague, Greece / 7 622
> 34. Visha Liga, Ukraine / 7 574
> 35. South African Premiership, South Africa / 7 526
> 36. League One, England / 7 504
> 37. Ekstraklasa, Poland / 7 351
> 38. J. League 2, Japan (2008) / 7 072
> 39. Primera Division de Chile (2008) / 6 147
> 40. Liga 1, Romania / 6 044
> 41. Serie B, Italy / 5 755
> 42. Oliy League, Uzbekistan (2008) / 5 698
> 43. 3 Bundesliga, Germany / 5 621
> 44. Ligat Toto, Israel / 5 305
> 45. Primera Categoría Serie A, Ecuador (2009) / 4 697
> 46. Gambrinus Liga, Czech Republic | 4 668
> 
> Egypt around 5k
> Might be found in the ranking: India (?), Thailand (?), Morocco (?), Algeria (?), Syria (?), Myanmar (?), Peru (?)...
> 
> 
> Continental Cups:
> UEFA Champions League (2008/9) - 40.080
> UEFA Cup (2008/9) – 20.804
> Copa Libertadores (2008) – 19.340
> AFC Champions League (2009) - 12.101
> Copa Sudamericana (2009) – 7.373
> CONCACAF Champions League (2008/9) - 7.005
> CAF Champions League - ??
> 
> Other leagues:
> Kazakhstan - 3 310
> Croatia - 3 074
> Singapore (2008) - 1 844
> Finland - 2 636
> Hungary - 2 826
> Serbia - 2 851
> Russia II - 4 259
> Bulgaria - 2 862
> Bosnia-Herzegovina (2006/7) - 2 237
> Cyprus (2007/8) - 2 738
> 
> etc.


Interesting, I didn't know that Mexico's first division fared well vs some European leagues.


----------



## lpioe

Buffalo said:


> How many game are played in a season for a football team? Do the major leagues differ?


The five best leagues in Europe (England, Spain, Italy, Germany, France) have all 20 teams with the exception of the German league that has 18.
That makes 38 games for every team, in Germany 34.


----------



## BoulderGrad

Calvin W said:


> Well Canada has a second team starting soon in Vancouver, With Montreal all but a certain future team. So I would say it is a North American League. Like it or not.


Both Toronto and Vancouver have had NBA franchises at some point, but I would still call the NBA a US league. And also on the other side of the border, the CHL (Canada's top amateur hockey leagues, which include the QMJHL, OHL, and WHL) have 7 or 8 teams in US Cities, and yet is still considered a Canadian league.


----------



## Calvin W

BoulderGrad said:


> Both Toronto and Vancouver have had NBA franchises at some point, but I would still call the NBA a US league. And also on the other side of the border, the CHL (Canada's top amateur hockey leagues, which include the QMJHL, OHL, and WHL) have 7 or 8 teams in US Cities, and yet is still considered a Canadian league.


And MLB has teams in Canada as does the USL, AHL, ECHL, NLL, tiddlywinks, ping pong, etc, etc, etc............

I don't give a flying rats ass where a league is headquarted, as to what nationality the league is. Teams in more than one country makes the league international. End of story.


----------



## fanUltras

JYDA said:


> Good to see the sport drawing crowds like that in India.


Record attendance in Kolkata -130.000










Overall India league is poor and underinvestment...

edit.
*USL-1* average attendance at 4.709 (2009).


----------



## galaxtico

http://www.stadiumzone.net has a large collection of average attendances of football clubs from almost 60 countries. England seems to be the biggest football nation in the world.


----------



## Khwezi

Its okay Im here, the world is a better place. Expect compelling over opinionated comments because Im Khwezi and Im awesome.


----------



## fanUltras

7/11/2009 Final Piala Malaysia Kelantan vs Negeri Sembilan - attendance 85.000.


----------



## SSE

JYDA said:


> Good to see the sport drawing crowds like that in India.



Cricket regularly draws massive crowds in India. The IPL 20/20 competition is second only to the NFL in the list of average attendances for domestic competitions.


----------



## bigbossman

JYDA said:


> Good to see the sport drawing crowds like that in India.


football is big in india, lets put it this way if 10% of 1 billion likes the sport that's an awful lot of people. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_in_india


----------



## fanUltras

Football is popular in India, but there is no infrastructure. For the players are the 138 in FIFA ranking.


----------



## pirufioxxx

galaxtico said:


> http://www.stadiumzone.net has a large collection of average attendances of football clubs from almost 60 countries. England seems to be the biggest football nation in the world.


england is not the biggest football nation in the world, there are no terraces there, it must be awfull to watch a game with no passion


----------



## GunnerJacket

pirufioxxx said:


> england is not the biggest football nation in the world, there are no terraces there, it must be awfull to watch a game with no passion


Ah, yes, because the only way one can be passionate about a team/game is to be able to stand and occasionally rush the fencing, no? 

:|

a) If you can't feel passionate about a club or match while seated then I truly feel sorry for you, and certainly don't want to be next to you watching the event on television or in a pub. I prefer standing as well, but I and millions of others can yell, wave, etc. while being seated if need be. 

b) England's second division draws higher attendances than many first divisions elsewhere, so while the Premier League's safety standards may marginalize the displays seen in other nations I'd argue that the commitment of English fans to attend their matches and support their clubs is more than evidence enough that they support the game as well as any nation going. They attend the games despite also having such easy and abundant media access, despite the high costs and the overabundance of clubs to choose from. 

Given the choice between standing and sitting I'll choose to stand. But if choosing between a civil environment and one that caters to violent ultras I'll choose the former every time. Passion and civility can coexist. (Despite what Philadelphia Eagles fans tell you!)

:cheers:


----------



## krudmonk

isaidso said:


> So does Australian Rules Football gets larger crowds that rugby or soccer in Australia?


Yes, but aussie rules and the rugby codes are some what split by the Barassi line. That is, they are each heavily supported in their traditional states but AFL is bigger on its own turf than NRL is in its home.


----------



## westsidebomber

weava said:


> 2008 NFL Average
> Washington 88,604
> NY Giants 79,069
> NY Jets 78,482
> Kansas City 74,077
> Carolina 73,210
> Cleveland 72,778
> Buffalo 71,405
> Baltimore71,269
> Green Bay 70,682
> Houston 70,420
> New Orleans 70,092
> Philadelphia 69,144
> Tennessee 69,143
> New England 68,756
> San Diego 68,138
> Seattle 67,995
> Indianapolis 66,378
> Miami 65,489
> Jacksonville 65,167
> Cincinnati 64,582
> Tampa Bay 64,511
> Arizona 64,096
> Atlanta 64,065
> Dallas 63,368
> Minnesota 63,267
> Pittsburgh 62,890
> Chicago 62,034
> St. Louis 59,980
> Oakland 57,850
> Detroit 54,497
> 
> NCAA D1 2007 top averages
> 1. Michigan 110,264
> 2. Penn St. 108,917
> 3. Ohio St. 105,110
> 4. Tennessee 103,918
> 5. Georgia 92,746
> 6. Louisiana St. 92,619
> 7. Alabama 92,138
> 8. Florida 90,388
> 9. Southern California 87,476
> 10. Texas 85,144


I've got a link to the NCAA FBS averages from 2008 here.

http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/2008/Internet/attendance/FBS_AVGATTENDANCE.pdf

And here's the top 10...

RANK--TEAM---TOTAL ATTENDANCE--AVERAGE
1. Michigan----------759,997----------108,571
2. Penn St.----------757,775----------108,254
3. Ohio St.----------734,830----------104,976
4. Tennessee--------710,136----------101,448
5. Texas------------686,324----------98,046
6. Georgia-----------556,476----------92,746
7. LSU--------------739,065----------92,383
8. Alabama----------644,966----------92,138
9. Florida------------633,807----------90,544
10. Auburn----------608,402----------86,915


----------



## isaidso

^^ I'm a huge college football fan and so jealous of the level that the sport has reached in the United States. Here in Canada, support for college football went off a cliff back in the 1950s. University of Toronto was drawing roughly 28,000/game back then which was quite comparable to many schools south of the border. Now they're lucky to draw 3,000/game. 

These days, college football attendance in Canada pales in comparison to what their US counterparts draw. #1 in Canada is Université Laval. They averaged only 14,509 fans/game. Not very good compared to US schools, but not bad considering this school only started playing football in 1996. By comparison, they've been playing football at University of Toronto since 1861.



krudmonk said:


> Yes, but aussie rules and the rugby codes are some what split by the Barassi line. That is, they are each heavily supported in their traditional states but AFL is bigger on its own turf than NRL is in its home.


AFL is heavily a Victoria State sport, isn't it? Where is rugby's stronghold?


----------



## Mickeebee

isaidso said:


> So does Australian Rules Football gets larger crowds that rugby or soccer in Australia?


Aussie rules would get larger crowds than both of them put together.


----------



## Wezza

Yeah AFL gets fairly big crowds in it's heartland. The further north you go, the less interest there is in AFL & vice versa for rugby league.


----------



## Pimpmaster

isaidso said:


> ^^ I'm a huge college football fan and so jealous of the level that the sport has reached in the United States. Here in Canada, support for college football went off a cliff back in the 1950s. University of Toronto was drawing roughly 28,000/game back then which was quite comparable to many schools south of the border. Now they're lucky to draw 3,000/game.
> 
> These days, college football attendance in Canada pales in comparison to what their US counterparts draw. #1 in Canada is Université Laval. They averaged only 14,509 fans/game. Not very good compared to US schools, but not bad considering this school only started playing football in 1996. By comparison, they've been playing football at University of Toronto since 1861.
> 
> 
> 
> AFL is heavily a Victoria State sport, isn't it? Where is rugby's stronghold?


Rugby League and Union are both very popular in the states of Queensland and New South Wales> Both states combined are half of australias population


----------



## BobDaBuilder

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In RL's heartland we have the Swans of the A.F.L vs the two BIGGEST Sydney RL clubs for home attendances.

Sydney Swans - Home 32,834

Canterbury Bulldogs - Home 15,352

Wests Tigers - Home 16,386

Sydney is an interesting case study. It is so heavily fragmented in it's sporting loyalties. There is four separate 'footballing' flavours up there played at fully professional level.

Studies have concluded that the main reason AFL gets double the attendances that NRL gets largely because you get a lot of females attending AFL games in comparison to NRL. Roughly 50 percent of gates are women for AFL, whereas it is closer to 20 percent for the NRL.


----------



## Pimpmaster

isaidso said:


> Does Australia have 2 significant rugby leagues, or just this one?


AFL or else known as aussie rules football is not rugby.
Though is mostly popular in the states of victoria, western and southern australia and tasmania.

Then there is the NRL (National Rugby League) which is rugby league. And when i say league i dont mean its a league like in a competition but its just called rugby league.
Its most popular in the states of Queensland and New South Wales. 
Rubby league is not as popular world wide as rugby. and is really only played in australia, new zealand and northern england. Australia is probably the only country in the world that favours rugby league more than rugby.
Though a pro competition is starting in the US next year called NRLUS. who knows it might really become popular because it is the only sport in the world that resembles NFL. 

Then there is rugby. the main competition is called the Super 15 which has 5 teams each from australia, new zealand and south africa. Also its is popular in queensland and new south wales but in recent years a lot of people have turned their back on it because it has become rather boring with lots of kicking and no tries being scored. Thats why the NRL has had a big boost in crowd support this year because it offers the entertainment which rugby simply cant deliver


So, AFL, NRL and rugby are played in the winter time so it has become really competitive for tv ratings and crowds.
overall AFL gets the biggest crowds but when its an international rugby match there is usually 80,000 in attendance
and NRL gets better TV ratings.


----------



## Pimpmaster

BobDaBuilder said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> In RL's heartland we have the Swans of the A.F.L vs the two BIGGEST Sydney RL clubs for home attendances.
> 
> Sydney Swans - Home 32,834
> 
> Canterbury Bulldogs - Home 15,352
> 
> Wests Tigers - Home 16,386
> 
> Sydney is an interesting case study. It is so heavily fragmented in it's sporting loyalties. There is four separate 'footballing' flavours up there played at fully professional level.
> 
> Studies have concluded that the main reason AFL gets double the attendances that NRL gets largely because you get a lot of females attending AFL games in comparison to NRL. Roughly 50 percent of gates are women for AFL, whereas it is closer to 20 percent for the NRL.


you gotta realise that the NRL has about 9 teams in Sydney and the AFL has 1 so of course the AFL should better crowd numbers on average because they only have 1 team to support


----------



## ross_the_man

Pimpmaster said:


> AFL or else known as aussie rules football is not rugby.
> Though is mostly popular in the states of victoria, western and southern australia and tasmania.
> 
> Then there is the NRL (National Rugby League) which is rugby league. And when i say league i dont mean its a league like in a competition but its just called rugby league.
> Its most popular in the states of Queensland and New South Wales.
> Rubby league is not as popular world wide as rugby. and is really only played in australia, new zealand and northern england. Australia is probably the only country in the world that favours rugby league more than rugby.
> Though a pro competition is starting in the US next year called NRLUS. who knows it might really become popular because it is the only sport in the world that resembles NFL.
> 
> Then there is rugby. the main competition is called the Super 15 which has 5 teams each from australia, new zealand and south africa. Also its is popular in queensland and new south wales but in recent years a lot of people have turned their back on it because it has become rather boring with lots of kicking and no tries being scored. Thats why the NRL has had a big boost in crowd support this year because it offers the entertainment which rugby simply cant deliver
> 
> 
> So, AFL, NRL and rugby are played in the winter time so it has become really competitive for tv ratings and crowds.
> overall AFL gets the biggest crowds but when its an international rugby match there is usually 80,000 in attendance
> and NRL gets better TV ratings.


Its not that Rugby "Simply can't deliver" its that the game, in its current form has become boring. Who knows what the future will offer, hopefully some Australians will lift their fingers and decide to be a bit more creative. Club rugby is brilliant though.
As for rugby league in America. They have 500 registered players, its hardly a pro league, possibly comparable to Batemans Bays soccer Adult soccer competition. 
Not taking anything away from Rugby league though, the NRL is a great competition.


----------



## ross_the_man

CharlieP said:


> The national sides have always been very well supported, especially in the Six Nations competition, but club attendances were historically very low in comparison, as the game used to be amateur. When the game turned professional there was a surge in popularity at the club level that the stadia couldn't handle - clubs with their own grounds can't expand them quickly enough to meet demand (Bath, Gloucester, Leicester and Northampton are sold out every week), and some of those that have moved to soccer stadia are still finding them too cramped (cf Sale and Wasps). Average attendances would be a lot higher if the grounds could hold more...
> 
> 
> 
> Rugby union is more popular when you take the country as a whole, but in the areas where rugby league is predominant (parts of West and East Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cumbria) it's a lot more popular compared to other sports. Rugby union is most popular in the West Country, but not massively more so than soccer.
> 
> Think of country music and alternative rock as analogies for rugby league and rugby union (bear with me here!) - you get regions of the US where country music is the biggest ticket in town, everybody's immersed in the culture and doesn't understand how the rest of the world can't see it's the best thing ever, and just about everywhere else alternative rock varies from mildly to very popular. Overall alternative rock is more popular, but doesn't have the "hotspots" that country music does.


My Pop played for the Penzance Pirates lol.
Whats strange is there are more registered rugby league players in England than there are in Australia, yet we are clearly better (lol).
Australia 172,000
England 248,645.
In Rugby Union though its expected that England would have way more players than Australia
England 716,505
Australia 82,818 
We don't do too badly hey. 
Especilly considering Argentina also have 80,000 registered players and the US aren't far behind on 60,000.
I know this is about attendances but oh well, still an interesting statistic.
Can't be bothered linking sources, this info is all over the net.


----------



## SSE

Pimpmaster said:


> Then there is rugby. the main competition is called the Super 15 which has 5 teams each from australia, new zealand and south africa. Also its is popular in queensland and new south wales but in recent years a lot of people have turned their back on it because it has become rather boring with lots of kicking and no tries being scored. Thats why the NRL has had a big boost in crowd support this year because it offers the entertainment which rugby simply cant deliver.


You can have excitement though without high scoring games. I personally can't stand Rugby League. In the same way that League fans moan about the kicking game, to me Rugby League is watching two teams run at each other in straight lines, and teams taking it in turns to score tries. In a similar way to basketball, I find Rugby League almost too high scoring. If you are expected to score every time you have the ball, then I think it removes some of the excitement that comes when a move finally comes together, or when a move that's taken 30 phases to develop finally touches down. I don't mind if I only see one try in a game, if the rest of the play is exciting. Moments like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3StR2BNTGI

Pure tension, which you simply don't get in Rugby League. Some of the new ELVs have caused problems due to the way some teams seem intent on playing their game, Saracens specifically. This year's tri-nations was the most boring one I've seen for awhile as well, mainly because of South Africa's style of play (fantastic team, but so predictable). You find in any sport though that some teams are more negative tactically than others. You still have teams like the All Blacks, Toulouse, Ospreys and London Irish who play with flair and are brilliant to watch.


----------



## ross_the_man

SSE said:


> You can have excitement though without high scoring games. I personally can't stand Rugby League. In the same way that League fans moan about the kicking game, to me Rugby League is watching two teams run at each other in straight lines, and teams taking it in turns to score tries. In a similar way to basketball, I find Rugby League almost too high scoring. If you are expected to score every time you have the ball, then I think it removes some of the excitement that comes when a move finally comes together, or when a move that's taken 30 phases to develop finally touches down. I don't mind if I only see one try in a game, if the rest of the play is exciting. Moments like this:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3StR2BNTGI
> 
> Pure tension, which you simply don't get in Rugby League. Some of the new ELVs have caused problems due to the way some teams seem intent on playing their game, Saracens specifically. This year's tri-nations was the most boring one I've seen for awhile as well, mainly because of South Africa's style of play (fantastic team, but so predictable). You find in any sport though that some teams are more negative tactically than others. You still have teams like the All Blacks, Toulouse, Ospreys and London Irish who play with flair and are brilliant to watch.


The good thing about league though is its nice and simple. You can introduce it to a chick and she'll pick it up within seconds. Rugby is so tactical and has so many rules that I can't be bothered introducing it to anyone. I prefer rugby though for the reasons that it allows more freedom, the intensity is ridiculously high and its a thinking game. One thing that annoys me about Rugby league is the defence is very very poor.


----------



## SSE

ross_the_man said:


> The good thing about league though is its nice and simple. You can introduce it to a chick and she'll pick it up within seconds. Rugby is so tactical and has so many rules that I can't be bothered introducing it to anyone. I prefer rugby though for the reasons that it allows more freedom, the intensity is ridiculously high and its a thinking game. One thing that annoys me about Rugby league is the defence is very very poor.


That's a very good point/

The best way I've heard it put is that Rugby Union is better than Rugby League. However, a bad game of Rugby League is far better than a bad game of Rugby Union.


----------



## Walbanger

> *AFL is heavily a Victoria State sport*, isn't it? Where is rugby's stronghold?


Well though Australian Footbal is a "State" sport of Victoria where it was founded, it was invented by a New South Welshman. The South Australian's have some claims to have invented it and have been playing it as long. South Australia doesn't have as many AFL teams as Victoria but is the most fanatical Australian Football state when population against paticipation, attendance and tv ratings are considered. Tasmania is fanatical about Australian Football, but lacks the TV appeal of having an AFL team. Western Australia was a Rugby Union state till the 1890's but changed after its Gold Rush.

Though most Victorians will claim the sun shines out their arse's South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia are all Australian Football Strong holds, with the Northern Territory doing very well. All these States and Territory's have contributed as much to Australian Football as Victoria. Only real problem is than since the early 90's the AFL has also become the the sports governing body, being a rebanded VFL it completely downplays the significant contribution and history of Australian Football in the other states.

As for Rugby League. It dominates in Queensland and in New South Wales from the A.C.T. and above. One thing to remember is that Australian Football has and always has had a stronger presence in the Rugby states than Rugby League has in the Australian Football states. Rugby Union being smaller has always had a niche national wide in the Private School system, being considered a gentlemens game along with cricket and rowing. 

Western Australia for reasons unknown to me seems to have more room for the Rugby codes than South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria. WA has traditionally been the 3rd best at Rugby and Rugby League but are a long way behind Queensland and N.S.W. 



> you gotta realise that the NRL has about 9 teams in Sydney and the AFL has 1 so of course the AFL should better crowd numbers on average because they only have 1 team to support


Can't the same argument be used against the Melbourne Storm?
1 Rugby League Team who pull a 3rd of the worst performing Melbourne AFL team in a city of 9 teams.



> That's a very good point/
> 
> The best way I've heard it put is that Rugby Union is better than Rugby League. However, a bad game of Rugby League is far better than a bad game of Rugby Union.


Agreed. I have normally preffered Rugby Union but the Game has me really worried for its future in this country. This over reliance in kick is ruining the spectical. Too many tosser Northern Hemisphere refs who are real Job's Worths. The constant reseting of scrums is driving me demented. I never thought I'd admitt it to eyes (well eyes) of League fans but the Skill level is well below what it should be, 13 years into Professionalism. The SANZAR S14 rules are a step in the right direction but while the Northern Hemisphere refuse to budge, I can only see Australian Rugby suffering and casual fans turning to Rugby League.

The way I see it is that the Northern Hemisphere play a more "pure" version of Rugby Union that very tactical and a "thinking mans game" which now sped up in the proffesional era does not translate well for the viewer. The Southern Hemisphere are more concerned with the evolution of the spectical especially for the TV market. Open running and Trys is what people want. Well South Africa play the former and it's breaking my balls. Whlie the balance of power is away from Australia and NZ, nothing will change.

The only thing I'd suggest Rugby Union do to improve the game and refocus it on scoring trys is to adopt the SANZAR Super 14 rule amendments and maybe more radically adopt the Rugby League scoring system which gives less points for penalties and field goals, this would make it far more attractive to go for the try and the field goal would be used in the last minutes to break a dead lock, not just to inflate and impotent attack.


----------



## isaidso

Pimpmaster said:


> So, AFL, NRL and rugby are played in the winter time so it has become really competitive for tv ratings and crowds.
> overall AFL gets the biggest crowds but when its an international rugby match there is usually 80,000 in attendance
> and NRL gets better TV ratings.


OK, thanks. I knew there were 2 types of rugby, but wasn't sure much beyond that. So, rugby league has NRL, and rugby doesn't have any league?


----------



## isaidso

Walbanger said:


> Well though Australian Footbal is a "State" sport of Victoria where it was founded, it was invented by a New South Welshman. The South Australian's have some claims to have invented it and have been playing it as long. South Australia doesn't have as many AFL teams as Victoria but is the most fanatical Australian Football state when population against paticipation, attendance and tv ratings are considered. Tasmania is fanatical about Australian Football, but lacks the TV appeal of having an AFL team. Western Australia was a Rugby Union state till the 1890's but changed after its Gold Rush.
> 
> Though most Victorians will claim the sun shines out their arse's South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia are all Australian Football Strong holds, with the Northern Territory doing very well. All these States and Territory's have contributed as much to Australian Football as Victoria. Only real problem is than since the early 90's the AFL has also become the the sports governing body, being a rebanded VFL it completely downplays the significant contribution and history of Australian Football in the other states.
> 
> As for Rugby League. It dominates in Queensland and in New South Wales from the A.C.T. and above. One thing to remember is that Australian Football has and always has had a stronger presence in the Rugby states than Rugby League has in the Australian Football states. Rugby Union being smaller has always had a niche national wide in the Private School system, being considered a gentlemens game along with cricket and rowing.
> 
> Western Australia for reasons unknown to me seems to have more room for the Rugby codes than South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria. WA has traditionally been the 3rd best at Rugby and Rugby League but are a long way behind Queensland and N.S.W.


Thanks for the detailed run down. I had always thought it was a sport concentrated in Victoria that is now spreading throughout Australia. I suppose people assume it's most popular in Victoria because they have a larger population than WA, SA, Tasmania, NT, and the most number of teams. I realize that it's not an accurate assessment.

A parallel to that occurs in Canada. Ontario and Quebec 'invented' gridiron, but the football heartland is on the Canadian prairie: Alberta, Manitoba, and most notably, Saskatchewan. Football is religion in Saskatchewan.


----------



## SSE

Walbanger said:


> Agreed. I have normally preffered Rugby Union but the Game has me really worried for its future in this country. This over reliance in kick is ruining the spectical. Too many tosser Northern Hemisphere refs who are real Job's Worths. The constant reseting of scrums is driving me demented. I never thought I'd admitt it to eyes (well eyes) of League fans but the Skill level is well below what it should be, 13 years into Professionalism. The SANZAR S14 rules are a step in the right direction but while the Northern Hemisphere refuse to budge, I can only see Australian Rugby suffering and casual fans turning to Rugby League.
> 
> The way I see it is that the Northern Hemisphere play a more "pure" version of Rugby Union that very tactical and a "thinking mans game" which now sped up in the proffesional era does not translate well for the viewer. The Southern Hemisphere are more concerned with the evolution of the spectical especially for the TV market. Open running and Trys is what people want. Well South Africa play the former and it's breaking my balls. Whlie the balance of power is away from Australia and NZ, nothing will change.
> 
> The only thing I'd suggest Rugby Union do to improve the game and refocus it on scoring trys is to adopt the SANZAR Super 14 rule amendments and maybe more radically adopt the Rugby League scoring system which gives less points for penalties and field goals, this would make it far more attractive to go for the try and the field goal would be used in the last minutes to break a dead lock, not just to inflate and impotent attack.


What are the differences in the Super 14? The ELVs are all in play in the Northern Hemisphere as well, I didn't realise there were other differences?

The resetting of scrums comes down to one thing, poor scrummaging. The quality of packs has declined rapidly over recent years. Due to the fact you can put the ball in and virtually pass it straight to your second row, there is now no incentive to scrummage properly. Instead, it's just about making a big hit, and trying to win a penalty. It's why players are just getting bigger and stronger (especially looking at the South African team), which is harming the game long term. One thing that annoys the hell out of me in matches is the inability of props to bind properly. I'm happy to say that it might not be as much their fault, but the fault of the kit manufacturers. The new, tight shirts might help Vincent Clerc and Bryan Habana fly down the wing without getting dragged down, but they must be making it much more difficult when it comes to the scrum. Every match there are at least 3 penalties given for not binding properly, if you removed this that's 3 scrums not having to be reset, and instead of a penalty the attacking team has a chance to move the ball in open play.


----------



## krudmonk

isaidso said:


> OK, thanks. I knew there were 2 types of rugby, but wasn't sure much beyond that. So, rugby league has NRL, and rugby doesn't have any league?


Rugby union in Australia is not as big as in New Zealand or South Africa, the two nations also involved in the Super 15. Those two countries have a national third tier: the Air New Zealand Cup and Currie Cup respectively. In our terms, those competitions would be the equivalent of clubs/franchises in North America (NFL, CFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, MLS, etc). 

Australia lacks this level. They have an international side (Wallabies) and the Super 15, which is a strange in-between level. It would be like pooling the Leafs, Habs and Senators to face the Flames, Oilers and Canucks. The reality, however, is that each of these regional teams is heavily dominated by one of the clubs at the tier below. For example, in the previous analogy, the eastern team may be full of Leafs (pretend they don't suck right now) and the western full of Canucks. It leaves places like Hawke's Bay with a strong rugby following being underrepresented. This kinda negates the necessity of the Super rugby competition.


----------



## isaidso

What a confusing system!


----------



## Walbanger

^ Yeah, I guess it is. The Super 14 (soon to be 15) is a made for TV provincial league. It is sterile and really lacks any decent emotive element. It's being restructured in the comming seasons into 3 confrences based on the repective nations so that will help in exploiting the national rivals. Most fans don't give a shit about teams from the other countries unless its the Canterbury Crusaders from Christ Church who are so damn dominent. Australia's ACT Brumbies and South Africa's Natal Sharks and Northern Bulls generate a little interest outside their countries as well.

Australia is the poor cousin to South Africa and NZ in this league. Australia just lacks the player depth. Crowds have fallen to the low 20 000's in Australia. Ideally it would be great to see the NSW Waratah's and the Queensland Reds pulling 35 / 40 000 which NSW used to and Qld would against NSW. The Western Force (based in Perth, and yes a horrible name) have enough support and now that they have left Subiaco Oval to the rectangle ME Stadium the games will be sellouts in an intimate atmosphere until the Government get off their arse as begin the expansion to 31 000 the have agreed to. 

It will be very interesting to see what the new Victorian team will pull when they startin 2012. Logic suggests they will pull more than the NRL's Melbourne Storm but the spreading of Austalian players further will only be detrimental to teams chances of success, foreign players will be needed to top up the lists.

The Australian Rugby Union did attempt a 2nd teir competionion 2 or 3 years ago called the Australian Shield to fill the level void in the same way as the NZ NPC and South Africa's Currie Cup. Games pulled around 1000 to 4000 and the league was folded after 1 season.


----------



## ross_the_man

^^Thats easy for you to say that no one cares about the other clubs. There is a very healthy and historic rivalry between Qld and NSW and here in the ACT we can't stand the NSW rugby union so we love to give the Waratahs a flogging. 
As for the ARC, that was the most pathetically run competition to date. Only a rugby fan would have known it existed, no wonder it folded.


----------



## krudmonk

Walbanger said:


> Logic suggests they will pull more than the NRL's Melbourne Storm


What logic? The Storm have two titles in three years and will have a year in the new stadium before the Melbourne [Franchise] begin their campaign to finish not-last. And that's all outside rugby heartlands*. Good luck.

*_Ioane raised in a Kiwi family and both he and Elsom were schooled in Brisbane, to shoot down the predictable retorts..._


----------



## Pimpmaster

isaidso said:


> OK, thanks. I knew there were 2 types of rugby, but wasn't sure much beyond that. So, rugby league has NRL, and rugby doesn't have any league?


rugby has a competition called the super 15 containing 5 teams each from australia, new zealand and south africa


----------



## Walbanger

> Thats easy for you to say that no one cares about the other clubs. There is a very healthy and historic rivalry between Qld and NSW and here in the ACT we can't stand the NSW rugby union so we love to give the Waratahs a flogging.


I did say teams from the other countries (RSA and NZ), of course I want to see more games against national rivals.



> What logic? The Storm have two titles in three years and will have a year in the new stadium before the Melbourne [Franchise] begin their campaign to finish not-last. And that's all outside rugby heartlands*. Good luck.
> 
> *Ioane raised in a Kiwi family and both he and Elsom were schooled in Brisbane, to shoot down the predictable retorts...


The logic that Rugby Union is far more engrained in Victoria than Rugby League. That only one player in the NRL (Jeremy Smith) has been developed through the Victorian junior system. While the Victorians have produced numerous Wallabies since Edward Dunlop in 1932, more recently Queensland coach Ewen McKenzie and up and commer Lloyd Johansson.

We can wait and see if the Storm's crowds do rise (I hope they do) but it is generally considered that Australian football fans who make up the bulk of indifferent/passive fans prefer Rugby Union, same case in South Australia and Western Australia (who for the last 4 decades have been the best of the "non rugby states) in either code. I can't see there being to much difference in the WA experience to what Victoria will have in regards to crowds where the ARL/Super League Western Reds averaged around 13 000 in their first season to around 6000 2 seasons later. The Western Force have stablised crowds of around 19 000 in an equally inappropriate venue. The Victorians will be planning for the same.


----------



## Pimpmaster

@ Walbanger
this was quoted from user Brisbanite in the NRL season 2010 thread



> The Victorian Rugby League (VRL) continued the upward trend of recent seasons recording growth and expansion in all areas in 2009. There were outstanding results achieved in club and schools participation, and unprecedented outcomes throughout the various representative programs including a Victorian presence for the first time in the SG Ball competition.
> 
> 
> The VRL Junior and Senior competitions have both continued the recent trends of significant growth during the 2009 season. The junior competitions recorded a 30% increase in player registrations in 2009 and this growth can be attributed to the continued terrific work undertaken by Development Officers who have established excellent links within the primary and secondary school systems.
> 
> The Senior competition also recorded an increase in registered participants in the 2009 season. This growth can be largely attributed to the introduction of a Division Two competition in 2009. The Senior clubs are to be congratulated for embracing the concept of growth in the Senior competition and have been the major driver behind the success of the Division Two concept.
> 
> 
> The Melbourne Storm Development Schools program continued to deliver Rugby League programs to primary and secondary school students in Victoria. There were 34,119 participants involved in School based Rugby League which is an increase on the 2008 results.
> 
> 
> The Victorian Primary School Sports Association (VPSSA) Under 12 team participated in the National Exchange in Canberra from August 8th – 15th. The Under 12 team was coached by Dean Andrew from the VPSSA and assisted by Shane Griffin from Melbourne Storm Development. The VPSSA Exchange was the first representative opportunity for the 17 players involved in the program, and the team learnt a great deal from their 8th placing at the 2009 National Exchange.
> 
> 
> The Victorian Rugby League Secondary Schools Representative Program enjoyed an extremely successful year. There were 51 Victorian players given the opportunity to participate in the 2009 15 and 18 Years Australian Secondary School Rugby League (ASSRL) National Championships in the Victorian and Combined Affiliated States (CAS) teams.
> 
> 
> The 18 Years program provides Victorian players with the opportunity to be selected for the Combined Affiliated States (CAS) that participates in Pool A of the ASSRL Championships. The Affiliated States conducted a selection trial from May 14-16 in Adelaide to choose the 18 Years Pool A CAS team. The Victorian team and players were outstanding over the three day selection period and 11 Victorian players chosen for the Pool A CAS team.
> 
> The success of having 11 players selected in the 18 Years Pool A CAS team provided additional opportunities and challenges for the 18 Years Pool B program. The opportunities resulted in 11 ‘new’ players being given the chance to represent Victoria in Pool B of the 2009 18 Years ASSRL National Championships.
> 
> The Victorian Open’s Representative team participated in the ARL Affiliated States Championships in Melbourne from June 4-6. The team was coached by Melbourne Storm Premiership 1999 player Matt Rua and he was assisted by Melbourne Storm SG Ball assistant coach John Winder. The Victorian team dominated the Championships in the ‘home comforts’ of Melbourne and defeated Western Australia in the Affiliated States National Championships Final 36-16.
> The Victorian Open’s team had nine players selected in the 2009 Affiliated States Australian team with Keni Blair (Sunbury Tigers), Corey Timothy (Altona Roosters),
> 
> Aiden Hema (Altona Roosters), Caine Sinclair (Altona Roosters), Chad Jones (Altona Roosters), James Uttafe (Doveton Steelers), Gerrard Tibbets (Sunbury Tigers), Malo Feterika (Waverley/Oakleigh), Teariki Bennion (Altona Roosters) and Darcy Etrich (Waverley/Oakleigh) representing the Affiliated States in their tour of Cook Islands.
> 
> Below are the results from the 2009 Victorian Rugby League Junior Grand Finals:
> Girls Tag: Grand Final: Waverley/Oak. Panthers 20 def Northern Thunder 12
> Under 11's - Grand Final: Northern Thunder 34 def South Eastern Titans 10
> Under 12's - Grand Final: South Eastern Titans 22 def Northern Thunder 18
> Under 13's - Grand Final: Casey Chiefs 44 def Altona Roosters 10
> Under 14's - Grand Final: Northern Thunder 16 def Craigieburn Phoenix 4
> Under 16's - Grand Final: Altona Roosters 14 def South Eastern Titans 12
> Under 18's - Grand Final: Moorabbin Rams 38 def Northern Thunder 26
> 
> The Goulburn Murray Rugby League continued to grow their Junior Competition and the introduction of the Corowa Cougars in 2009 added to the further vibrancy of the competition. [/B]The competition comprised of Under 7’s, 9’s, 11’s, 13’s and 15’s age groups. The competition is projected for further growth in the 2010 season and the Goulburn Murray Rugby League Executive is to be congratulated for their commitment in growing the game in North East Victoria.
> 
> The Sunraysia Rugby League was formally launched with a four team senior competition being conducted involving the Dareton Dragons, Irymple Titans, Robinvale Sea Eagles and Mildura West Tigers in 2009. The competition is set to expand with the introduction of a junior competition in 2010 which will further solidify the game of Rugby League in North West Victoria.
> 
> The 2009 Senior Competition Grand Finals were played on Sunday September 6 at Casey Fields, Cranbourne. The Casey Sharks hosted an excellent day and the Committee are to be congratulated for their efforts.
> 
> 
> In Division Two the Werribee Bears created history in their inaugural season taking out the 2009 Victorian Rugby League Division Two Grand Final. The Bears defeated perennial powerhouse the Altona Roosters 22-18 in a see sawing contest. The Roosters settled well early scoring in the 2nd minute to race to a 6-0 lead. The Bears with the advantage of a strong win in the first half settled into their rhythm and posted the next 22 points of the game to go into half time with a commanding 22-6 lead. The significance of the breeze became more apparent in the second half and when Altona score their second try of the half with 10 minutes remaining the Grand Final was in the balance. The Bears defended their line manfully to hold out the fast finishing Roosters to claim the 2009 crown.
> 
> 
> In First Grade the Sunbury Tigers won its first Victorian Rugby League First Grade Premiership when they outclassed the Casey Sharks 48-10 in the 2009 Grand Final. The Tigers had easily accounted for the Sharks in their previous two meetings through the home and away season and went into the game full of confidence.
> 
> The Victorian Rugby League Commission and staff would like to thank the Victorian Primary School Sports Association (VPSSA) and Australian Secondary Schools Rugby League (ASSRL) for their continued commitment and support of primary and secondary schools Rugby League. We would also like to recognise the support provided to the Victorian Rugby League by the Australian Rugby League (ARL) and Australian Rugby League Development (ARLD), Melbourne Storm RLFC, Sport and Recreation Victoria and Vic Health.
> 
> 
> The Victorian Rugby League would also like to thank all clubs, players, coaches, volunteers, parents and helpers who were involved in the various Victorian Rugby League programs and competitions during the 2009 season.
> 
> 
> Joe Messina
> General Manager – Victorian Rugby League


----------



## ross_the_man

Walbangar isn't denying that Rugby League is growing in Victoria, he's just stating that he thinks they will support a Super rugby union team more. He is right in that they have a very long history in rugby that not a lot of people North of Melbourne know much about. They will definetly pull in the crowds, and I wouldn't be surprised if their crowd figures pass both NSW and Qld.


----------



## Patrick

Patrick said:


> German Football League attendances 2008:
> 
> Braunschweig Lions: 5,560 4,100
> Kiel Baltic Hurricanes: 4,133 5,332
> Hamburg Blue Devils: 2,514
> Cologne Falcons: 1,843
> Dresden Monarchs: 1,550 1,650
> Berlin Adler: 1,219 1,219
> Stuttgart Scorpions: 946 961
> Munich Cowboys: 926 1,041
> Schwäbisch Hall Unicorns: 800 1,330
> Marburg Mercenaries: 767 959
> Weinheim Longhorn: 609 446
> Darmstadt Diamonds: 390
> Assindia Cardinals 1,480
> Plattling Black Hawks 633



red numbers for 2009


----------



## kuquito

Thank God the Argos never moved to the BMO field!






isaidso said:


> Out of respect for the wishes of a number of people on a similar thread, I've decided to start a thread for average attendance figures for teams from all football codes. All football codes are welcome: Canadian football, American football, Australian Rules football, Association football, Gaelic football, rugby league, and rugby union. If I've missed any others, I apologize. Please feel free to add average attendance for them if that is the case.
> 
> *The intention isn't to gauge overall annual support of teams around the world, but only as an indicator of crowd size one can expect when one attends home games of teams around the world.*
> 
> I'm from Canada, so I'll start with ours. We call it simply by the name 'football', but to those further a field, it would go by the name 'Canadian football', or simply 'gridiron'. These are the average attendance figures for 2008 at the 8 teams in the Canadian Football League. I've added the metro population each team serves as an interesting point of interest as well as stadium capacity. Population figures are for 2006.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *1. Edmonton Eskimos - 37,383*
> Founded - 1895, officially Eskimos since 1949
> Metro Edmonton - 1,034,945
> Commonwealth Stadium - 60,081
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...mmonwealth_Stadium,_Edmonton,_August_2005.jpg
> 
> *2. BC Lions - 34,083*
> Founded - 1954
> Metro Vancouver - 2,116,581
> BC Place - 59,478
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...-CFL_2006_West_Division_Final_at_BC_Place.jpg
> 
> *3. Calgary Stampeders - 32,528*
> Founded - 1891, officially Stampeders since 1945
> Metro Calgary - 1,079,310
> McMahon Stadium - 35,650
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3096/2820434846_e2eb6700e1.jpg?v=0
> 
> *4. Saskatchewan Roughriders - 29,996*
> Founded - 1910 as the Regina Rugby Club, officially Roughriders since 1924
> Metro Regina - 194,971
> Mosaic Stadium - 28,800 (Expanded to 30,945 mid season)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://farm1.static.flickr.com/21/31614084_84399c7d62.jpg?v=0
> 
> *5. Toronto Argonauts - 29,189*
> Founded - 1873
> Metro Toronto - 5,113,149
> Skydome (Rogers Centre) - 52,595
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1191/690567317_9063955e7e.jpg?v=0
> 
> *6. Winnipeg Blue Bombers - 27,191*
> Founded - 1880 as Winnipeg Football Club, officially Blue Bombers since 1936
> Metro Winnipeg - 694,668
> Canad Inns Stadium - 29,533 (To be demolished in 2011)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.astroturfusa.com/resources/images/HPFields/Winnepeg_Canada.jpg
> 
> *7. Hamilton Tiger Cats - 20,784*
> Founded - 1869 as the Hamilton Tigers, officially Tiger Cats since 1950
> Metro Hamilton - 692,911
> Ivor Wynne Stadium - 28,830
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2346/1765829561_7bef9ca1dc.jpg?v=0
> 
> *8. Montreal Alouettes - 20,202*
> Founded - 1872, officially Alouettes in 1946, then again in 1995
> Metro Montreal - 3,635,571
> Molson Stadium - 20,202 (Being expanded by 5,000 seats for 2010 season)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://farm1.static.flickr.com/120/266036812_607e19ffe7.jpg?v=0
> 
> Montreal has recorded 89 consecutive sellouts. Olympic Stadium has a far larger capacity, but fans prefer the intimacy of Molson Stadium. Molson Stadium is currently being expanded by 5,000 seats, but further expansion is difficult due to space limitations and opposition by some local residents.
> 
> Montreal holds the record for highest attendance at a regular season game. 69,093 took in a game against the Argonauts, September 6, 1977. This was achieved at Olympic Stadium. Here's what it looks like at about 66,000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://images.ctv.ca/gallery/photo/CGY_stamps_greycup_081125/image8.jpg


----------



## isaidso

kuquito said:


> Thank God the Argos never moved to the BMO field!


Skydome is an absolutely horrible place to watch football, but BMO is way too small. There's no way they'd move there. Having said that, I hope the Argonauts end up with their own stadium. Skydome is really a baseball stadium regardless of what they say.


----------



## Walbanger

I'm quite impressed with CFL crowd figures. It's a shame that Toronto doesn't get higher but its a credit to the Prairie provinces that they pull such good crowds considring their smaller population and vastness. If it wasn't for the colossus below the border, perception would be even better.



> @ Walbanger
> this was quoted from user Brisbanite in the NRL season 2010 thread.


Thats great news "Pimpmaster", the VRL seem to be doing good work in a hard market.



> Walbangar isn't denying that Rugby League is growing in Victoria, he's just stating that he thinks they will support a Super rugby union team more.


Thanks "Ross The Man", that pretty much what I think, though I certainly would not be disappointed to be proven wrong as I like League and Union equally. Here's hoping the Storm can consistantly pull above the NRL average and get a couple 20 000+ crowds.


----------



## krudmonk

Montreal looks to have the greatest gridiron stadium in the world. The seating and setting are both so intimate. Even the track is barely noticed. It's almost a shame the NFL is so big because we'll always have nosebleed seats and seas of parking around every venue.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

What an interesting thread!


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre




----------



## ross_the_man

Isn't College football more popular amongst alot of Americans rather than the NFL?


----------



## Wezza

Do students of the colleges have to pay to go and watch matches?


----------



## Scba

ross_the_man said:


> Isn't College football more popular amongst alot of Americans rather than the NFL?


Apples and oranges. Almost everyone in the country can claim a home college football team to different degrees, given the hundreds that exist. NFL is still overall more popular.



Wezza said:


> Do students of the colleges have to pay to go and watch matches?


Usually.


----------



## Calvin W

Scba said:


> Apples and oranges. Almost everyone in the country can claim a home college football team to different degrees, given the hundreds that exist. NFL is still overall more popular.
> 
> 
> 
> Usually.


Well the fact thats most US Americans have an affiliation with a college team or two would beg to say it is more popular over all. More people attend games, and watch on tv overall, so i would say it is more popular.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

Wezza said:


> Do students of the colleges have to pay to go and watch matches?


I think it varies. The universities in Washington have free admission for students.


Though, in some colleges (like the SEC conference) can charge upwards of 60-100 dollars per game for non students, but im not sure if they charge their students.

Anywho, just a fun fact, the university of washington husky stadium is one of the few stadiums in college football that has reached over 130 decibels!


----------



## Wezza

Phriggin' Ogre said:


> I think it varies. The universities in Washington have free admission for students.
> 
> 
> *Though, in some colleges (like the SEC conference) can charge upwards of 60-100 dollars per game for non students,* but im not sure if they charge their students.


----------



## GunnerJacket

krudmonk said:


> They all have their die-hard fans, but there are more Long Beach 49ers than there are Florida Gators in this country.


Not to be picky but this might be a stretch. According to their tax digests, UF has about 7k more undergrads in full-time enrollment and thus likely has more alumni.

UF ~ 32k
CSU-LB ~ 25k

But, yes, overall there are far more alumni from all the schools that are not national athletic brands.


----------



## krudmonk

GunnerJacket said:


> Not to be picky but this might be a stretch. According to their tax digests, UF has about 7k more undergrads in full-time enrollment and thus likely has more alumni.
> 
> UF ~ 32k
> CSU-LB ~ 25k
> 
> But, yes, overall there are far more alumni from all the schools that are not national athletic brands.


I was referring to the popularity of the programs since this is a football thread. That's why I called them by their mascot names. You're right that these big football schools are big schools in the broader sense. Ohio State is a great example with 52,000 students in Columbus. In the same state, though, there are smaller programs like Cincinnati, Bowling Green, Miami, etc. I've seen them all on ESPN but they aren't showing up in big bowl games and featuring Heisman candidates every year. The spectrum is quite broad.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

Yeah, theres an abundance of schools with little to no athletic support or even programs! And others (like Texas' football program) can compete with many professional teams in the world.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

andysimo123 said:


> I'll just do my club. Manchester United for 2007-2008 season. I don't need to tell you what type of football it is or where its located(btw its not located in London.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Average for league games 75,691
> Average for league cup 75,461
> Average for FA Cup 75,419
> Average for Champions League 74,806
> 
> Average Total is 75,428.


how expensive is it to see these guys? Do the prices vary considerably amongst euro footie clubs?


----------



## krudmonk

How many people honestly think Manchester is in London?


----------



## isaidso

Pimpmaster said:


> so do you have to play NCAA div 1 football to get into the NFL?


There are CIS players in the NFL as well, but it's not that common. CIS stands for Canadian Inter-university sport. There are only a handful of top notch CIS football programs, and the type of football played is different. American football isn't played in Canada, only Canadian football, so there's a significant adjustment to make to the US variety of the game.


----------



## CharlieP

AdidasGazelle said:


> Can we have a definition of 'football' here?


Sure. Any of the various games played round the world with "football" in their name. Except table football.


----------



## krudmonk

American
Association
Australian
Canadian
Gaelic
Rugby League
Rugby Union
etc.


----------



## Streuth

isaidso said:


> I was aware of the AFL's roots in Victoria, but you're right that it may be hard for a league to expand in the opposite way than the experience in Australia.
> 
> One of the issues facing the CFL is that there are only 8 teams resulting in the same teams playing each other over and over again. The league isn't that interested in setting up in cities with less than 500,000 population although exceptions may have to be made. Ottawa and Quebec City represent the only untapped markets larger than this. Ottawa has been awarded a franchise, while Quebec City is rumoured to be a likely addition in the not too distant future. That would only bump the CFL up to 10 teams.
> 
> How does the CFL move beyond 10 teams and have these new franchises draw the 25,000/game deemed necessary to be profitable and competitive? A situation exists where there is one team in cities as large as Montreal, Vancouver, and Toronto competing against cities with population bases far smaller.
> 
> The CFL brand is far stronger in Montreal than in Toronto due to a football boom in Quebec. The Montreal Alouettes play in tiny Molson Stadium which is being expanded to 25,000 due to sell outs every game for many many years. The fans love Molson Stadium, but the stadium can't be expanded much further due to space limitations and opposition by some local residents.
> 
> I've advocated that a second team be put in Montreal down the road. Ideally, that template could be used in Vancouver and Toronto as well, but the CFL would have to grow much stronger in both those markets first for that to be successful. In essence, a move away from the current structure towards one that more closely resembles the AFL would solve the CFL's current limitations while maintaining attendance levels.
> 
> The Saskatchewan Roughriders sell out their 30,945 stadium despite playing in a city of only 198,000. The hope is that passion for football like exists there can be duplicated in one of Canada's 3 big cities. If this can be realized, the CFL could grow and become a far stronger league than it is today.


We have a similar situation in Australia with the A-League (soccer), which up until now has been one team per city. Therefore we have a big difference between the supporters bases of teams such as Melbourne and Sydney (pops 3.5M and 4M) compared to teams from the Central Coast and Newcastle with population catchments of approx 500k.

Melbourne (go Victory) has the largest support with average attendance in excess of 20k. This is a very impressive level of support given that AFL dominates the Melbourne sporting market. This level of support will be tested next year when a second Melbourne team is introduced. Optimists say this will generate more support by having a local derby. I am more pessimistic thinking it will just divide the current supporters / sponsors and playing talent. We will find out next year.


----------



## MrSmith2000

*hello*

I am Hoang


----------



## krudmonk

Are you Hoang like horse?


----------



## isaidso

Streuth said:


> We have a similar situation in Australia with the A-League (soccer), which up until now has been one team per city. Therefore we have a big difference between the supporters bases of teams such as Melbourne and Sydney (pops 3.5M and 4M) compared to teams from the Central Coast and Newcastle with population catchments of approx 500k.
> 
> Melbourne (go Victory) has the largest support with average attendance in excess of 20k. This is a very impressive level of support given that AFL dominates the Melbourne sporting market. This level of support will be tested next year when a second Melbourne team is introduced. Optimists say this will generate more support by having a local derby. I am more pessimistic thinking it will just divide the current supporters / sponsors and playing talent. We will find out next year.


Hey Streuth, I remember chatting with you last year. I'd be very interested in seeing how that 2nd team in Melbourne fares as well. Was there a lot of opposition to a 2nd team from the established team? 

In medium sized nations like England, Australia, and Canada, having more than one team in the big cities seems like the only way to go.


----------



## Streuth

isaidso said:


> Hey Streuth, I remember chatting with you last year. I'd be very interested in seeing how that 2nd team in Melbourne fares as well. Was there a lot of opposition to a 2nd team from the established team?
> 
> In medium sized nations like England, Australia, and Canada, having more than one team in the big cities seems like the only way to go.


Hi isaidso, has it been so long?

The established Melbourne team, Melbourne Victory, has not been keen on a 2nd team. It is a tough call. Traditionally support for local teams has come from the various ethnic communities with each community support it's own team. This is still the case in the state leagues. The one team per Town policy in the national league managed to unite the tribes. Melbourne Victory is a very multi culturally support team. 

My fear is that introducing second teams may start to divide support along ethnic lines and that will evenyually wear down the sport as a whole.

I could be wrong, and will be very happy if I am wrong. For so long football has been the sleeping giant in Australia and there are signs that that is changing, particularly with Australia making the last two World Cups and the success of the A-League.


----------



## bigbossman

isaidso said:


> Hey Streuth, I remember chatting with you last year. I'd be very interested in seeing how that 2nd team in Melbourne fares as well. Was there a lot of opposition to a 2nd team from the established team?
> 
> In medium sized nations like England, Australia, and Canada, having more than one team in the big cities seems like the only way to go.


Medium sized nation like England? we have well over double the population of australia, and over 10 million more than Canada. 

If we were to run a closed shop league like Canada or Australia, we wouldn't need more than 1 team per city, heck not even more than 1 team per metropolitan area (except London of course)

Figures from ESPON

*Centre/metro area/number of current pro clubs/potential zany name*
London...................................13,709,000......(20) London Towers, London Regents, London Wombles... 
Birmingham...............................3,683,000...... (6) Birmigham Brummies
Manchester..............................2,556,000.......(7) Manchester Mancs
Leeds-Bradford..........................2,302,000...... (3) Leeds White Roses
Liverpool..................................2,241,000........(5) Liverpool Dockers
Newcastle................................1,599,000........(2) Newcastle Toons
Sheffield..................................1,569,000........(5) Sheffield Tykes
Porstmouth-Southampton...........1,547,000....... (2) Solent Sailers
Nottingham-Derby.....................1,534,000........(4) East Midlands Sherrifs
Bristol.....................................1,041,000........(2) Bristol Ciders
Brighton..................................769,000...........(1) Brighton Seagulls
Leicester.................................745,000.......... (1) Leicester Foxes
Burnley/Blackburn/Preston...........745,000..........(4) Lancashire Red Roses
Middlesbrough...........................656,000 ….......(3) Middlesbrough Smoggies
Bournemouth............................531,000...........(1) Bournemouth Surfers

You could also make a case for

Stoke.......................................456,000........(2) Stoke Potters
Hull..........................................419,000........(1) Hull Tigers
Norwich (East Anglia)..................364,000........(1) East Anglia Tractors Boys
Plymouth (Devon/Cornwall)...........343,000........(1) Plymouth Pirates


For comparisons sake of the three countries metro area

500k-1m/1m-2m/2m-10m/10m+
England 5/5/4/1
Canada 3/3/3/0
Australia 2/3/2/0


----------



## AdidasGazelle

CharlieP said:


> Sure. Any of the various games played round the world with "football" in their name. Except table football.


Just makes you wonder why some sports played with your hands became known as football. Especially since there was already a worldwide-loved game that was played with your feet and was funnily enough called football. It's all a bit strange innit? :cheers:


----------



## bigbossman

AdidasGazelle said:


> Just makes you wonder why some sports played with your hands became known as football. Especially since there was already a worldwide-loved game that was played with your feet and was funnily enough called football. It's all a bit strange innit? :cheers:


Okay 

Games called foot-ball have been played throughout Europe for centuries. The modern sports that claim the name football have their derivation from English public school games (Harrow, Rugby, Winchester, Shrewsbury etc). Each had different rules, what we do know is most allowed you to catch the ball with your hands, but this was only in the form of a mark (A la Aussie Rules), somewhere along the line Rugby school started tp allow people to run with ball in hand (There is the William Webb ellis explainantion)

When kids started leving schools they wanted to play games as adults, but at universities like Cambridge different versions of football had conflicting rules so began the first attempts to codify the game (Cambridge rules 1848), In 1857 Sheffield rules was codified, and in 1858 Victorian Rules. There is some evidence to suggest Victorian Rules derives from sheffield rules, but there is nothing concrete.

In 1863 an attempt was made to standardise football as one sport in the UK. This lead to the formation of the FA, but because of conflict with Rugby people who wanted to allow running with the ball and hacking (kicking people in the shin), the Rugby clubs resigned from the FA. 

Original football was basically rugby but you couldn't run with the ball in hand, if the ball went out, you had to touch it down etc. FA football gradually began to merge with Sheffield rules (in terms of rule standardisation), the FA introduced the 3 man offside that allowed you to kick the ball forward (Now 2), abolished Fair catches except for goalkeepers (marks) and Sheffield rules had corners and crossbars. 

In 1871 the Rugby Football Union was formed (by now outlawing hacking) and there is evidence to suggest Rugby at the time was far more popular than the solely kicking games (this is the main reason so many football clubs have city, town or united in there name, because the rugby clubs had already taken the name Manchester FC, Leicester FC or Bristol FC), as they were still Fragmented between Sheffiled FA and (London) FA rules. The FA introduced the FA cup in 1871 and it's success lead to the eventual growth and merger of Sheffield and Association rules, when by 1877 the sheffield FA finally introduced offside and affiliated itself with the FA and from then on Football exploded to the point professionalism was legal within a decade and the football league was started in 1888. 

In the meantime football had been introduced to the USA, originally the kicking game (football), but the handling game (Rugby then still calling itself football) took over quickly on the insistance of Harvard and a few other american universities. Hence why they call it football and not Rugby.

Although rugby was a handling game it retained it's football roots as the only way to score was to score a goal. A try was a try to score a goal over the bar, hence you had many 0-0 rugby scores back then. Eventually Tries became more important and the importance of kicking in the game diminished. The americans began to modify rugby (walter camp) adding down and distance, and eventually also making kicking less important. From that point Gridiron football began to emerge.

Some people like to pump a story that football meant on-foot, not with-foot. There isn't much evidence to support this, I've seen one short excerpt which talks about a game called foot-ball which bans kicking, but that's all it is. It could be fabricated (see Doubleday and Baseball). Even then there is far more evidence to suggest that Football always meant a kicking game. Then again as all sports that claim football derived from a kicking version of the game (and some gradually reduced the importance of kicking), it's moot whether it ever meant on-foot or not. 

It could be argued that when sports began to place less emphasis on kicking they ceased the right to be called football, but then surely basketball should be called hoopball or netball because when it stopped using a basket it ceased being "basket" ball.

As the world globalises there is now conflict over the name you could argue that these are what the sports could be called:

Our football
Football Association Rules football > Association Football > Soccer (dubiously)
or IFAB (International Football Association Board) rules Football

Or preferably just football

Rugby
Rugby School Rules Football > Rugby Football > Rugby

American
American Gridiron Rugby Rules football... why because it's the american version of Gridiron which is a development of Rugby which is an ofshoot of football. 

Aussie Rules
Victorian Sheffield Rules Football??

One thing is for certain (except for Rugby) all sports officially call themselves football. Contrary to popular belief Association football is not the official name, but the name used to differentiate itself.


----------



## CharlieP

AdidasGazelle said:


> Just makes you wonder why some sports played with your hands became known as football. Especially since *there was already* a worldwide-loved game that was played with your feet and was funnily enough called football. It's all a bit strange innit? :cheers:


You seem to be under the misconception that association football came first. It didn't.


----------



## bigbossman

CharlieP said:


> You seem to be under the misconception that association football came first. It didn't.


you seem to be under the misconception that that matters. Association football (as you call it) was an attempt (largely succesful) to standardise the game as FOOTBALL, whether it came first is irrelevant. 

Rugby people seem to be so bitter that their sport is not recognised as football and CharlieP is no exception!


----------



## isaidso

bigbossman said:


> Medium sized nation like England? we have well over double the population of australia, and over 10 million more than Canada.
> 
> If we were to run a closed shop league like Canada or Australia, we wouldn't need more than 1 team per city, heck not even more than 1 team per metropolitan area (except London of course)


In the grand scheme of things, I do consider all 3 of these countries to be medium sized. Roughly 20-75 million is medium sized in my books. Thanks for your analysis. It does seem like England can just about get away with a 1 team/city system, but even in your country it makes sense for there to be multiple teams in the larger cities like London, Manchester, and Birmingham.

In our football league (Canadian football), cities below 500,000 aren't really considered viable markets even though one of the most successful teams, the Saskatchewan Roughriders, is in a metropolitan area of only 200,000. This market plus the 9 metros over 500,000 still leaves Canada with only 10 viable markets. 

Public opinion here seems to favour a minimum of 12-16 teams. We're currently at just 8 with 2 metros over 700,000 population with no teams: Ottawa and Quebec City. Adding these 2 gets us to 10 teams, but where do the other 2-6 teams come from?

Either the CFL needs to look at smaller markets like Halifax (380,000), London (460,000), KW (450,000), Saskatoon (240,000), Victoria (330,000), Kelowna (170,000) or put more than one team in Toronto (5.4 million), Montréal (3.9 million), and Vancouver (2.3 million). The former looks more likely than the latter.

With the possible exception of Montréal, football isn't a dominant sport in big Canadian cities. It's the small and medium sized cities that carry the Canadian Football League. At least in Australia and England, the big cities contribute their share.



bigbossman said:


> American
> American Gridiron Rugby Rules football... why because it's the american version of Gridiron which is a development of Rugby which is an ofshoot of football.


You forgot Canadian football. I hope you didn't put it under the umbrella of 'American'. Gridiron traces its roots to central Canada. It's not a sport Canada imported from the United States. It's through varsity play between Harvard and a Canadian school (McGill University) from which the sport entered the United States. Maybe you should call it Canadian Gridiron Rubgy Rules football or north American Gridiron Rugby Rules football.


----------



## bigbossman

isaidso said:


> In the grand scheme of things, I do consider all 3 of these countries to be medium sized. Roughly 20-75 million is medium sized in my books.


Wow that's a wide definition of a medium sized country. I dunno my cut off would be closer to 40 million, then again country definition problem depends more on urbanisation patterns than actual population. 



> Thanks for your analysis. It does seem like England can just about get away with a 1 team/city system, but even in your country it makes sense for there to be multiple teams in the larger cities like London, Manchester, and Birmingham.


I agree, the football league though was origianlly set up on amerian principles of one team per city and a closed league. It was like that (despite expanding from 12 teams to 92) until the mid 80s (Like the NFL). But rather than the divisions being horizontal (N, S, E, W) they were eventually set up in 4 linear divisions (1-4) 2 of 22, 2 of 24. The other difference was that the bottom few had to stand for re-election every year imagine last season the Detroit Lions having to plead their case for remaining an NFL franchise (box office telly me thinks). 

The election system was probably to prevent rival leagues (and sand bagging), and also allowed them to test cities. The fact the league had so many small town teams from it's inception (Preston, Bolton, Burnley, Blackburn) and they were successful early on probably meant there was never a fear that say halving the support base of Manchester would mean that both clubs would struggle to survive (also the revenue sharing, not-for-profit ethos and maximum wage helped). The one occassion this didn't work was in the 1930s with the case of Machester Central:

_"After Wigan Borough had to resign from the Football League in October 1931 Central applied to take their place. This was initially accepted by the leaders of Division Three (North) but a formal complaint was made jointly by First Division Manchester City and Second Division Manchester United. The belief was that a third Manchester side would seriously damage Manchester United who were struggling for support and finance at this time. The Football League backed the existing Manchester League sides and Central were denied. The Manchester clubs, in particular United, received significantly bad media coverage as a result and this act damaged their image and support further"_

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Central_F.C.

The other problem was the small clubs had a "gentlemans" agreement to vote for each other so teams were hardly ever elected out:

1951: Workington replaced New Brighton (Liverpool metro)
1960: Peterborough United replaced Gateshead (Newcastle metro)
1962: Oxford United elected to fill the vacancy left by Accrington Stanley's (Blackburn-Burnley metro) resignation
1970: Cambridge United replaced Bradford Park Avenue (Leeds-Bradford metro)
1972: Hereford United replaced Barrow
1977: Wimbledon (South west London, now MK dons) replaced Workington 
1978: Wigan Athletic (In greater manchester, but Liverpool metro) replaced Southport (Liverpool metro)

That's probably why it was eventually abolished, now we have normal relegation from Pro to semi pro. So whereas in Germany or Italy professional clubs were always vulnerable and teams could drop to oblivion in England you were really safe unless you were really a basket case. This is probably why our lower league teams have better support (in terms of numbers) because most of them have never been below the fourth tier whereas in other countries they have. 

Without the election system with rival leagues (and with profit motivation) I don't reckon as many cities would have two sizeable teams or even a team. The league probably would be the 20 team league in my other post.



> In our football league (Canadian football), cities below 500,000 aren't really considered viable markets even though one of the most successful teams, the Saskatchewan Roughriders, is in a metropolitan area of only 200,000. This market plus the 9 metros over 500,000 still leaves Canada with only 10 viable markets.


What is the reasoning behing that, because you never really know how well supported a team will be. Green bay packers and the Saskatchewan team are an example over your way. Over here we've got teams like Ipswich, Kaiserslautern or Heerenveen. All of which can attract crowds which bely their population. 

For instance Kaiserslautern play in a stadium that holds 48,000 (they average 30,000 in BL 2 atm but are top), but the city has 100,000 (+100,000 yankee soldiers). According to ESPON the metro area of Kaiserslautern is 265,000. 



> Public opinion here seems to favour a minimum of 12-16 teams. We're currently at just 8 with 2 metros over 700,000 population with no teams: Ottawa and Quebec City. Adding these 2 gets us to 10 teams, but where do the other 2-6 teams come from?
> 
> Either the CFL needs to look at smaller markets like Halifax (380,000), London (460,000), KW (450,000), Saskatoon (240,000), Victoria (330,000), Kelowna (170,000) or put more than one team in Toronto (5.4 million), Montréal (3.9 million), and Vancouver (2.3 million). The former looks more likely than the latter.
> 
> With the possible exception of Montréal, football isn't a dominant sport in big Canadian cities. It's the small and medium sized cities that carry the Canadian Football League. At least in Australia and England, the big cities contribute their share.


Interesting. The clear problem is the geography of your country but if an average of 20,000 is considered acceptable then surely all of those towns you mentioned are viable?

You have your geographical divisions that means one western team has to be offset by an eastern team, no? That surely means you can't just stuff new teams in Montréal and Toronto without finding putting teams in the west.

What Percentage of games are televised? That has an affect on attendance, in England we televise less than 50% of (Premier league) games so people turn up but our domestic TV rights are still worth more than countries who televise all their games (scarcity and all that jazz).



> You forgot Canadian football. I hope you didn't put it under the umbrella of 'American'. Gridiron traces its roots to central Canada. It's not a sport Canada imported from the United States. It's through varsity play between Harvard and a Canadian school (McGill University) from which the sport entered the United States. Maybe you should call it Canadian Gridiron Rubgy Rules football or north American Gridiron Rugby Rules football.


Yeah that's why I said American. Considering in gridiron every organisation seems to have their own rule book in reality it should be:

NFL rules American Gridiron Rugby Football 
NCAA rules American Gridiron Rugby Football 
CFL rules Canadian Gridiron Rugby Football or 
CCAA rules Canadian Gridiron Rugby Football


----------



## koolio

isaidso said:


> There are actually 51 Canadian CHL teams, 6 Canadian NHL teams, and 4 Canadian AHL teams for a total of 61 hockey teams in Canada that can be considered professional. I agree that the 55 non NHL Canadian hockey teams are equivalent to lower division teams in the English system.


There are 9 American teams in the CHL? Cool ... I thought there were 5 at the very most. I read recently that there could be more teams added to the league in the near future increasing that number even further.


----------



## isaidso

^^ I had to look it up. I didn't know what the actual number was. I think it's a shame that Canadians don't pay more attention to all these other hockey teams. The country tends to get all wrapped up in the 6 NHL teams we do have while the other 55 don't get the attention they deserve.



krudmonk said:


> NFL rosters have 53 men and yet we still hear about guys getting called off their couches when there are a few injuries. Why aren't these guys playing at a lower level instead of not at all?


There simply aren't very many pro football teams in north America. There are only 8 in Canada and only 32 in the United States. A combined population of 340 million people should have at least 60 pro football teams, and another 60 semi-pro teams. The lack of teams means that a huge amount of football talent on this continent goes to waste.

There's also the matter of whether such teams would be viable concerns without assistance from the NFL or even the CFL.


----------



## Calvin W

The CHL has the following US teams.

Plymouth
Saginaw
Erie
Tri-City
Spokane
Seattle
Portland
Everett
Lewiston

As for attendance yes certain teams are doing well, quite well in fact. But there is a huge difference in 10,000 attendance for Junior (NON PRO) games verses 10,000-20,000 NHL attendance. What is the difference in ticket prices? 4-5 times the average cost for NHL? What about box seats? Suites? the economics are hugely different between NHL and ALL other levels of hockey in North America.


----------



## isaidso

I'd love if the CHL were completely independent of the NHL and became more popular than the NHL.


----------



## bigbossman

isaidso said:


> I see. So, Manchester United becoming a team no one's interested in 50 years from now is just not going to happen? The way European sports leagues are structured is a mystery to most north Americans. There seems to be positives and negatives, but I much prefer the European system.


It won't happen now, I'd say fan bases have probably been set since the 1930s. The only way Man U would disappear is if they went down and stayed down for decades, but the likelihood of that happening again (last time in 1974) is zero to none!

Brentford used to have very sizeable support, but the longer they spent in the lower divisions the more if fizzled away and now they are just a small club. I reckon you have 2 generations to save a fan, if you don't they'll be lost to another club.

The main flaws with European system were created by the explosion of television and sponsorship revenue. It used to be in England at least gate receipts were split 50/50. So when the league was gate driven it was near impossible to dominate, add that to the fact that there was no free agency and the big clubs had no way to flex their muscles. 

When TV came in instead of splitting it equally they offered it as prize money because that's how the big clubs wanted it, so as TV money has become more and more the big clubs or should I say the clubs who were in the right place at the right time have capitalised. So as long as you keep winning you keep making more money to keep winning. What this has also meant, that a wells supported clubs in a small country who used to compete in the days of attendance driven football are now unable to compete because they play in a small TV market. I'm looking at clubs from say the Netherlands, Portugal, maybe sweden and some of the former commie nations. 

The problem is because say Manchester united are owned by the glazers they won't accept an equal split of the revenue, because it will put the wealth of their “investment” at risk. I'd love to go back to the days when Manchester United or AC Milan could be relegated. It'd be great because Arsenal are the only immovable object in English football including WW2, 90 consecutive years (1919-20) and no relegation (a record in Europe as far as I'm aware).



> Everything seems to be too much of an old boys club here. A few rich men decide who gets to challenge for a championship till the end of time. In Europe, at least you can start at the bottom, and theoretically work ones way up to the top division.


Wigan are the living proof atm, elected to the league in 1977, they hit their ceiling until Dave Whelan came along and he's bankrolled them into the top division. He admitted last season they couldn't exist with out him, I wish they didn't they're a bit of a joke. We basically need to take bankrolling out of the game because it distorts fair competition.

Gretna in the Scottish league were bankrolled until 2008, they got into the SPL but then their owner took ill and died, and they were fucked. They basically went bankrupt and no longer exist. Chelsea theoretically are in their situation but they are obviously more attractive to another billionaire if Abramovich pops his clogs! 



> So threat of demotion/possibility of promotion is a key ingredient to public interest? I never thought of that before as it just doesn't exist here.


Yeah being mid-table is boring, or boring as soon as you know that you're going nowhere.

No one wants to play in a division lower, with smaller teams, smaller stadiums worse players and football etc, and sometimes you might never come back! So people are interested in keeping their team up. Relegation to fans is devasting, on the last day of the season you always get the shots of the teary eyed fans, the guy punching his chair, the guy staring into space bemused!

Here are some great escapes, great promotions and tearful relegation videos. Some of them are classic



50,000 Real betis fans (green) in tears, notice the vallodolid fan with a radio in her ears. To check how other results are going. It's fantastic drama.






Palace surviving the drop to the 3rd tier in 2001






This is an iconic last day great escape in England, this is how it was reported






This is the scenes in the stadium, so immense 






This is Brighton staying in professional football a few years before. To put it into context Brighton are a big club who should be somewhere around the premier league/championship, but when they missed out on promotion to the top fivision in 1991 (lost in the play off final) their new owners tried to kill the club, so they went into free-fall. They nearly were gone until this game, notice the riot police at the end lol. 






Coincidently bothh hereford and Brighton are up to the third tier now, after a yo-yo time of it since that day. Brighton just got their new stadium (22,500) approve.

Here is another one, Southampton needed a win to avoid relegation and Sheffield united needed a win to get into the playoffs for promotion to the premier league. 32,000 fans and a mad game.






It was all for nought, southampton were relegated the next season and were on the brink of oblivion until (you guessed it) a billionaire turned up to bail them out.


Finally an old school one from 1983, Luton vs Manchester city winner stays up, luton go to maine road and steal it!









> In Canada, a team could be an absolute basket case year in year out, and nothing will happen other than a frustrated fan base. Attendance might suffer, but it's unheard of for a team to go under due to poor on field performance.


Yeah that's my problem with closed leagues, at least a mid table team not trying isn't as bad as a bottom of the table team not trying, so it distorts the legitimacy of results less.

It's simply because you share money innit and you aren't budgeting based on certain eventualities. Over here teams sign players to guaranteed contracts based on the revenue of the league they are in, then they get relegated and are fucked. Most teams decide to keep the players for one season and make a loss in hope to get promoted straight back with better quality players. But a lot of the time this doesn't happen meaning that to balance the books you have to make a fire sale and you end up getting relegated down another division. Last season Charlton, Southampton and Norwich were all relegated from the championship, they all were in the premier league as recently as 2005, they all nearly got promoted back the first season they were relegated but since then they've had to get rid of players, Southampton went into administration (receivership) and they are all now in the 3rd tier, Southampton even had to start on -15 and are just outside the relegation zone in that division because of it. That's how clubs go to the wall, they over budget and things don't work out on the pitch. Liverpool will be in that boat if they don't make the champions league next season, you can't pay champions league wages to non champions league players, especially if you are losing money and are in £100 million+ of leveraged debt (bloody Americans).

Basically those sort of financial problems would be sorted if players were on variable contracts. It's been discussed, but I doubt the parasites (I mean agents) would let their players sign contracts linked to the revenue their club made. 



> Having said that, the astounding characteristic of the sport system in your country is the sheer number of teams. England has roughly 50 million people, and 116 teams in the top 5 divisions.


Well there are 3 welsh teams as well, but yeah.

Yeah and they probably aren't even our biggest 116 clubs, and all but about 4 of them average more than 1,000 fans. Although we have a further 7 clubs in divisions 6 and 7 averaging 1,000. Playing anythign between 19 and 25 home games over 40 weeks of the year!

28 teams averaging over 20,000
47 teams averaging over 10,000
68 teams averaging over 5,000

Although it hasn't always been that way, in the 1980s we barely had 10 teams averaging above 20,000.

Russia has 99 teams averaging over 1,000, Italy has 87, Germany has 79. But we have to remember they have far more games televised than in England. The most impressive if the Netherlands with 16 million people and at least 38 teams averaging above 1,000 people and a top flight average (mean) of just under 20,000.



> Canada has 34 million people and 8 teams in 1 division. There is Canadian junior football, but it's really just a semi-pro league and just a speck on the landscape. Having said that, every sport takes a back seat to hockey in Canada.


How many of them are living off an overdraft though?




> Despite the storied history of Canadian football and the iconic stature of the Grey Cup, even football has had to live in the shadow of hockey. This is slowly changing. Hockey is still all powerful, but is flat lining, while football keeps growing steadily after almost dying altogether back in the 1990s.


Is ice hockey flat lining because it's not capitalising on the potential, or is it because it's reached it's limit?

Ice hockey in canada seems like football over here. And Canadian football is like Rugby. Football has plenty of growth here because we're nowhere near even half of its potential I reckon.



> We do have collegiate sports in Canada which don't seem to exist in England, but that's strictly amateur. There are 27 college football programs in Canada with probably more on the way. College football is becoming mainstream after 5 decades of fringe sport status. The sport was a big deal in Canada from roughly 1870-1960, but has finally shown signs of resurgence. Television ratings for this year's national college football championship game spiked to 662,000 from only 109,000 the previous year.


I'm still astounded by the popularity of university sport, actually school sport in general. At my secondary school we had a football team who if you didn't play for you didn't care about even though they won lots of regional tournaments nobody cared, we had a rugby team, ditto. We had an Athletics (track and field) team who know one even knew existed, school athletics was big every school has a “sports day”, where you have all the races, but our school field was only big enough for a 300 metre track. School sport is so disorganised inside and outside school, so everything was left to the volunteer club set up. 

The only school spirit that existed at my school was when fighting rival schools and university sport was for dick-head jocks. 



> It's very self serving in Canada too, especially in hockey. Hockey starved southern Ontario could probably support 4-5 teams, but is relegated to the Toronto Maple Leafs. Part of the reason is that the Leafs want the market all to themselves. Fans end up being the ones that pay the price.


How amazing would that be for ice hockey though? One division in southern Ontario. It would surely create oodles of revenue for the league. Much more than the maple leafs could make on their own, kind of the reverse of synergy.



> The NHL started life as a Canadian based league with both US and Canadian teams. The original 6 were Montreal, Toronto, Boston, New York, Chicago, and Detroit. The biggest expansion happened when the rival WHA was absorbed into the NHL. This is how teams in smaller cities like Edmonton, Quebec City, and Winnipeg got into the NHL.
> 
> As the league grew richer, and more heavily tilted towards US teams, Canada became an after thought for the league. The heavily American board of governors voted to move the league head office out of Montreal and to New York, and a long term strategy was put in place to make hockey a bigger sport in the United States.
> 
> Winnipeg and Quebec City lost their teams to US sun belt cities, and Canada was relegated to 5 teams. Ottawa was later added to boost the number of Canadian teams to 6. Canada desperately wants more NHL teams, disproportionately contributes to NHL coffers, yet any attempts to add teams in Canada are firmly rejected.
> 
> A huge amount of animosity has built up in Canada against the NHL. Canadian cities go without teams, while US arenas go empty. Many people in Canada feel like the Americans have hijacked our national sport and our league. It's not far from the truth.
> 
> The NHL is now a US league with 6 Canadian teams. Canadians still idolize the NHL, but there's plenty of hockey beyond the NHL. The Canadian Hockey League is an umbrella organization that represents the three Canadian-based Major Junior ice hockey leagues for players 16 to 20 years of age. The three member leagues are the Ontario Hockey League, Quebec Major Junior Hockey League, and Western Hockey League. Its three leagues and 60 teams represent nine Canadian provinces as well as five American states. 51 of those teams are based in Canadian cities.


How big is junior hockey? From what I've read it seems similar to minor league baseball



> That would be ideal, but football has fallen so far in Toronto that they can barely support the 1 team they have now. It would be great if Toronto had a team for North York, one for Etobicoke, one for Mississauga, one in Oshawa-Durham, and then the Toronto Argonauts. That name would have to stay as they are the oldest pro team in north American sport. Despite it all, that name still holds a lot of sway.


What about Montreal? Surely before Montreal become a Goliath you could clip their wings?



> Thank you for putting 'rivalry' in brackets, as I would have had no idea what a derby meant. The annual Labour Day Classics perfectly describe the rivalries in Canada. On Labour Day, the Toronto Argonauts always meet provincial rival, the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. These 2 cities are only 60 km apart.
> 
> On the same day, the 'Battle of Alberta' pits the Edmonton Eskimos against the Calgary Stampeders. Road distance is roughly 299 km. The Saskatchewan Roughriders always face prairie rival, the Winnipeg Bluebombers. Road distance is roughly 571 km. Anything under 500 km is considered close by Canadian standards.


I know, derby is a strange word for rivalry what's even more strange is that it is the word used throughout Europe!

60k that's quite a distance, it looks smaller on a map. 



> Fans following their team around really isn't feasible for the most part. Saskatchewan fans are known to travel one province over to Winnipeg, Edmonton, or Calgary. Beyond that it's just not done due to the distances, time, and money involved.


In Europe that used to be the case, but now every team seems to have a motley band of 1-3,000 fans that'll appear in far flung places like Athens or Kiev..



> Toronto only managed to get 26,374 fans/game to see their only pro football team in 2009. 50,000 for them is considered a monster sized crowd. They figure if they can't do it, how can anyone else do it.


That's how football was over here 'til the 1990s. Say if you averaged about 30,000, the big games would get 50,000-60,000. That was until the season ticket appeared, before then you paid on the day so people didn't have an obligation to go as such.

What are the TV ratings of the Argonauts in comparison to others. That could be a factor!



> They're under the false impression that they're a big sports town because of the variety of sport options available in their city. The reality is that beyond the Toronto Maple Leafs, sports just isn't part of the culture in Toronto. They get hopping mad if you try and tell them that. When you show them the data, they predictably argue that Torontonians have better things to do while these other cities don't have much to entertain themselves beyond sports. Any way you slice it, sports just isn't part of the culture in Toronto the way it is in other cities.


People like to level that at London, and I understand to a point you can wander around the centre of London and you'd think no one cared about sport, but you leave it and it's a different story. Whereas in other cities the football club is probably the main attraction!



> A city of 6 million can get 20,000 out to a boat show. They equate 20,000 out to a sporting event to be a decent draw. It's inconceivable to Torontonianas that they really should be able to support 5-6 teams drawing 40,000 fans each. They think its ridiculous to suggest that a city of 6 million could have that kind of support for a sport. Melbourne? London?


Tbf both London and Melbourne take a lot of their support from their hinterlands. I'm in no doubt every London club could fill their stadiums with just Londoners, but atm I reckon Arsenal, Tottenham, Chelsea, west ham etc have as many fans from the metro area as the actual city. For example West ham's fan base seeps into deep Essex.



> You're absolutely right about adding more teams in big cities would reduce the dominance of the established team. Unfortunately, football in Toronto has declined to such a point that the Argonauts need the whole market to themselves.
> 
> To put things into perspective, Regina (population: 194,971) drew an average of 30,606 fans/game in 2009 to see the Roughriders. Toronto (population: 5,113,149) drew an average of 26,374 fans/game in 2009 to see the Argonauts.


I suppose if the market is that weak then it isn't really a problem.



> The situation in Toronto is so ironic. Torontonians get disinterested in a team if it doesn't have big league optics, yet their team has the worst optics in that regard in the whole league. It's the only city in the league where football isn't a big deal. They're 'the bush league' team of the CFL.


The problem seems to me the name Toronto... I dunno as an Arsenal fan I don't feel Arsenal should be London, I dunno we feel like a part of London (the biggest part of course). I don't think a London United would work because the city is so different, how regionally divided is Toronto, because that of course is the key.



> There is revenue sharing and a salary cap in the CFL. There's also a Canadian player content rule. The fans like the Canadian content, and it's also considered an important way of nurturing domestic talent who would otherwise get over looked. It seems to be working well. The 2 teams in the Grey Cup both had more Canadian starters than they were required to have. The Saskatchewan O-line is almost 100% Canadian.


This is exactly the dilemma our football is going through. The premier league is around 60% foreign, the highest in Europe, I don't think there is another league above 50% (except Belgium). It's the main reason the premier league is dominating at the moment. FIFA want a 6+5 rule saying 6 of your players must come from your country but the EU says it's illegal (you can't restrict the movement of EU nationals). 

Currently non EU players are restricted and that's lead to a lot of dodgy passport scandals, and kids finding imaginary Spanish uncles etc. Most premier league fans think it's a plot to bring down the premier league or they think it will just make the big clubs stronger because there aren't “good enough” English players in sizeable numbers, ie. The big clubs would hoover up the good ones. A lot of people do hate the over reliance on foreigners and believe that despite all the good players that have come over, most of the foreigners are donkeys and we'd rather English donkeys not Polish donkeys if you know what I mean. 

There are people who think foreigners benefit our national team, and people who think they restrict local talent, I could care less about our national team but I believe that isn't the issue.

I personally would prefer youth system rules rather than nationality rules. That is 6 of your team has to have come from your youth team and they must be from your metro area or something, that will bring back the identity. If you look back until the 1990s most teams were full of home grown players, even Real Madrid, but now it's too risky to bring through kids. I admire the Canadian rule going for locals over Americans. I wish the EU would give football over here a break because before you know it the fabric of the game will be ruined beyond repair, in we'll have something uglier and far less appealing.



> This is also seen as a way of differentiating the league from the NFL. Due to huge tv revenues available to the NFL, the CFL is no longer able to compete with NFL salaries. The Canadian content rule, and slightly different skill set allows the CFL to maintain legitimacy and interest. For instance, some players that excel in the NFL, flop in the CFL, and vice versa. It's far more important to be agile and quick in the Canadian game.


How well do these guys get paid? 



> No. Hamilton has always been an important and independent city in Canada. It's Canada's 'steel city'. It's only due the explosive growth of Toronto, that it now looks like just another suburb of Toronto. Culturally and in reality, Hamilton remains fiercely independent. Torontonians don't consider Hamilton part or their city and neither do people in 'the Hammer'.


The hammer, great nickname. I see, a lot of our cities are like that, but many of them would've just annexed Hamilton. 

Croydon is an area of South London which grew independently and at once stage was bigger than most cities in the country, it was the biggest town that wasn't a city, but now it's part of London and just sees itself as the “third CBD” after “the city” and “canary wharf”! Maybe Hamilton will one day just see itself as south west Toronto !



> A Members of Parliament bill was brought forward a long time ago to block the incursion of the NFL into Canada. I'm not sure if it succeeded, but the NFL at that time decided not to come here.
> 
> These days there seems to be a gentleman's agreement not to harm the CFL, although the Bills just played their 2nd of 5 annual 'home' games in Toronto. Bills fans hate the atmosphere at games in Toronto which is no surprise to me, and neither of the 2 games thus far has managed to sell out which has been a huge relief to nationalists.
> 
> For now, it seems that the hype in Toronto over the Bills has subsided somewhat due to the crappy team there, sticker shock at NFL ticket prices, and the realization that a lot of the hype is just that. In the end, how many 'fans' of the NFL are there for love of US football, and how many are there for the spectacle, million dollar salaries, and the coolness factor that a billion dollar marketing machine can produce.


That's good the NFL should stay in America, not because I hate it (I enjoy watching).

I think it's the reason why the NBA and the NHL are looking at London rather than ice hockey or Basketball friendly cities. I doubt the Spanish government would let the NBA kill their domestic basketball league which is on the up. We don't have any basketball or ice hockey footing so there would be literally no objection. Although I can maybe see all the leagues clubbing together to force the governments to block the NFL coming here! 



> A significant number of Torontonians seem to be coming back down to reality and re-assessing Canadian football.


Interesting, maybe there is future growth their after all. 

Have you ever thought that people might not like the Argonauts, and if their was another team they might follow them. Sort of like anti-empire!

That's how Espanyol work in Barcelona, they're for people who hate the pompousness of FC Barcelona, and they have quite a sizeable and rabid following.



> Toronto is foremost a hockey town that's experiencing a soccer boom. A massive immigrant population that hasn't assimilated into Canadian society like in the rest of the country plus the cosmopolitan nature of Toronto explains the problems that the CFL has in Toronto.
> 
> Football has simply never been central to the culture in Toronto, only hockey has managed that. With the growth of the city, what's happened is that the core football crowd has remained, while the rest seek global sports or ones that have a huge amount of hype and spectacle surrounding it. In football, that means the NFL.
> 
> Canadian football in Toronto has been kicked to the curb. It's really a case of Toronto thumbing its nose up at the rest of the nation. A huge segment of the Toronto population is unaware of gridiron's Canadian roots, and/or don't consider domestic sporting culture worthy of their attention. It's a bit of kick in the pants, if you know what I mean.


It's big city syndrome, most northerners say the same about us Londoners.

Toronto and New York seem similar in that in both cities gridiron takes a back seat to another sport (baseball and ice hockey)



> 50% of the Toronto population are foreign born so attachment to Etobicoke, North York, etc. is negligible. Attachment to Canada is questionable sometimes too. To put things into perspective, at the World Basketball Championships in Toronto, Team Canada never had home court advantage. The Toronto crowd were rooting for Greece, Italy, Brazil, etc., not Canada.


lol I dunno what to say about that. 

That seems to happen in Cricket over here when England plays India or Pakistan. I put it down to the fact they are far more passionate about the sport than we are. Despite south asians being our biggest ethnic group and them being football followers there is a dirth of footballers from that community. There is one a Dagenham and Redbirdge, and Michael Chopra who is only half indian. 



> They sound surreal to me too. They're First Nations in origin. Those are some of the tamer ones. How about these bizarre place names: Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan; Head Smashed In Buffalo Jump, Alberta; White Rock, British Columbia; *****, Newfoundland and Labrador; Shubenacadie, Nova Scotia!


hahaha *****!

My personal favourite is Yellowknife, on the great slave lake. One of my university house-mates was from Canada, and she was staunchly anti American, mainly because people mistook her for one. So she resorted to wearing as much pro Canada garb as possible!


----------



## bigbossman

> Ottawa has been granted a conditional CFL franchise that's hinging on getting a new football appropriate stadium built. After over a year of wrangling, the City of Ottawa approved the re-development of Lansdowne Park a few months ago. The franchise holders have now submitted contracts for final design work which the public is now awaiting. Football's return to the nation's capital seems imminent.
> 
> The CFL very much wants to establish a team in Atlantic Canada to make the league truly national in scope. The region lacks wealth, a large corporate base, or large population, but it seems likely that a team will end up there within the decade. It will probably go to Halifax, but Moncton is aggressively courting the CFL.
> 
> Moncton built a 10,000 seat stadium that is expandable to 25,000 seats. They've been awarded a regular season CFL game for 2010 between the Argonauts and another team that has not yet been announced.


Can it not go to both Halifax and Moncton?



> Quebec City is also on the CFL radar due to a football boom in the province of Quebec. Université Laval only founded their football team in 1996, but have already won 5 national titles and post the highest college football attendance in Canada. They draw about 15,000/game. Laval's stadium recently expanded to seat 12,300 people. It's always standing room only to see the Rouge et Or.


By that you mean NA style standing room, not our style standing room....



> The CFL approached Laval about expanding their stadium to accommodate a CFL team, but the school turned them down due to concerns about a pro team cannibalizing support for their college football team. Regardless, I'd be shocked if the CFL wasn't there by 2020. Those people really love their football.


What about the university financing a team, if it's profit making what's the problem? 

In the UK until last season the university of Bath funded semi pro team, Team Bath who got up to the 6th division. They were nominally university students but the Bath (along with Loughborough and Brunel) is one of our leading sports Universities, so it probably made sense to them. They folded last season because the conference said they wouldn't allow them to be promoted .



> So, a 9 team league looks likely in 2012, but I don't see more than 2 more teams being added by 2020.


That's a shame, when you said lots of cities wanted a team I imagined the CFL would want to capitalise on that... 



> Fans certainly care about talent level, but there's a huge amount of football talent that goes unused on this continent. The United States is a football factory, but there are only 32 teams down there. Canada has been the beneficiary of the small number of pro teams in the United States. Expanding the number of teams shouldn't affect the calibre of play noticeably.


fair enough



> It should be noted that the CFL isn't necessarily a league for those that can't make it in the NFL. The skill set needed is somewhat different, but I do agree that there's a huge amount of over lap. That said, the appeal of the CFL goes well beyond sport.


Yeah that's the same with football over here, far more than a sport!



> Canada is one of the few nations I know that lacks national sports leagues that are truly domestic. They're all US-Canada hybrids. The appeal of the CFL is multi-faceted, but one of the big draws is that it's the only domestic sports league Canada has left. In such a massive, at times fractious nation, it's one thing Canada has that brings us closer together as a nation. Fan of not, Canadians tune in religiously to watch the Grey Cup. The television audience is staggering.


Canada is like Wales. Overshadowed by a far bigger neighbour, to the extent that people think you are from that country. The most popular sport in each country has a shared league with the bigger neighbour, Welsh football teams compete in England, Canadian Hockey teams in the USA. But each country has a passion for a sport which is distinctly their own and they can sustain their own well supported professional league. Rugby in Wales and Canadian football in Canada. The similarities are massive. 

I bet a lot of American's wonder how they never consumed Canada, just like I wonder why Wales still has country status.



> Believe me, the teams in the smaller cities couldn't care less that their opposition is from Vancouver, Toronto, or Montreal. Football is part of the culture there, and they turn out for love of the game. They only turn out in larger numbers to see their regional rivals, or for pivotal games.


So in Canada it doesn't matter but I wonder what would happen if they were really small town teams in the league, how support would be effected. That's probably the problem in European leagues, I doubt any has ever had it's 20 biggest clubs in it's top division at the same time, so we've never seen the true peak average attendance. If that makes sense?



> Contrary to conventional wisdom, airing games live on television doesn't seem to be a drawback for attendance. Nothing beats the atmosphere of being at the stadium yourself. The Montréal Alouettes are constrained by the small capacity of Molson Stadium which has been sold out for 9 years. It is being expanded from 20,202 to 25,000 seats for next year, but even that is far too small.


I agree with that, but I dunno I still think no matter where, no matter how good a teams crowds are TV does still take some people away. They are the fair-weather fans. The point being that some teams have a larger pool than others.

Oh and in Europe a lot of clubs play at shitty stadiums, with bloody idiots who are there just to fight. In Italy they claim that atmosphere isn't good for families. 



> The Alouettes play the occasional games at Montréal Olympic Stadium where attendance always swells past 50,000. Fans have voiced their opposition to a permanent move back to Olympic Stadium and the team has agreed to remain at Molson Stadium. It truly is the best place to watch football in the country. Vancouver suffers from many of the same problems as Toronto, but not quite to the same extent.


Random aside wasn't Pamela Anderson spotted at a BC lions game? ORr something like that... 



> Having said that, you're right that the big cities manage to match the attendance posted by the small cities without trying too hard. Football barely registers in Toronto, but they still manage to post attendance greater than neighbouring Hamilton simply because they have 8 times the population to draw from.


Will always be the case, just thank God in many ways Torontonians weren't obsessed or maybe they'd dominate the league?



> Globally, the CFL is just a speck next to the NFL, but in Canada the CFL consistently out draws the NFL head to head. There was much speculation that the CFL would get demolished in head to head competition with the NFL, but it just hasn't happened.
> 
> Big regular season CFL games regularly draw over 1 million viewers. The 2009 Grey Cup was watched by 6.1 million Canadians while 14 million watched all or part of the Grey Cup. That represents 43% of the national population. Nothing in Canada comes close to Grey Cup numbers, not even hockey or the Super Bowl.


Is this on Terrestrial (free-to-air) television? 



> On the surface, Canadian and US football looks the same. After watching both for a while, notable differences become apparent. The Canadian game usually is a far higher scoring affair where offense is more prevalent. The Canadian game is more pass oriented and there's more pressure to move the ball due to there being 1 more down in US football.


Interesting, the passing games is what they love in the states too is it not? They love flashy big passers, so it's a suprise that the rules haven't more assimilated to Canadian style...



> In the Canadian game, it's also possible to come back from 10 points down with only 3 minutes on the clock. That's rarely possible in the US game. Speed and agility are more critical in Canadian football and I'd argue that the quarterback is far more pivotal to the outcome here than down in the United States.


Personally I dunno if that's a good thing, the ease of comeback to me would make the impact of the comeback less. I suppose it's my low scoring sports side. 



> It does seem like Australia and Canada both have home grown domestic leagues that are managing to prosper in the age of globalization. It looked dicey for the CFL for a number of years, but in the end it comes down to entertainment value.
> 
> I'm a little biased, but Canadian football is, by far, my favourite sport. The CFL plays second fiddle to the NHL in Canada, but its fans are religious and fanatical right down to their core. The hard core CFL faithful are unwavering in their support of the league. I'm one of them.


In many ways it's a shame that Rugby had to split down into so many sports, that there isn't one global full contact/collision sport. That's one of the things that I think truly makes football special the diversity from country to country. And while I'm intrigued by niche sports and how they in many ways explain a culture, I feel they are missing something. I think that's why I enjoy American college football!



> *Wait till you watch the 4th quarter. Your jaw will drop when you see how it unfolds. Utter delirium, or utter devastation, depending on who you were rooting for!*


Yeah hilarious, stupid mistake from the coach really, or is it someone elses fault?


----------



## bigbossman

isaidso said:


> *Average attendance 2009-2010 (ongoing) for the 4 Canadian AHL teams*
> Manitoba Moose: 7,236
> Hamilton Bulldogs: 4,787
> Abbotsford Heat: 3,490
> Toronto Marlies: 3,046
> 
> *Canadian CHL teams with attendance over 6,000/game*
> Quebec Remparts: 10,980.9
> Calgary Hitmen: 9,071.6
> London Knights: 9,012.9
> Vancouver Giants: 8,717.3
> Ottawa 67's	: 8,103.3
> Halifax Mooseheads: 7,588.7
> Kelowna Rockets: 6,118.2
> Kitchener Rangers: 6,038.2
> 
> When you consider that well supported NHL teams usually get between 17,000 and 21,000 fans/game, some of these teams aren't really that far off. There are NHL teams that draw fewer than that Quebec City team.



Are the ottawa, Vancouver and Calgary fans the same fans as who follow the canucks, senators and flames? 

I ask because if not surely that shows the viability of doubling up in these cities. 

Doesn't the majority of NHL revenue come from canada, if so then surely Canada can go it alone, or does it not want to?



koolio said:


> I don't know how I can quantify this but a lot CHL teams have a strong local fan base (and sometimes even beyond if the team is a succesful and a storied club) primarily because most places that have the CHL teams do not have NHL teams (which makes sense since only 6 Canadian cities have NHL teams lol). In terms of attendance, the team with the biggest arena in the league (Quebec City) averages around 11,000 per game. In comparison, the team with the lowest attendance in the NHL at the moment (Phoenix) is averaging slightly less than 10,000.


HOw much would that equate to in the NHL, because there are a lot of lower league teams averaging those numbers and more in Europe. Some who will never really get bigger, and some who are bottoming out.


----------



## Walbanger

> *In many ways it's a shame that Rugby had to split down into so many sports, that there isn't one global full contact/collision sport*. That's one of the things that I think truly makes football special the diversity from country to country. And while I'm intrigued by niche sports and how they in many ways explain a culture, I feel they are missing something. I think that's why I enjoy American college football!


I do find that interesting myself. I'm of two minds to think is the the rest of the world missing out on something or are we cavemen in suits
But really, I do think it is interesting that England created so many sports with Association Football being by far the most successful, penetrating almost the whole globe, yet the rest of the anglosphere / former colonies resist and prefer collision codes of Football.


----------



## kerouac1848

^^
Yeah that’s true and I would add cricket as well, truly a sport that is inherently linked to the former British Empire.

In all likelihood there is a mixture of reasons, but if i was to give the most important one I would say it is how the sports split themselves along class lines. Football (association) became the choice for Britain's industrial working and lower-middle classes. A large number of football clubs are derived from railway workers' teams of the latter 19th Century (e.g. Man Utd) and other typical industries and professions. By far the bulk of the British population belonged to the working-classes, so when football become their choice sport it thus became the nation's sport simply due to numbers

Rugby (union), and to a lesser extent Cricket, became the sport of choice for the middle to upper classes and hence this partly explains their less popular status today. It also explains why Rugby clubs are popular in smaller, wealthier towns (e.g. Bath, Gloucester) and counties and football very much belongs to the big, former industrial cities. Football's heartlands started in the North West, which at the time was where a major section of the industrial society of the world lived (i.e. Manchester as the workshop of the world kinda thing)

Anyway, how is this linked to Rugby and Cricket being popular amongst Britain's former colonies? Well, it was predominately the Middle and Upper classes who lived (sometimes for several generations) in large numbers in places such as India and Africa. A woman at the place I work who is in her 50s and is classically middle class had a whole side of her family (mothers) live for about 4 generations in former British colonies across Asia. Her grandfather first came to the UK during his 30s! (George Orwell is famous example of what I mean) 

The working classes, however, didn't migrate to the same extent during this period (their large numbers occurred during the early 19th Century). As such, it was the sports of the middle and upper classes that became established in India, Pakistan, South Africa, etc. Contrast this to South America where there wasn't a large ex-pat section of Britain's middle class (might have a small section), yet many railway workers went to build networks in Sao Paulo, Rio, Buenos Aires, etc, bringing football with them (in India there was enough local workers to do that instead).

This of course is slightly simplistic and there were other factors, but I would argue that it was probably the main one. It also helps explain why Rugby League (a Northern, working-class sport) never became a global game in the way Union did.


----------



## bigbossman

kerouac1848 said:


> ^^
> Yeah that’s true and I would add cricket as well, truly a sport that is inherently linked to the former British Empire.
> 
> In all likelihood there is a mixture of reasons, but if i was to give the most important one I would say it is how the sports split themselves along class lines. Football (association) became the choice for Britain's industrial working and lower-middle classes. A large number of football clubs are derived from railway workers' teams of the latter 19th Century (e.g. Man Utd) and other typical industries and professions. By far the bulk of the British population belonged to the working-classes, so when football become their choice sport it thus became the nation's sport simply due to numbers


A lot of clubs were set up by churches aiming to save the poor , as well as other sorts of factory workers (Arsenal) munitions, (Millwall) jam factory, (Coventry) Bicycle factory etc.

I think it was always inevitable that football would become the sport of choice because of it's simplicity. Even in the rugby strongholds (West Yorkshire, south wales) it eventually pushed it to nichehood! 



> Rugby (union), and to a lesser extent Cricket, became the sport of choice for the middle to upper classes and hence this partly explains their less popular status today. It also explains why Rugby clubs are popular in smaller, *wealthier towns (e.g. Bath, Gloucester)* and counties and football very much belongs to the big, former industrial cities.


Gloucester *is* actually a working class town, and is an anomoly. There are quite a few, Bedford, South wales, Cornwall, Limerick, south west france. 

Bath is a spa town.

Gloucester tried to get a football league club but lost out in a couple of close votes, same with Bedford Town same with Bath City. If they had succeeded rugby would've taken a massive back seat. Until the professionalism of Rugby the football teams in the cities were probably as well supported, and probably would be now if they weren't in such low leagues.

Rugby was popular in private schools all around England, as well as grammar schools (hence it's popularity in certain working class areas). It's nothing to do with middle or working class counties/towns. I think who are our top rugby teams nowadays is more down to who were the good amateur sides which tended to be the areas where the "hooray henry's" resided, but not exclusively. When the game went professional it was about who could find backing. There are many traditional clubs in northern towns who fell by the wayside. I think you are reading too much into where the current Guiness Premiership clubs are located.



> Football's heartlands started in the North West, which at the time was where a major section of the industrial society of the world lived (i.e. Manchester as the workshop of the world kinda thing)


I'd say football's heartlands actually started in Central Scotland (and to a lesser extent London). The history of the sport shows that it was North western clubs importanting ringers from Scotland which lead to the legalisation of professionalism.



> Anyway, how is this linked to Rugby and Cricket being popular amongst Britain's former colonies? Well, it was predominately the Middle and Upper classes who lived (sometimes for several generations) in large numbers in places such as India and Africa. A woman at the place I work who is in her 50s and is classically middle class had a whole side of her family (mothers) live for about 4 generations in former British colonies across Asia. Her grandfather first came to the UK during his 30s! (George Orwell is famous example of what I mean)
> 
> The working classes, however, didn't migrate to the same extent during this period (their large numbers occurred during the early 19th Century). As such, it was the sports of the middle and upper classes that became established in India, Pakistan, South Africa, etc. Contrast this to South America where there wasn't a large ex-pat section of Britain's middle class (might have a small section), yet many railway workers went to build networks in Sao Paulo, Rio, Buenos Aires, etc, bringing football with them (in India there was enough local workers to do that instead).


It must be added that Argentina was an informal member of the british empire, it did have a sizeable middle class British landowner population at one stage, hence why Rugby is popular there and cricket used to be. 

I know the sport came to places like Spain through industrialisation. Football in south america was definately fuelled by massive immigration from Europe. Brazil has massive German, Italian and Portuguese populations. And Argentina also has a massive Italian population, as well as Spanish. They helped grow the sport as the sport had already concurred the homeland.

Also if you look football also fuelled by European immigration was very popular in the north eastern USA before in fighting and the great depression killed the professional league they had, which at the time outdrew the NFL.



> This of course is slightly simplistic and there were other factors, but I would argue that it was probably the main one. It also helps explain why Rugby League (a Northern, working-class sport) never became a global game in the way Union did.


I'd also say it came to late, by that I mean Rugby league dates from 1895, by then the sporting landscape was starting to take shape. We had our Football countries and we had our Rugby countries, the best hope would've been unifying rugby which probably lost a lot of momentum by the fact it was amateur.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

isaidso said:


> The United States is a hyper competitive society in general. A huge population and little in the way of a safety net transpire to push people to perform. There are drawbacks to that, but it can have fantastic results. I do admire how seriously Americans take things. Even high school basketball is intensely competitive in the United States.
> 
> In Canada, there are those that view these things the same way as Americans, but there simply isn't the same level of intensity here. The US college sport system is absolutely jaw dropping to an outsider. We're starting to see the beginning of that in Canada with certain college athletic departments mushrooming in scale, scope, and revenue.
> 
> 'Very impressive" Do you mean the Grey Cup television numbers or the game itself?




Having roughly half your population watch a sporting event is always an impressive feat.


----------



## kerouac1848

Bigbossman

Cheers for adding the extra info. I admitted that my analysis of Wallbanger's post was pretty simplistic and generalised and that there were also other factors to consider. But I think that class played a role, although football simplicity's definitely helped.

Tbh I was a bit hesitant to use Cricket because for a long time it was actually a pretty popular sport for working-class men as well. Alot of people (as I'm sure you know) played cricket during the summer months and football the rest of the time. Its actually only relatively recently (since the 90s I would say, maybe a little before) that football's coverage dominated the backpages during the off season and cricket, outside of South Asian communities, declined amongst the teenage urban popluation (a generalisation I realise!). Many older men (60+) enjoy still enjoy cricket as much as football.



> It must be added that Argentina was an informal member of the British Empire, it did have a sizeable middle class British landowner population at one stage, hence why Rugby is popular there and cricket used to be.


Good point about Argentina, I had forgotten. I remember when I was briefly there during the summer '08 and someone i got talking to was telling me that before WWII such was the relationship between Britain and Argentina that Harrods and several other major British outlets had stores there and tea houses were common! Anglo surnames are apparently not too rare amongst the upper elite also. 



> I know the sport came to places like Spain through industrialisation. Football in south america was definately fuelled by massive immigration from Europe. Brazil has massive German, Italian and Portuguese populations. And Argentina also has a massive Italian population, as well as Spanish. They helped grow the sport as the sport had already concurred the homeland.
> 
> Also if you look football also fuelled by European immigration was very popular in the north eastern USA before in fighting and the great depression killed the professional league they had, which at the time outdrew the NFL.


Yeah, right about Europe. I think it initially started with British clubs touring the continent and it just kind of took off from there? Also, didn't many European countries have some kind of sport similar to football in some respects, making it easier for the game to spread? (im thinking particularly of Italy here)

I know a bit more about Brazil due to variety of strong connections I've had with that country over the past several years and I'm pretty sure it initially spread due to British workers (largely railway men, but not only). In fact, for a while the game was actually a middle to upper class sport due to its English connections. Large immigration (Italy especially) certainly played a role, but by then the game had spread rapidly amongst the poorer North Easterners who had started to flood into Rio and Sao Paulo as those cities became the centre of country's economy and power. It also helps explains why Brazil's most successful and powerful clubs are in the South and South East (not the only factor, I stress!).

Don't know about football in the North Eastern US before the depression, but that certainly sounds more than plausible to me.



> I'd also say it came to late, by that I mean Rugby league dates from 1895, by then the sporting landscape was starting to take shape. We had our Football countries and we had our Rugby countries, the best hope would've been unifying rugby which probably lost a lot of momentum by the fact it was amateur.


Yeah, forgotten about that too! My knowledge of Rugby isn't as strong as football, but wasn't also the split partly down to a disagreement about how the game should be played, which was partly a North/South split? I am also interested in how RL became so popular in Australia, but not NZ and South Africa?


----------



## Blackcatfan

El Mariachi said:


> wow, that is pretty impressive that so many teams could get that much support in a city that size.


The above response was relating to Melbourne.

There are 24 professional football sides in Buenos Aires apparently. At least 12 of these have large stadia and draw decent crowds as well. Surely Buenos Aires is the most football obsessed city on the planet?

In England, London has 14 'League' teams, 'League' being the term used for the top 4 professional leagues in the country, everything below that is considered 'non-league' and this is also regarded as the point when teams go from being fully professional to semi-professional, although the Blue Square Conference which is at level 5 in the pyramid and is therefore the top 'non-league' division currently has 18 full time teams out of 24 competing.

The London teams are;

Arsenal
Tottenham
Chelsea
West Ham
Fulham
QPR
Watford
Crystal Palace
Brentford
Orient
Barnet
Charlton Athletic
Millwall
Dagenham and Redbridge

There are a further 4 teams from the greater London area competing in the Conference, and these are;

AFC Wimbledon
Hayes and Yeading
Grays Athletic
Ebbsfleet

So that makes 18 sides out of the top 116 clubs in England from the capital.

There are probably another 15 or so within an hours drive of the M25 ring road as well. Off the top of my head;

Luton Town
Stevenage Borough
Wycombe Wanderers
Southend United
Colchester United
Ipswich Town
Reading
Oxford United
Gillingham


When you consider London also has 4 professional Rugby Union teams (Saracens, Wasps, Harlequins and London Irish), 1 Professional Rugby League team (Harlequins), 2 Professional Cricket teams (Middlesex and Surrey), plus 3 other cricket teams on the doorstep (Essex, Sussex and Kent), and it also has professional teams playing Basketball, Ice Hockey and American Football, as well as hosting major events such as Wimbledon Tennis every year and now the end of season event as well, plus the new Olympic Stadium may be added to the list of Golden League Athletics events, there cannot be a better city in the world to see so many different sports at such a high level?


----------



## Blackcatfan

bigbossman said:


> A lot of clubs were set up by churches aiming to save the poor , as well as other sorts of factory workers (Arsenal) munitions, (Millwall) jam factory, (Coventry) Bicycle factory etc.
> 
> I think it was always inevitable that football would become the sport of choice because of it's simplicity. Even in the rugby strongholds (West Yorkshire, south wales) it eventually pushed it to nichehood!
> 
> 
> 
> Gloucester *is* actually a working class town, and is an anomoly. There are quite a few, Bedford, South wales, Cornwall, Limerick, south west france.
> 
> Bath is a spa town.
> 
> Gloucester tried to get a football league club but lost out in a couple of close votes, same with Bedford Town same with Bath City. If they had succeeded rugby would've taken a massive back seat. Until the professionalism of Rugby the football teams in the cities were probably as well supported, and probably would be now if they weren't in such low leagues.
> 
> Rugby was popular in private schools all around England, as well as grammar schools (hence it's popularity in certain working class areas). It's nothing to do with middle or working class counties/towns. I think who are our top rugby teams nowadays is more down to who were the good amateur sides which tended to be the areas where the "hooray henry's" resided, but not exclusively. When the game went professional it was about who could find backing. There are many traditional clubs in northern towns who fell by the wayside. I think you are reading too much into where the current Guiness Premiership clubs are located.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say football's heartlands actually started in Central Scotland (and to a lesser extent London). *The history of the sport shows that it was North western clubs importanting ringers from Scotland which lead to the legalisation of professionalism.*
> 
> 
> 
> It must be added that Argentina was an informal member of the british empire, it did have a sizeable middle class British landowner population at one stage, hence why Rugby is popular there and cricket used to be.
> 
> I know the sport came to places like Spain through industrialisation. Football in south america was definately fuelled by massive immigration from Europe. Brazil has massive German, Italian and Portuguese populations. And Argentina also has a massive Italian population, as well as Spanish. They helped grow the sport as the sport had already concurred the homeland.
> 
> Also if you look football also fuelled by European immigration was very popular in the north eastern USA before in fighting and the great depression killed the professional league they had, which at the time outdrew the NFL.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd also say it came to late, by that I mean Rugby league dates from 1895, by then the sporting landscape was starting to take shape. We had our Football countries and we had our Rugby countries, the best hope would've been unifying rugby which probably lost a lot of momentum by the fact it was amateur.


It may have happened in the North West, but it was fine tuned in the North East. My club, Sunderland, were voted into the league in 1890 and were the first team to join after the original members set the league up. The original 12 sides were based exclusively in the North West, the Potteries and the West Midlands. Sunderland actually had to offer to pay the other teams expenses to away games to gain admission, despite the fact that they only had to come to Sunderland once and we had to travel an equivalent distance to every away game. It only took a few seasons before they probably wished they had not let us in.

Sunderland were founded by a Scot, Mr James Allen, who was a School teacher and he brought the game (and a round ball) with him. Once the side he set up became successful, we would regularly tour Scotland and would also cherry pick the best players from the teams we played. We were funded by wealthy Ship Yard owners and had money to burn. Many newspaper articles of the time indicate how distasteful this was in a sporting context, and you could say we were the original Chelsea. We won the league in 1892 and regularly fielded and entire team of Scotsmen and then went on to compete with Villa to be dominant team of the next 10 years.

On one occasion we lost our first 5 games and then still won the league.


----------



## Streuth

I have 2007/2008 averages for various Australian Leagues. 



Code:


League	           Average attendance
AFL (Aussie Rules)	36,831
Super 14 (Rugby)	21,292
NRL (Rugby League)	15,820
A-League(Soccer)        14,613

I found this other interesting information at www.Roymorgan.com.au
They did a survey and asked which team the respondant supports. The results are below (sorry about the formatting):



Code:


Team	                League	Supporters
Sydney Swans	        AFL	 1,278,000 
Brisbane Broncos	NRL	 1,273,000 
Brisbane Lions	        AFL	 921,000 
Melbourne Storm	        NRL	 769,000 
West Coast Eagles	AFL	 730,000 
Collingwood Magpies	AFL	 722,000 
Essendon Bombers	AFL	 722,000 
Sydney F.C.	        A L'gue	 640,000 
Melbourne Victory	A L'gue	 638,000 
Adelaide Crows	        AFL	 630,000 
Carlton Blues	        AFL	 521,000 
Wests Tigers	        NRL	 489,000 
Nth Queensland Cowboys	NRL	 474,000 
St George Dragons	NRL	 470,000 
Queensland Roar	        A L'gue	 463,000 
Parramatta Eels	        NRL	 450,000 
Geelong Cats	        AFL	 389,000 
Richmond Tigers	        AFL	 367,000 
Bulldogs	        NRL	 354,000 
Fremantle Dockers	AFL	 343,000 
St Kilda Saints	        AFL	 339,000 
Manly Warringah 	NRL	 339,000 
Newcastle Knights	NRL	 338,000 
Port Adelaide Power	AFL	 325,000 
South Sydney Rabbitohs	NRL	 321,000 
Perth Glory	        A L'gue	 315,000 
Hawthorn Hawks	        AFL	 309,000 
Adelaide United	        A L'gue	 291,000 
Sydney Roosters	        NRL	 276,000 
Western Bulldogs	AFL	 235,000 
Nth Melbourne Kangaroos	AFL	 212,000 
Newcastle Jets	        A L'gue	 208,000 
Gold Coast Titans	NRL	 207,000 
Melbourne Demons	AFL	 191,000 
Sharks	                NRL	 176,000 
Penrith Panthers	NRL	 167,000 
Central Coast Mariners	A L'gue	 160,000 
New Zealand Warriors	NRL	 157,000 
Canberra Raiders	NRL	 149,000 
Wellington Phoenix	A L'gue	 32,000


This is not a perfect survey, it was undertaken separately for each league so people can support teams in different leagues. This is why Sydney Swans poll so high, they are the only AFL team in Sydney so get the default Sydney vote.

Of the top ten in this list, eight are the only team in town. Most of the Melbourne AFL teams are mid table. It is good to see some of the A-League clubs challenging the other codes.


----------



## krudmonk

I assume you're counting the Crows and Eagles as the only game in town?


----------



## Streuth

krudmonk said:


> I assume you're counting the Crows and Eagles as the only game in town?


Yikes my mistake. For those that don't know, the Crows and the Eagles were "the only game in town" for a while but both have been joint by second teams (Port Adelaide and Fremantle respectively).


----------



## Walbanger

^ Well many would agree that the Adelaide Crows and West Coast Eagles are the only game in town because Port Adelaide is one of the most hated clubs in the country and Fremantle are an embarrassment to West Australian Football. lol

But no not really as Port and Freo are in the metropolitan areas of Adelade and Perth. They are the little brother cubs with massive chips on their shoulders. Port because the rest of the league really don't care that they existed since 1870 because they have only been playing in the AFL since 1997, and Fremantle because of the comedy of errors that club has made on and off the field since being founded.

As for the numbers of Support. Well Sydney and Brisbane being Rugby League towns give the false impression that the Swans and Lion of the AFL have the largest supporter base in the league, most are indifferent to them, same goes for the NRL's Melbourne Storm where they are the only show in town in a city obsessed with the other code.
The Brisbane Broncos would have far more legitimate support and it helps being the the only team in the city which loves Rugby League. They are the undisputed giants of Rugby League, only Melbourne has the potential to match them but it will take a few decades.

The AFL when it was the VFL had the Big 4 which were melbourne clubs Collingwood, Essendon, Carlton and Richmond. Since the League has gone national the Big 4 is now the West Coast Eagles, Collingwood, Essendon and the Adelaide Crows. These clubs all have a claim to being the largest AFL club in the country.


----------



## eastadl

Walbanger said:


> ^ Well many would agree that the Adelaide Crows and West Coast Eagles are the only game in town because Port Adelaide is one of the most hated clubs in the country
> 
> But no not really as Port and Freo are in the metropolitan areas of Adelade and Perth. They are the little brother cubs with massive chips on their shoulders. Port because the rest of the league really don't care that they existed since 1870 because they have only been playing in the AFL since 1997


what a pile of shit. Crows and eagles are absolute wankers. Your quote proves it


----------



## Walbanger

Ahahahahahaha


----------



## Walbanger

> I've seen that before and it's bullshit. They get a professional american football player vs an Amateur/semi pro rugby player.
> 
> They get the rugby player to hit a human and the american football player to run into a minikin [sic]. OF course he's gonna hit harder, that's not scientific that's stacking the odds in your favour so the results produce the answer your want it to.
> 
> That's not science!


Very True.
Though I'm happy to agree that American Footballers may hit harder, the experiment is stacked in their favour.
Obviously it doesn't work when you comparing a Pro to Amateurs, secondly it's easier to time your tackle against an inanimate object (the dummy) and thirdly by the very nature of the game, Rugby League players generally hit harder than their Union counterparts.

A good experiment would have been something like Quentin Jammer vs Sonny Bill Williams or for the bigger guys, Ray Lewis vs Roy Asotasi or Ruben Wiki. That would be entertaining.

Sorry to go off topic.


----------



## krudmonk

The point of rugby is to tackle, not hit. Even in league, with a legal shoulder charge, you must do more than knock a guy over to stop him. Of course gridiron players will hit harder. It's part of their game.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

bigbossman said:


> i haven't got time to do the rest of your post, but this man
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen that before and it's bullshit. They get a professional american football player vs an Amateur/semi pro rugby player.
> 
> They get the rugby player to hit a human and the american football player to run into a minikin [sic]. OF course he's gonna hit harder, that's not scientific that's stacking the odds in your favour so the results produce the answer your want it to.
> 
> That's not science!


You could at least watch it till it explains how they concluded the 35 mph car crash. Its got to do with displacement length and speed of your sternum.


----------



## Pimpmaster

do high schools in the states give out scholarships to up and coming football players?
here in australia the best rugby schools usually go out to state championships and poach players from there, they even sometimes go to new zealand to offer players scholarships. combined with excellent rugby programs and world class gyms i guess u wouldnt say no.


----------



## bigbossman

kerouac1848 said:


> Romford and Woolwich are waaay out of my area, but i can imagine. Watford is super lame, but its a totally separate town that doesn't feel like London at all (i guess thats because it isn't) and has more in common with somewhere like Stoke or another small town around the country.


I was under the impression lots of people from North west London went out in Watford... Stoke is supposed to be a cesspit though when i went to watford it didn't seem that bad!



> I went to Oceana once. Typically town centre type club where boozing is of more importance than the music or whatever. Don't go to clubs that much now, but when I do it is for the music and atmosphere (cliche i know); if i want to get tanked up i'll go to a pub where its cheaper (or someone's house where its cheaper still!)


I agree about the pub thing, I remember we used to just buy a bottle of vodka and a load cans before hand and drink round someones house playing pro evo or poker or something. Clubs are a rip off!



> At the risk of going way of topic again, I've always thought that London's boundaries expanded too much, including areas that would never be in European or North American cities. I mean, it’s good that they never left it like places such as Barcelona or Paris, where the official population and area is a fraction of the wider metro area, but places like uxbridge and Surbiton have no business being part of london.
> 
> Think i'll stop there..


I disagree I believe cities are far better off controlling their suburbs. The majority of people live in outer London and the tax it creates is massive. Also some boroughs aren't cut and dry, for example Northern croydon runs into streatham and feels urban but southern croydon is all suburban. What about the borough you live in brent, which runs from kilburn (urban squalor) right upto kenton (suburbia). 

The parisian suburbs are shitholes because they are excluded from the city. 



> Haha yeah true. It's like the London forums where as soon as someone mentions boris or ken you'll know the whole debate will descend into a left/right ideological battle


I steer clear from the London forums nowadays, the UK and Ireland forums are generally shit.

To get it back on topic. This is England's record (top division) season for average attendnace

Division One 1948-1949
Club.............................................Average vs '48
1 Newcastle United ........................53.839 NEW
2 Arsenal......................................51.478 - 6,2%
3 Manchester United ......................48.808 -11,1%
4 Aston Villa .................................47.320 14,2%
5 Chelsea .....................................46.362 - 2,6%
6 Sunderland ................................45.220 5,4%
7 Everton .....................................45.138 2,1%
8 Liverpool ...................................44.031 - 0,6%
9 Wolverhampton Wanderers ...........43.690 10,2% 
10 Charlton Athletic ........................40.216 10,9% 
11 Manchester City.........................38.699 - 9,4% 
12 Birmingham City .........................38.453 NEW 
13 Portsmouth ...............................37.082 18,8% 
14 Sheffield United ..........................34.387 37,0% 
15 Middlesbrough ...........................34.292 1,2% 
16 Bolton Wanderers ........................34.113 16,0% 
17 Preston North End .......................33.226 12,6% 
18 Burnley .....................................30.290 - 9,9% 
19 Stoke City .................................29.948 - 5,2% 
20 Derby County .............................29.798 10,2% 
21 Blackpool ...................................24.882 - 1,3% 
22 Huddersfield Town .......................22.151 -13,3%
*Total..............................................38.792 * 7,4%


----------



## bigbossman

contrast that with England's worst season since WW2

Canon League Division One 1983-1984
Club Average vs '83
1 Manchester United.......................42.534 2,0%
2 Liverpool ...................................31.974 - 8,0%
3 Tottenham Hotpsur .....................28.701 - 6,1%
4 Arsenal .....................................28.116 16,4%
5 West Ham United ........................21.386 - 6,3%
6 Aston Villa .................................21.371 -10,0%
7 Everton .....................................19.343 - 4,6%
8 Southampton...............................18.089 - 3,8%
9 Nottingham Forest .......................17.698 - 0,9% 
10 Ipswich Town .............................17.464 -10,5%
11 Watford .....................................16.510 -15,3% 
12 Sunderland .................................16.180 - 6,9% 
13 Norwich City ...............................15.659 - 7,1% 
14 Queens Park Rangers ....................15.370 NEW 
15 Leicester City .............................14.923 NEW 
16 West Bromwich Albion....................14.569 - 4,2% 
17 Birmingham City............................14.107 - 9,8% 
18 Stoke City ..................................13.900 -16,4% 
19 Coventry City ..............................12.572 19,1% 
20 Wolverhampton Wanderers..............12.478 NEW 
21 Luton Town.................................11.938 -11,3% 
22 Notts County................................9.463 - 7,8% 
*Total...............................................18.834* - 6,4%

a rare season (outside of the 1960s) where Tottenham averaged more than Arsenal


----------



## bigbossman

Contrast with last season

FA Barclaycard Premiership 2008-2009 
Club Average	vs '08	Highest
1 Manchester United.......................75.304	- 0,5%	75.569
2 Arsenal......................................60.040	- 0,1%	60.109
3 Newcastle United.........................48.750	- 5,0%	52.114
4 Liverpool FC................................43.611 0,2%	44.424
5 Manchester City FC......................42.899 1,8%	47.331
6 Chelsea FC..................................41.588 0,5%	43.417
7 Sunderland AFC	...........................40.168	- 7,3%	47.936
8 Aston Villa FC...............................39.812	- 0,5%	42.585
9 Tottenham Hotspur........................35.929	- 0,1%	36.183
10 Everton.......................................35.710	- 3,4%	39.574
11 West Ham United...........................34.208	- 1,1%	40.482
12 Middlesbrough FC...........................28.429 6,4%	33.767
13 Stoke City....................................27.020 60,6%	27.500
14 West Bromwich Albion.....................25.828 15,8%	26.344
15 Hull City AFC................................24.816 37,7%	24.945
16 Fulham FC....................................24.340 2,4%	25.661
17 Blackburn Rovers FC.......................23.479	- 1,9%	28.389
18 Bolton Wanderers FC.......................22.486 7,6%	26.021
19 Portsmouth FC..............................19.830	- 0,4%	20.540
20 Wigan Athletic...............................18.350	- 3,7%	22.954
*Total...............................................35.630* - 1,2%	75.569


----------



## jock in da pool

*Scottish football average attendences 08/09*

*Celtic *.......................... 57,670
*Rangers*.......................... 49,535
*Heart of Midlothian*........... 14,400
*Aberdeen*..........	............. 12,930
*Hibernian*........................ 12,685
*Dundee United*................. 8,655
*Kilmarnock* ...................... 5,725
*Falkirk*.............................. 5,640
*Motherwell* ........................ 5,520
*Saint Mirren * ...................... 5,410
*Inverness Caledonian Thistle* .. 4,455
*Dundee*............................ 3,955
*Hamilton Academical*............. 3,825
*Saint Johnstone*................... 3,515
*Dunfermline Athletic*.............. 3,110
*Partick Thistle*...................... 2,965
*Queen of the South*............... 2,680
*Greenock Morton*........	.......... 2,250
*Raith Rovers*........................ 2,225
*Ross County*........................ 2,165


----------



## koolio

jock in da pool said:


> *Celtic *.......................... 57,670
> *Rangers*.......................... 49,535
> *Heart of Midlothian*........... 14,400
> *Aberdeen*.......... ............. 12,930
> *Hibernian*........................ 12,685
> *Dundee United*................. 8,655
> *Kilmarnock* ...................... 5,725
> *Falkirk*.............................. 5,640
> *Motherwell* ........................ 5,520
> *Saint Mirren * ...................... 5,410
> *Inverness Caledonian Thistle* .. 4,455
> *Dundee*............................  3,955
> *Hamilton Academical*............. 3,825
> *Saint Johnstone*................... 3,515
> *Dunfermline Athletic*.............. 3,110
> *Partick Thistle*...................... 2,965
> *Queen of the South*............... 2,680
> *Greenock Morton*........ .......... 2,250
> *Raith Rovers*........................ 2,225
> *Ross County*........................ 2,165


:lol:


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

jock in da pool said:


> *Celtic *.......................... 57,670
> *Rangers*.......................... 49,535
> *Heart of Midlothian*........... 14,400
> *Aberdeen*..........	............. 12,930
> *Hibernian*........................ 12,685
> *Dundee United*................. 8,655
> *Kilmarnock* ...................... 5,725
> *Falkirk*.............................. 5,640
> *Motherwell* ........................ 5,520
> *Saint Mirren * ...................... 5,410
> *Inverness Caledonian Thistle* .. 4,455
> *Dundee*............................ 3,955
> *Hamilton Academical*............. 3,825
> *Saint Johnstone*................... 3,515
> *Dunfermline Athletic*.............. 3,110
> *Partick Thistle*...................... 2,965
> *Queen of the South*............... 2,680
> *Greenock Morton*........	.......... 2,250
> *Raith Rovers*........................ 2,225
> *Ross County*........................ 2,165


wow, absolutely no parity!


----------



## bigbossman

Phriggin' Ogre said:


> wow, absolutely no parity!


what do you expect Scotland has 5 million people, Rangers and Celtic play in it's biggest city and metro area and draw lots of fans from Ireland, they are in many ways more than just football clubs! 

Imagine if Washington was an independent nation and had a league, do you think 1 or 2 seattle teams wouldn't dominate?


----------



## bigbossman

I stumbled upon a thread on a crystal palace forum called _Where have the crowds gone... _, here is some of the tidbits



> My neighbour is a Brighton fan, and we were having a bit of banter this-morning....like a SAD git I got some old programmes out to see how we got on against Brighton....the year was 1980, and we were both amazed at the size of the crowds not just at Selhurst but at Goldstone...and I don't think it was due to rivalry.
> 
> We were in the old First Division (for you youngsters that the equiv to Euro Disney Sky premier thing now) and average crowds at home were pushing 30k, games against the Arse etc well into 45k plus. But what was really amazing was a cup game against Stockport County who were 2 or 3 divisions below, we had a crowd of 17k (and won 7-0), that was more supporters than the Derby against QPR the other day !
> 
> So what is it?
> All seaters' + personality football + brands + plastic supporters + sky +prices = lower crowds these days?





> Its attracting a different kind of crowd now.*There was quite a high number of males between the ages of 14 to 21.It was affordable*.it was a right laugh on the terraces.Not the TV saturation you get now.The ground was the place to be,better atmosphere,less moaning,glory hunting and the division between players,who come and go at a whim and the fans.
> 
> When i was in my teens,alot of my mates went,even the ones who didn't like footy that much,because it was a laugh.My daughter who is 15 says hardly any of the boys she knows go at all.
> 
> So its prices,policing,all seater stadiums and big clubs monopolising the game.





> Would have loved to have gone yesterday but simply could not justify a spend of something approaching a bulls eye, (admission, programme,couple of beers,a pie etc) , It's about time clubs seriously looked a gate prices now if it was £15 I would have gone and could have come home with change from £25,the official attendance was 13k yesterday (I'm sure it was less) that means 12k worth of empty seats ,without doing the maths I'm sure it's better to have a 25k crowd all paying £15 rather then a 13k crowd paying the top prices, maybe I'm just being old fashioned





> I think general saturation of football these days is a major reason. You can sit in and watch so much football each week, I don't think there can be the same desire to get to matches. Especially as even Palace are going to be on TV around 4-5 times a year. The casual fans that would turn up to see us play a couple of times a season now don't bother, as were on the box enough for them to know whats going on.
> 
> Plus prices, availability of options, ticketing etc





> To be honest the club (not just ours at all as it goes) dont help themselves by alienating their own fans. Throwing people out and banning them for standing, swearing or other rubbish like that, desperately chasing the football family who are now turning away because of ticket prices, crap football, over saturation etc. Who's left then? and we all now that once you get out of the habit you dont start going again.





> *Too much TV coverage*, people used to go and watch a game and not neccesarily as a fan of a particular club but just to see a pro game, I suspect that many people then became fans as a result. Now you can watch a game almost any night of the week and during the day at weekends in homes or pubs, people can 'follow' the fashionable clubs from afar.





> There's much more to do now, and a more family-oriented attitude to leisure.* Football really presents poor value for money for the average family*, compared to other stuff you can do.
> 
> I think the clubs really have to get into the 'Vegas' mindset of getting people through the door first and foremost, and making their money from there. It's pointless trying to squeeze everything you can from 11000 die-hards. Clubs like Palace would be better off also attracting a casual fanbase of 30-40000 who won't be coming every week, but would be prepared to take advantage of good deals every now and then.





> What he said....It may be rose tinted but since about 95 my interest in football generally has waned year on year.
> 
> I started my Palace watching with my dad in 74
> 
> From the time I could go on my own with mates from the early 80's we didnt even think about whether we would be going to games, home or away - We just did. * It was fun, it was cheap *and I have had some of the funniest, weirdest and most emotional moments of my life in god forsaken Northern towns watching Palace get a 3-0 beating.
> 
> These days I have to pick and choose games, *I cant afford to take all the kids unless i sell a kidney *and there is something missing from that enjoyment.
> 
> I never ever thought I'd lose that but I have.





> *Too much football on TV.*
> Seems not that long ago that, apart from internationals, the only live footie were the Cup Finals.
> Match of the Day was a real treat (Just after Kojak) and a Wednesday 'Sportsnight with Coleman' an added bonus.
> Football has become too accessible yet for those actually involved in the game, too elitist.
> *Skysport's coverage is brilliant, yet sadly it has bled the game dry of its lifeblood - supporters (like me) who now prefer the comfort of their armchair *to watch a game than the pleasures of the Holmesdale hospitality on a cold afternoon in December.
> *The only thing that would make me return on a regular basis (and probably many others) is realisitic ticket pricing *and my hunger to do so being increased by a dramatic drop in televised footie.


http://forums.cpfc.org/showthread.php?t=178690&page=1

It's a sad story of what's wrong with football in England, and crowds!


----------



## ross_the_man

bigbossman said:


> I stumbled upon a thread on a crystal palace forum called _Where have the crowds gone... _, here is some of the tidbitshttp://forums.cpfc.org/showthread.php?t=178690&page=1
> 
> It's a sad story of what's wrong with football in England, and crowds!


A lot of people are probably feeling the pinch from the economic crisis.


----------



## bigbossman

^^ erm I doubt it, that's from last year and people have been moaning like this for a decade!


----------



## bigbossman

A couple of articles

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/aug/14/premierleague



> *Middle-aged, middle-class and muted - meet today's fan*
> Season-ticket sales seem recession-proof but few end in the hands of the young or poor
> 
> Louise Taylor The Guardian, Thursday 14 August 2008
> 
> Talk of looming recession can prompt drastic measures. Across England cars are already being driven unusually slowly in the hope of conserving petrol, shopping is being done at Aldi rather than Waitrose and increasing numbers of holidaymakers have opted to sleep in camper vans instead of exotic five-star hotels.
> 
> Yet during a summer when it seems that every other conversation centres on escalating food and fuel costs, fans of Premier League football clubs appear strangely immune to the credit crunch.
> 
> As our survey shows, season-ticket sales are, in several cases - and despite price increases - significantly up on this time last summer. Indeed the only club prepared to own up to slightly sluggish ticket-office activity was Blackburn Rovers. Nonetheless they remained optimistic that a "couple of new signings" would swiftly produce an upsurge in demand.
> 
> "While not being recession-proof, football is to a certain extent recession-resistant," explained Dan Jones, a partner in the sports business group at Deloitte and Touche. "Football is a special thing, it gets people through the working week and fans will give up a lot of things before they let go of their season tickets."
> 
> Accordingly at certain clubs guaranteed seats remain as elusive, and prized, as gold dust. Whenever he can get his hands on a spare ticket, Paul Mecher, a heating engineer, happily makes the 300-mile round trip from his home in the north-east to Anfield - but Liverpool are not in a position to even consider offering him a season ticket. "There's a waiting list but when I tried to get on it I was told the list is closed because they've just got too many applicants," lamented Mecher.
> 
> Not that Premier League clubs should necessarily be complacent. Jon Keen, deputy chairman of the Football Supporters' Federation, explained: "English football fans are among the most loyal sets of consumers in the world. Our clubs know this and, in their greed, they'll exploit it. But they aren't thinking about the long-term future good of the game. It's a mistake to just look at the numbers of season tickets being sold and think everything's healthy. For instance I think that, while people may not give up season tickets, they will economise by not going to cup games."
> 
> Keen, whose organisation claims a nationwide reach of some 142,000 fans, is also deeply concerned about the changing profile of the typical season-ticket holder, something which is turning the working man's ballet into the preserve of the middle class and middle aged.
> 
> "The demographic is altering," said Keen. "Season-ticket holders today are very different from those of 15 or even 10 years ago. Their age and affluence is going up. *The average age of a Premier League season-ticket holder is now 44 and a recent survey showed that only around 9% can be classified as working class. That figure used to be around 75-80% and the average age was much younger . . . *Season-ticket prices have gone up by an average of 7.2% this summer but it's a completely short-term strategy. A whole generation is being priced out of Premier League football. A lot of young people are growing up without ever having experienced live games."
> 
> Keen warns that the forty-something white-collar lot who do go are often simply too polite to generate the sort of electric atmosphere which used to be English football's hallmark. "The atmosphere is declining, if not dying, at many matches - it's not as vibrant as it used to be. And that is not what the television companies who fund our clubs want."
> 
> Tellingly, Newcastle have introduced a "singing' or "noisy" corner in the heavily corporate St James' Park, in which vocal fans will be encouraged to lead the renditions of the Blaydon Races in exchange for season tickets reduced to £390. "By doing this Newcastle are acknowledging the game has a problem," said Keen. "The noisy corner would have been totally unnecessary a few years ago."
> 
> In mitigation, some clubs - albeit less fashionable ones such as Middlesbrough and Bolton - appear to see the bigger picture and are trying to attract young fans. Bolton offer a £50 children's season ticket; Boro have introduced a £95 version for under-18s plus under-21s concessions.
> 
> With commercial departments at some clubs expressing private concerns that imminent recession will dramatically hit corporate-box and hospitality revenues, this refusal to turn a blind eye to economic gloom may yet prove impressively far-sighted.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2007/mar/07/whyfootballisnolongerayo



> *Why football is no longer a young man's game*
> Clubs have inflated ticket prices to the extent that youngsters would rather save their money for a night out.
> 
> David Conn The Guardian, Wednesday 7 March 2007
> 
> Tom Woodhouse is 24 and loves his football. He reads about it, reels off player stats like a human Opta and rarely misses watching a big game in the pub with his mates. He never, though, goes to a live match. Tickets grew savagely expensive through his childhood, and his Dad took Tom and his brother Sam to rugby league instead. Tom went to the University of Central Lancashire, where Blackburn was the nearest Premier League club, but as a student Tom could not afford around £30 for a ticket. Neither he nor his mates ever developed the habit of going to games live.
> 
> "Now I'm working I could afford it," he says. "But if I have £30 to spare, I'd prefer maybe to do some sport myself, or have a night out, rather than spend it on watching 90 minutes of football."
> 
> In the recent, long-overdue criticism of the Premier League's wallet-screwing ticket prices, nobody pointed out its most obvious effect: a large proportion of those who cannot afford to go to matches are young. Before the rampant ticket inflation, young people crowded on to the terraces of the big clubs and became fans for life, but since the Premier League was formed in 1992, a large part of a generation has been priced out. Clubs have mostly offered concessions - still not cheap - for under-16s but above that they have charged full price. Few teenagers, students or young people in their first jobs can afford £30 a ticket, or £400 for a season ticket, even with some clubs' credit deals, at 19.9% APR.
> 
> According to the Premier League's most recent supporters' survey, last season just 9%, less than one in 10 supporters, was under 24. The average age of a Premier League fan was 43, part of the balding army who fell in love with football in the 1970s, then developed a supporting habit through the 1980s when it still cost £2 or £3 to get in.
> 
> The memory that terraces were packed with teenagers and young lads - not always, it has to be said, behaving impeccably - is supported by the limited statistics available from the time. In those earthier days, the Football League did not conduct surveys of those paying at the turnstiles and pouring in, but some clubs pondering commercial strategies did employ Leicester University's Sir Norman Chester Centre to do so. The surveys found that at Coventry City, then in the old First Division, in 1983, 22% of fans were aged 16-20. At Aston Villa as late as 1992, the survey found 25% of the crowd was 16-20, while at Arsenal, then League Champions, 17% of fans were 16-20.
> 
> The proportion of young people steadily reduced as prices went up after the Taylor Report recommended all-seater stadia in 1990, and the First Division clubs broke away from the other three divisions to form the Premier League two years later. *In 1989-90, the average price to watch Manchester United was £4.71; it was £5.41 to go to Anfield, £6.71 to see George Graham's Arsenal. The lowest prices, to stand, were a good deal cheaper than that. Lord Justice Taylor called on the clubs not to use all-seater refurbishments as a reason to raise ticket prices, but although they were given up to £2m grants of public money to aid their rebuilding, the clubs all ignored his recommendation.*
> 
> *Clubs do not publish average ticket prices now, but, roughly, they have put the cost up by 600% since then, while, according to the Office for National Statistics, prices in general rose around 82% over the same period*. At Manchester United, most tickets are between £30 and £37 now, Liverpool charge mostly £32 for category B games, £34 for category A, while Arsenal charge between £32 and £66 for category B games, £46 and £94 for category A. All three clubs make some half-price concession tickets available for young people but only until the age of 16.
> 
> The Premier League responds to the criticism that rising costs have priced people out by recalling that attendances were lower in the 1980s, when the game was blighted by hooliganism and the squalid state of some grounds. Total attendances are up 65% since 1992, with Manchester United's sell-out 76,000 crowds setting records. "The under-24s figure may be 9%," a Premier League spokesman said, "but it is 9% of higher crowds than before, so we don't know if there are fewer young people overall. Some clubs have reduced prices for next season and we have always encouraged clubs to have a range of prices."
> 
> Yet the Premier League's evidence does seem to back up the blindingly obvious at matches, that going to football is no longer a coming-of-age ritual for younger people. The Norman Chester Centre's surveys for the Premier League between 1994 and 2001 found the crowd was steadily ageing. Older fans were returning to the revitalised game while the loyal stayed with it, and paid the increases. A younger generation grew up watching the game in pubs.
> 
> John Williams, of Leicester University's renamed Centre for the Sociology of Sport, recalls the Premier League being attracted by US sport, and deliberately aiming for a well-off audience. "Crowd loyalty and numbers are greater now because of the Premier League's attractiveness," he says. "But clearly there are dramatically fewer young people. In the 1980s there was a problem with hooliganism partly because young people were there, they could afford to go. *For all its problems, there was something socially healthy about football being an inclusive place where people from all backgrounds came together. Something really quite important has been lost*."
> 
> *The sports minister, Richard Caborn, agrees, saying that clubs' community work with disadvantaged young people is undermined by the fact that those same young people cannot afford to watch the clubs' matches*. "If they are serious about social inclusion, the clubs have to make that link," he said.
> 
> The German Football Association (DFB) decided to allow standing - still a contentious issue here - partly to enable cheaper prices to be available for younger people. Top level Bundesliga games can be watched for as little as £6. *"Football, being a people's sport, should not banish the socially disadvantaged from its stadia,"* the DFB said in a policy statement. *"Football is culture. It involves the solidarity inspired by a sense of community. For young people, fan culture is an important factor in the development of their personality."*
> Steven Powell, of the Football Supporters Federation, which is running a petition for £15 as a fair price to watch football here, believes our clubs are storing up a problem for crowds' loyalty in the future: "Football will bitterly regret losing an entire generation. *The clubs should have learned from North American sport about how to run a competitively balanced league, but they learned the wrong lesson. They put prices up, and ignored social inclusion*. Our football administrators are obsessed with money above all else."


----------



## isaidso

bigbossman said:


> Can it not go to both Halifax and Moncton?


Theoretically both could support a pro football team. It would also create a natural rival in Atlantic Canada. Moncton's been far more aggressive in courting a team, but is worryingly small. The entire metropolitan area is home to only 130,000 people. Halifax, by comparison, is 3 times bigger.



bigbossman said:


> By that you mean NA style standing room, not our style standing room....


Laval's stadium seats 12,300 people, so the overflow basically stand between the field and the stands. Is that NA style standing? 



bigbossman said:


> What about the university financing a team, if it's profit making what's the problem?
> 
> In the UK until last season the university of Bath funded semi pro team, Team Bath who got up to the 6th division. They were nominally university students but the Bath (along with Loughborough and Brunel) is one of our leading sports Universities, so it probably made sense to them. They folded last season because the conference said they wouldn't allow them to be promoted .


Conflict of interest. Laval's football team is run as a business, but they can't be seen to be operating a competing product. Their mandate is to build Université Laval football, not a CFL team in Quebec City.



bigbossman said:


> That's a shame, when you said lots of cities wanted a team I imagined the CFL would want to capitalise on that...


Past attempts at expansion were disastrous. The CFL expanded quickly to the United States which which ended in disaster. Only the Baltimore team could be considered a success. A hasty return to Ottawa, but with the wrong ownership group, also proved a mistake. 

Lots of cities do want entry to the CFL, but the league is wisely expanding slowly and steadily. It's better that they get the right ownership groups in place, the right stadia, and plot expansion carefully.



bigbossman said:


> Canada is like Wales. Overshadowed by a far bigger neighbour, to the extent that people think you are from that country. The most popular sport in each country has a shared league with the bigger neighbour, Welsh football teams compete in England, Canadian Hockey teams in the USA. But each country has a passion for a sport which is distinctly their own and they can sustain their own well supported professional league. Rugby in Wales and Canadian football in Canada. The similarities are massive.


I never thought of that, but you're right.



bigbossman said:


> I bet a lot of American's wonder how they never consumed Canada, just like I wonder why Wales still has country status.


They tried many times to take our land. What they couldn't win through war, France and England signed away to them in Treaties. Most of the US midwest all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico was formerly ours. They even tried to claim BC. Thank god they didn't succeed, or we'd have been left with no Pacific Coast at all!



bigbossman said:


> So in Canada it doesn't matter but I wonder what would happen if they were really small town teams in the league, how support would be effected. That's probably the problem in European leagues, I doubt any has ever had it's 20 biggest clubs in it's top division at the same time, so we've never seen the true peak average attendance. If that makes sense?
> 
> 
> 
> Small cities tend to be more passionate about their teams. It's the big cities in Canada that struggle to match attendance figures of the smaller cities. I suppose if cities like Kamloops or Brandon ended up with teams, they'd just be so small that no amount of football fanaticism would be able to fill a 30,000 seat stadium.
> 
> Isn't England geographically small to the point that people will just travel to see the teams in the Premiership no matter where they're located?
> 
> 
> 
> bigbossman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and in Europe a lot of clubs play at shitty stadiums, with bloody idiots who are there just to fight. In Italy they claim that atmosphere isn't good for families.
> 
> 
> 
> Fighting by rival fans just isn't a factor in Canadian sporting culture. I remember during the U21 World Cup here in Toronto, fans from the competing nations asked which side of the stadium fans from their country were sectioned off in. Many of them seemed stunned to learn that we don't do that in Canada. You sit side by side with fans supporting the other side.
> 
> Surprise, surprise, there was absolutely no fighting that took place between fans.
> 
> 
> 
> bigbossman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Random aside wasn't Pamela Anderson spotted at a BC lions game? ORr something like that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, she was. One of the stadium cameras zoomed in on her, and she was put on the stadium screen. Fans started applauding and she was signed on the spot by the nation's largest beer company, Labatt. The rest is history.
> 
> 
> 
> bigbossman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will always be the case, just thank God in many ways Torontonians weren't obsessed or maybe they'd dominate the league?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never thought of it that way, but I'd rather have a strong Toronto centric league than one trying to prosper without the nation's largest and richest market.
> 
> I doubt Toronto could ever dominate Canada the way London does England though. Montréal and Vancouver really aren't that much smaller than Toronto. There are also faster growing and richer cities than Toronto all over western Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> bigbossman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this on Terrestrial (free-to-air) television?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All CFL games went off free-to-air television last year. The CFL is only available on cable and the internet. Some predicted that a move to a distribution deal that reached fewer Canadian homes would be disastrous, but the audience actually went up over the previous year.
> 
> 14 million to watch the Grey Cup when it's only available on cable even shocked the most optimistic forecasters. I'm still a little stunned at those numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> bigbossman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting, the passing games is what they love in the states too is it not? They love flashy big passers, so it's a suprise that the rules haven't more assimilated to Canadian style...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Americans like passing? I suppose they'd like more passing, but they probably think they have a lot of passing already because that's what they're used to.
> 
> I like some features of 4 down football, but when 95% of the games you watch are Canadian football, turning to the US version often feels like watching molasses running up hill on a cold day. I watch some US ball, but after the Grey Cup, my attention usually turns to basketball.
> 
> 
> 
> bigbossman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I dunno if that's a good thing, the ease of comeback to me would make the impact of the comeback less. I suppose it's my low scoring sports side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps, but being able to come back from 10 points down with only 3 minutes left keeps both teams on their toes longer. It also makes for many more nail biting, tense finishes. The 2009 Grey Cup is testament to that.
> 
> Conversely, there's nothing more boring than fans filing out with 5 minutes left on the game clock, or teams just going through the motions.
> 
> 
> 
> bigbossman said:
> 
> 
> 
> In many ways it's a shame that Rugby had to split down into so many sports, that there isn't one global full contact/collision sport. That's one of the things that I think truly makes football special the diversity from country to country. And while I'm intrigued by niche sports and how they in many ways explain a culture, I feel they are missing something. I think that's why I enjoy American college football!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do enjoy US college football. The atmosphere at those games is amazing. To be honest, I go to far more Canadian college football games than CFL. I grew up in a college sports town, Halifax, Nova Scotia. I've always preferred college sports far more than professional.
> 
> 
> 
> bigbossman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah hilarious, stupid mistake from the coach really, or is it someone elses fault?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the whole team's fault. There are personnel who are supposed to check that they have the right number of players on the field. The guy in the end zone responsible for returning a missed field goal is supposed to double check, and the players on the field are supposed to glance over to each side to make sure there isn't a player there who shouldn't be there.
> 
> It was a monumental mental lapse that cost them a national championship. As Saskatchewan fans recovered from the shock, this was said: "We are not angry, we are heartbroken."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## isaidso

bigbossman said:


> Are the ottawa, Vancouver and Calgary fans the same fans as who follow the canucks, senators and flames?
> 
> I ask because if not surely that shows the viability of doubling up in these cities.


The CHL is considered a big step down from the NHL. I'm sure if those CHL teams in Ottawa, Calgary, and Vancouver were NHL teams, there attendance figures would skyrocket.



bigbossman said:


> Doesn't the majority of NHL revenue come from canada, if so then surely Canada can go it alone, or does it not want to?


Only 6 of the 30 NHL teams are based in Canada, or 20% of the total, but they account for 31% of league ticket revenue. 52.3% of the players still come from Canada, while Canadian teams hold the following average attendance positions in the NHL: 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 19th. The Oilers in 19th place fill 96.1% of their arena's capacity, also the lowest of all the Canadian teams. 

As you can see, all 6 Canadian teams are solidly successful. The Canadian teams account for less than half of NHL revenues, but I'd argue that the US teams need Canada, more than the Canadian teams need the US. An all-Canadian league should prosper, but I'm not sure whether an all US league would fair as well. It's really difficult to say though.

Despite grievances with the NHL, few Canadians seem fond of ditching the NHL, and going their own way. The NHL is American based now, but Canadians still perceive it to be their league.


----------



## krudmonk

All video replays go to Toronto, so I still consider it a Canadian league.


----------



## bigbossman

out of the blue lol



isaidso said:


> Theoretically both could support a pro football team. It would also create a natural rival in Atlantic Canada. Moncton's been far more aggressive in courting a team, but is worryingly small. The entire metropolitan area is home to only 130,000 people. Halifax, by comparison, is 3 times bigger.


If everyone wants to turn up then that's no biggy, it's really about demand you can have all the population in the world but no one wants to turn up it's meaningless. Which i'm sure the CFL knows!



> Laval's stadium seats 12,300 people, so the overflow basically stand between the field and the stands. Is that NA style standing?


Erm don't they just let people stand at the back over your way?

Nothing like the open concrete steps we used to have and I wish we still did!



> Conflict of interest. Laval's football team is run as a business, but they can't be seen to be operating a competing product. Their mandate is to build Université Laval football, not a CFL team in Quebec City.


I suppose it's not like football over here where age and size really doesn't matter, you can't have university amateurs going up against full grown adults!



> Past attempts at expansion were disastrous. The CFL expanded quickly to the United States which which ended in disaster. Only the Baltimore team could be considered a success. A hasty return to Ottawa, but with the wrong ownership group, also proved a mistake.
> 
> Lots of cities do want entry to the CFL, but the league is wisely expanding slowly and steadily. It's better that they get the right ownership groups in place, the right stadia, and plot expansion carefully.


I suppose



> I never thought of that, but you're right.


Wales has Zeta you have Pam, Wales has Tom Jones you have erm Bryan Adams...



> They tried many times to take our land. What they couldn't win through war, France and England signed away to them in Treaties. Most of the US midwest all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico was formerly ours. They even tried to claim BC. Thank god they didn't succeed, or we'd have been left with no Pacific Coast at all!


Yeah I read about that on wikipedia once the 49th parrallel agreement or something. 



> Small cities tend to be more passionate about their teams. It's the big cities in Canada that struggle to match attendance figures of the smaller cities. I suppose if cities like Kamloops or Brandon ended up with teams, they'd just be so small that no amount of football fanaticism would be able to fill a 30,000 seat stadium.
> 
> Isn't England geographically small to the point that people will just travel to see the teams in the Premiership no matter where they're located?


That's the dilemma with Wigan, they just have no fans and in the past clubs with no fans used to get their stadiums filled by away fans (Wimbledon), but now you are totally restricted, so wigan always have empty seats.

It takes an age to travel round England though, it takes me 2 hours to get to arsenal from where I live in South East London and that's using public transport which is quicker.

journeys like Portsmouth or London to Sunderland/Newcastle take an age!



> Fighting by rival fans just isn't a factor in Canadian sporting culture. I remember during the U21 World Cup here in Toronto, fans from the competing nations asked which side of the stadium fans from their country were sectioned off in. Many of them seemed stunned to learn that we don't do that in Canada. You sit side by side with fans supporting the other side.


tbf it's not the normal fans who fight, it's the guys who are nutters they're usually banned nowadays. The reason we have away ends is tradition, the only way to stop people fighting with each other was to segregate them and that's continued to this day.



> Surprise, surprise, there was absolutely no fighting that took place between fans.


They're not the type of fans who fight though are they, not hardcore headcases!

Fulham don't have an way enf, they have a neutral section, that is accept against other London clubs, Man U and Liverpool. I remember it kicked off a few years ago between Chelsea and Fulham.

The facts are some people just can't take seeing other people celebrate goals.



> Yes, she was. One of the stadium cameras zoomed in on her, and she was put on the stadium screen. Fans started applauding and she was signed on the spot by the nation's largest beer company, Labatt. The rest is history.


labatts I remember them never had it though...



> Never thought of it that way, but I'd rather have a strong Toronto centric league than one trying to prosper without the nation's largest and richest market.


a la NFL and los angeles.

I don't think the premier league needs London, or anywhere to be fair. 
We don't talk in "markets".



> I doubt Toronto could ever dominate Canada the way London does England though. Montréal and Vancouver really aren't that much smaller than Toronto. There are also faster growing and richer cities than Toronto all over western Canada.


I wouldn't say London dominates England, I'd say they south east does, nearly 40% of the population live in this corner of the country, and don't the rest of the country hate us for it.

If britain were split into states/provinces and each had a capital (this was proposed in the late 1960s), the importance of Manchester/Liverpool, Newcastle, birmingham or Bristol would be greater. Just imagine if your country was one country governed from Toronto... that's basically how it is here.

But tbh London is a shit hole that's cleaned itself up a bit. Until the 1980s most of the city was run down slums, now it's just a lot of the city. Places like Fulham, notting hill, highbury and Chelsea were ghetto's with families living in one room and having to share outside toilets. Now these areas houses go for millions and only the council estates round there remind people of the past.



> All CFL games went off free-to-air television last year. The CFL is only available on cable and the internet. Some predicted that a move to a distribution deal that reached fewer Canadian homes would be disastrous, but the audience actually went up over the previous year.


Sort of the same as in England, there hasn't been a top division game on free-to-air since 1992, and the rating sky sports get are poor in relative terms. As a kid without sky it was near impossible to watch premier league football growing up.

But we do have lots of football on "terrestrial" TV, all england home games, Euros, World cups, Champions league, Europa League, FA cup. That's quite a lot of football.

There is an EU directive which developed from a British law. It allows governments to ban events it believes of public importance being on payTV. So for us that incoudes wimbledon, the open (golf), home nation internationals (@ home), Euros, world cup, FA cup etc etc. People want some premier league games on that list, I don't it will just give man u more minions to fund that ginger ****!



> 14 million to watch the Grey Cup when it's only available on cable even shocked the most optimistic forecasters. I'm still a little stunned at those numbers.


How? I don't think sky even get more than 2 million for big premier league games. Terrestrial TV can still get 50%+ for football though



> Americans like passing? I suppose they'd like more passing, but they probably think they have a lot of passing already because that's what they're used to.


Isn't that why they love Favre and Manning???



> I like some features of 4 down football, but when 95% of the games you watch are Canadian football, turning to the US version often feels like watching molasses running up hill on a cold day.


Ok I had to research that, because molasses to me had Rum connotations from my time working in a cocktail bar!



> I watch some US ball, but after the Grey Cup, my attention usually turns to basketball.


I don't get basketball, I can watch it, but it's missing that _je ne se quoi_. When I watch it's entertaining for maybe 5-10 minutes then i dunno you see the same thing again and it's like OK... It's probably due to the fact that i've grown up watching low scoring sports, although we played basketball at school.



> Perhaps, but being able to come back from 10 points down with only 3 minutes left keeps both teams on their toes longer. It also makes for many more nail biting, tense finishes. The 2009 Grey Cup is testament to that.
> 
> Conversely, there's nothing more boring than fans filing out with 5 minutes left on the game clock, or teams just going through the motions.


5 minutes on the game clock is really like 15-20 minutes though. That would never happen here unless your team is being right royally pumelled. Adn i'm talking abopve 5 goals. 

I know when Arsenal are hammering a team, I want them to keep going, show no mercy!



> I do enjoy US college football. The atmosphere at those games is amazing. To be honest, I go to far more Canadian college football games than CFL. I grew up in a college sports town, Halifax, Nova Scotia. I've always preferred college sports far more than professional.


imho the atmosphere is overrated, it's loud yes, but it's just noise... I like my singing, chanting and flag waving! Proper hostile atmosphere, make em scared!



> It's the whole team's fault. There are personnel who are supposed to check that they have the right number of players on the field. The guy in the end zone responsible for returning a missed field goal is supposed to double check, and the players on the field are supposed to glance over to each side to make sure there isn't a player there who shouldn't be there.
> 
> It was a monumental mental lapse that cost them a national championship. As Saskatchewan fans recovered from the shock, this was said: "We are not angry, we are heartbroken."


lol, tbf over here the coach would just get blamed. Coaches are to blame for everthing, hence why in some countries they get sacked for breathing!


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

bigbossman said:


> I don't get basketball, I can watch it, but it's missing that _je ne se quoi_. When I watch it's entertaining for maybe 5-10 minutes then i dunno you see the same thing again and it's like OK... It's probably due to the fact that i've grown up watching low scoring sports, although we played basketball at school.


Dude, you just described pretty much every single sport in existence. lol Almost all sports are much more fun when you play it than watching it... if you're not a fanatic already.




> imho the atmosphere is overrated, it's loud yes, but it's just noise... I like my singing, chanting and flag waving! Proper hostile atmosphere, make em scared!


Different mentalities. You'd get your ass kicked for chanting or waving flags... especially the flags. To gridiron fans yelling at over 130 decibels (more in some NFL stadiums) is the ultimate "scare tactic" sort of speak. Oh, and I'm not trying to take anything away from the European atmosphere, just trying to give perspective. Just how many Europeans think Americans lack passion for the same reasons.


----------



## bigbossman

^^ eh what? I don't get your american term? what's a fanboy?


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

bigbossman said:


> ^^ eh what? I don't get your american term? what's a fanboy?


I edited my post. I thought that you guys were implying that soccer required the most skills of any sport... nevermind.


----------



## bigbossman

^^ Not any sport, but I don't think we should go there, should we...


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

bigbossman said:


> ^^ Not any sport, but I don't think we should go there, should we...


I have respect for all sports. I can't think of any professional athlete that didn't get to the top without obsession, passion, and missing out on a lot of youthful memories.  You have to be a smart player too. In the US, every college team you play for (whether you're playing footie, gridiron, baseball, hockey...ect.) requires you to keep your grades up in college, and many wont even give you a scholarship offer if you performed badly in highschool. Most athletes I know of are very educated.

It takes athleticism, skills, and smarts to play a game at the top level.


----------



## kerouac1848

Yeah of course, I have respect for anyone that makes it in any major pro-sport team. I just mean that it appears (so I don't actually know!) that you can use superior athleticism to get ahead more in certain sports (e.g. American football, basketball) than others. I mean, if you're 7'10 would you really have to be that good technically at basketball to go pro (relativity speaking)? Certain positions in American football seem about 85% strength and stamina; a Linebacker for example. Sports like baseball or hockey seem to require more technique than strength or speed (of course these are important, i am just speaking in relative context). I guess I mean how important is athleticism vs. skill/technique? What’s the ratio for basketball, baseball, etc?

If you think about football, it is kind of logical that technique will be a more important factor than athleticism for one reason; you are using your feet. It is much more difficult to control, direct and essentially dictate/manipulate the ball in the manner you want in compression to your hands. Also, the anarchic nature of the sport means that everyone (bar the goalie) as to be at the very least decent with the ball at their feet. Look how fullbacks are now essentially wingers! (That’s due to another argument about finding space through tactics. I won't dare go there here!)


----------



## koolio

kerouac1848 said:


> See, this just confirms what I have long thought; that Americans place a massive emphasis on athleticism (strength, speed, stamina). Whilst that is important, it is no way near enough, especially in a sport like football (less so in rugby though). Technical ability (i.e. skills with the ball) and footballing intelligence are probably more important overall than athleticism; same in a sport like cricket. For example look at the US football (soccer) team. Collectively they contain fantastic athletes, but they are nothing special at all. Club football is the same, its littered with well organised, athletic teams who will never win anything. That's why I doubt any of these super American athletes would be able to easily go into a sport like football. Their strength and speed wouldn't be enough to make them a top player.


Don't think that anyone is denying that basic intelligence and technical ability are highly essential to become a truly world class player in any sport. People do not find that concept alien. If you look at all the best basketball, football, hockey and baseball players at the moment and all time, everyone from the fans to the experts will agree that they are considered the best not because they are the most athletic but because they have the smarts to go along with their athleticism.

However, the point is that athleticism is important and that players like Lebron James are athletic by any universal standards. You mention that the USMNT lacks footballing smarts and technical abilities ... well, if they weren't athletic, they would be infinitely worse. Things like technical and tactical advances are going to develop as the state of the professional game expands in the continent. The reason why the American team isn't better is because the sport itself is not very popular, not because the Americans have this supposed mindset which makes them focus more on athleticism than developing technical abilities.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

kerouac1848 said:


> Yeah of course, I have respect for anyone that makes it in any major pro-sport team. I just mean that it appears (so I don't actually know!) that you can use superior athleticism to get ahead more in certain sports (e.g. American football, basketball) than others. I mean, if you're 7'10 would you really have to be that good technically at basketball to go pro (relativity speaking)?


Size means nothing if you can't shoot, cant play smart (no fouls, or turn overs), can't handle/dribble the ball, lack hustle to get a rebound...ect.

Robinson is listed at 5 feet 9 inches (1.75 m) with shoes, and has a vertical leap of 43.5 inches (110 cm).






Steve nash is another example of relying on skills more than athleticism.









> Certain positions in American football seem about 85% strength and stamina; a Linebacker for example.


What about speed, agility, ability to make a tackle, using your arms, knowing which route to take, getting through defenders, taking a hit that would kill most other people's back but playing through it? And thats just a linebacker, who arguably required the least "skill" and relies more on brute force. Then again, being incredibly fast, strong, and agle would constitute badass athleticism in my book.

What about a quarter back, you don't think it requires skill? IMO its arguably the hardest position to play in any sport.

Anywho, heres a good video showing a good mix of brute force and technical skills.








> Sports like baseball or hockey seem to require more technique than strength or speed (of course these are important, i am just speaking in relative context). I guess I mean how important is athleticism vs. skill/technique? What’s the ratio for basketball, baseball, etc?


Depends on the sport. They all require something different. Many different skills or athleticism just within the sport sometimes. Its all personal preference.


----------



## bigbossman

ok so we are really going here...


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

bigbossman said:


> ok so we are really going here...


So far, every time someone's had a question about a sport, people get a well thought out answer. No one seems to be getting offended and its not a troll fest. I think people are learning a good amount about sports from this thread.


----------



## kerouac1848

> Don't think that anyone is denying that basic intelligence and technical ability are highly essential to become a truly world class player in any sport. People do not find that concept alien. If you look at all the best basketball, football, hockey and baseball players at the moment and all time, everyone from the fans to the experts will agree that they are considered the best not because they are the most athletic but because they have the smarts to go along with their athleticism.
> 
> However, the point is that athleticism is important and that players like Lebron James are athletic by any universal standards. You mention that the USMNT lacks footballing smarts and technical abilities ... well, if they weren't athletic, they would be infinitely worse. Things like technical and tactical advances are going to develop as the state of the professional game expands in the continent. The reason why the American team isn't better is because the sport itself is not very popular, not because the Americans have this supposed mindset which makes them focus more on athleticism than developing technical abilities.


I mean it in a relative sense. Of course skill and intelligence (sporting intelligence) is important in every sport. What I mean is (and I might have explained it better in the above post) that in certain sports athleticism can maybe swing the balance more than others. To take an extreme, a sport like golf will be 90% about their technique and mental ability. This clearly isn't the case with a linebacker; his strength, stamina and speed are more vital ingredients to his game than a golfer. It's all _relative_. Some sports allow athleticism to play a bigger part than others. And I am not saying sports that place greater emphasis on skills (in a relative not absolute sense) are better (I hate golf for example!)

About the US team you're right to a point but culture plays a big part. Football has been in the US for decades now; you guys have more kids playing the sport than any single country in Europe! Despite this there isn't a single US player with the technique and vision of a Xavi, Messi, Zidane, etc. Of course as the sport grows one day the US will produce this types of players; a country with over 300 million cannot fail to. However, I do think the sporting culture the US has places a very strong pedigree on producing athletes (I am not saying this is a bad thing man!). Is it any surprise that the current position which is strong for Americans is goalkeeper? I am not using this to bash the US at all. I mean look at England and Argentina. Both similar sizes yet the former has produced far more skilful and technically gifted players than the former because of very different footballing cultures (there is more to it than that, but i'll leave it there!)


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

kerouac1848 said:


> there isn't a single US player with the technique and vision of a Xavi, Messi, Zidane, etc.


Are you referring to soccer or all sports? If the latter I would reconsider.


----------



## kerouac1848

> Size means nothing if you can't shoot, cant play smart (no fouls, or turn overs), can't handle/dribble the ball, lack hustle to get a rebound...ect.
> 
> Robinson is listed at 5 feet 9 inches (1.75 m) with shoes, and has a vertical leap of 43.5 inches (110 cm).


I think you're missing my point a bit. I'm not saying that someone can just play basketball because he is 8 feet. Of course he needs skills; that’s what I said! I mean that in some sports an individual's athleticism can compensate for their lack of (*relative*) skills more so than others. That is all i mean. Your point about Robinson illustrates my point a bit. He has a tremendous natural leap, about double or more of an average guy. This natural athletic ability gives him a very useful boost in the sport he plays.



> What about speed, agility, ability to make a tackle, using your arms, knowing which route to take, getting through defenders, taking a hit that would kill most other people's back but playing through it? And thats just a linebacker, who arguably required the least "skill" and relies more on brute force. Then again, being incredibly fast, strong, and agle would constitute badass athleticism in my book.
> 
> What about a quarter back, you don't think it requires skill? IMO its arguably the hardest position to play in any sport.


But most of those characteristics are to do with athletic ability!! lol. Regarding QB; yep, I agree, hence why I said certain positions in American football. I have no idea if it’s the hardest position to play in any sport, although I would believe it may require more sporting intelligence (i.e. tactical awareness, vision, etc) than any other team sport position. I personally find the concept of QB very interesting.

Hopefully you're getting at what I am saying now!


----------



## kerouac1848

soccer only.


----------



## bigbossman

^^ I agree with KErouac has to say there... I think americans misintepret natural ability/athleticism for skill


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

bigbossman said:


> ^^ I agree with KErouac has to say there... I think americans misintepret natural ability/athleticism for skill


my question is, what constitutes skill, exactly? So many sports requiring so many different abilities (whether technique, athleticism, or good decision making), its hard to determine what a skill is sometimes.


----------



## bigbossman

koolio said:


> Don't think that anyone is denying that basic intelligence and technical ability are highly essential to become a truly world class player in any sport.


It's all relative to the level of technical ability that sport requires in relation to the level of athletic ability it requires.



> People do not find that concept alien. If you look at all the best basketball, football, hockey and baseball players at the moment and all time, everyone from the fans to the experts will agree that they are considered the best not because they are the most athletic but because they have the smarts to go along with their athleticism.


But without their athleticism they wouldn't be near the sport, football has had and to a point still has plenty of unathletic bozos!

The top scorer in serie A less than 5 years ago was a 40-a-day, 35 year old, with no pace!



> However, the point is that athleticism is important and that players like Lebron James are athletic by any universal standards. You mention that the USMNT lacks footballing smarts and technical abilities ... well, if they weren't athletic, they would be infinitely worse.


Yeah but they aren't good. Athleticism allows you to be organised and to nullify certain attacks, but Athleticism gets trumped by skill. 

If the USA had to qualify via Europe they never would. The USA is just like the majority of African nations, 11 athletes, that's why no African team will ever will the world cup. 



> Things like technical and tactical advances are going to develop as the state of the professional game expands in the continent. The reason why the American team isn't better is because the sport itself is not very popular, not because the Americans have this supposed mindset which makes them focus more on athleticism than developing technical abilities.


It's nothing to do with popularity, you can have a good team with 1 million people liking the sport. It's clearly down to coaching and that's where I feel you need to go foreign like you did with your gymnastics teams, and you still can't touch Russia or Romania pound-4-pound!


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

kerouac1848 said:


> I think you're missing my point a bit. I'm not saying that someone can just play basketball because he is 8 feet. Of course he needs skills; that’s what I said! I mean that in some sports an individual's athleticism can compensate for their lack of (*relative*) skills more so than others. That is all i mean. Your point about Robinson illustrates my point a bit. He has a tremendous natural leap, about double or more of an average guy. This natural athletic ability gives him a very useful boost in the sport he plays.


I agree with you partially. In basketball I think its only natural to assume that having more heigth gives him an advantage, but the sport still requires skills! Theres only so much heigth can do for you. 





> But most of those characteristics are to do with athletic ability!! lol. Regarding QB; yep, I agree, hence why I said certain positions in American football. I have no idea if it’s the hardest position to play in any sport, although I would believe it may require more sporting intelligence (i.e. tactical awareness, vision, etc) than any other team sport position. I personally find the concept of QB very interesting.


I'm going to have to disagree with you a bit. You can be a good linebacker or linemen, and actually be weaker or slower than your opponent. But if you know how to handle your opponent (being faster with your hands, knowing how/when/where to block) and having good vision to see where the ball/defenders are going, wouldn't that be considered a skill? I'll admit that linebackers rely more on athleticism than any other position in that sport.


----------



## bigbossman

Phriggin' Ogre said:


> my question is, what constitutes skill, exactly? So many sports requiring so many different abilities (whether technique, athleticism, or good decision making), its hard to determine what a skill is sometimes.


Controlling something alien to your body without the aid of instruments which make it easier in confined or fast moving/changing landscapes

sports like tennis, Ice hockey, golf, football come into that category.

Or doing natural acts with accuracy greater than that is required normally. Such as the way a quarter back throws (although i'd disagree that's the toughest postition in any sport).

Dribbling a ball in basketball also counts, and shooting for this.

The latter i'd say are lower level skills to the former.


----------



## koolio

kerouac1848 said:


> I mean it in a relative sense. Of course skill and intelligence (sporting intelligence) is important in every sport. What I mean is (and I might have explained it better in the above post) that in certain sports athleticism can maybe swing the balance more than others. To take an extreme, a sport like golf will be 90% about their technique and mental ability. This clearly isn't the case with a linebacker; his strength, stamina and speed are more vital ingredients to his game than a golfer. It's all _relative_. Some sports allow athleticism to play a bigger part than others. And I am not saying sports that place greater emphasis on skills (in a relative not absolute sense) are better (I hate golf for example!)
> 
> About the US team you're right to a point but culture plays a big part. Football has been in the US for decades now; you guys have more kids playing the sport than any single country in Europe! Despite this there isn't a single US player with the technique and vision of a Xavi, Messi, Zidane, etc. Of course as the sport grows one day the US will produce this types of players; a country with over 300 million cannot fail to. However, I do think the sporting culture the US has places a very strong pedigree on producing athletes (I am not saying this is a bad thing man!). Is it any surprise that the current position which is strong for Americans is goalkeeper? I am not using this to bash the US at all. I mean look at England and Argentina. Both similar sizes yet the former has produced far more skilful and technically gifted players than the former because of very different footballing cultures (there is more to it than that, but i'll leave it there!)


I don't disagree with the post. 

However, I think the participation rate in soccer amongst children and casual players can be quite misleading. If you want to be successful on the global stage, there needs to be passion and more importantly a professional infrastructure that breeds players who can play with the best in the world. Even the most talented and gifted athlete in the world will be only as good as the level of coaching or training that he receives and the US is far behind in that regard even compared to countries that are considered "developing nations" in the overall economic picture but are actually highly "developed" in regards to the sport of football.

To be honest, I think the American (and Canadian) football infrastructure is indeed out of flux with the rest of the world as the development of young players is left to the high school and colleges. I think that structure works fine with basketball and football (gridiron) because those programs in university and even in some high schools are richer than many professional teams around the world and can afford high level of training and overall development. However, soccer is not a money maker at the collegiate ranks. I would like to see MLS teams reach further down the grass roots and take over the development of at least the college age players. A few teams here in Canada have started residency programs that train high school kids similar to the European setup and I would like to see that become the norm. In order to be a truly successful soccer nation, the kids need to be trained with professional values and professional coaching from a young age. There is no substitute for it. Basketball and football players are technically amateurs until they play in the professional leagues but there is no doubt that the level of training they receive at the developmental stages is essentially professional. I think that is the reason why USMNT seems to have plateaued. Don't think it has anything to do with the value of athleticism vs. technical abilities.


----------



## kerouac1848

I guess I mean something that is quite specific. In football (soccer) or basketball skill and technique would be what an individual could do with the ball. So shooting, dribbling, control and generally manipulating the ball to how you want. In bat and ball sports like tennis, cricket and baseball, this would be how you hit the ball with your tool. 

Athleticism would be things like speed, stamina, strength, balance, jumping height, etc. Basically, all these things are independent from the sport itself; you can do these on your own or whatever. A skill or technique is directly related to the sport in question. 

This is the easiest way I can explain it!


----------



## bigbossman

Phriggin' Ogre said:


> I agree with you partially. In basketball I think its only natural to assume that having more heigth gives him an advantage, but the sport still requires skills! Theres only so much heigth can do for you.


but that's the point the skill level is relative, to in many ways your athletic ability



> I'm going to have to disagree with you a bit. You can be a good linebacker or linemen, and actually be weaker or slower than your opponent. But if you know how to handle your opponent (being faster, knowing how/when/where to block) and having good vision to see where the ball/defenders are going, wouldn't that be considered a skill? I'll admit that linebackers rely more on athleticism than any other position in that sport.


That's not skill though is it, that's understanding of the game, knowledge etc knowing the signs to look for

I don't consider spacial awareness a skill in a sport, it's something that can be tought no doubt but the people with a better aptitude for understanding it will excel!


----------



## koolio

bigbossman said:


> Controlling something alien to your body without the aid of instruments which make it easier in confined or fast moving/changing landscapes
> 
> sports like tennis, Ice hockey, golf, football come into that category.
> 
> Or doing natural acts with accuracy greater than that is required normally. Such as the way a quarter back throws (although i'd disagree that's the toughest postition in any sport).


This might sound biased coming from a Canadian but I had a long debate with my friend about this topic last year (we were both quite well informed about most sports) and we came to the conclusion that the toughest position in any sport is the goal tender in hockey.


----------



## kerouac1848

Tbh I'm not sure if I even want to get into a debate about what is the toughest position in sport! lol. I dunno, its tough and a lot depends upon what you personally value most in a sportsman. In football, centre midfield is probably the toughest position because its the area of the pitch that influences the game the most. As a result, you require a greater variety of skills than any other position. However, the changing nature of the game means that all round CM's are being left out in favour of so-called specialist positions (i.e. the holding player, the deep playmaker and so on). I don't think its the hardest position in sport though.


----------



## bigbossman

koolio said:


> I don't disagree with the post.
> 
> However, I think the participation rate in soccer amongst children and casual players can be quite misleading. If you want to be successful on the global stage, there needs to be passion and more importantly a professional infrastructure that breeds players who can play with the best in the world. Even the most talented and gifted athlete in the world will be only as good as the level of coaching or training that he receives and the US is far behind in that regard even compared to countries that are considered "developing nations" in the overall economic picture but are actually highly "developed" in regards to the sport of football.


I agree the american infrastructure is third world in a football sense. You can throw money at it, but that like I said would require coaches from outside. And i mean from one country, you don't want lots of coaches with conflicting ideals.

I personally would recommend the netherlands or Croatia/Serbia. The former have been the masters of getting bloody out of stones, and the latter when part of the former yugoslavia were known as the "european Brazilians" for the technique of their players! But I suppose you aren't the president of the USSF or CSA



> To be honest, I think the American (and Canadian) football infrastructure is indeed out of flux with the rest of the world as the development of young players is left to the high school and colleges. I think that structure works fine with basketball and football (gridiron) because those programs in university and even in some high schools are richer than many professional teams around the world and can afford high level of training and overall development.


Then again they are not trying to develop players for professional sport. I think the fact that Eyuropean basketball has come on so quickly despite still being a minority sport tells you how much academy training can improve players.

I remember reading that north americans seem to accept the academy approach in tennis and golf but not in other sports, strangely



> However, soccer is not a money maker at the collegiate ranks. I would like to see MLS teams reach further down the grass roots and take over the development of at least the college age players. A few teams here in Canada have started residency programs that train high school kids similar to the European setup and I would like to see that become the norm.


IT's weird because in Europe there is a bit of backlash against the residency style because it allows the big clubs to steal the talent of the small clubs. For instance Barcelona have a boarding school and they tempted Andres Iniesta to leave Real Murcia to join it and play for their youth team when he was 12. 

In England we have a rule that you can't join a youth team that is more than 2 hours drive from your house, which I prefer. All that happens though is when the kids turn 16 they turn up at Man u or Arsenal.

But of course in Canada to get you on your feet it will benefit you guys.



> In order to be a truly successful soccer nation, the kids need to be trained with professional values and professional coaching from a young age. There is no substitute for it. Basketball and football players are technically amateurs until they play in the professional leagues but there is no doubt that the level of training they receive at the developmental stages is essentially professional. I think that is the reason why USMNT seems to have plateaued. Don't think it has anything to do with the value of athleticism vs. technical abilities.


maybe I just think it's because they haven't got enoguh Rolls Royces and they have too many Volvos!!

Germany were like that for the early part of this decade niow they have BMWS (Marko Marin), Audi's (Mesut Ozil) and Benz's (Thomas Muller) coming from everywhere.


----------



## krudmonk

Phriggin' Ogre said:


> my question is, what constitutes skill, exactly? So many sports requiring so many different abilities (whether technique, athleticism, or good decision making), its hard to determine what a skill is sometimes.


Skill is applying something gained/learned through study and practice. It's not innate speed or agility.


----------



## bigbossman

Ice hockey goal tender is probably the scariest, **** that shit



kerouac1848 said:


> Tbh I'm not sure if I even want to get into a debate about what is the toughest position in sport! lol. I dunno, its tough and a lot depends upon what you personally value most in a sportsman. In football, centre midfield is probably the toughest position because its the area of the pitch that influences the game the most. As a result, you require a greater variety of skills than any other position. However, the changing nature of the game means that all round CM's are being left out in favour of so-called specialist positions (i.e. the holding player, the deep playmaker and so on). I don't think its the hardest position in sport though.


see that's the thing because I'd say full back is the toughest position, up and down, up and down, spend a lot of time on your heels on the back foot, have to be good going forward too. 

On the evolution of central midfielders, we are probably gonna envolve back into the W-M formation some time in the next 20 years. We've already started seeing teams regularly play 4-6-0, what next 5-5-0 then 2-3-5...


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

koolio said:


> This might sound biased coming from a Canadian but I had a long debate with my friend about this topic last year (we were both quite well informed about most sports) and we came to the conclusion that the toughest position in any sport is the goal tender in hockey.


team or single? Cuz I'd give my nod to a boxer.


----------



## El Mariachi

> \That doesn't mean it's _business_, charitable organisations have to do that too. There are too many flaws in football's business model for it to be taken seriously as business, the revenue we're talking about isn't even _that_ big anyway.
> 
> As I and a few others have said, we want our sport back to it's routes non of this owner shit!
> 
> But the teams are only all about the money because they have their cartel vessel aka the league which allows them to bleed their markets dry. Capitalism 101!
> 
> Why else would have salary caps and drafts, in the bigger picture they are solely to extort more money!


I think that charitable organizations are business as well. Sports teams have to make money. Without it, they are nothing. The NBA has a business model and we can clearly see it every night. Such as last night, how star players like Kobe Bryant get to bend the rules to make exciting plays---all too sell more jerseys and get more people to watch the games. 

The owner thing is only bad when you have a bad owner. There are many who are beloved by their fanbases because they are passionate about their team and will do anything to win. Such names in Americans sports are George Steinbrenner, Mark Cuban, and Jerry Jones. These names are also some of the most contreversial and disliked owners by other teams who are owned by rich, stiff businessmen. 




> erm like what?


Running on the field and tearing down stuff. Yeah, I understand their are excited--but cmon. It's like these fools who riot when the Lakers win a championship in L.A. Same goes for Philly. They are only doing it for attention and using the sport as an excuse to act like a jackass. 






> I'm saying it's standard because that sort of shit happens over here, in Italy they always have those type of funerals!


well then---hopefully that puts my team in the same category with European teams fanbases rather then the dead crowds that foreigners envision about American sports teams with no history. 





> of which most of us resent... but when alcohol and drugs are involved where's the line...
> 
> In europe most people could care less who is playing, we are supporting an ideology not players. If Arshavin leaves Arsenal the beat goes on.
> 
> 
> Killing hardly ever happens, it's blown out of proportion.
> 
> It's all far more complex than you're painting it


We have alot of hero worship here. Is this a difference in the culture then? We (well, the mainstream at least) are about the individual (Lebron, Kobe, etc.) and you are about the team? It seems like this would filter into politics. 

I know that killings are blown out of proportion, but it happens. You just don't hear about that sort of stuff here, which is interesting considering our violent ways and access to guns. 



> Sorry sport should be about values and community. Entertainment is and should be secondary.
> 
> I know it's different where you come from, but that's how we see. Hence why there is a lot of anger towards the way the game is going.


I would like to think that its about those things, but in the end---its entertainment and something to amuse ourselves with. The big teams in England seem like they have moved on based on some of your comments. Liverpool, Arsenal, ManU----are they just too big of brand names, worldwide, and mainstream to ever be about the values and community again? I am sure they are there in the community doing things, but with more money being involved---it seems like this mentality will die out.


----------



## El Mariachi

bigbossman said:


> Well it's all speculation, but I just don't think he's as all that as you americans make out.
> 
> 
> 
> He went the route of basketball because he was better at it, if he had some ability in football while he was in Italy something would've happen.
> 
> 
> 
> Football skills are akin to attaining a black belt, or the skills necessary to play professionally. In football because of the amount of people trying to play you largely have to be flawless to play it, defensive players have more slack.
> 
> I think americans underestimate how good these guys are and how hard the sport is to play on a technical level, imho no team sport comes close technically (with the possible exception of ice hockey).
> 
> And also i don't think you guys understand the numbers of people trying to play the game, it's huge!



I don't know how you can say that he isn't as much of one as we make him out to be. He is great at what he does. Its specialized, but thats the same with all athletes. Usain Bolt couldnt' play soccer or baseball--but he is a great athlete. One needs to be raised playing the particular sport to be good at it in my opinion. Lebron may be too tall to play most positions on the pitch, but a defender or GK? Your average rugby or Aussie rules player would be too small to play on the line in American football----but they could play other positions if they were trained in the game for an extended period of time.

As for the soccer skills thing. Cmon---its a tough sport but its not like its an elite group of people who play it. You have people across the globe playing at a high level coming from multiple backrounds. You can't get a bum off the street and play, but the same could be said about baseball, basketball, Aussie rules, swimming, or hockey. Its all about practice and learning skills.


----------



## El Mariachi

bigbossman said:


> my theory on baseball is population pools, how many people go to the yankees, Dodgers etc 81 times a season? They are probably seeing a hell of a lot of different fans a season. Or am I wrong?


yes and no. You have a ton of season ticket holders who buy tickets early and alot of regulars to games. For instance, the Milwaukee Brewers sold 1 million tickets earlier this year about 4 months before the season started. In total for the season---3 million. This places them 9th in the league. The demand for tickets in cities like Chicago or New York is much higher.


----------



## El Mariachi

kerouac1848 said:


> See, this just confirms what I have long thought; that Americans place a massive emphasis on athleticism (strength, speed, stamina). Whilst that is important, it is no way near enough, especially in a sport like football (less so in rugby though). Technical ability (i.e. skills with the ball) and footballing intelligence are probably more important overall than athleticism; same in a sport like cricket. For example look at the US football (soccer) team. Collectively they contain fantastic athletes, but they are nothing special at all. Club football is the same, its littered with well organised, athletic teams who will never win anything. That's why I doubt any of these super American athletes would be able to easily go into a sport like football. Their strength and speed wouldn't be enough to make them a top player.


That is kind of an insult to the U.S. National Team, as if they are nothing more then just good athletes. They play and train the same as players elsewhere in the world and have beaten their share of them, including the European champs this year. 

And by your standards, only a handful of teams on the globe would be considered "good" as so few have actually won anything. The English haven't won anything, but are they not to be respected as team?


----------



## SSE

El Mariachi said:


> As for the soccer skills thing. Cmon---its a tough sport but its not like its an elite group of people who play it. You have people across the globe playing at a high level coming from multiple backrounds. You can't get a bum off the street and play, but the same could be said about baseball, basketball, Aussie rules, swimming, or hockey. Its all about practice and learning skills.


You are right, there is every possibility Lebron could be a decent football player, but not a world class one. If you look at the greatest players of all time they all have one thing in common and that is that they are hugely intelligent, and they have an unbelievable understanding of the game. Players like Zidane and Socrates could see a pass where no one else could. The actual act of making the pass is something you can learn, but to have that speed of thought and to be able to read the game you have to be immersed in it from a young age. 

Even lower down the leagues it takes more than being an athlete. For example, my team (Crystal Palace) has two good full-backs. Nathaniel Clyne is young, athletic and technically very good. He can time a tackle and he rarely gets beaten for pace. However, he doesn't get in the team because the manager prefers 30 year old Danny Butterfield. He may be slower, and not as physically strong, but he is a cleverer player with his experience. He is the one who tells the rest of the defence when to step up and catch someone offside, which is just as important as whether he can tackle someone in a one on one situation. In a couple of years (maybe even months) then Clyne will force is way into the team as he learns more from playing with senior pros in matches and in training. If technical ability like and athleticism were the most important aspects in football, then the best players would always be 19 or 20. As it is, most people agree football players peak between around 26-31. It's why it's so talked about when a player like Messi is so good when he's that young.

If you took a great athlete and tried to convert them to a football player, my guess is they wouldn't get above the third tier of English football. The one thing all people who play football across the world have in common is they have played since they were 5 or 6. Whether it's in the streets of Rio or Lagos or on a school pitch in England or Germany.




El Mariachi said:


> That is kind of an insult to the U.S. National Team, as if they are nothing more then just good athletes. They play and train the same as players elsewhere in the world and have beaten their share of them, including the European champs this year.
> 
> And by your standards, only a handful of teams on the globe would be considered "good" as so few have actually won anything. The English haven't won anything, but are they not to be respected as team?


The current England team may not have won anything, but it's players have won the Champions League and competed against (and with) the best players on the planet on a regular basis. I'm hugely impressed with the way the USA is developing, but there still isn't a truly world-class American player. One can't be far off, but not yet.

As a question (sorry if you've already answered it), at what sort of age does a kid in the US choose which sport to 'specialise' in?


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

SSE said:


> As a question (sorry if you've already answered it), at what sort of age does a kid in the US choose which sport to 'specialise' in?


Can happen at anytime! Usually between the ages of 12-16, though. Most students play multiple sports, though.. but when they excell, they tend to stick to one (usually in their last couple of years in highschool).


some (albiet, extremely rare), choose to train for multiple sports beyond school. But finding a multi sport standout is like looking for a needle in a hay stack. I know a couple of football players that were really good at basketball and soccer! Like, really really good.


----------



## kerouac1848

> That is kind of an insult to the U.S. National Team, as if they are nothing more then just good athletes. They play and train the same as players elsewhere in the world and have beaten their share of them, including the European champs this year.
> 
> And by your standards, only a handful of teams on the globe would be considered "good" as so few have actually won anything. The English haven't won anything, but are they not to be respected as team?


Look, I’ve dealt with this further in other posts so i don't know why you picked out this one. Have a read back. I have also mentioned England's lack of gifted players

As for the US being average; well, they are insofar as they are not crap but not one of the top teams either. If they were in the Premier League they would finish about 9th, which is where average teams finish. So what if they Spain in a friendly, teams from the 3rd tier of the English league can beat Arsenal on any given day. Federer loses to players ranked well below him now and again. However, the top teams and players win more often than not. Anyway, I think the US is developing nicely and could be a 'top' team in a decade or so. But they're not an attractive team to watch and badly need some technically gifted players to add some skill.


----------



## weava

Phriggin' Ogre said:


> Can happen at anytime! Usually between the ages of 12-16, though. Most students play multiple sports, though.. but when they excell, they tend to stick to one (usually in their last couple of years in highschool).
> 
> 
> some (albiet, extremely rare), choose to train for multiple sports beyond school. But finding a multi sport standout is like looking for a needle in a hay stack. I know a couple of football players that were really good at basketball and soccer! Like, really really good.


at a lot of smaller high schools, the main athletes will play a sport all 3 seasons. In my class I know most of the baseball players also played football and the quaterback was also a shooting gaurd and a baseball pitcher. My brother played both football and basketball all 4 years of high school but his friend who went on to play college basketball quit football to avoid the risk of injury.


----------



## El Mariachi

SSE said:


> You are right, there is every possibility Lebron could be a decent football player, but not a world class one. If you look at the greatest players of all time they all have one thing in common and that is that they are hugely intelligent, and they have an unbelievable understanding of the game. Players like Zidane and Socrates could see a pass where no one else could. The actual act of making the pass is something you can learn, but to have that speed of thought and to be able to read the game you have to be immersed in it from a young age.


Thats assuming that Lebron isn't intelligent or wouldn't have an understanding of the game. That intelligence isn't something a person is born with. It comes from experience of playing, as well as good training and tactics. I think he could manage to learn that. As for the passing thing--he can do it with a basketball without looking and knowing where his teammates are for the open shot. 





> Even lower down the leagues it takes more than being an athlete. For example, my team (Crystal Palace) has two good full-backs. Nathaniel Clyne is young, athletic and technically very good. He can time a tackle and he rarely gets beaten for pace. However, he doesn't get in the team because the manager prefers 30 year old Danny Butterfield. He may be slower, and not as physically strong, but he is a cleverer player with his experience. He is the one who tells the rest of the defence when to step up and catch someone offside, which is just as important as whether he can tackle someone in a one on one situation. In a couple of years (maybe even months) then Clyne will force is way into the team as he learns more from playing with senior pros in matches and in training. If technical ability like and athleticism were the most important aspects in football, then the best players would always be 19 or 20. As it is, most people agree football players peak between around 26-31. It's why it's so talked about when a player like Messi is so good when he's that young.


Yeah, you see alot of that sort of stuff in American sports as well. Experience and intelligence trumps a player who only brings athleticism, like the Crystal Palace fullback you described. Athleticism is meaningless if you can't harness it or use it to your advantage. 



> If you took a great athlete and tried to convert them to a football player, my guess is they wouldn't get above the third tier of English football. The one thing all people who play football across the world have in common is they have played since they were 5 or 6. Whether it's in the streets of Rio or Lagos or on a school pitch in England or Germany.


Yeah, your right. I don't think anybody is trying to state that Lebron could pick up a soccerball and become a superstar. Americans remember Michael Jordan's infamous exploits in baseball. Few players have ever been able to successfully play two sports at the pro level. The days of guys like Bo Jackson or Deion Sanders are over. You have multi-sport athletes still, but there is too much of a need for focus on one over the other. To answer your final question, specialization begins earlier and earlier these days. There are children joining football/baseball/basketball camps and becoming elite, known players in high school who then move their way up to college, and then to the pros.


----------



## bigbossman

El Mariachi said:


> I think that charitable organizations are business as well.


yeah that's what i said, i also then said _business_



> Sports teams have to make money. Without it, they are nothing. The NBA has a business model and we can clearly see it every night. Such as last night, how star players like Kobe Bryant get to bend the rules to make exciting plays---all too sell more jerseys and get more people to watch the games.


Of course they have to make money but the kobe charge isn't good for the sport, it just teaches children if you are a star you can cheat... Tiger woods took it a bit to literally though...



> The owner thing is only bad when you have a bad owner.


Hell no an owner is a bad full stop, whether he pumps all his money or asset strips.

Abramovich maybe great for chelsea fans, but what happens when he leaves? What about the impact his rediculous spending has had on wages that more clubs can't afford or the fact that Chelsea can now keep players away from other clubs but never play them?

The main reason I don't like owners is because of accountability. The running of a club should be democratic, fans are stakeholders and deserve a say. In Italy I can remember riots when Fiorentina were demoted 2 divisions because their owner took money out of the club to fund his other business', the league demoted them for financial reasons and they went bust, reformed etc. But the fans felt that they were being punished for the misdemeanors of an owner they couldn't control, he basically could do what the **** he wanted and did. Glazer at Man United and Hicks/gilette at Liverpool are the same. In the past owners were local and everything they did was generally for the good of the club, but now profit and greed comes first and it's killing the values I and many others cherish so dearly.

The government in the UK have set up supporters direct to help fans buy their clubs, their are a few fan owned success stories in England, Exeter dropped out of pro football were bought by their fans and their now in the 3rd division, joined by Brentford and Wycombe (who recently stupidly sold themselves to the owner of Wasps Rugby who they were landlords too, he'll probably create some sort of Sports club). There is a big campaign in Newcastle to raise enough money to buy that club, we're talking probably over £200 million though!



> There are many who are beloved by their fanbases because they are passionate about their team and will do anything to win. Such names in Americans sports are George Steinbrenner, Mark Cuban, and Jerry Jones. These names are also some of the most contreversial and disliked owners by other teams who are owned by rich, stiff businessmen.


I can understand why the fans love it, but I dunno I just think a rich owner reflects nothing on the fans, the area, the community, or the club/team. It's just a billionaires plaything...



> Running on the field and tearing down stuff. Yeah, I understand their are excited--but cmon. It's like these fools who riot when the Lakers win a championship in L.A. Same goes for Philly. They are only doing it for attention and using the sport as an excuse to act like a jackass.


I don't think so, rioting is a bit OTT of course, but I don't think there is anything wrong with going a bit wild!

I'm telling you if it wasn't illegal to run on the pitch and celebrate with the players, fans would do t all the time, and i'd probably join in if I was able to!



> well then---hopefully that puts my team in the same category with European teams fanbases rather then the dead crowds that foreigners envision about American sports teams with no history.


tbf I find it a bit weird. 

Now if they had made a dummy of him and _hanged_ him from a lampost then OK, but fake funerals hmm....



> We have alot of hero worship here. Is this a difference in the culture then? We (well, the mainstream at least) are about the individual (Lebron, Kobe, etc.) and you are about the team? It seems like this would filter into politics.


Don't get me wrong we hero worship, but there is no I in team. Arsenal have a history of winning leagues with no stars (until recently) and I kind of like that ethos, the team is mightier than the sum of the parts and all that jazz.

Oh on your politics point, we are more left wing than you guys because our country is more working class. So turkeys aren't gonna vote for christmas. it's no coincidence as our country has got richer Labour have moved slightly to the right. But then again because of our heritage people will never tolerate private healthcare, and a lot of people dislike the fact that the tories privatised a lot of our public service (Gas, Electricity, Water, Telephone, public transport) and the prices have since shot up.

Capitalis m is a flawed concept, communist is a flawed concept. It's all about a mixed economy, but balance (A little to the left) is the key!! 



> I know that killings are blown out of proportion, but it happens. You just don't hear about that sort of stuff here, which is interesting considering our violent ways and access to guns.


I have, I'll have a look tomorrow but I definately read about some fucked up shit going on between Yakees and Red sox fans!

Like I said to you though, you let your gun toting hoodlums into your stadiums then you'll see hooliganism!!!



> I would like to think that its about those things, but in the end---its entertainment and something to amuse ourselves with.[/qutoe]
> 
> I dunno, for me it's about belonging to something... I watch other teams if I want to be entertained, important Arsenal games can be torture at times, the nerves etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The big teams in England seem like they have moved on based on some of your comments. Liverpool, Arsenal, ManU----are they just too big of brand names, worldwide, and mainstream to ever be about the values and community again?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because they are legally obliged to. They have to, and do do a hell of a lot of work in their communities. But most people complain, what's the point in running Arsenal workshops if these kids can never ever afford to see you play. Just hypocrits fulfilling criteria!
> 
> The worldwide shit pisses me off. I have no love for anyone not from England or connected to England who supports Arsenal or any other English club (I'm sure they really care what I think). If you love football so much, support the game in your own f*cking country, don't shove more unecessary money into a game already overflowing with it, to the extent that it kills the integrity further. And what's more don't moan about parity whilst your doing it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure they are there in the community doing things, but with more money being involved---it seems like this mentality will die out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> read above. It's something they have to do, the FA stipulates it. If it dies football dies, I for one wouldn't watch a game that was purely business!!
Click to expand...


----------



## bigbossman

El Mariachi said:


> I don't know how you can say that he isn't as much of one as we make him out to be. He is great at what he does. Its specialized, but thats the same with all athletes. Usain Bolt couldnt' play soccer or baseball--but he is a great athlete.


Usain Bolt is a great sprinter. I wouldn't considering him a great athlete, he's unbelievable one dimensional. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

A great athlete for me is someone with all the tools!



> One needs to be raised playing the particular sport to be good at it in my opinion. Lebron may be too tall to play most positions on the pitch, but a defender or GK? Your average rugby or Aussie rules player would be too small to play on the line in American football----but they could play other positions if they were trained in the game for an extended period of time.


Do you realise how tall 6'8" is?

How would he reach the low balls as a goalkeeper. 



> As for the soccer skills thing. Cmon---its a tough sport but its not like its an elite group of people who play it. You have people across the globe playing at a high level coming from multiple backrounds. You can't get a bum off the street and play, but the same could be said about baseball, basketball, Aussie rules, swimming, or hockey. Its all about practice and learning skills.


I think others have explained it well. It's not about now, it's about the amount of skill it takes to be the best, or be one of the best.

Like I said Oluwajun, that would never happen in football.


----------



## SSE

Phriggin' Ogre said:


> Can happen at anytime! Usually between the ages of 12-16, though. Most students play multiple sports, though.. but when they excell, they tend to stick to one (usually in their last couple of years in highschool).
> 
> 
> some (albiet, extremely rare), choose to train for multiple sports beyond school. But finding a multi sport standout is like looking for a needle in a hay stack. I know a couple of football players that were really good at basketball and soccer! Like, really really good.


It's common to find people who play cricket and soccer or rugby, but that's because the sports don't overlap in terms of the calendar. However, most football clubs who have academies will have teams as low down as Under 9s (maybe even lower) to nurture potential talent. Leo Messi moved to Barcelona when he was 11, and big clubs like that often operate academies that also act as boarding schools for younger players. It's no wonder Barcelona produce so many wonderful players. Of the team that won the Champions League final last year, 7 of the players that started for Barca came from their academy. Another 3 were on the substitutes bench. I suppose it's only natural that if you are selected that young that you would focus on that sport a bit more than others The age at which you change seems to be lower than in the US if it's not until the last few years of high-school that you move to one sport over another.

It's frustrating to see how naturally talented people can be though! Luke McAlister who plays at centre for the All Blacks and the Auckland Blues was on the books of Manchester United when he was a child (his father played Rugby League for a number of clubs in the north of England). In Germany, Bastian Schweinsteiger (Bayern Munich and Germany) had to choose between a career as a footballer or one as a professional ski racer. 

I also find it odd how some sporting families choose different paths, such is their natural talent for sport of any kind. Rafael Nadal's uncle Miguel Angel Nadal, was one of FC Barcelona's 'dream team' in the 90s and won 62 caps for Spain. At an early age Rafael was a talented footballer as well as tennis player. My favourite story is that of the Cohen family. George Cohen played right-back for the England 1966 World Cup winning team. 37 years later his nephew Ben Cohen played on the wing for the England team that won the Rugby World Cup.


----------



## bigbossman

kerouac1848 said:


> Look, I’ve dealt with this further in other posts so i don't know why you picked out this one. Have a read back. I have also mentioned England's lack of gifted players
> 
> As for the US being average; well, they are insofar as they are not crap but not one of the top teams either. If they were in the Premier League they would finish about 9th, which is where average teams finish. So what if they Spain in a friendly, teams from the 3rd tier of the English league can beat Arsenal on any given day. Federer loses to players ranked well below him now and again. However, the top teams and players win more often than not. Anyway, I think the US is developing nicely and could be a 'top' team in a decade or so. But they're not an attractive team to watch and badly need some technically gifted players to add some skill.


I personally would say 17th or 18th. Hull and the likes aren't _that_ bad. 

The England national team probably would only come 5th!


----------



## kerouac1848

Boys and girls, do a Winston and chill.....


> "4.Primera División de México, Mexico (2007) / 25 379"
> "13.Major League Soccer, USA (2008) / 16 460"
> 
> I saw that at the soccer attendances thread. I was very surprised by Mexico being the #4 league in attendances! I was pretty dissapointed to see the US so low. I personally thought it'd be a little higher, but I guess my perception was skewed since my local soccer team (Seattle sounders) was getting 30k+ a game! Not bad for its first year in the MLS.
> 
> Which brings me to my next question, do you guys see the MLS ever reaching the level of attendances of the other Us leagues? Or could the MLS ever crack the top 6 or 7 in the world?


I wouldn't be that surprised if the MLS could eventually achieve average attendances of 40K+. The nature of the league is that it is a closed shop that deliberately picks cities with a large enough population and interest to achieve high levels of support. In Europe (and elsewhere) the pyramid structure means that in many cases (certainly this is the case in England) the league doesn't feature all the big city clubs in the top division at the same time. I mean, in the Prem at the moment you've got clubs such as Wigan, Blackburn and Burnley whilst in the lower divisions you have Leeds, Newcastle and Nottingham, all clubs with great support (theoretically and historically). 

Personally, if any league threaten's Europe's power I think it will come from Brazil rather than the MLS (im talking a couple of decades.*). As the wealth gap narrows and the country continues to have population growth rates above large European nations, the potential for league is huge (there are more flamingo fans, I believe, then football fans in England). You're talking about somewhere which will have about 230 million people at least within 20 years and where one sport (esp. one team sport) dwarfs all others. Just need to sort out their piss-poor organisation skills.....

Either way, if there ever is a challenge to Europe's dominance I just think a European League will be created. The enormous amount that could be made in just TV rights probably means it will happen at some point and in some form in the future anyway.

*I guess you could add China but I really don't know how wealthly their league is and what the situation is with football in that country.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

kerouac1848 said:


> Personally, if any league threaten's Europe's power I think it will come from Brazil rather than the MLS (im talking a couple of decades.*). As the wealth gap narrows and the country continues to have population growth rates above large European nations, the potential for league is huge (there are more flamingo fans, I believe, then football fans in England). You're talking about somewhere which will have about 230 million people at least within 20 years and where one sport (esp. one team sport) dwarfs all others. Just need to sort out their piss-poor organisation skills.....


Good point. Personally I have always wondered how Latin American teams would fare. In terms of attendance, profit, viewership...ect. Brazil does have some major potential though. I wouldn't be surprised if they were challenging some of the European leagues in 10 years! Especially as the country developes and affords to keep more and more of its stars.



> Either way, if there ever is a challenge to Europe's dominance I just think a European League will be created. The enormous amount that could be made in just TV rights probably means it will happen at some point and in some form in the future anyway.


I think that would be awesome. But would other Europeans support this?



> *I guess you could add China but I really don't know how wealthly their league is and what the situation is with football in that country.


I don't see soccer in China being more dominant than table tennis or basketball... but it does have potential to be a pretty powerful league.


----------



## bigbossman

Phriggin' Ogre said:


> I think that would be awesome. But would other Europeans support this?


No it wouldn't be, everyone in Europe would be against it. The only people that want it are those that want to make money off of it.



> I don't see soccer in China being more dominant than table tennis or basketball... but it does have potential to be a pretty powerful league.


hahaha what football is ahead of Basketball by a significant margin in China


----------



## bigbossman

kerouac1848 said:


> Personally, if any league threaten's Europe's power I think it will come from Brazil rather than the MLS (im talking a couple of decades.*). As the wealth gap narrows and the country continues to have population growth rates above large European nations, the potential for league is huge (there are more flamingo fans, I believe, then football fans in England). You're talking about somewhere which will have about 230 million people at least within 20 years and where one sport (esp. one team sport) dwarfs all others. Just need to sort out their piss-poor organisation skills.....


Do you really think Brazil can close the gap before it becomes to wide? The clubs are still member associations are they not?


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

bigbossman said:


> No it wouldn't be, everyone in Europe would be against it. The only people that want it are those that want to make money off of it.
> 
> 
> 
> hahaha what football is ahead of Basketball by a significant margin in China


As of now, soccer is barely more watched than Basketball(even this is a bit contested), but basketball has grown exponentially in recent years... all estimates have basketball being the most popular sport in the future. Not too long ago basketball was just a word in China, now it has 300 million people playing it, and a pretty established league. I don't know where you get your significant margin from.


Basketball revenue has grown by 1000 (yes thousand) percent in the last 5 years.
http://www.echinacities.com/main/ExpatCorner/ExpatsCorner.aspx?n=2615


Hell, one fthe most watched game in NBA history was due to 2 chinese players (yao and yi) playing against eachother... 200 million people tuned in to watch 2 national heros. I don't even think 10 million Americans watched this... so it gives a clue as to where basketball is heading in the future!


----------



## kerouac1848

> I think that would be awesome. But would other Europeans support this?


Real fans no, but there is probably a significant minority who get wet dreams about it. Plus i imagine that the sights will be sight on making a global league in terms of viewers.

Anyway, from what I have heard there aren't plans to actually dismantle national leagues. Instead the plan is to have both. National leagues would be reduced to about 16 teams, any second cups would be abolished and attempts would be made to reduce international fixtures. I think Florentino Perez is one of the main brokers behind the idea, although I think the real push will/would come from teams like Ajax, Celtic, Porto, etc. because they're stagnating due to the small size of their respective leagues.

It would sort of be what has happened in Brazil in that they started with State leagues, before establishing a national league and had the two together (the season was split). Over time the national league has become more important and the balance of the season has shifted more towards it. 



> hahaha what football is ahead of Basketball by a significant margin in China


Tbh I've heard basketball is growing much faster than football now. The main reasons are that the NBA can act as a single organisation for basketball and control all the marketing and whatever. Football cannot do that. Also, there have been some big Chinese stars in the NBA which has massively boosted its profile. There aren't even averagely good Chinese footballers as of yet! That being said football has one massive trump card: the World Cup. If China ever goes far and/or host it, I think it will take off again. It is a very nationalistic country



> Do you really think Brazil can close the gap before it becomes to wide? The clubs are still member associations are they not?


Well, that is the key. THe first thing is to stop kids leaving Brazil to go to places like the Ukraine and Qatar. As of now, the clubs cannot compete with wages but if they can then that flood will be stopped; Brazilians don't go to those places out of choice! They have similar problems to Italy in that clubs don't own the stadiums, the council does, although TV rights and what else are a lot less too. A few clubs should start building their own homes in the next few years, but they have a while yet. Most are member associations like in Argentina and Spain, but not all i think. Domestic football has just been really badly organised and full of corruption (match fixing was rife and big teams managed to avoid relegation due to some dodgy rules), although the last decade has seen big improvements.


----------



## bigbossman

Phriggin' Ogre said:


> As of now, soccer is barely more watched than Basketball(even this is a bit contested), but basketball has grown exponentially in recent years... all estimates have basketball being the most popular sport in the future. Not too long ago basketball was just a word in China, now it has 300 million people playing it, and a pretty established league. I don't know where you get your significant margin from.


Can't have been just a word if Yao ming has been around for ny on decade! Anyway i'd love to see the figures for football



> Basketball revenue has grown by 1000 (yes thousand) percent in the last 5 years.
> http://www.echinacities.com/main/ExpatCorner/ExpatsCorner.aspx?n=2615


adding lots of noughts doesn't make it any bigger you know. IT still ten times, which of course is nothing to be sniffed at, but that article doesn't once mention basketball's postition in relation to football, all it mentions is growth of the sport.



> Hell, one fthe most watched game in NBA history was due to 2 chinese players (yao and yi) playing against eachother... 200 million people tuned in to watch 2 national heros. I don't even think 10 million Americans watched this... so it gives a clue as to where basketball is heading in the future!


200 million you say... "Six months later Everton played Manchester City and newly acquired Sun Jihai, shattering the single-country viewership record for a league game, as 360 million viewers watched from China. An audience of 260 million Chinese watched the entire World Cup played in Asia that year."

so 200 million watch a genuine world superstar in basketball, but nearly double watch two below average premier league players playing for mid table teams in football. You work it out, China produces a Yao Ming of football and then you'll see numbers!

Oh yeah and China also holds the record for a lower division football match (100 million), english Division 1 game (now the championship) featuring two chinese players for Crystal Palace.

*actually why do I care, you guys can have China*


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

bigbossman said:


> Can't have been just a word if Yao ming has been around for ny on decade! Anyway i'd love to see the figures for football


you know what i mean, basketball wasn't really established in China until recently. Basketball has grown more than all other sports combined, thats gotta be at least somewhat of an indicator, right?





> adding lots of noughts doesn't make it any bigger you know. IT still ten times, which of course is nothing to be sniffed at, but that article doesn't once mention basketball's postition in relation to football, all it mentions is growth of the sport.


I'm not exactly saying that basketball is more popular, you were the one implying that it was nothing! Just showing you that has a very huge viewership, especially since most of it has been from recent endevours. not exactly something to "hahaha" about?




> 200 million you say... "Six months later Everton played Manchester City and newly acquired Sun Jihai, shattering the single-country viewership record for a league game, as 360 million viewers watched from China. An audience of 260 million Chinese watched the entire World Cup played in Asia that year."




260 million watched the most popular sporting event in the world... and 200 million watched an everyday basketball game (from one decent and one crappy team... one of the players being a rookie). Not bad, eh?



> so 200 million watch a genuine world superstar in basketball, but nearly double watch two below average premier league players playing for mid table teams in football. You work it out, China produces a Yao Ming of football and then you'll see numbers!


I would like to see that, actually. Nothing wrong with seeing a badass athlete. 


I'm not turning this into a basketball vs soccer thread, just showing tha basketball is a major national sport! And to dispute this shows mere ignorance.


----------



## bigbossman

^^ LMAO you've have toned down your post massively, from Basketball will be ahead of football, to basketball might be ahead of football, to Basketball is a major national sport but behind football.



> and 200 million watched an everyday basketball game (from one decent and one crappy team... one of the players being a rookie).


and 360 million watched an everyday Football game feature two crappy teams.

I never disputed it was popular, but it is still significantly behind football, i "hahaha'd" because you tried to claim that footbal wouldn't be more dominant than table tennis _and_ *basketball*


----------



## bigbossman

kerouac1848 said:


> It would sort of be what has happened in Brazil in that they started with State leagues, before establishing a national league and had the two together (the season was split). Over time the national league has become more important and the balance of the season has shifted more towards it.


The brazilian league is ridiculous, way too many games, they play nearly the whole year.

Considering Real Madrid are not for profit and the richest club in the world, it's kind of strange that they'd want a European super league, surely the status quo would suffice. That leads me to believe Perez is dodgier than Satan himself!



> Tbh I've heard basketball is growing much faster than football now. The main reasons are that the NBA can act as a single organisation for basketball and control all the marketing and whatever. Football cannot do that. Also, there have been some big Chinese stars in the NBA which has massively boosted its profile. There aren't even averagely good Chinese footballers as of yet! That being said football has one massive trump card: the World Cup. If China ever goes far and/or host it, I think it will take off again. It is a very nationalistic country


They always used to saying something is fast growing when it starts from nowhere, like say girls football over here or how they say Islam is the fastest growing religion (birth rates etc). 



> Well, that is the key. THe first thing is to stop kids leaving Brazil to go to places like the Ukraine and Qatar. As of now, the clubs cannot compete with wages but if they can then that flood will be stopped; Brazilians don't go to those places out of choice! They have similar problems to Italy in that clubs don't own the stadiums, the council does, although TV rights and what else are a lot less too. A few clubs should start building their own homes in the next few years, but they have a while yet. Most are member associations like in Argentina and Spain, but not all i think. Domestic football has just been really badly organised and full of corruption (match fixing was rife and big teams managed to avoid relegation due to some dodgy rules), although the last decade has seen big improvements.


of course but as far as I am aware TV does more harm than good in Brazil, putting games on a ridiculous times, but I agree it's stopping the first flow. It just needs a more professional set up, as you say but without surrendering itself to individual ownership. 

BTW only 4 clubs in spain are members only now because the spanish government forced ones in debt to become limited companies in the early 90s


----------



## SSE

bigbossman said:


> Oh yeah and China also holds the record for a lower division football match (100 million), english Division 1 game (now the championship) featuring two chinese players for Crystal Palace.
> 
> *actually why do I care, you guys can have China*


vs Sheffield United in 1998/99.

A 1-0 victory with Sasa Curcic scoring the winner, a brilliant bit of skill.



You are right, it's down to China producing good basketball players that there is a new interest in the sport. Look at Ding Junhui the snooker player, they are making a cartoon about him in China after his success! In football they have yet to produce a world class player, but the sport is still loved. Look at the reaction David Beckham gets in China. If China produced their own superstar then it would be massive. The same could of course be said for football in the USA. 

Not that it matters at all.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

bigbossman said:


> ^^ LMAO you've have toned down your post massively, from Basketball will be ahead of football, to basketball might be ahead of football, to Basketball is a major national sport but behind football.
> 
> 
> 
> and 360 million watched an everyday Football game feature two crappy teams.
> 
> I never disputed it was popular, but it is still significantly behind football, i "hahaha'd" because you tried to claim that footbal wouldn't be more dominant than table tennis _and_ *basketball*


Quit misreading my posts, and no reason to act like a dick. I never said basketball was bigger than soccer (perhaps you can quote me), I said that it was a significant sport, and I never claimed that soccer wasn't big.


And I never said that basketball wouldn't be the biggest sport in the future.

Stop acting childish. I didn't expect you to get to worked up about me expecting basketball to be bigger than soccer in china...


----------



## GEwinnen

Despite the very low temperatures (-15°C/5°F) the last weekend the Bundesliga had one of the best average attendances on a single gameday:

Schalke - Mainz 61,000
FC Bayern - Berlin 69,000
BVB Dortmund- Freiburg 80,000
Leverkusen - M'Gladbach 30,000
Hannover - Bochum 34,000
Frankfurt - Wolfsburg 42,000
Stuttgart - Hoppenheim 41,000
Hamburg - Bremen 57,000
Cologne - Nuremberg 43,000

average: 47,777


----------



## fanUltras

Campeonato Brasileiro Série A
Total: 6 875 151, average attendance: 18 093

1 Flamengo RJ 42 372 
2 Atlético Mineiro 39 407 
3 Sao Paulo FC 26 256 
4 Fluminense RJ 22 439 
5 Cruzeiro EC 21 367 
6 Internacional RS 20 506 
7 Corinthians SP 20 379 
8 Gremio Porto Alegre 19 261 
9 SE Palmeiras 18 467 
10 Coritiba FC 17 806 
11 Atlético Paranaense 15 853 
12 Sport Club Recife 15 384 
13 Botafogo RJ 14 252 
14 Clube Náutico 14161 
15 EC Vitória BA 13 664 
16 Goiás EC 11 944 
17 Avaí FC 10 518 
18 Santos FC 9 376 
19 Santo André 4 675 
20 Gremio Barueri 3 763


----------



## bigbossman

GEwinnen said:


> Despite the very low temperatures (-15°C/5°F) the last weekend the Bundesliga had one of the best average attendances on a single gameday:
> 
> Schalke - Mainz 61,000
> FC Bayern - Berlin 69,000
> BVB Dortmund- Freiburg 80,000
> Leverkusen - M'Gladbach 30,000
> Hannover - Bochum 34,000
> Frankfurt - Wolfsburg 42,000
> Stuttgart - Hoppenheim 41,000
> Hamburg - Bremen 57,000
> Cologne - Nuremberg 43,000
> 
> average: 47,777


Median of 43,000 is more accurate. Dortmund's crowd skews the average upwards! 

Another thing why all the 000?


----------



## krudmonk

69K, 61K and 57K are all pretty impressive, regardless.


----------



## bigbossman

of course and each of those crowds would've been far bigger with bigger stadiums... but my point was that as I have said repeatedly on this forum the mean is shit for average attendance!


----------



## Patrick

bigbossman said:


> Median of 43,000 is more accurate. Dortmund's crowd skews the average upwards!
> 
> Another thing why all the 000?


well, he just rounded the figures  the figures by the home team's internet sites are:

80,100 | Borussia Dortmund - SC Freiburg
69,000 | Bayern München - Hertha Berlin
60,852 | Schalke 04 - Mainz 05
57,000 | Hamburger SV - Werder Bremen
44,500 | 1. FC Köln - 1. FC Nürnberg
41,700 | Eintracht Frankfurt - VfL Wolfsburg
41,000 | VfB Stuttgart - Hoffenheim
33,875 | Hannover 96 - VfL Bochum 
30,210 | Bayer Leverkusen - Borussia Mönchengladbach

and beside of Leverkusen, all games were played in the big stadiums +40,000.


----------



## bigbossman

^^ don't they have to publish accurate figures in Germany for Tax reasons?? In England they've had to since 1924, that's why we have such detailed (undercounted) records!


----------



## krudmonk

bigbossman said:


> of course and each of those crowds would've been far bigger with bigger stadiums... but my point was that as I have said repeatedly on this forum the mean is shit for average attendance!


Well of course the mean is a weaker measure of central tendency. I was pointing out that it was not just one crowd bringing up the average.


----------



## GEwinnen

bigbossman said:


> What are you trying to show by giving us this average figure?


.....this average figure was the highest ever on a single gameday, as I remember. Nothing else.




> How can you say it's a typical value when more than half of the values are below 45,000...


An average figure is the "sum" of higher and lower attendances, I never said this was a typical value.

As you can see, the "top 4" of the Bundesliga, Dortmund, Bayern, Schalke and Hamburg played at home, that was the main reason for this high average attendances.


----------



## bigbossman

GEwinnen said:


> .....this average figure was the highest ever on a single gameday, as I remember. Nothing else.


But that's not what you have shown as it's innacurate... that was my point.



> An average figure is the "sum" of higher and lower attendances, I never said this was a typical value.


That's not the average that's the arithmatic mean, that's what you don't seem to understand. It is one of many types of average and you use the best one to give you the typical value which is what the average is supposed to show, and in this case it's the median not mean.



> As you can see, the "top 4" of the Bundesliga, Dortmund, Bayern, Schalke and Hamburg played at home, that was the main reason for this high average attendances.


Yeah but there are 9 games not 4... that's still the majority left out


----------



## bigbossman

lpioe said:


> Not all games of Barça are on free tv, but quite a few.


That's crazy, no wonder they steal everyone fans if you can watch their games for free!



> And as far as I know you can watch every game of first and second division on pay tv.


This arrangement only benefits the big clubs. Barcelona, Real Madrid can sell all their games individually and make stupid money, everyone else makes less. IF the games were collectively sold selling all games would take value away from the TV product.

What I mean is the premier league makes more from TV revenue collectively because only games people want to watch are on television, as the supply is restricted tit means that they get maximum viewership for each game meaning Sky will pay more. To me it seems simple economics...

If spain was ever to go back to collective selling this would be the most sensible as you can make the same money as currently but giving less games.



> I'm quite surprised you can't watch all matches on pay-tv in England.


It's an FA rule, to make sure people go to games, and protect lower league clubs. I'm actually suprised other countries don't think about that. The rule states none of the 15:00 games can be televised. That's most of the games.

It seems in Spain the game is just about giving Barca and Real all they want, in England it's about making sure the small clubs survive too and have a fanbase. 



> It's probably the only of the 5 big leagues where you can't do that?
> Don't they (sky?) try to change that?


Think it's the only one out of the big 20 leagues. I know they sell all games in countries liek Greece and Sweden

Sky would love to buy Man united's games, or Arsenal's games, but not Wigan's if you know what I mean. There is no real value buying all the games as it will do more harm to small clubs than good, and the extra they would make through TV revenue (if it was split the same as now or equally) would be lost in gate receipts which would go down for most games. And i don't think it would be that much extra TV money because I have said the majority of games don't have much TV value outside of their fanbases, and even then if every game is on telly it becomes much easier to miss the shit ones. Having less games turns football on TV into an event.

The FA rule was a fluke which has turned out to be a master stroke. We make more money and we put less games on television and we make more from our stadiums because the only way people can watch most games is turn up to the stadium, but because man u or Arsenal have so many fans who can't they times they are on television are at a premium. Of course that's why ticket prices have gone up, I wish they could go down because we'd still make more, but obviously other leagues won't see the benefit and whilst people like Glazer are in charge on manchester united we may see a push for more games selling and a greater share of the split given to bigger clubs.

It will never happen in spain because Real and barca would lose out, even if the rest of the league would gain, basically this rule protects smaller clubs rather than bigger ones, but still provides a nic ewedge of TV money.


----------



## flierfy

bigbossman said:


> What are you trying to show by giving us this average figure? The average figure is a single value that is meant to typify a list of values, often referred to as central tendency. Does your mean figure typify the list of values?
> 
> I'd answer no, why? because more than half of the attendances are below 50,915, the figure is skewed by outliers mainly the Dortmund and Bayern figures. How can you say it's a typical value when more than half of the values are below 45,000...


Why would one try to express a typical value when the total number of supporters set in reference to the number of games says so much more.
The arithmetic mean takes every single supporters into account while the median fails to do so. That makes the arithmetical mean the most relevant figure in terms of attendances.



bigbossman said:


> You seem to be wanting to show us how many fans the bundesliga clubs bring in collectively by expressing it as an average, if that's the case then you should've just given us a total attendance figure imho.


Total attendance is hardly comparable when league have different sizes. The arithmetic mean rectifies this disadvantage as it is simply the division of total attendance by the number of games.



bigbossman said:


> *"The arithmetic mean may be misinterpreted as the median to imply that most [leagues attendances] are higher than is in fact the case."*


No, it is certainly not misinterpreted. We know very well what the arithmetic mean expresses.


----------



## bigbossman

Another point to add is that I feel that selling more games would add no value. All it would do is spread out the viewers who currently watch the games on television over more games.

For instance currently in England all the TV games have set times and don't go head-2-head with any others (usually). unless all 10 premier league games were to kick off at different times (very difficult) you'd basically have people watching different games at the same time reducing value. I personally think this would oversaturate football and reduce value.

The game between wolves and burnley this week was on television and because of all this mick mccarthy rubbish durin gthe week i'm in no doubt plenty of neutrals watched. Wheras if that game was one of ten televised games during the weekend i'm in no duobt the viewership would've been lower, partly because of football overload and partly because there would be far more attractive gamves. For instance Fulham beating Man united wasn't on television this week.

Basically the viewership of the big games would remain constant but the small games that were on TV would lose viewers and the ones that never were would never gain viewers (outside fans). This would level off the value gained from now being able to televise all Manchester United games.

One thing I noticed from Germany is that Dortmund-Schalke one of the biggest games of the season was a sautrday 14:30 kick off, it was on television but so were many other games in Germany at this time. There is no way a derby of that magnitude in England wouldn't get separate billing so that everyone is able to watch. It's things like this that make me think that England has it's TV rules right.

So what I am saying is you need to have the balance in showing the games which would make up the bulk of the TV value and that especially wouldn't affect attendances if they were on television. In England we haven't got the balance perfect but we're getting there


----------



## bigbossman

:bash: If you are going to try and argue against what I say at least reference everything don't try to disect the points _you think_ that you can and avoid the points that show up your argument... it's ironic that now that I have criticised the Bundesliga it's German's who have their backs up



flierfy said:


> Why would one try to express a typical value when the total number of supporters set in reference to the number of games says so much more.


Says much more about what? All it says is Dortmund have a lot of match going fans, but Leverkusen doesn't and that Dortmunds fans make up for the fact (and some) that Leverkusen are smaller.

That's not what we want to show, we want to show what the typical bundesliga game brings in, or at least the number the largest proportion tend to cluster around.

I take it you'd say that the average of 15,000 accurately reflects the SPL :lol:



> The arithmetic mean takes every single supporters into account while the median fails to do so. That makes the arithmetical mean the most relevant figure in terms of attendances.


That's the whole point, we don't want to take every supporter into account because we want it to reflect the league, not the clubs. Dortmund would get big crowds whatever league they are in and skew the sample. The Dortmund fans don't reflect on Leverkusen, so why should we use the mean which allows them to do so...

Once again you would argue that Rangers and Celtic supporters should be taken fully into account for scotland or Barcelona/Real Madrid for Spain. Those examples prove why your point is rubbish, if dortmund averaged less but still above the median the median would remain the same, but the mean would be brought down. 



> Total attendance is hardly comparable when league have different sizes. The arithmetic mean rectifies this disadvantage as it is simply the division of total attendance by the number of games.


From what I can tell he's not trying to show it against other leagues, he's trying to compare it to other bundesliga rounds... so the total attendance figure _is_ totally acceptable...



> No, it is certainly not misinterpreted. We know very well what the arithmetic mean expresses.


That's not my quote, I took it from an outside source, hence the square brakcets. But the arithmetic mean is supposed to express central tendency but it can't do that accurately if there are outliers, simple as.

I'm not saying the median is the best, but it's better than the arithmatic mean!


----------



## GEwinnen

bigbossman said:


> But that's not what you have shown as it's innacurate... that was my point.


:bash: I'm not a stastician nor a mathematical genius.
The german wikipedia explains arithmetic mean (average!) as the quotient of the sum of the values.

sum: 451,000 quotient 9= average 50,990

(das arithmetische Mittel (auch Durchschnitt= _average_) ist ein Mittelwert, der als Quotient aus der Summe aller beobachteten Werte und der Anzahl der Werte definiert )

If it get a yearly payment of (for e.g.) 51,596 €, my average monthly payment is 4,296 €.

















> That's not the average that's the arithmatic mean, that's what you don't seem to understand. It is one of many types of average and you use the best one to give you the typical value which is what the average is supposed to show, and in this case it's the median not mean.




Call it arithmetic mean, call it average........ or change the therad's name in "Arithmetic mean football attendances"

For me average is the colloquial term for arithmetic mean.





> Yeah but there are 9 games not 4... that's still the majority left out


So?


----------



## bigbossman

GEwinnen said:


> :bash: I'm not a stastician nor a mathematical genius.


Nor am I, you don't have to be. 



> The german wikipedia explains arithmetic mean (average!) as the quotient of the sum of the values.
> 
> sum: 451,000 quotient 9= average 50,990
> 
> (das arithmetische Mittel (auch Durchschnitt= _average_) ist ein Mittelwert, der als Quotient aus der Summe aller beobachteten Werte und der Anzahl der Werte definiert )


The English wikipedia doesn't and at school in England I was taught that the (arithmatic) mean is only one of many different averages, which it is. 



> If it get a yearly payment of (for e.g.) 51,596 €, my average monthly payment is 4,296 €.


Are you saying if you get a lump sum of 51,596 or if your weekly wages add up to 51,596?



>


Let me put it simply in terms of average attendance by using the mean you are taking dortmund's high figure and using it to prop up Leverkusen's lower figure. That to me assumes that you are saying if there was no room at the westfalen and there was at the bayarena then those same fans would've gone there, that isn't the case. Football fan's generally support one team...



> Call it arithmetic mean, call it average........ or change the therad's name in "Arithmetic mean football attendances"
> 
> For me average is the colloquial term for arithmetic mean.


Yes but that isn't my point. My point is it isn't the most accurate average, as others (non german) on this thread have agreed with. Average refers to a whole host of measures.

That's why I asked what are you trying to show... When we are comparing different leagues it's best to compare using the fairest measure if we want to actual show an _average_.



> So?


so how can you claim that that is average, when majority are less than that figure, at not just by a small amount!

Look all I am saying is the arithmatic mean is an innacurate average in this instance. As it's not robust.

This is going round and round in ridiculous circles. I can't just keep repeating the same points to different people so erm i'm out of this debate at least...


----------



## kerouac1848

Why the median is important in this particular context (i.e. comparison of average league attendances)



> Mean or median income?
> 
> It may seem trivial to get upset about whether you are using the median or the mean, *but it can really matter*. We all feel comfortable with the vague idea that an 'average' represents a sort of general tendency. However, it depends on the data whether the mean or median actually gives you a more accurate reflection of an 'average' value.
> 
> In early April 2005 there was considerable debate in the media about whether 'average' incomes have gone up or down in the UK. The Institute for Fiscal Studies produced a report in which they stated that the mean 'real household income' fell by 0.2% over 2003/04 against the previous year. This sounds very authoritative, but it is worth pausing to consider if the mean is really the most appropriate measure.
> 
> The mean is calculated by adding together all the values, and then dividing them by the number of values you have. As long as the data is symmetrically distributed (that is, if when you plot them on a frequency chart you get a nice symmetrical shape) this is fine - *but it can still be thrown right out by a few extreme values, and if the data is not symmetrical (ie. skewed) it can be downright misleading.*
> 
> It only takes a moment's thought to realise that more people earn low salaries than high ones, because a fairly large proportion of the population works part-time - so the mean is not the best 'average' to use in this case.
> 
> The median, on the other hand, really is the middle value. 50% of values are above it, and 50% below it. *So when the data is not symmetrical, this is the form of 'average' that gives a better idea of any general tendency in the data.* The same report from the IFS states that median real household incomes rose for the same period by 0.5%.
> 
> The slightly shocking thing is that where this was reported in the media, some commentators were glorying in this apparent reduction of average incomes as an opportunity to criticise the government. (Gordon Brown, the chancellor, was very frustrated trying to explain that the median is the measure you use for things like income, because the distribution is skewed.)


----------



## fanUltras

India

http://www.goal.com/en-india/news/1...eakout-the-12th-man-exists-beyond-kolkata-now


----------



## isaidso

Phriggin' Ogre said:


> isaidso, this thread turned into the thread Ive been wanting to create for years! A multi-sport thread that didn't turn into a troll fest!
> 
> All my attempts ended in miserable failure.
> 
> 
> Hope everyone can keep it up.  I've learned so much about Oz, Canadian, and british sporting culture thanks to this thread.


Been away for a week and just saw your post! 

This was supposed to be a thread about attendance levels, but it turned into a nice civil sports discussion, so I couldn't really ask for anything more. It goes to show that all we need are people who interested in learning and sharing rather than chest thumping, bragging, etc. 

Living next to the States, Canadians are very familiar with sporting culture south of the border, but have to admit to not knowing much about British, Australian, etc. I hope it continues as well. Perhaps we can get some Kiwis, South Africans, and people from non-anglophone countries on here as well.


----------



## fanUltras

South Africa 2010 qualifications 

average attendance (matches)

CONMEBOL 36.963 (91)
AFC 23.136 (143)
UEFA 22.551 (268)
CAF 21.191 (201)
CONCACAF 20.866 (110)
OFC 2.378 (37) 

– average attendance + 10 000 (122 countries!)
source: european-football-statistics.co.uk

average attendance (matches)
1. Mexico 81.599 (9)
2. England 79.754 (5)
3. Australia 74.018 (5)
4. France 64.130 (6)
5. Ireland 59.298 (6)
6. Chile 55.581 (9)
7. Iran 55.429 (7)
8. Brazil 53.335 (9)
9. Japan 53.110 (7)
10. Scotland 48.477 (4)
11. Germany 48.069 (5)
12. Russia 47.117 (6)
13. Senegal 46.667 (3)
14. Netherlands 45.213 (4)
15. Argentina 44.917 (9)
16. Congo-Kinshasa 43.333 (3)
17. Portugal 40.459 (6)
---------------------------------------------
18. Uruguay 39.905 (10)
19. Saudi Arabia 39.750 (8)
20. Korea Republic (south) 39.201 (7)
21. Egypt 38.833 (6)
22. Nigeria 35.833 (6)
23. China 35.500 (4)
24. Ecuador 35.087 (9)
25. Libya 35.000 (3)
.Indonesia 35.000 (1)
27. Denmark 34.040 (5)
28. Mali 33.333 (6)
. Tanzania 33.333 (3)
30. Honduras 33.222 (9)
31. Ivory Coast 33.202 (6)
32. Spain 32.954 (5)
33. Serbia 32.342 (5)
34. Ghana 32.158 (6)
35. Colombia 31.816 (9)
36. Malawi 31.667 (6)
37. Mozambique 30.833 (6)
38. Hungary 30.711 (5)
39. Peru 30.163 (9)
--------------------------------------------
40. Algeria 29.750 (6)
41. Paraguay 29.405 (9)
42. Sweden 29.130 (5)
43. Austria 29.100 (5)
44. Venezuela 29.022 (9)
45. Cameroon 27.734 (6)
46. Kenya 27.417 (6)
47. Italy 27.291 (5)
48. Switzerland 27.125 (5)
49. Belgium 27.000 (5)
50. Korea DPR (north) 26.125 (8)
51. Finland 26.124 (5)
52. Tunisia 26.000 (6)
53. Georgia 25.550 (5)
54. Belize 25.319 (2)
55. Ukraine 25.252 (6)
56. Jamaica 25.000 (4)
57. Croatia 24.957 (5)
58. Guatemala 24.838 (4)
59. Zimbabwe 24.660 (3)
60. Turkey 24.422 (5)
61. Thailad 24.051 (5)
62. Benin 24.033 (6)
63. El Salvador 23.811 (10)
64. Greece 22.874 (6)
65. USA 22.799 (9)
66. Anguilla 22.670 (1)
67. Panama 22.150 (1)
68. Sierra Leone 21.750 (4)
69. Poland 20.941 (5)
70. Israel 20.668 (5)
71. Azerbaijan 20.300 (5)
72. Norway 20.088 (4)
73. Bolivia 20.072 (9)
74. Vietnam 20.000 (1)
-----------------------------------------
75. Uzbekistan 19.983 (8)
76. Bulgaria 19.632 (5)
77. Bahrain 19.310 (10) 
78. Burkina Faso 19.259 (6)
79. Wales 18.727 (5)
80. Syria 18.600 (5)
. Sudan 18.600 (6)
82. Liberia 18.333 (3)
83. Belarus 18.202 (5) 
84. Kyrgyzstan 18.000 (1)
85. Gambia 17.500 (3)
86. Turkmenistan 17.200 (5)
87. Togo 16.820 (5)
88. Rwanda 16.800 (5)
89. Costa Rica 16.540 (10)
90. Gabon 16.333 (6)
. Congo-Brazzaville 16.333 (3)
92. Uganda 15.971 (3)
93. Tajikistan 15.750 (2)
94. South Africa 15.667 (3)
95. Kazakhstan 15.590 (5)
96. Ehtiopia 15.500 (2) 
97. Slovakia 15.469 (5)
98. Canada 15.169 (4)
99. Singapore 15.016 (5)
100. Kuwait 15.000 (3)
------------------------------------------------------
101. Madagascar 14.564 (4)
102. Zambia 14.392 (5)
103. Morocco 14.329 (6)
104. Bosnia-Herzegovina 13.633 (6)
105. Oman 13.125 (4)
106. Northern Ireland 13.092 (5)
107. New Zealand 12.875 (4)
108. Guinea 12.733 (6)
109. Czech Republic 12.061 (5) 
110. Guinea-Bissau 12.000 (1)
. Guyana 12.000 (1) 
112. Romania 11.861 (5) 
113. Trinidad & Tobago 11.698 (9) 
114. Equatorial Guinea 11.567 (3) 
115. Botswana 11.496 (3) 
116. Chad 11.000 (3) 
. Niger 11.000 (3)
118. Albania 10.848 (5) 
119. United Arab Emirates 10.500 (8)
120. Slovenia 10.320 (6)
121. Nepal 10.000 (1)
. India 10.000 (1)


----------



## bigbossman

^^ this is really a meaningless stat, as especially with the big nations (England, Germany, France, Spain etc). It depended on the size of your stadium. Germany took their internationals on a road show rather than staying at the biggest stadium that would've sold out each game, England could've sold more tickets than they did for most games and were restricted by the size as wembley (and a transport strike). Ireland prove everything, when they move to the aviva stadium their average will be below 50,000, but it's clear that they can easily average more. 

for the most part pointless stat


----------



## lpioe

How come some asian countries only have 1 match?


----------



## www.sercan.de

Barca: 82.648
http://european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/current/aveesp.htm

But as far as i know they already played vs Real and Atletico.


----------



## fanUltras

lpioe said:


> How come some asian countries only have 1 match?


I round qualification - only match and rematch. 



bigbossman said:


> ^^ this is really a meaningless stat, as especially with the big nations (England, Germany, France, Spain etc).


This stat shows that football is global and popular.


----------



## bigbossman

^^ I suppose that passes...



www.sercan.de said:


> Barca: 82.648
> http://european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/current/aveesp.htm
> 
> But as far as i know they already played vs Real and Atletico.


they've played espanyol already too, and Villareal 90,000 last night. They've still got Valencia and Sevilla at home, but then again also Xerez, Getafe etc...


----------



## hollow man

Just incase anyone hasnt noticed, Newcastle United FC are averaging 43,000 in the Championship. As well as getting a Championship record of 49,644 against Middlesborough.

I suspect the average gate will creep up too as the season progresses if we remain on course for promotion.


----------



## bigbossman

hollow man said:


> Just incase anyone hasnt noticed, Newcastle United FC are averaging 43,000 in the Championship. As well as getting a Championship record of 49,644 against Middlesborough.
> 
> I suspect the average gate will creep up too as the season progresses if we remain on course for promotion.


eh what the championship is a rebranding of the football league first division which is a re organisation of the football league second division. Newcastle's crowd is nowhere near the record, they've even had higher second tier crowds and averaged higher (than 43,000) in the second tier before. 

Impressive none the less, although I have heard the only reason they are getting such high crowds is because people bought 2-3 year season tickets which they can't renege on.


----------



## hollow man

bigbossman said:


> eh what the championship is a rebranding of the football league first division which is a re organisation of the football league second division. Newcastle's crowd is nowhere near the record, they've even had higher second tier crowds and averaged higher (than 43,000) in the second tier before.
> 
> Impressive none the less, although I have heard the only reason they are getting such high crowds is because people bought 2-3 year season tickets which they can't renege on.


In todays climate, Newcastle's crowds are nothing short of amazing. Suggesting anything other than that is pure nonesense. Complete rubbish about the 3 year tickets btw. Yes some people have them but to say that is the only reason they are getting big crowds is a joke.


----------



## isaidso

*CANADA*


We call it simply by the name 'football', but to those further a field, it would go by the name 'Canadian football', or simply 'gridiron'. These are the average attendance figures for 2009 at the 8 teams in the Canadian Football League. I've added the metro population each team serves as an interesting point of interest as well as stadium capacity. Population figures are for 2006. 










*2009 Average Attendance: 28,464*​

*1. Edmonton Eskimos - 37,164*
Founded - 1895, officially Eskimos since 1949
Metro Edmonton - 1,034,945
Commonwealth Stadium - 60,081 








http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...mmonwealth_Stadium,_Edmonton,_August_2005.jpg

*2. Calgary Stampeders - 36,502*
Founded - 1891, officially Stampeders since 1945
Metro Calgary - 1,079,310
McMahon Stadium - 35,650 (Temporary seats added for 2009 season)








http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/13953253.jpg

*3. Saskatchewan Roughriders - 30,606*
Founded - 1910 as the Regina Rugby Club, officially Roughriders since 1924
Metro Regina - 194,971
Mosaic Stadium - 28,800 (Expanded to 30,945 mid season)








http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_No9RcUMNZ...NE1dZd_M/s400/MosaicStadiumIMG_0898Regina.jpg

*4. BC Lions - 28,610*
Founded - 1954
Metro Vancouver - 2,116,581
BC Place - 59,478 








http://farm1.static.flickr.com/100/296136456_a70bb9d6f0.jpg

*5. Toronto Argonauts - 26,374*
Founded - 1873
Metro Toronto - 5,113,149
Skydome (Rogers Centre) - 52,595








http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1204/1098482959_32c302484b.jpg

*6. Winnipeg Blue Bombers - 25,720*
Founded - 1880 as Winnipeg Football Club, officially Blue Bombers since 1936
Metro Winnipeg - 694,668
Canad Inns Stadium - 29,533 (To be demolished in 2011)








http://welfarewednesdays.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/canad.jpg

*7. Hamilton Tiger Cats - 22,532*
Founded - 1869 as the Hamilton Tigers, officially Tiger Cats since 1950
Metro Hamilton - 692,911
Ivor Wynne Stadium - 28,830








http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2346/1765829561_7bef9ca1dc.jpg?v=0

*8. Montreal Alouettes - 20,202*
Founded - 1872, officially Alouettes in 1946, then again in 1995
Metro Montreal - 3,635,571
Molson Stadium - 20,202 (Being expanded by 5,000 seats for 2010 season)








http://farm1.static.flickr.com/120/266036812_607e19ffe7.jpg?v=0


----------



## GanEden

Walbanger said:


> but it is generally considered that Australian football fans who make up the bulk of indifferent/passive fans prefer Rugby Union, same case in South Australia and Western Australia (who for the last 4 decades have been the best of the "non rugby states) in either code.


Thats because fumbleball fans always see NRL as a threat to AFL whilst union isn't.


----------



## GanEden

Rugby League State of Origin in Brisbane


----------



## GanEden

Euro Super League (Rugby League) Grand Final in Manchester


----------



## GanEden

Rugby League State of Origin in Sydney


----------



## GanEden

Rugby League Challenge Cup Final at Wembley Stadium


----------



## parcdesprinces

GanEden said:


> And thanks to unions bed company with the NAZI's (Vichy) which stole everything from RL during WW2! Bastards!


What do you mean, exactly ?????




------------------------




Anyway, here are some of the attendance figures of the Rugby (union) TOP 14, 2009-2010 (aka the the most followed domestic league in the rugby world :cheers:



parcdesprinces said:


> 2009-2010 (till week 17):
> 
> 
> 
> *Stade Français-Paris; Stade Jean Bouin & Stade de France (average: 33,716):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toulouse; Stade Ernest Wallon & Stadium Municipal (average: 20,368):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toulon; Stade Mayol & Stade Vélodorme in Marseille (average: 18,000):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bayonne; Stade Jean Dauger & Estadio de Anoeta in Donostia/San-Sebastian, Spain (average: 15,201):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clermont-Ferrand; Stade Marcel Michelin (average: 14,501):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perpignan; Stade Aimé Giral (average: 13,680):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biarritz; Stade Aguilera & Estadio de Anoeta in Donostia/San-Sebastian, Spain (average: 12,739):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Montpellier; Stade Yves du Manoir de Montpellier (average: 11,135):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Racing-Métro 92 (formerly Racing-Club de France) ; Stade Olympique Yves du Manoir de Colombes (average: 9,720):*


----------



## isaidso

Excuse me, but does 'Affluence' mean attendance in English?


----------



## parcdesprinces

^^ :yes:

But , I thought you were Ca-na-di-an !!!!! (which means bilingual, just like your nation is) !!!!!

:lol:


----------



## isaidso

parcdesprinces said:


> ^^ :yes:
> 
> But , I thought you were Ca-na-di-an !!!!! (which means bilingual, just like your nation is) !!!!!
> 
> :lol:


Despite 6 years of French and moving to Montréal after university, I still can't speak much French. French Canadians use the word 'attendance' so I should be forgiven. I've never seen 'affluence' ever. :colgate:


----------



## krudmonk

GanEden said:


> No it fecking aint! Catalans Dragons are doing very well thank moron! hno:
> 
> And thanks to unions bed company with the NAZI's (Vichy) which stole everything from RL during WW2! Bastards!


He's an AFL die-hard and a Carlton supporter at that. Pay no mind to his ramblings. 


GanEden said:


> Another yawnion troll upping union figures and spin. Lies.


It may be more popular than league, but the whole "truly global game" propaganda is a real laugh. It similarly ranks behind soccer in pretty much every country. It is considered the national sport of Wales and New Zealand, but soccer outdraws the Welsh regions and now the Canes/Lions are dipping in Wellington while the Phoenix surge. They couldn't even get their 15-man game into the Olympics without creating a league-type parallel so minnow nations could compete.


----------



## MS20

I'm surprised about the rugby union crowds. I thought they were better than that in England and France. 

And Union is a global game. Yes it ranks behind football, but compared to just about every other sport, its a global game. It's more global than cricket that's for sure (although I would imagine less popular purely because of the populations that countries who play cricket have). It has a World Cup with a very decent average - although those averages could be achieved in around 7-10 countries I believe. 

Considering the notable Welsh football teams (Cardiff, Swansea) play in the English Football League, of course they might appear strong. Left in their own league, I suspect football wouldn't be doing much in Wales. Although, if the football national team was any good, I would expect the Welsh supporters to get right behind them as they do with the rugby team. 

I do think that football would be popular in Wales if the national team was any good as I mentioned. That said, that probably won't happen anytime soon, so I suspect rugby to continue being the dominant sport in Wales for some time to come (in fact I doubt it will ever change). 

Cardiff or Swansea getting into the Premier League (particularly Cardiff), and sustaining their place could see popularity of the sport explode I think. I really think Cardiff City's stadium becomes too small in the Premier League. 

As for the Phoenix, well they were riding on a good season with Finals football, plus NZ making the world cup finals. Support for sports doesn't change over night, rugby is heavily entrenched in NZ and it will probably never become 2nd to anything else. 

That said, its the number 1 code in 2 countries whose total population amounts to what? 7 million people? (I'm not counting South Africa because of the black/white divide in sport following). And even as the number 1 code in only 2 countries, it still has a fantastic international scene. Props to rugby. 

It just occurred to me that I forgot basketball! Make that the number 3 team sport worldwide.


----------



## CharlieP

krudmonk said:


> They couldn't even get their 15-man game into the Olympics without creating a league-type parallel so minnow nations could compete.


Sevens was invented in 1883, before rugby league had even been thought of.


----------



## CharlieP

parcdesprinces said:


> Anyway, here are some of the attendance figures of the Rugby (union) TOP 14, 2009-2010 (aka the the most followed domestic league in the rugby world :cheers:


Blimey. Those make the top Guinness Premiership crowds this season look pretty average...

76,716 - Harlequins v London Wasps (Twickenham)
67,684 - Saracens v London Irish & London Wasps v Harlequins (Twickenham)
44,832 - Saracens v Northampton (Wembley)
40,163 - Saracens v Worcester (Wembley)


----------



## parcdesprinces

^^ Et oui !  

Here are the updated Top 14 ones (2009-2010, till round 21) :banana: :

78,254 - Stade Français vs Stade Toulousain (Stade de France)
76,972 - Stade Français vs US Arlequins Perpignanais (Stade de France)
76,879 - Stade Français vs Biarritz Olympique (Stade de France)
69,850 - Stade Français vs Aviron Bayonnais (Stade de France)
55,091 - RC Toulon vs Stade Toulousain (Stade Vélodrome, Marseille)
33,414 - Stade Toulousain vs US Arlequins Perpignanais (Stadium Municipal)
32,176 - Stade Toulousain vs Stade Français (Stadium Municipal)
28,933 - Biarritz Olympique vs Aviron Bayonnais (Estadio Anoeta, Donostia)
24,411 - Aviron Bayonnais vs Stade Français (Estadio Anoeta, Donostia)
24,000 - Stade Toulousain vs ASM Clermont (Stadium Municipal)



More seriously, IMO the Guinness-Premiership and the Top 14-Orange are quite close and comparable in term of average attendances.

As far I know last season (2008-2009), they were :

*TOP 14: 12,736* per match
*Premiership: 11,809* per match

And, in 2007-2008 they were:

*Premiership: 11,662* per match
*TOP 14: 10,575* per match


----------



## krudmonk

CharlieP said:


> Sevens was invented in 1883, before rugby league had even been thought of.


Rugby league was never "thought of" as a potential game, it merely branched off for reasons unrelated to the rules of play. Rugby was all the same back then.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

Wasn't the first game of Rugby League played in 1845 or am I thinking of something else?


Anyway, Rugby League Attendances (Top 6 - 2009)

Brisbane - 34,587
Bulldogs - 22,608
GC Titans - 19,178
West Tigers - 17,943
NQLD Cowboys - 17,309
Newcastle - 15,882


----------



## spiralout

^^nrl attendance is absolutely pissy compared to afl. All of those are worse then the worst attendance teams in the afl (excluding brisbane)


----------



## spiralout

^^The last figure is average attendance. A-L=soccer, S14= rugby super league 
.
Team Code Games Crowd Average 


.
Collingwood Magpies AFL 11 603,881 *54,898 *
.
Essendon Bombers AFL 11 575,232 52,294 
.
Adelaide Crows AFL 11 461,910 41,992 
.
Carlton Blues AFL 11 457,418 41,583 
.
West Coast Eagles AFL 11 448,703 40,791 
.
Richmond Tigers AFL 11 421,207 38,292 
.
St Kilda Saints AFL 11 417,135 37,921 
.
Fremantle Dockers AFL 11 412,213 37,474 
.
Sydney Swans AFL 11 391,953 35,632 
.
Brisbane Broncos NRL 13 442,101 *34,008 *
.
Hawthorn Hawks AFL 11 369,052 33,550 
.
Geelong Cats AFL 11 347,016 31,547 
.
Melbourne Demons AFL 11 324,903 29,537 
.
Brisbane Lions AFL 11 317,325 28,848 
.
Western Bulldogs AFL 11 316,551 28,777 
.
Kangaroos AFL 11 311,210 28,292 
.
Port Adelaide Power AFL 11 306,572 27,870 
.
Western Force S14 5 137,775 27,555 
.
Melbourne Victory A-L 10 260,682 26,068 
.
Gold Coast Titans NRL 9 204,971 22,775 


.
NSW Waratahs S14 6 136,450 22,742 
.
North Qld Cowboys NRL 11 217,212 19,747 
.
Queensland Reds S14 6 108,608 18,101 
.
Brumbies S14 6 106,883 17,814 
.
Wests Tigers NRL 10 170,978 17,098 
.
Queensland Roar A-L 11 186,622 16,966 
.
Canterbury Bulldogs NRL 12 197,852 16,488 
.
Sydney FC A-L 11 180,127 16,375 
.
Newcastle Knights NRL 12 190,563 15,880 
.
South Syd Rabbitohs NRL 12 188,448 15,704 
.
Sydney FC Asia A-L 3 45,871 15,290 
.
Manly Sea Eagles NRL 10 145,265 14,527 
.
Parramatta Eels NRL 11 152,594 13,872 
.
Newcastle Jets A-L 11 145,298 13,209 
.
CC Mariners A-L 10 127,383 12,738 
.
Adelaide United A-L 10 126,966 12,697 
.
N Z Warriors NRL 12 149,314 12,443 
.
St George Dragons NRL 12 145,908 12,159 
.
Sydney Roosters NRL 11 132,157 12,014 
.
Penrith Panthers NRL 11 129,946 11,813 


.
Melbourne Storm NRL 11 128,757 11,705 
.
Wellington nix A-L 10 116,831 11,683 
.
Canberra Raiders NRL 11 126,704 11,519 
.
Cronulla Sharks NRL 12 137,657 11,471 
.
Perth Glory A-L 11 83,577 7,598 
.
Perth Spirit ARC 4 15,583 3,896 
.
Canberra Vikings ARC 4 14,768 3,692 
.
Melbourne Rebels ARC 3 9,914 3,305 
.
Sydney Fleet ARC 4 10,630 2,658 
.
Ballymore Tornadoes ARC 2 4,867 2,434 
.
Central Coast Rays ARC 4 9,293 2,323 
.
Western Syd Rams ARC 4 7,368 1,842 
.
East Coast Aces ARC 3 4,284 1,428 
.

.
*Summary Games Total Average *
.
AFL 176 6,482,281 *36,831 * total attendance for season = *6,482,281 *
.
S14 23 489,716 *21,292 *. total attendance for season = *489,716 *
NRL 170 2,689,449 *15,820 * total attendace for season = *2,689,449 *
.
A-L 84 1,227,486 *14,613 *. total attendance for season = *1,227,486 * 
ARC 28 76,707 2,740


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

Yeah but I don't think people give a **** who or which team gets the highest attendances. I like the sport but rarely go to any games - doesn't bother me if my favourite code has low attendances. Still sells out at grand final time. 

Anyway, that's almost as stupid as the "Adelaide draws 'x' amount of people to its motor sport events, Melbourne should pull 4x as much as it's 4x as big'. Who really cares? 

AFL is still Australia's premier code of football, but why they (and you) feel the need to slag off at NRL is juvenile.


----------



## spiralout

i wasn't giving nrl shit i was pointing out a mere fact. If i wanted to give rugby shit i'd mention this 



 or the fact that those who play it are absolute morons who are constantly getting in trouble with sexual assault and the like. laugh at the jealous british media saying we're obsessed with winning too


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

Because it's isolated to NRL :|


----------



## spiralout

^^yeah sticking fingers in peoples arses is isolated to nrl...absolutely


----------



## MS20

I think Australia is the only country that has arguments betwee codes about attendances. How often do you see Brits or Americans arguing about it? Almost never. I live in an AFL city, and consequently follow the AFL more than the NRL (in fact, its quite difficult to follow NRL here with Channel 9's non-coverage). That said, I think both sides are insular - when they talk about codes as going into "war" it makes me cringe. 

Nonetheless, it is a very unique situation to have a country that is as divided by its borders as it is by its sporting choice. 

There is no such thing as a better code, its all subjective, although I'll admit I do like to get into an exchange over the merits of each sport, even though I know that the person I'm arguging with feels the same way about their sport of choice as I do about mine (which is a concept thats sometimes hard to grasp!)


----------



## skaP187

spiralout said:


> ^^yeah sticking fingers in peoples arses is isolated to nrl...absolutely


What do you know about it then,... mate?hno:


----------



## Walbanger

> I think Australia is the only country that has arguments betwee codes about attendances. How often do you see Brits or Americans arguing about it? Almost never. I live in an AFL city, and consequently follow the AFL more than the NRL (in fact, its quite difficult to follow NRL here with Channel 9's non-coverage). That said, I think both sides are insular - when they talk about codes as going into "war" it makes me cringe.


Obviously there is more baiting between the codes than just attendances but I've generally considered the pettiness as just an extension of the NSW vs Victoria / Sydney vs Melbourne rivalry the rest of Australia has to listen to. Perth seems to have more room for the less dominant codes even though Australian Rules is king here.


----------



## MS20

Walbanger said:


> Obviously there is more baiting between the codes than just attendances but I've generally considered the pettiness as just an extension of the NSW vs Victoria / Sydney vs Melbourne rivalry the rest of Australia has to listen to. Perth seems to have more room for the less dominant codes even though Australian Rules is king here.


Good point. Adelaide and Brisbane are also quite supportive of their sporting teams as well.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

This year's season saw an 800 person overall drop... it was an overall "down" year, though.


----------



## Walbanger

^ That is awesome.


----------



## spiralout

skaP187 said:


> What do you know about it then,... mate?hno:


**** there are some delicate doilies in this forum:lol: Have never seen that happen in any other code is all


----------



## isaidso

Walbanger said:


> ^ That is awesome.


Agree. College football in the United States draws larger crowds than any other sport in the world. It's quite amazing. By comparison, the highest average attendance in Canada for college football is at Université Laval. They drew 14,509/game last season which is comparable to FCS in the United States, but nowhere close to FBS.


----------



## KingmanIII

isaidso said:


> Agree. College football in the United States draws larger crowds than any other sport in the world. It's quite amazing. By comparison, the highest average attendance in Canada for college football is at Université Laval. They drew 14,509/game last season which is comparable to FCS in the United States, but nowhere close to FBS.


Well...it's almost exclusively the top BCS-conference schools that draw that well. There are a few non-BCS schools that do well, such as BYU, Utah, ECU, BSU, etc., but they're few and far between. TCU struggled to even average 38k on their march to the BCS this season.

Many MAC, WAC, Sun Belt, CUSA and even some MWC schools struggle draw above 20k.


----------



## isaidso

KingmanIII said:


> Well...it's almost exclusively the top BCS-conference schools that draw that well. There are a few non-BCS schools that do well, such as BYU, Utah, ECU, BSU, etc., but they're few and far between. TCU struggled to even average 38k on their march to the BCS this season.
> 
> Many MAC, WAC, Sun Belt, CUSA and even some MWC schools struggle draw above 20k.


Canada would kill just to have 1 school that drew over 30,000. 38,000 would be considered a monster success in this country. I suppose you have 9 times Canada's population, so it's to be expected that attendances would naturally be many times higher, but still.

I'm obsessed with college football, but most people around here can't see past hockey and soccer. I get impressed when more than 5,000 people bother to show up. The University of Toronto drew crowds 5 times larger back in the 50s. Since then, interest in football has dropped off a cliff.


----------



## krudmonk

I wish more people in the US watched hockey and soccer over student sport/pageantry. The grass is always greener, eh?


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

people get surprised when they find out that its not merely "student sport"... you have the best of the best highschool players fighting to get a bid in college... and only the best of the best make it to the elite conferences... and only the best of the best make it pro.

Many college football teams have trully world class athletes, yet are simply shrugged off by the world simply because they're "students". I can understand this ignorance though, but I do think people would be surprised by the very high caliber talent found.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre




----------



## Faustus

Has anyone ever considered the lowest average attendance for a professional football team?

Thames AFC apparently averaged 2,469 supporters in a stadium with a ludicrous 120,000 capacity in the 1930s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Ham_Stadium

This season Darlington have averaged 1,898 in their brand spanking new stadium; an occupancy rate of around 7.5%.

I also remember watching London Crusaders rugby league club with a few hundred hardy souls at a north london athletics stadium in the 90s.

One problem is defining exactly what is meant by professional, which for me means all players being full time, but could also include part timers. And some would want to include rugby union players being "helped" with careers during the amateur era.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

KingmanIII said:


> Well...it's almost exclusively the top BCS-conference schools that draw that well. There are a few non-BCS schools that do well, such as BYU, Utah, ECU, BSU, etc., but they're few and far between. TCU struggled to even average 38k on their march to the BCS this season.
> 
> Many MAC, WAC, Sun Belt, CUSA and even some MWC schools struggle draw above 20k.


but keep in mind that those smaller conferences/teams usually consist of very small schools and/or are in small metros/rural areas, and in many cases are competing with other schools/professional sports in the area. TCU, for example has to compete with 4 pro teams and 3 other division 1 schools. Not to mention that even highschool football in texas can draw tens of thousands of fans.


----------



## KingmanIII

isaidso said:


> Canada would kill just to have 1 school that drew over 30,000. 38,000 would be considered a monster success in this country. I suppose you have 9 times Canada's population, so it's to be expected that attendances would naturally be many times higher, but still.
> 
> I'm obsessed with college football, but most people around here can't see past hockey and soccer. I get impressed when more than 5,000 people bother to show up. The University of Toronto drew crowds 5 times larger back in the 50s. Since then, interest in football has dropped off a cliff.


One part of the equation is population, but another is the college culture that is unique to the U.S.. Many students and alumni forge a longsuffering bond with their university and their sports programs. Boosters often make generous contributions towards their alma mater's academic and athletic funds.

Take, for example, the donations made by Oklahoma State alum and oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens. He basically turned this:










into this:










...among many other contributions, such as an indoor practice facility, possibly a new baseball stadium, etc..

Not to be outdone, of course, is Nike co-founder and Oregon alumnus Phil Knight:


----------



## isaidso

KingmanIII said:


> One part of the equation is population, but another is the college culture that is unique to the U.S.. Many students and alumni forge a longsuffering bond with their university and their sports programs. Boosters often make generous contributions towards their alma mater's academic and athletic funds.


I'm not convinced that college culture is that different. US schools are far more sports oriented, but the major difference is in how Americans and Canadians view collegiate sports. 

In Canada, college sports are still regarded as elitist and is treated as a 'closed club'. It only exists for those enrolled at the school. It's a slight exaggeration of reality, but sums things up quite accurately. You rarely get people beyond the student body attending games and collegiate athletics hasn't infiltrated the greater culture. It's strictly an on campus phenomena. 

In the United States, people beyond the walls of the ivory tower are involved and support these teams. Collegiate sports have become entertainment for the masses. That's why you get 90,000 people to a game when there are only 12,000 students at each of the schools. It's also why collegiate sports in the United States are televised. These things just don't happen in Canada although it's slowly changing as it becomes more mainstream.

None of those US college stadia would look the way they do if it were just students at these schools attending games when they have time to do so between studying. Oklahoma State's stadium would only only have about 10,000 seats if it was an on campus, elitist, sport like it is in Canada. Besides population, that's what's different between Canadian and US collegiate sports, not college campus culture.


----------



## CharlieP

As far as I can tell, these were the highest attendances in European club rugby in 2009:

82,208 - Munster v Leinster, Croke Park, 2 May - Heineken Cup Semi-Final
81,601 - Leicester v London Irish, Twickenham, 16 May - Guinness Premiership Final
79,842 - Stade Francais v Clermont Auvergne, Stade de France, 4 Apr - Top 14
79,205 - Perpignan v Clermont Auvergne, Stade de France, 6 Jun - Top 14 Final
79,122 - Stade Francais v Perpignan, Stade de France, 31 Jan - Top 14
76,972 - Stade Francais v Perpignan, Stade de France, 24 Oct - Top 14
76,716 - Harlequins v London Wasps, Twickenham, 27 Dec - Guinness Premiership
76,560 - Huddersfield Giants v Warrington Wolves, 29 Aug, Carnegie Challenge Cup Final
69,850 - Stade Francais v Bayonne, Stade de France, 5 Dec - Top 14
67,684 - Saracens v London Irish, London Wasps v Harlequins, Twickenham, 5 Sep - Guinness Premiership
66,523 - Leicester Tigers v Leinster, Murrayfield, 23 May - Heineken Cup Final
63,259 - Leeds Rhinos v St Helens, Old Trafford, 10 Oct, Super League Grand Final
55,091 - Toulon v Toulouse, Stade Velodrome, 20 Sep - Top 14
54,899 - Gloucester v Cardiff Blues, Twickenham, 18 Apr - EDF Energy Cup Final
44,832 - Saracens v Northampton, Wembley Stadium, 12 Sep - Guinness Premiership
44,212 - Cardiff Blues v Leicester Tigers, Millennium Stadium, 3 May - Heineken Cup Semi-Final
40,377 - Perpignan v Stade Francais, Stade Anoeta, 30 May - Top 14 Semi-Final
36,728 - Cardiff Blues v Toulouse, Millennium Stadium, 11 Apr - Heineken Cup Quarter-Final
34,993- Toulouse v Stade Francais, Stade Municipal, 29 Mar - Top 14
34,932 - Toulouse v Clermont Auvergne, Stade Municipal, 22 Feb - Top 14
33,282 - London Wasps v Leinster, Twickenham, 17 Jan - Heineken Cup
32,824 - Toulouse v Clermont Auvergne, Stade Municipal, 29 May - Top 14 Semi-Final
32,176 - Toulouse v Stade Francais, Stade Municipal, 26 Sep - Top 14
30,530 - Toulouse v Cardiff Blues, Stade Municipal, 19 Dec - Heineken Cup
30,122 - Hull FC v Castleford Tigers, Catalans Dragons v Leeds Rhinos, Warrington Wolves v Hull KR, Murrayfield, 3 May - Super League


----------



## parcdesprinces

^^ GREAT list ! :cheers:

But: you didn't add the updated-numbers from my last list (post #476) 

If you don't trust the numbers I gave , here is my source: lnr.fr/statistiques  (French Rugby Union, official website)


----------



## CharlieP

parcdesprinces said:


> ^^ GREAT list ! :cheers:
> 
> But: you didn't add the updated-numbers from my last list (post #476)


That's because they're from 2010, not 2009. 



> If you don't trust the numbers I gave , here is my source: lnr.fr/statistiques  (French Rugby Union, official website)


Thanks for the link - that's really useful. I will probably create a new list when the 2009/10 season is finished (with hopefully three 80,000+ crowds coming in the next five weeks).


----------



## CharlieP

PS I've just updated my list with two important changes - firstly I forgot about the 2009 EDF Energy Cup Final at Twickenham (54,899), and secondly the list obviously only includes *club* matches - if I included internationals there would be at least another 30 to add, half of them over the 80,000 mark.


----------



## CharlieP

Guinness Premiership 2009/10:

Saracens: 23,910
Leicester: 22,463
Wasps: 18,616
Harlequins: 17,336
London Irish: 13,394
Northampton: 13,122
Gloucester: 12,586
Bath: 11,656
Worcester: 10,540
Sale: 7,609
Newcastle: 6,087
Leeds: 6,046

Regular season average: *13,614*


----------



## Pimpmaster

average NRL (rugby league in australia) attendances this season up unto round 10 (out of 26 rounds) - 17731

http://www.stats.rleague.com/rl/crowds/summary.html


----------



## Patrick

German Bundesliga 09/10:



Code:


Borussia Dortmund    77246
Bayern München       69000
FC Schalke           61316
Hamburger SV         55242
1. FC Köln           48059
Eintracht Frankfurt  47171
Hertha BSC           46681
Bor. M'gladbach      46411
1. FC Nürnberg       42336
VfB Stuttgart        41065
Hannover 96          38247
Werder Bremen        36015
TSG Hoffenheim       29688
Bayer Leverkusen     29307
VfL Wolfsburg        29232
VfL Bochum           24816
SC Freiburg          22900
FSV Mainz 05         20085

2. Bundesliga


Code:


1. FC Kaiserslautern 35398
Fortuna Düsseldorf   28007
TSV 1860 München     22515
Alemannia Aachen     22251
FC St. Pauli         20870
FC Augsburg          18309
Karlsruher SC        17983
Arminia Bielefeld    14782
Union Berlin         14147
MSV Duisburg         14070
Hansa Rostock        13953
Energie Cottbus      10786
SC Paderborn          8319
TuS Koblenz           7784
Rot-Weiß Oberhausen   6820
SpVgg Fürth           6604
FSV Frankfurt         5083
Rot Weiss Ahlen       4359

3. Liga


Code:


Dynamo Dresden       14440
Eintr. Braunschweig  12782
VfL Osnabrück        10436
Erzgebirge Aue        8937
Carl Zeiss Jena       7343
Kickers Offenbach     7048
Rot-Weiß Erfurt       5534
FC Heidenheim         5206
Holstein Kiel         3850
Jahn Regensburg       3700
Wehen Wiesbaden       3691
FC Ingolstadt         3520
Wuppertaler SV        3148
Wacker Burghausen     3103
SpVgg Unterhaching    2645
SV Sandhausen         2298
BVB Dortmund II       1826
FCB München II        1272
SVW Bremen II          973
VfB Stuttgart II       774

Regionalliga


Code:


Rot-Weiss Essen       5989    W
1. FC Magdeburg       5437  N
1. FC Saarbrücken     4734    W
Waldhof Mannheim      3507    W
Preußen Münster       3359    W
Hessen Kassel         3194   S
Chemnitzer FC         3016  N
VfR Aalen             3004   S
Hallescher FC         2795  N
Eintracht Trier       2510    W
VfB Lübeck            2392  N
Stuttgarter Kickers   2235   S
SV Darmstadt          2140   S
SSV Reutlingen        1721   S
SSV Ulm               1568   S
Wormatia Worms        1476    W
SV Babelsberg         1411  N
Sportfreunde Lotte    1343    W
SpVgg Weiden          1266   S
ZFC Meuselwitz        1227  N
VFC Plauen            1093  N
Bonner SC             1022    W
Eintracht Bamberg      850   S
SV Elversberg          798    W
SC Pfullendorf         637   S
TeBe Berlin            630  N
Bayern Alzenau         529   S
SV Wilhelmshaven       519  N
Sonnenhof Großaspach   515   S
SC Verl                509    W
Goslarer SC            360  N
Türkiyemspor Berlin    273  N
FC Oberneuland         247  N

(N=Northern Division, S=Southern Division, W=Western Division)


----------



## magic_johnson

After 7 rounds and 56 games of AFL in 2010, they are averaging 39,529 per match.

These are the crowds so far above 50,000:

90070	Collingwood v Essendon	M.C.G. 
80645	Carlton v Collingwood	M.C.G. 
72010	Richmond v Carlton	M.C.G. 
71399	Carlton v Geelong M.C.G.
71006	Carlton v Essendon	M.C.G. 
68628	Hawthorn v Geelong	M.C.G. 
67668	Collingwood v Hawthorn	M.C.G. 
61006	Essendon v Hawthorn	M.C.G. 
57772	Geelong v Essendon	M.C.G. 
52696	Collingwood v North Melbourne	M.C.G. 
50421	Collingwood v Melbourne	M.C.G.


----------



## isaidso

KingmanIII said:


> Wow, not even the Ti-Cats?
> 
> Behind SSK, I always thought they were the most hardcore fans in the CFL.
> 
> I guess their recent run of futility must've started to manifest itself at the box office.


Unlike almost every other part of Canada and the United States, football isn't big in Ontario. In this part of Canada, support for football fell off a cliff about 30 years ago. Ontario is probably the toughest football market north of Mexico. It's a shame considering that the Toronto Argonauts and Hamilton Tiger-Cats are the 2 oldest professional football teams in America.

The Toronto Argonauts manage to pull in around 30,000 only due to the fact that they have 6,000,000 people to draw from. The Hamilton Tiger-Cats, the other Ontario city with a pro team, aren't so lucky having only 700,000 in the metropolitan area. They pull in about 23,000/game. It compares favourably to Toronto considering how much smaller Hamilton is. 

Saskatchewan represents the football heartland. Unfortunately, it's the least populous region of the country. People in Saskatchewan have football in the blood, or as they say in 'Rider Nation': WE BLEED GREEN. They sell out their 31,000 stadium on a regular basis. It's all the more impressive when you consider there are only 200,000 people in Regina. 

I bet if they go ahead with their new stadium (38,000 expandable to 50,000), they'll have no problem selling it out at 38,000. Rooting on the Riders is just what you do out there. Football is basically a big deal everywhere, but Ontario. Selling football in Toronto is like trying to sell ice hockey in Arizona.


----------



## Quintana

Average attendance for the Dutch Eredivisie in the 2009/2010 season:



Code:


No.	Club	        Average	Games	vs '09	Highest
1	Ajax Amsterdam	48,734	17	-0,6%	51,677
2	Feyenoord	44,000	17	0,0%	47,500
3	PSV	        33,606	17	1,2%	34,500
4	SC Heerenveen	25,691	17	0,3%	26,100
5	FC Twente 	23,641	17	1,5%	24,000
6	FC Groningen	21,825	17	-0,2%	22,440
7	FC Utrecht	21,103	17	2,4%	23,500
8	Vitesse	        16,985	17	-5,3%	21,850
9	NAC Breda	16,567	17	-1,0%	17,750
10	AZ Alkmaar	16,503	17	0,4%	17,250
11	Roda JC	        14,786	17	2,0%	17,500
12	Willem II 	12,821	17	-3,3%	14,500
13	NEC Nijmegen	12,371	17	0,5%	12.500
14	ADO Den Haag	11,746	17	7,2%	14,390
15	Sparta R'dam	10,216	17	-2,0%	10,894
16	Heracles Almelo	8,460	17	0,0%	8,500
17	VVV Venlo	7,465	17	23,7%	7,500
18	RKC Waalwijk	6,422	17	62,6%	7,500
	
        Total	        19.608	 	-0,9%	51,677

A slight decrease compared to the 2008/2009 season due to a decrease of total stadium capacity. RKC Waalwijk has relegated and will be replaced by De Graafschap (1st division average of just over 10,000). If Willem II (against Go Ahead Eagles) and Sparta Rotterdam (against Excelsior Rotterdam) manage to avoid relegation in the play-off's we should see an increase next year.


----------



## Red85

Quintana said:


> Average attendance for the Dutch Eredivisie in the 2009/2010 season:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> No.	Club	        Average	Games	vs '09	Highest
> 1	Ajax Amsterdam	48,734	17	-0,6%	51,677
> 2	Feyenoord	44,000	17	0,0%	47,500
> 3	PSV	        33,606	17	1,2%	34,500
> 4	SC Heerenveen	25,691	17	0,3%	26,100
> 5	FC Twente 	23,641	17	1,5%	24,000
> 6	FC Groningen	21,825	17	-0,2%	22,440
> 7	FC Utrecht	21,103	17	2,4%	23,500
> 8	Vitesse	        16,985	17	-5,3%	21,850
> 9	NAC Breda	16,567	17	-1,0%	17,750
> 10	AZ Alkmaar	16,503	17	0,4%	17,250
> 11	Roda JC	        14,786	17	2,0%	17,500
> 12	Willem II 	12,821	17	-3,3%	14,500
> 13	NEC Nijmegen	12,371	17	0,5%	12.500
> 14	ADO Den Haag	11,746	17	7,2%	14,390
> 15	Sparta R'dam	10,216	17	-2,0%	10,894
> 16	Heracles Almelo	8,460	17	0,0%	8,500
> 17	VVV Venlo	7,465	17	23,7%	7,500
> 18	RKC Waalwijk	6,422	17	62,6%	7,500
> 
> Total	        19.608	 	-0,9%	51,677
> 
> A slight decrease compared to the 2008/2009 season due to a decrease of total stadium capacity. RKC Waalwijk has relegated and will be replaced by De Graafschap (1st division average of just over 10,000). If Willem II (against Go Ahead Eagles) and Sparta Rotterdam (against Excelsior Rotterdam) manage to avoid relegation in the play-off's we should see an increase next year.


NAC is building its ditch full of seats this summer increasing cap with 1.500 or so. 
Ajax maybe does the same, not realy sure about that.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

magic_johnson said:


> After 7 rounds and 56 games of AFL in 2010, they are averaging 39,529 per match.
> 
> These are the crowds so far above 50,000:
> 
> 90070	Collingwood v Essendon	M.C.G.
> 80645	Carlton v Collingwood	M.C.G.
> 72010	Richmond v Carlton	M.C.G.
> 71399	Carlton v Geelong M.C.G.
> 71006	Carlton v Essendon	M.C.G.
> 68628	Hawthorn v Geelong	M.C.G.
> 67668	Collingwood v Hawthorn	M.C.G.
> 61006	Essendon v Hawthorn	M.C.G.
> 57772	Geelong v Essendon	M.C.G.
> 52696	Collingwood v North Melbourne	M.C.G.
> 50421	Collingwood v Melbourne	M.C.G.


They're good attendances. You can see why the AFL has 3rd highest average attendances.


----------



## CharlieP

*English attendances 2009/10:*

Barclays Premiership (soccer) - average 34,142
Coca-Cola Championship (soccer) - average 17,952
Guinness Premiership (rugby union) - average 13,614
Engage Super League (rugby league) - average 9,336 (2009 season)
Coca-Cola League One (soccer) - average 9,142
Coca-Cola League Two (soccer) - average 3,854
Blue Square Premier (soccer) - average 2,080

74,864 - Manchester United
59,927 - Arsenal
45,342 - Manchester City
43,388 - Newcastle United
42,864 - Liverpool
41,423 - Chelsea
40,355 - Sunderland
38,573 - Aston Villa
36,725 - Everton
35,794 - Tottenham Hotspur
33,683 - West Ham United
29,207 - Derby County
28,366 - Wolverhampton Wanderers
27,162 - Stoke City
25,428 - Blackburn Rovers
25,246 - Birmingham City
25,120 - Sheffield United
24,818 - Leeds United
24,758 - Norwich City
24,390 - Hull City
23,910 - Saracens
23,943 - Leicester City
23,909 - Fulham
23,831 - Nottingham Forest
23,179 - Sheffield Wednesday
22,463 - Leicester Tigers
22,199 - West Bromwich Albion
21,881 - Bolton Wanderers
20,982 - Southampton
20,841 - Ipswich Town
20,717 - Cardiff City
20,654 - Burnley
19,948 - Middlesbrough
18,616 - London Wasps
18,249 - Portsmouth
18,006 - Wigan Athletic
17,606 - Charlton Athletic
17,408 - Reading
17,336 - Harlequins
17,295 - Coventry City
15,407 - Swansea City
15,312 - Leeds Rhinos
14,945 - Crystal Palace
14,592 - Bristol City
14,381 - Huddersfield Town
14,345 - Watford
13,695 - Wigan Warriors
13,394 - London Irish
13,349 - Queens Park Rangers
13,226 - Hull FC
13,122 - Northampton Saints
12,964 - Barnsley
12,874 - Preston North End
12,586 - Gloucester Rugby
11,656 - Bath Rugby
11,423 - Bradford City
11,027 - St Helens
10,992 - Doncaster Rovers
10,835 - Millwall
10,540 - Worcester Warriors
10,316 - Plymouth Argyle
10,290 - Milton Keynes Dons
9,677 - Bradford Bulls
9,228 - Warrington Wolves
9,104 - Catalans Dragons
8,913 - Peterborough United
8,611 - Blackpool
8,501 - Hull Kingston Rovers
8,389 - Swindon Town
7,718 - Southend United
7,641 - Huddersfield Giants
7,609 - Sale Sharks
7,490 - Castleford Tigers
7,353 - Notts County
6,976 - Luton Town
6,891 - Bristol Rovers
6,467 - Brighton and Hove Albion
6,464 - Scunthorpe United
6,335 - Gillingham
6,087 - Newcastle Falcons
6,046 - Leeds Carnegie
6,018 - Brentford
6,004 - Oxford United
5,891 - Wakefield Trinity Wildcats
5,832 - Exeter City
5,720 - AFC Bournemouth
5,671 - Tranmere Rovers
5,544 - Wycombe Wanderers
5,530 - Colchester United
5,482 - Shrewsbury Town
5,210 - Carlisle United
5,080 - Port Vale

(minimum 5,000)


----------



## fanUltras

Switzerland 2009/10

1 FC Basel 23.656 
2 BSC Young Boys 1898 Bern 22.653 
3 FC 1879 Sankt Gallen 14.083 
4 FC Sion 10.761 
5 FC Zürich 10.700 
6 FC Luzern 7.551 
7 Grasshopper Club Zürich 6.778 
8 FC Aarau 5.842 
9 Neuchâtel Xamax FC 5.270 
10 AC Bellinzona 3.298 

Total 11.059 (+ 23,3%)


----------



## MattXG

NFL 2009:

Team -Average Attendance

1 Dallas - 89,756	
2. Washington - 84,794
3. NY Giants - 78,701
4 NY Jets -77,052	
5. Denver - 75,116
6. Carolina -73,289
7. Baltimore -71,082
8. Green Bay - 70,708
9. Houston - 70,608
10. Buffalo - 70,128
11. New Orleans - 70,105
12. San Francisco - 69,732
13. Philadelphia - 69,144
14. Tennessee - 69,143	
15. Cleveland - 68,888
16. New England - 68,756
17. Atlanta - 68,173
18. San Diego -	67,543
19. Miami - 67,542
20. Kansas City - 67,514
21. Seattle - 67,392
22. Indianapolis - 66,549
23. Cincinnati - 64,004
24. Minnesota - 63,775
25. Pittsburgh - 63,485
26. Arizona - 63,142
27. Tampa Bay - 62,991
28. Chicago - 62,250
29. St. Louis - 55,237	
30. Jacksonville -49,651
31. Detroit - 49,395
32. Oakland - 44,284


----------



## al74

Primera Division - Uruguay

Considering most teams play in Montevideo (pop. 1.500.000 hab) the average could be considered de highest in relative numbers.

Average in Bundesliga - Germany 42.565 - population 82.6 million hab.
Average in Primera Division - Uruguay 4.165 - population 3.3 million hab


----------



## al74

:cheersrimera Division - Uruguay

Considering most teams play in Montevideo (pop. 1.500.000 hab) the average could be considered de highest in relative numbers.

Average in Bundesliga - Germany 42.565 - population 82.6 million hab.
Average in Primera Division - Uruguay 4.165 - population 3.3 million hab


----------



## gho

How are some of those rugby union figures higher than the stadium size?


----------



## CharlieP

gho said:


> How are some of those rugby union figures higher than the stadium size?


They weren't all at the same stadium - Saracens played three home games at Wembley and one at Twickenham, Wasps played two at Twickenham and Harlequins played one there.


----------



## Homer182

Faustus said:


> Has anyone ever considered the lowest average attendance for a professional football team?
> 
> Thames AFC apparently averaged 2,469 supporters in a stadium with a ludicrous 120,000 capacity in the 1930s.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Ham_Stadium
> 
> This season Darlington have averaged 1,898 in their brand spanking new stadium; an occupancy rate of around 7.5%.
> 
> I also remember watching London Crusaders rugby league club with a few hundred hardy souls at a north london athletics stadium in the 90s.
> 
> One problem is defining exactly what is meant by professional, which for me means all players being full time, but could also include part timers. And some would want to include rugby union players being "helped" with careers during the amateur era.
> 
> Any thoughts?


Although an amateur outfit, Scottish club Queens Park may be worth a mention here. This season they averaged 542 in Division 3 (level 4) of the Scottish League at their home and Scotland's national stadium Hampden Park, capacity 52,103. That's just a fraction above 1%!

The club were also famously getting ridiculously low attendances at Hampden prior to its rebuild / conversion to all-seater, when its record attendance stood at 149,415.


----------



## RaiderATO

bd popeye said:


> Middle Tenn. St. 56, Austin Peay 33
> Johnny "Red" Floyd Stadium/Jones Field, Murfreesboro TN - Attendance: 16,806


That was a pitiful showing, especially since we had ~26,000 for the game last week.


----------



## Walbanger

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> If that isn't an enormous stab at Sydney, I don't know what is.


And a slap in the face to the rest of the country, the non Victorian teams do pretty well in the attendance bracket but we know a Victorian will never pass up the opportunity for some self gratification 

With the likes of Demetriou in charge, one is just waiting for the feudian slip of "V"FL rather than AFL.


----------



## bd popeye

RaiderATO said:


> That was a pitiful showing, especially since we had ~26,000 for the game last week.


Being a nerd I follow these things. I was very surprised to see that attendance..Should have been in the 22,000-sellout range. Maybe it will pick up in the next home game.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

kichigai said:


> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-crowds-amongst-worlds-biggest/story-e6frf9jf-1225917669419
> 
> AFL crowds amongst world's biggest
> 
> THE AFL has thumped the NRL in popularity as an international survey declared it one of the best crowd-pulling codes in the world.
> 
> Victoria's beloved game even beat England's Premier League, with a top average crowd of 37,790 at every match.
> 
> The Australian Football League was third only to the Bundesliga, Germany's national soccer league, and the US National Football League.
> 
> Social demographer Bernard Salt said the introduction of football in Victoria was as significant as the discovery of gold.
> 
> "Sydney would argue that the reason for the big footy crowds is because there is nothing to do in Melbourne but we have had a culture of attending public events in large numbers for hundreds of years," Mr Salt said.
> 
> "It's also very tribal, a social lubricant and safe topic for discussion between anybody in Melbourne. You don't get that in any other Australian city.
> 
> "It's galvanising, and these figures reflect that reality."
> 
> AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou credited the stars of the game for the accolade.
> 
> The Sporting Intelligence survey mapped the global attendances of the most popular sports leagues by average crowd and most recent season.
> 
> The NFL topped the table with an average live audience of 67,509 people.


How is this possible when the average attendance for NCAA Division I FBS was 46,280 for its 120 teams?


----------



## lpioe

^^ Their source is probably Wikipedia, where professional and amateur leagues have an own list. But even then it would be 4th because the Indian Premier League is 2nd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attendance_figures_at_domestic_professional_sports_leagues


----------



## RaiderATO

bd popeye said:


> Being a nerd I follow these things. I was very surprised to see that attendance..Should have been in the 22,000-sellout range. Maybe it will pick up in the next home game.


Never had a sellout since expansion in 1998. Weather, not having our impact player, losing a close one the week before, and UT kicking off against a ranked opponent at the same time killed us.

One day we'll be at a place where none of that will matter. . . Just not there yet.


----------



## bd popeye

^^ Fret not.. There's plenty of Football talent in the south so that some day there will be a need to expand your stadium. Just be patient.

And what's up with the Vols???

______________________________________

NFL attendance for 12.09.2010. Two games will be played tonight.

Pittsburgh 15, Atlanta 9 
Heinz Field - Attendance: 63,609

Tennessee 38, Oakland 13 
LP Field - Attendance: 69,143

Houston 34, Indianapolis 24 
Reliant Stadium - Attendance: 70,974

Chicago 19, Detroit 14 
Soldier Field - Attendance: 62,080

Tampa Bay 17, Cleveland 14 
Raymond James Stadium - Attendance: 47,211(Not a sellout..pitiful attendance!)

Green Bay 27, Philadelphia 20 
Lincoln Financial Field - Attendance: 69,144

Washington 13, Dallas 7 
FedEx Field - Attendance: 90,670

Miami 15, Buffalo 10 
Ralph Wilson Stadium - Attendance: 69,295(Not a sellout!)

New York 31, Carolina 18 
Giants Stadium - Attendance: 77,245

Jacksonville 24, Denver 17 
Jacksonville Municipal Stadium - Attendance: 63,636

New England 38, Cincinnati 24 
Gillette Stadium - Attendance: 68,756

Seattle 31, San Francisco 6 
Qwest Field - Attendance: 67,044

Arizona 17, St. Louis 13 
Edward Jones Dome - Attendance: 52,440(not a sellout!)

Three non-sellouts.. That's not good...Average attendance this week approx. 66,600.


----------



## bd popeye

Hmmm..I was hoping that by now someone would be posting EPL(English Premier League) attendance. I think they are in their 4th or 5th week. 

English Premier League

Selected NCAA scores an attendance from yesterday.

Alabama 62, Duke 13 
Wallace Wade Stadium - Attendance: 39,042

Florida 31, Tennessee 17 
Neyland Stadium - Attendance: 102,455

Arkansas 24, Georgia 24 
Sanford Stadium - Attendance: 92,746

Kent St. 0, Penn St. 24 
Beaver Stadium - Attendance: 100,610

West Virginia 31, Maryland 17 
Mountaineer Field at Milan Puskar Stadium - Attendance: 60,122

Ohio 0, Ohio St. 43 
Ohio Stadium - Attendance: 105,075

Texas 24, Texas Tech 14 
Jones AT&T Stadium - Attendance: 60,454

Florida St. 34, BYU 10 
Bobby Bowden Field at Doak S. Campbell Stadium - Attendance: 68,795

Kentucky 47, Akron 10 
Commonwealth Stadium - Attendance: 64,014

Mississippi St. 7, LSU 29 
Tiger Stadium - Attendance: 92,538

Arizona 34, Iowa 27 
Arizona Stadium - Attendance: 57,864

Nebraska 56, Washington 21 
Husky Stadium - Attendance: 72,876

UMass 37, Michigan 42 
Michigan Stadium - Attendance: 110,187

Louisville 28, Oregon St. 35 
Reser Stadium - Attendance: 45,379

Furman 19, South Carolina 38 
Williams-Brice Stadium - Attendance: 73,681


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

I'm still impressed by the attendance, considering that this is the first "down" year in a long time.


----------



## bd popeye

Phriggin' Ogre said:


> I'm still impressed by the attendance, considering that this is the first "down" year in a long time.


NCAA football attendance is amazing when you consider that the NFL, MLB seasons are in full swing. Not to mention Division II & DIV III NCAA football.


----------



## www.sercan.de

Are the tikcets for college football cheaper?


----------



## bd popeye

www.sercan.de said:


> Are the tikcets for college football cheaper?


Yes but..it depends on what schools games a person is attending. And students have special pricing. But students make up only 10-15% of those attending games.

The average ticket per game for the NCAA is $55 USD.

I read yesterday that the average *NFL* ticket per game is $76 USD.


----------



## bd popeye

_Where's that EPL attendance???_

NFL attendance from 09.19.2010

Pittsburgh 19, Tennessee 11 logo
LP Field - Attendance: 69,143

Philadelphia 35, Detroit 32 logo
Ford Field - Attendance: 56,688**

Miami 14, Minnesota 10 logo
Mall of America Field at HHH Metrodome - Attendance: 63,846

Tampa Bay 20, Carolina 7 logo
Bank of America Stadium - Attendance: 72,577

Chicago 27, Dallas 20 logo
Cowboys Stadium - Attendance: 85,168

New York 28, New England 14 logo
Meadowlands - Attendance: 78,535

Indianapolis 38, New York 14 logo
Lucas Oil Stadium - Attendance: 67,275

Cincinnati 15, Baltimore 10 logo
Paul Brown Stadium - Attendance: 64,071

Atlanta 41, Arizona 7 logo
Georgia Dome - Attendance: 66,824**

Kansas City 16, Cleveland 14 logo
Cleveland Browns Stadium - Attendance: 65,377

Green Bay 34, Buffalo 7 logo
Lambeau Field - Attendance: 70,741

Denver 31, Seattle 14 logo
Invesco Field at Mile High - Attendance: 75,130

San Diego 38, Jacksonville 13 logo
Qualcomm Stadium - Attendance: 62,691**

Houston 30, Washington 27 logo
FedEx Field - Attendance: 88,240

** Not a sellout!!


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

www.sercan.de said:


> Are the tikcets for college football cheaper?


Some schools have reduced prices, others will allow students to attend for free. For the general population, is a different story though. Prices vary greatly by conference and even schools. For example...

A "low demand" game in the pac 10 will run you $27.60 while "low demand" games in the Big 10 average out to $46.27.

For "high demand" games, the pac-10 averages $61.90 and the Big-12 averages $84.17.

Those are just averages, though, you can find cheaper and more expensive prices depending on the individual schools and games.


----------



## isaidso

bd popeye said:


> NCAA football attendance is amazing when you consider that the NFL, MLB seasons are in full swing. Not to mention Division II & DIV III NCAA football.


Well there are only 32 NFL teams for 309 million people. The NCAA is simply filling the huge void that 32 franchises can't possibly satisfy. That there are about 70-80 football programs (pro and college) that draw 60,000+ in a nation the size of the United States seems about right.


----------



## isaidso

*Average Attendance in Canadian pro football after Week #12:*








1.







Edmonton Eskimos 35,038 (capacity 62,531)
2.







Calgary Stampeders 31,987 (capacity 35,650)
3.







Saskatchewan Roughriders 30,048 (capacity 30,048)
4.







Winnipeg Blue Bombers 27,615 (capacity 29,533)
5.







Montréal Alouettes 25,012 (capacity 25,012)
6.







Hamilton Tiger-Cats 24,816 (capacity 30,000)
7.







BC Lions 24,811 (capacity 27,500)
8.







Toronto Argonauts 21,283 (capacity 53,506)


----------



## mattec

isaidso said:


> Well there are only 32 NFL teams for 309 million people. The NCAA is simply filling the huge void that 32 franchises can't possibly satisfy. That there are about 70-80 football programs (pro and college) that draw 60,000+ in a nation the size of the United States seems about right.


not to mention the fact that alumni of schools generally tend to attend games of their alma mater, and also that the large state schools like texas, ohio st, and nebraska can pull fans in that either didn't go to college at all or went to another, smaller college.


----------



## mattec

Phriggin' Ogre said:


> Some schools have reduced prices, others will allow students to attend for free. For the general population, is a different story though. Prices vary greatly by conference and even schools. For example...
> 
> A "low demand" game in the pac 10 will run you $27.60 while "low demand" games in the Big 10 average out to $46.27.
> 
> For "high demand" games, the pac-10 averages $61.90 and the Big-12 averages $84.17.
> 
> Those are just averages, though, you can find cheaper and more expensive prices depending on the individual schools and games.


also, to sit in some sections of college stadiums, you have to donate a certain amount to the college's athletic fund (usually between $250-$500 per seat for the good seats)


----------



## KingmanIII

isaidso said:


> Well there are only 32 NFL teams for 309 million people. The NCAA is simply filling the huge void that 32 franchises can't possibly satisfy. That there are about 70-80 football programs (pro and college) that draw 60,000+ in a nation the size of the United States seems about right.


Many schools are also located in either small "college towns" or larger "college cities" with no NFL tenant.


----------



## npmrsi

*Bundesliga*

1







Borussia Dortmund - 73,450 (capacity 80,720) 
2







Bayern München - 69,000 (69,000)
3







FC Schalke 04 - 60,648 (61,673)
4







Hamburger SV - 55,550 (57,000)
5







1. FC Köln - 49,600 (50,000)
6







1. FC Kaiserslautern - 47,117 (48,500)
7







Eintracht Frankfurt - 46,050 (51,500)
8







Bor. Mönchengladbach - 43,759 (54,057)
9







VfB Stuttgart - 39,950 (39,950 due to reconstruction)
10







Hannover 96 - 39,032 (49,000)
11







1. FC Nürnberg - 36,780 (48,548)
12







Werder Bremen - 34,762 (42,100 due to reconstruction)
13







1899 Hoffenheim - 30,150 (30,150)
14







VfL Wolfsburg - 28,058 (30,000)
15







Bayer Leverkusen - 27,087 (30,210)
16







FC St. Pauli - 23,794 (24,487)
17







SC Freiburg - 23,500 (24,000)
18







1. FSV Mainz 05 -	20,300 (20,300)

league average - 42.486


----------



## bd popeye

> The NCAA is certainly filling a massive demand that the NFL can't possibly meet with a mere 32 teams.


Could be..however there are thousands of NCAA football fans that have no interest in pro football. Those folks just love the college game and do not like the NFL.


----------



## lwa

Aviva Premiership (after 4 rounds - 2 home games for every team)

Team----------------Avg. Attendance-----Capacity
London Irish*-----------41,690-------------24,161
London Wasps*---------41,559-------------10,516
Leicester---------------17,510-------------24,000
Northampton------------13,495-------------13,591
Bath--------------------11,312-------------12,300
Harlequins---------------11,120-------------14,816
Gloucester--------------10,686-------------17,500
Exeter------------------8,444---------------10,744
Saracens----------------7,327--------------19,920
Sale--------------------6,921---------------10,852
Leeds-------------------5,142---------------22,250
Newcastle---------------5,076---------------10,200

*Includes the 75,000 that attended the London Double Header, at which these two were the designated home sides. Hence why their average well exceedes their capacity.

London Wasps are likely to return to Twickenham for St Georges day (they got over 60k last season), and Harlequins will be looking to fill it again on boxing day. Meanwhile, Saracens are moving several games to Wembley


Top 14 (after 8 rounds)

Team-------------Avg. Att.------Capacity
RC Touloun--------21,550--------13,700
Toulouse----------20,620--------19,000
Bayonne----------16,087--------16,934
Clermont----------15,364--------16,334
USAP-------------13,042---------16,593
BOPB-------------12,700---------15,000
La Rochelle-------12,077---------12,000
Montpellier--------11,965---------15,000
Castres-----------11,372---------11,500
Stade francais----10,809---------20,000
CA Brive----------10,698---------15,000
Racing Metro------10,031---------14,000
Agen--------------8,482----------14,000
Bourgoin-----------7,500----------9,441

Both Touloun and Toulouse have moved games to the Stade Veledrome (getting 45,000) and the Stade Municipal (getting 30,000) respectivly - hence the greater than capacity averages. Over the course of the season, Stade Francais (Stade de France), Perpignan (Nou Camp), Biarritz Olympique and Bayonne (both Estadio Anoeta) and Bourgoin (Stade des Alpes) are likely to move games to bigger venues, aswell as more Toulouse and Touloun games being moved.

Bourgoin have obviously just made up their figures - all three games are down as exactly 7,500...


----------



## KingmanIII

isaidso said:


> Those 2 Alabama schools get about 80,000-90,000/game. There is no way in hell that the Falcons or Saints could accommodate an extra 80,000-90,000 Alabama people at their home games.
> 
> Out of state and 2 hours away? People want their *own* team to support and root for. The NFL is no where close to being able to accommodate the 32,000,000 people that attend Division 1 football. The NCAA is certainly filling a massive demand that the NFL can't possibly meet with a mere 32 teams.


The pro and college game do not compete with one another, and most people watch the two for different reasons.

Atlanta, for example, is the cultural capital and principal population center of the Deep South. The Falcons draw largely from Georgia, Alabama, and western South Carolina (the town of Clemson is Falcons territory, and Clemson draws 80,000/game). Not all college football fans are NFL fans, but very many are, and most of them are fans of that region's NFL team.

This map gives you a pretty good idea of the geographical footprint of each NFL franchise.


----------



## en1044

isaidso said:


> Those 2 Alabama schools get about 80,000-90,000/game. There is no way in hell that the Falcons or Saints could accommodate an extra 80,000-90,000 Alabama people at their home games.
> 
> Out of state and 2 hours away? People want their *own* team to support and root for. The NFL is no where close to being able to accommodate the 32,000,000 people that attend Division 1 football. The NCAA is certainly filling a massive demand that the NFL can't possibly meet with a mere 32 teams.


People in West Virginia love Mountaineer football, and go to games every Saturday. A bunch of those same WVU fans are also Redskins fans, and go to games every Sunday.

Or look as Louisiana. LSU and Saints football? Both have rabid fan bases.


----------



## KingmanIII

en1044 said:


> People in West Virginia love Mountaineer football, and go to games every Saturday. A bunch of those same WVU fans are also Redskins fans, and go to games every Sunday.


I thought most WVU fans were Steelers fans, and Virginia Tech fans were Skins fans?



> Or look as Louisiana. LSU and Saints football? Both have rabid fan bases.


Also, most Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas Tech, Baylor, and Arkansas fans are Cowboys fans.


----------



## bd popeye

Here in eastern Iowa those folks that follow both the NFL and NCAA seem seem to be Bears fans first, then Packer and Vikings fans. But many here could care less about the NFL. Many. Why? They love their Hawkeyes & college football.


----------



## bd popeye

NFL Scores & attendance for Sunday, September 26, 2010 

Pittsburgh 38, Tampa Bay 13 logo
Raymond James Stadium, Tampa FL - Attendance: 61,036*

Cincinnati 20, Carolina 7 logo
Bank of America Stadium, Charlotte NC - Attendance: 72,887

New England 38, Buffalo 30 logo
Gillette Stadium, Foxboro MA - Attendance: 68,756

Kansas City 31, San Francisco 10 logo
Arrowhead Stadium, Kansas City MO - Attendance: 68,188*

Tennessee 29, New York 10 logo
Giants Stadium, E. Rutherford NJ - Attendance: 79,386

Baltimore 24, Cleveland 17 logo
M&T Bank Stadium, Baltimore MD - Attendance: 71,119

Atlanta 27, New Orleans 24 logo
Louisiana Superdome, New Orleans LA - Attendance: 70,051

Minnesota 24, Detroit 10 logo
Mall of America Field at HHH Metrodome, Minneapolis MN - Attendance: 63,377

Dallas 27, Houston 13 logo
Reliant Stadium, Houston TX - Attendance: 71,456

Philadelphia 28, Jacksonville 3 logo
Jacksonville Municipal Stadium, Jacksonville FL - Attendance: 63,256

St. Louis 30, Washington 16 logo
Edward Jones Dome, St Louis MO - Attendance: 52,370*

Indianapolis 27, Denver 13 logo
Invesco Field at Mile High, Denver CO - Attendance: 76,401

Arizona 24, Oakland 23 logo
University of Phoenix Stadium, Glendale AZ - Attendance: 62,439

Seattle 27, San Diego 20 logo
Qwest Field, Seattle WA - Attendance: 67,106

New York 31, Miami 23 logo
Sun Life Stadium, Miami FL - Attendance: 70,481*

* Not a sellout


----------



## mattec

KingmanIII said:


> I thought most WVU fans were Steelers fans,


That, with some Browns and Bengals tossed in, not too many redskins fans though


----------



## parcdesprinces

*French TOP 14 Orange* (rugby union)


*Season 2007-2008, *average attendance: *10,575*

*Season 2008-2009, *average attendance: *12,736*

*-------------------------*

*Season 2009-2010, *average attendance: *13,239*

*-Clubs by average attendance:* (2009-2010)

*34,715* - Stade Français-Paris







(Stade Jean Bouin: 9,205 seats | Stade Sébastien Charléty: 20,000 | Stade de France: 81,338)
*20,388* - Stade Toulousain







(Stade Ernest Wallon: 19,506 | Stadium Municipal de Toulouse: 36,508)
*19,592* - RC Toulon







(Stade Mayol: 14,700 | Stade Vélodrome, Marseille: 60,013)
*15,135* - ASM Clermont-Ferrand







(Stade Marcel Michelin: 16,000)
*14,003* - Aviron Bayonnais







(Stade Jean Dauger: 16,934 | Estadio de Anoeta, Donostia/San Sebastian: 32,076)
*13,119* - US Arlequins Perpignanais







(Stade Aimé-Giral: 14,593)
*10,622* - Montpellier-Hérault RC







(Stade Yves du Manoir de Montpellier: 13,586)
*9,931* - Biarritz Olympique







(Parc Aguilera: 15,000 | Estadio de Anoeta, Donostia/San Sebastian: 32,076)
*9,032* - Rancing-Métro-92 Paris/Racing club de France







(Stade Olympique Yves du Manoir, Colombes: 14,000)
*8,708* - CA Brive-Corrèze







(Stade Amédée Domenech: 15,000)
*8,142* - CS Bourgoin-Jallieu







(Stade Pierre Rajon: 9,441 | Stade de Gerland, Lyon: 42,591)
*7,697* - US Montauban







(Stade Sapiac: 12,600)
*7,423* - Castres Olympique







(Stade Pierre Antoine:11,500)
*6,889* - SC Albigeois







(Stadium Municipal d'Albi: 13,058)

*-Best attendances: *(regular season, 2009-2010)

*78,254* - Stade Français vs Stade Toulousain (Stade de France)
*76,972* - Stade Français vs US Arlequins Perpignanais (Stade de France)
*76,879* - Stade Français vs Biarritz Olympique (Stade de France)
*72,877* - Stade Français vs ASM Clermont (Stade de France) 
*69,850* - Stade Français vs Aviron Bayonnais (Stade de France)
*57,392* - RC Toulon vs US Arlequins Perpignanais (Stade Vélodrome, Marseille)
*55,091* - RC Toulon vs Stade Toulousain (Stade Vélodrome, Marseille)
*33,414* - Stade Toulousain vs US Arlequins Perpignanais (Stadium Municipal de Toulouse)
*32,176* - Stade Toulousain vs Stade Français (Stadium Municipal de Toulouse)
*29,876* - CS Bourgoin-Jallieu vs Stade Toulousain (Stade de Gerland, Lyon)
*28,933* - Biarritz Olympique vs Aviron Bayonnais (Estadio Anoeta, Donostia)
*24,411* - Aviron Bayonnais vs Stade Français (Estadio Anoeta, Donostia)
*24,000* - Stade Toulousain vs ASM Clermont (Stadium Municipal de Toulouse)
*21,948* - Biarritz Olympique vs Stade Toulousain (Estadio Anoeta, Donostia)
*19,508* - Stade Français vs Racing-Métro 92 (Stade Sébastien Charléty)

*-------------------------*

*Season 2010-2011, *average attendance (till round 8): *11,911*

*-Clubs by average attendance:* (2010-2011, till round 8)

*21,421* - RC Toulon







(Stade Mayol: 14,700 | Stade Vélodrome, Marseille: 60,013)
*20,620* - Stade Toulousain







(Stade Ernest Wallon: 19,506 | Stadium Municipal de Toulouse: 36,508)
*15,668* - ASM Clermont-Ferrand







(Stade Marcel Michelin: 16,000)
*14,636* - Aviron Bayonnais







(Stade Jean Dauger: 16,934 | Estadio de Anoeta, Donostia/San Sebastian: 32,076)
*13,009* - US Arlequins Perpignanais







(Stade Aimé-Giral: 14,593 | Camp Nou, Barcelona: 98,787)
*11,989* - Biarritz Olympique







(Parc Aguilera: 15,000 | Estadio de Anoeta, Donostia/San Sebastian: 32,076)
*11,959* - Montpellier-Hérault RC







(Stade Yves du Manoir de Montpellier: 15,000)
*11,840* - Atlantique Stade Rochelais







(Stade Marcel Deflandre: 12,500)
*11,085* - Stade Français-Paris







(Stade Sébastien Charléty: 20,000 | Stade de France: 81,338)
*10,526* - CA Brive-Corrèze







(Stade Amédée Domenech: 15,000)
*9,890* - Rancing-Métro-92 Paris/Racing club de France







(Stade Olympique Yves du Manoir: 14,000 | Stade de France: 81,338)
*9,033* - Castres Olympique







(Stade Pierre Antoine:11,500)
*8,334* - SU Agen-Lot-et-Garonne







(Stade Alfred Armandie: 12,987)
*6,742* - CS Bourgoin-Jallieu







(Stade Pierre Rajon: 9,441 | Stade des Alpes, Grenoble: 20,068 | Stade Gerland, Lyon: 42,591)

*-Best attendances:* (regular season 2010-2011, till round 8)

*44,832* - RC Toulon vs ASM Clermont (Stade Vélodrome, Marseille)
*28,229* - Stade Toulousain vs Stade Français (Stadium Municipal de Toulouse)


----------



## mattec

Scba said:


> The UFL just set its new attendance record last night in Omaha; 23,067


I think they can carve out a nice niche by going to secondary markets like omaha and hartford and acting as sortof a developmental league for the NFL


----------



## bd popeye

mattec said:


> I think they can carve out a nice niche by going to secondary markets like omaha and hartford and acting as sortof a developmental league for the NFL


I agree 100%. And they should expand to eight teams in the next couple of years.

Secondary markets ..Humm?? Let's see..

Portland OR
Syracuse NY
Louisville KY
Memphis TN
Oklahoma City OK
Salt Lake City UT
Norfolk VA


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

parcdesprinces said:


> *French TOP 14 Orange* (rugby union)


Great growth!


----------



## Buffalo

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> Great growth!


thats what she said.


----------



## en1044

KingmanIII said:


> I thought most WVU fans were Steelers fans, and Virginia Tech fans were Skins fans?
> 
> 
> Also, most Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas Tech, Baylor, and Arkansas fans are Cowboys fans.


There are a lot of Redskins fans in West Virginia, but more around the southern and eastern part of the state. The panhandle area is Skins too. I was just giving examples of fans who are within easy driving distance of both NFL and NCAA teams. The north is indeed Steeler country. Yes, most VT fans are Redskins fans, but many in the southern half of the state dont make the drive up to DC.


----------



## bd popeye

Random NCAA college football attendance and scores for this week. If I ever see what is the average attendance for the 120 Division I schools I'll post it.

Michigan 42, Indiana 35 
Memorial Stadium,Bloomington IN - Attendance: 52,929

Pittsburgh 44, Fla. International 17 
Heinz Field, Pittsburgh PA - Attendance: 45,207

UCLA 42, Washington St. 28 
Rose Bowl - Attendance: 62,072**

Florida 6, Alabama 31 
Bryant-Denny Stadium,Tuscaloosa, AL - Attendance: 101,821

Ohio St. 24, Illinois 13 
Memorial Stadium, Campaign IL - Attendance: 62,870

Baylor 55, Kansas 7 
Floyd Casey Stadium, Waco TX - Attendance: 35,405**

LSU 16, Tennessee 14 
Tiger Stadium, Baton Rouge LA - Attendance: 92,932

Penn St. 3, Iowa 24 
Kinnick Stadium, Iowa City IA - Attendance: 70,585

Auburn 52, ULM 3(University of Louisiana at Monroe) 
Jordan-Hare Stadium, Auburn AL - Attendance: 80,759

Oregon St. 31, Arizona St. 28 
Reser Stadium, Corvallis, OR - Attendance: 45,409

Miami 30, Clemson 21
Clemson Memorial Stadium, Clemson SC - Attendance: 81,500

Maryland 21, Duke 16 logo
Chevy Chase Bank Field at Byrd Stadium, College Park,MD - Attendance: 39,106**

** = Not a sellout


----------



## bd popeye

NFL scores & attendance for the 4th week of the NFL season. *Six* **non-sellout for todays games..hno:

Baltimore 17, Pittsburgh 14 
Heinz Field, Pittsburgh PA - Attendance: 64,729

Atlanta 16, San Francisco 14 
Georgia Dome, Atlanta GA - Attendance: 66,874**

New York 38, Buffalo 14 
Ralph Wilson Stadium, Orchard Park NY. - Attendance: 69,262**

New Orleans 16, Carolina 14 
Louisiana Superdome, New Orleans LA - Attendance: 70,016

Denver 26, Tennessee 20 
LP Field, Nashville TN - Attendance: 69,143

St. Louis 20, Seattle 3 
Edward Jones Dome, St Louis MO - Attendance: 52,326**

Cleveland 23, Cincinnati 20 
Cleveland Browns Stadium - Attendance: 66,731**

Green Bay 28, Detroit 26 
Lambeau Field, Green Bay WI - Attendance: 70,729

Jacksonville 31, Indianapolis 28 
Jacksonville Municipal Stadium, Jacksonville FL - Attendance: 63,111

Houston 31, Oakland 24 
Oakland Coliseum, Oakland CA - Attendance: 32,218..pitifulhno:**

San Diego 41, Arizona 10 
Qualcomm Stadium, San Diego CA - Attendance: 62,189**

Washington 17, Philadelphia 12 
Lincoln Financial Field, Philadelphia PA - Attendance: 69,144


----------



## lwa

Magners League

Leinster 13-9 Munster
Aviva Stadium, Dublin - 50,645 (a new Magners League Record)


----------



## www.sercan.de

UEFA
last weekend

Borussia Dortmund - FC Bayern München: 80,720

FC Barcelona - RCD Mallorca: 79,085

FC Internazionale Milano - Juventus FC: 78,883


----------



## tigerboy

www.sercan.de said:


> UEFA
> last weekend
> 
> Borussia Dortmund - FC Bayern München: 80,720
> 
> FC Barcelona - RCD Mallorca: 79,085
> 
> FC Internazionale Milano - Juventus FC: 78,883


Where did you get the Inter V Juve figure? Soccernet had 60,000.


----------



## Buffalo

bd popeye said:


> New York 38, Buffalo 14
> Ralph Wilson Stadium, Orchard Park NY. - Attendance: 69,262**


This game was sold out, at least it was reported so by the team and local media. However, the weather was shit for the game so that could explain why the attendance would be a little below full capacity. Unfortunately, I do expect next week to be blacked-out though.


----------



## Buffalo

Double post


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

bd popeye said:


> NFL scores & attendance for the 4th week of the NFL season. *Six* **non-sellout for todays games..hno:
> 
> Baltimore 17, Pittsburgh 14
> Heinz Field, Pittsburgh PA - Attendance: 64,729
> 
> Atlanta 16, San Francisco 14
> Georgia Dome, Atlanta GA - Attendance: 66,874**
> 
> New York 38, Buffalo 14
> Ralph Wilson Stadium, Orchard Park NY. - Attendance: 69,262**
> 
> New Orleans 16, Carolina 14
> Louisiana Superdome, New Orleans LA - Attendance: 70,016
> 
> Denver 26, Tennessee 20
> LP Field, Nashville TN - Attendance: 69,143
> 
> St. Louis 20, Seattle 3
> Edward Jones Dome, St Louis MO - Attendance: 52,326**
> 
> Cleveland 23, Cincinnati 20
> Cleveland Browns Stadium - Attendance: 66,731**
> 
> Green Bay 28, Detroit 26
> Lambeau Field, Green Bay WI - Attendance: 70,729
> 
> Jacksonville 31, Indianapolis 28
> Jacksonville Municipal Stadium, Jacksonville FL - Attendance: 63,111
> 
> *Houston 31, Oakland 24
> Oakland Coliseum, Oakland CA - Attendance: 32,218..*pitifulhno:**
> 
> San Diego 41, Arizona 10
> Qualcomm Stadium, San Diego CA - Attendance: 62,189**
> 
> Washington 17, Philadelphia 12
> Lincoln Financial Field, Philadelphia PA - Attendance: 69,144




Oh crap! Never thought I'd see such low attendance for an NFL game, ever! :crazy: Anyways, do you know how many people attended UWashington @ USC?


----------



## bd popeye

> Oh crap! Never thought I'd see such low attendance for an NFL game, ever! Anyways, do you know how many people attended UWashington @ USC?


Yea that Raider attendance is pitiful....

Here's the score/attendance you are looking for

Washington 32, USC 31
Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles CA - Attendance: 82,796

I get those figures from the USA today sports on line

USA Today Sports


----------



## www.sercan.de

tigerboy said:


> Where did you get the Inter V Juve figure? Soccernet had 60,000.


http://www.stadiapostcards.com/A10-11.htm
As far as i know he gets them from Corriera dello Spor (?!)


----------



## parcdesprinces

www.sercan.de said:


> UEFA
> last weekend
> 
> .........


^^Hey Sercan, please, could you stop trolling this thread with your ugly (and arrogant) soccer figures ...'cause there's already, in this forum/section, a dedicated thread for that :| :

Football Average Attendances

BTW, since soccer already has its dedicated thread, then could you change the title of this one, which is exclusively dedicated to *ruffian's sports*  !


----------



## parcdesprinces

Sercan, since ruffian's sports already have a dedicated thread, then could you please change the title of this one, which is exclusively dedicated to the so called *"gentleman's sport"*  !


----------



## Walbanger

Gee, I didn't know it was Gentlemanly to dive, bitch slap and generally act as a prima donna. We all know which Sport that is.


----------



## parcdesprinces

^^ You know about the ruffian's sport played by Gentlemen...and the other one...which is quite the opposite, right ??


----------



## www.sercan.de

Lol true. Totally forgot the other thread 

BTW its Football and not soccer


----------



## parcdesprinces

www.sercan.de said:


> BTW its Football and not soccer


Playing devil's advocate : 
Indeed, I should have written "Association Football" instead of simply "Soccer" :devil: ..But most of people only see the word "football" on the thread title nono: hno... Thread which is about football indeed, but except "Association Football": 
National Football league/American Football League etc, Canadian Football League, Australian Football league etc etc etc........AND, the most important one: "Rugby Football" :banana: !!!!!


----------



## Walbanger

Well played


----------



## parcdesprinces

^^ :yes:... Take a look at what I wrote here :

Average Attendance - All Football Codes (post #574)


----------



## krudmonk

Being offended by the word "soccer" is so pathetic and stupid.


----------



## tigerboy

krudmonk said:


> Being offended by the word "soccer" is so pathetic and stupid.


It is also ahistorical and unEnglish. I care less what people call soccer. They can play their little " my games the real game" imperialistic linguistic games all they like but the on the ground reality is that most of the English speaking world refer to the game naturally as soccer and for generations English people have done so as well. The usage indeed is an old English one.


----------



## tigerboy

T74 said:


> I reckon this will improve in 2010/11
> 
> Melbourne Victory have been the backbone of A-League attendances, and now we have the Heart and a shiny new 30k stadium
> 
> the hate between the supporters is already bubbling, and reckon we will get nice support for both, with some great derbies. also shouldn't be too much Victory cannibalisation, hearing Heart is attracting many newbies and NSL fans who were still boycotting
> 
> on the AFL, nice to see my Tigers have the 4th highest average attendance despite being labelled one of the worst AFL teams in the competitions history


Everyone knows that if the Tigers went top 4 or had a couple of decent years their attendances would rival Collingwoods.

Go Mighty Tiges. !!!!


----------



## Patrick

First four german leagues at the moment: I have excluded the figures of B-teams in the 3. Liga and the Regionalliga, and I have only listed the ones from the Regionalliga (which has 3 different divisions à 18 teams) which have more than 1000 viewers per game.


----------



## bd popeye

Final scores and attendance for week 4 of the NFL.

New England 41, Miami 14 
Sun Life Stadium, Miami Gardens FL - Attendance: 69,090

New York 17, Chicago 3 
Giants Stadium, East Rutherford NJ - Attendance: 77,716


----------



## Walbanger

tigerboy said:


> Everyone knows that if the Tigers went top 4 or had a couple of decent years their attendances would rival Collingwoods.
> 
> Go Mighty Tiges. !!!!


Probably not far from the truth. The Tigers have a funny bunch of vocal and loyal fans. 30 years of nothing have probably made them a little quirky but they're as feral as Collingwood.


----------



## bd popeye

Average NFL attendance for 2010 after 4 weeks of games.

*66,620*


----------



## fanUltras

MS20 said:


> 54 leagues in the world that average over 5,000...Some great figures around the world in football. No other sport comes close. Teraktor..never ever heard of the club! Yet they get 17k more than Persepolis? I thought Persepolis and Esteghal were the 2 big clubs
> 
> And with Poland and Ukraine, attendances should skyrocket in the next 3 years. Expect them to be well over 10,000 each after Euros


54 + Egypt, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia... lack of accurate data. 

+

MYANMAR

In the first season of the MNL, stadiums registered an average attendance of 13,000 spectators, and the first champions, Yadanarbon FC, who qualified to the final of the AFC President's Cup 2010 in their debut, received a triumphant reception from their local fans.

This is a huge contrast from the old Myanmar Premier League, which attracted small crowds – 2,000 spectators per match on average – and remained relatively anonymous.

 



VIETNAM

Average attendance of V-league clubs after first phase:
(Stats from VFF)

1. Hai Phong 24,167
2. Da Nang 16,857
3. Dong Thap 16,167
4. Binh Duong 15,000
5. Thanh Hoa 10,500
6. Ninh Binh 10,500
7. HAGL 9,833
8. Khanh Hoa 9,714
9. SLNA 8,857
10. Nam Dinh 8,417
11. DT Long An 6,643
12. Ha Noi T&T 5,143
13. Hoa Phat 3,500
14. Navibank Sai Gon 3,167

Unsurprisingly, 3 clubs from 2 Vietnamese biggest cities (Ha Noi and Ho Chi Minh City) take 3 lowest places in the table.

Average attendance: 10,604
Max attendance: 30,000 (2 matches)
Min attendance: 2,000 (2 matches)


----------



## Andy-i

Regular season attendances for the 2010 Superleague:

1. Wigan 15723
2. Leeds 15355
3. Hull 13731
4. St Helens 11191
5. Warrington 10957
6. Bradford 8363
7. Hull KR 8234
8. Huddersfield 7386
9. Catalan 6806
10 Castleford 6616
11. Wakefield 5983
12. Celtic Crusaders 4616
13. Salford 4166
14. Harlequins 3379

Note: These figures don't include any playoff games or the Grand final.
Source: http://www.slstats.org/

EDIT: 
2010 playoffs: 8 games with an average attendance of 11799
2010 Grand Final: 71526


----------



## Archbishop

krudmonk said:


> Being offended by the word "soccer" is so pathetic and stupid.


If the English don't like it, they shouldn't have invented the name. That's what I say.


----------



## isaidso

*Average Attendance in Canadian pro football after Week #14:*








1.







Edmonton Eskimos 34,958 (capacity 62,531)
2.







Calgary Stampeders 31,534 (capacity 35,650)
3.







Saskatchewan Roughriders 30,048 (capacity 30,048)
4.







Winnipeg Blue Bombers 27,372 (capacity 29,533)
5.







Montréal Alouettes 25,012 (capacity 25,012)
6.







BC Lions 24,579 (capacity 27,500)
7.







Hamilton Tiger-Cats 24,531 (capacity 30,000)
8.







Toronto Argonauts 21,574* (capacity 53,506)

* One Toronto 'home game' was played in Moncton, New Brunswick on Sunday, September 26th before a sell out crowd of 20,725. Pretty good considering that Toronto is about 46 times larger than Moncton yet is only managing a few hundred people more than that. 

Moncton (and the Maritimes) is one of Canada's football hotbeds. Well done!


----------



## bd popeye

> Toronto Argonauts 21,574* (capacity 53,506)


I just don't get why the Argonauts attendance is so poor. They should be on top of the ladder in attendance. Any real reasons for the low attendance?


----------



## miguelon

bd popeye said:


> I just don't get why the Argonauts attendance is so poor. They should be on top of the ladder in attendance. Any real reasons for the low attendance?



There is no single reason, but here some ideasÑ
1.- The Maple Leafs are just way to popular in T.O.
2.- Only canadian city where you also have MLB baseball, and NBA basketball. (both teams are decently supported)
3.- Close to the Bufalo Bills, a NFL team only 2-3 hours driving. Quite easy on a weekend.
4.- Rogers Centre the home of the Argos is way to big for the team, you can put 20-25 K at the stadium and still fells empty.
5.- The sidelines for football are pretty bad (specially the first tier)

I think that the argos, should explore the posibility of sharing the BMO Field with Toronto F.C. 
Already almost every home game is a sellout for the MLS games, for sure Toronto F.C. can sell some 8000 - 10,000 more tickets. And have a nice intimate 28,000 - 30,000 stadium.


----------



## bd popeye

^^ Thank you. Hey if BMO field was expanded to say 35,000 from what I have been reading it would be Toronto FC rocking the joint for sure.


----------



## isaidso

^^ The Argonauts need a football specific stadium across the street from BMO Field. BMO can't accommodate a football field and is probably too small. Argonauts attendance was up near 30,000 just last season. This year's huge attendance decline is a mystery to me.



bd popeye said:


> I just don't get why the Argonauts attendance is so poor. They should be on top of the ladder in attendance. Any real reasons for the low attendance?


You're right. Toronto should be able to support 3 teams pulling in 70,000/game each. I agree with all of Miguelon's points except the 2nd one. The argument that Toronto also has MLB and NBA is a weak excuse. Most cities support teams in a number of sports. Melbourne supports 9 football teams and Toronto (which is 50% larger) can barely support one. Cultural relevance is at the heart of it.

Football just isn't the cultural phenomenon in Toronto the way it is in the rest of Canada even though football's beginnings are here in central Canada. You go to places like New Brunswick and they get 2,500 people out to high school football. In Toronto, the biggest colleges struggle to pull in that many fans. Immigrants to Toronto have not adopted Canadian sporting traditions, while Toronto born have become indifferent to all but the Leafs and the adopted global sport, soccer. There's a bit of sporting snobbery at play as well: soccer=sophisticated/worldly, football=provincial/*******.

Toronto is a soccer and Leafs city. Toronto will turn out in large numbers for those 2 sports no matter what. Football? Nope. There's gotta be glitz, glamour, coolness factor, big salaries, betting, star power, winning percentage, or some other periphery element to bring them to the stadium. 


I'm a huge football fan, but going to a half empty stadium in a city that doesn't care about football just sucks you dry. I'd rather fly to Ohio or the Maritimes to watch football, to be honest. Toronto is a tough place for a football fan. It's the rest of Canada where football is a big deal.


----------



## lwa

Opening round of the Heineken Cup and Amlin Challenge Cup this weekend:

Heineken Cup:

Friday:

Glasgow 21-13 Newport*
Firhill Stadium Att 2,597 (capacity 10,800)

Ulster 30-6 Aironi*
Ravenhill Stadium 7,777 (approx 11,000)

Northampton 18-14 Castres
Franklins Gardens 12,835 (13,591)

Saturday:

Leinster 38-22 Racing Metro
RDS Showgrounds 17,936 (18,500)

Benneton Treviso 29-34 Leicester Tigers
Stadio Comunale di Monigo 5,800 (6,700)

Touloun 19-14 Ospreys
Stade Felix Mayol 13,000 (13,700)

Scarlets 43-34 Perpignan
Parc y Scarlets 8,911 (14,870)

ASM Clermont Auvergne 25-10 Saracens
Stade Marcel Michelin 16,007 (approx 16,000)

Cardiff Blues 18-17 Edinburgh
Cardiff City Stadium 10,521 (26,828)

London Irish 23-17 Munster
Madjeski Stadium 20,188 (24,161)

Sunday:

Bath v Biarritz - The rec (will almost certainly be a sell-out)

Toulouse v London Wasps - le Stadion (again, will be a full house)

*the national football teams of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were all playing at the same time as these games - in the case of Ulster about a mile away against Italy. Otherwise, those crowds would almost certainly have been bigger.




Amlin Challenge Cup:

Thursday:

Newcastle 22-16 Bourgoin
Kingston Park 3,887 (10,200)

Stade Francais 57-6 Crociati Rugby
Stade Charlety 6,523 (20,000)

Friday:

Agen 26-19 Gloucester
Stade armandie 7,395 (14,000)

Sale Sharks 97-11 El Salvador
Edgely Park 4,666 (10,852)

Brive 32-6 Petrarca Rugby
Stade Municipal 4,185 (15,000)

Saturday:

Bucharesti Oaks 9-23 Leeds Carnegie
Arcul de triumf 794 (5,000)

Exeter Cheifs 13-20 Montpellier
Sandy Park 5,437 (10,744)

Femi-CZ Rugby Rovigo 3-38 La Rochelle
Stadio Mario Battaglini 500 (5,000)

Cavalieri Prato 23-21 Connacht
Stadio Lungobisenzio 2,200

Sunday:

Aviron Bayonnais v Harlequins
Stade Jean Dauger


----------



## bd popeye

Some selected NCAA "Division 1" attendance from yesterday!

Michigan St. 34, Michigan 17 
Michigan Stadium, Ann Arbor MI - Attendance: 109,933

Illinois 33, Penn St. 13 
Beaver Stadium, University Park PA- Attendance: 107,638

Ohio St. 38, Indiana 10 
Ohio Stadium, Columbus OH - Attendance: 105,291

Alabama 21, South Carolina 35 
Williams-Brice Stadium, Columbia SC - Attendance: 82,993

LSU 33, Florida 29 
Ben Hill Griffin Stadium at Florida Field, Gainesville FL - Attendance: 90,721

Auburn 37, Kentucky 34 
Commonwealth Stadium, Lexington KY - Attendance: 70,776

Florida St. 45, Miami 17 
Sun Life Stadium, Miami Gardens FL - Attendance: 75,115

Georgia 41, Tennessee 14
Sanford Stadium, Athens GA - Attendance: 92,746

USC 35, Stanford 37 
Stanford Stadium, Stanford CA - Attendance: 51,607

Texas Tech 45, Baylor 38 
Cotton Bowl, Dallas, TX - Attendance: 48,213

Wisconsin 41, Minnesota 23 
Camp Randall Stadium, Madison WI - Attendance: 80,328


----------



## lwa

Sundays Heineken Cup:

Bath 11-12 Biarritz Olympique
The Recreation Ground 11,631 (12,300)

Stade Toulouse 18-16 London Wasps
Stade Municipal 26,928 (35,472) - surprisingly low attendance here, possibly due to the weather?

Amlin Challenge Cup

Aviron Bayonnais 16-12 Harlequins
Stade Jean Dauger 3,500 (16,934) - weather conditions were awful mind, im not sure the game would have been played atall had it been a few hours later.


----------



## bd popeye

NFL scores for week 5 of the 2010 season. Several teams had a bye(no game) this weekend. Pittsburgh, Seattle, Miami & New England

Chicago 23, Carolina 6 
Bank of America Stadium, Charlotte NC - Attendance: 73,464

Tampa Bay 24, Cincinnati 21 
Paul Brown Stadium, Cincinnati OH - Attendance: 63,888

Detroit 44, St. Louis 6 
Ford Field, Detroit MI - Attendance: 55,714

New York 34, Houston 10 logo
Reliant Stadium, Houston TX - Attendance: 71,110

Atlanta 20, Cleveland 10
Cleveland Browns Stadium, Cleveland OH - Attendance: 65,290

Baltimore 31, Denver 17
M&T Bank Stadium, Baltimore MD - Attendance: 71,246

Indianapolis 19, Kansas City 9 
Lucas Oil Stadium, Indianapolis IN - Attendance: 66,869

Jacksonville 36, Buffalo 26 
Ralph Wilson Stadium, Orchard Park NY - Attendance: 58,304

Washington 16, Green Bay 13 
FedEx Field, Prince George's County MD - Attendance: 87,760

Arizona 30, New Orleans 20
University of Phoenix Stadium, Glendale AZ - Attendance: 62,621

Oakland 35, San Diego 27 
Oakland Coliseum, Oakland CA - Attendance: 48,279

Philadelphia 27, San Francisco 24
Candlestick Park, San Francisco, CA - Attendance: 69,732

Tennessee 34, Dallas 27 
Cowboys Stadium, Arlington TX - Attendance: 90,616

Minnesota	Vs the NY Jets is tonight. I'll average up the attendance tomorrow.


----------



## parcdesprinces

lwa said:


> Stade Toulouse 18-16 London Wasps
> Stade Municipal 26,928 (35,472) - surprisingly low attendance here, possibly due to the weather?


I was in the Toulouse region last week-end, and indeed, the weather was not really good (I mean, quite cold by the Toulouse region standards)...


----------



## bd popeye

Last night score and attendance Minnesota Vikings Vs the NY Jets.

New York 29, Minnesota 20
New Meadowlands Stadium, East Rutherford NJ - Attendance: 77,909

Average attendance for week 5 of the NFL
*68,728*

Average attendance for the 2010 NFL season.
*67,674*


----------



## bd popeye

Selected NCAA Division 1 football scores from 10.16.2010.

Iowa 38, Michigan 28 
Michigan Stadium, Ann Arbor MI - Attendance: 112,784

Mississippi 10, Alabama 23
Bryant-Denny Stadium, Tuscaloosa, Alabama - Attendance: 101,821

McNeese St. 10, LSU 32 
Tiger Stadium, Baton Rouge LA - Attendance: 92,576

Mississippi St. 10, Florida 7 logo
Ben Hill Griffin Stadium at Florida Field, Gainesville, FL - Attendance: 90,517

Georgia 43, Vanderbilt 0 logo
Sanford Stadium,Athens GA - Attendance: 92,746

Ohio St. 18, Wisconsin 31 
Camp Randall Stadium, Madison WI - Attendance: 81,194

Texas 20, Nebraska 13 
Memorial Stadium, Lincoln NE - Attendance: 85,648

Iowa St. 0, Oklahoma 52 
Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium, Norman OK - Attendance: 84,024

Arkansas 43, Auburn 65 
Jordan-Hare Stadium, Auburn AL - Attendance: 87,451

Notre Dame 44, Western Michigan 20 
Notre Dame Stadium, South Bend IN - Attendance: 80,795


----------



## isaidso

*Canadian Football League, Week 16*

Hamilton 30, Toronto 3
Skydome, Toronto ON - Attendance: 25,181

Edmonton 31, BC 28
Empire Field, Vancouver BC - Attendance: 21,414

Winnipeg 19, Montreal 22
Molson Stadium, Montreal QC - Attendance: 25,012*

Calgary 34, Saskatchewan 26
Mosaic Stadium, Regina SK - Attendance: 30,048*

* Indicates sell out.


----------



## bd popeye

I've been re-miss..NFL scores and attendance from yesterday.. * = Sellout

Pittsburgh 28, Cleveland 10 
Heinz Field, Pittsburgh PA - Attendance: 65,168*

Philadelphia 31, Atlanta 17 
Lincoln Financial Field, Philadelphia PA - Attendance: 69,144*

Seattle 23, Chicago 20
Soldier Field, Chicago IL - Attendance: 62,137*

Miami 23, Green Bay 20
Lambeau Field, Green Bay WI - Attendance: 70,815*

New York 28, Detroit 20
New Meadowlands Stadium, East Rutherford NJ - Attendance: 78,341* 

New Orleans 31, Tampa Bay 6 
Raymond James Stadium, Tampa FL - Attendance: 51,759

St. Louis 20, San Diego 17
Edward Jones Dome, St Louis MO - Attendance: 52,472

Houston 35, Kansas City 31
Reliant Stadium, Houston TX - Attendance: 70,926*

New England 23, Baltimore 20 
Gillette Stadium, Foxboro MA - Attendance: 68,756*

San Francisco 17, Oakland 9 
Candlestick Park, San Francisco CA - Attendance: 69,732*

New York 24, Denver 20 
Invesco Field at Mile High, Denver CO - Attendance: 75,982*

Minnesota 24, Dallas 21 
Mall of America Field at HHH Metrodome, Minneapolis MN - Attendance: 64,120*

Indianapolis 27, Washington 24 
FedEx Field, Prince Georges County MD - Attendance: 87,883*

Edit --- Monday night 

Tennessee 30, Jacksonville 3 
Jacksonville Municipal Stadium - Attendance: 63,625

Week six average attendance.

*67,871*

2010 average attendance

*67,772*

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


----------



## isaidso

^^ Which teams get sell outs?


----------



## chrisbramley85

i know im a bit late on the rugby analogies but this is my version...

rugby league is a working class sport mainly played in the north of england and rugby league is a mainly middle class sport played over the majority of the uk. (and before someone jumps down my throat for saying union is mainly middle class... it IS... i mean how posh is Lawrence Dalliglio?!? lol!!)

personlly rugby league is my favourite as my dads side of the family was from Lancashire so i was regularly took up t'north to watch wigan when they had gary connolly, dennis betts, frano bottica and andy farrell during their all conquering side in the 90s... good times good times!! 

having lived my life in essex, and being made to play rugby union in school for PE, i was always moaning to the teachers about how rugby union was crap and league was better and faster due to the fact that any fat sod can play union but they wouldnt stand a chance in league haha!! my opinion changed tho when an ex rugby player (Tiger carroll i think he was called) who played at various levels in both codes, came in to give us a lesson one day.



anyway back to attendances... im going to do the two football clubs i follow because as much as i love rugby league im a football guy at heart so here are my teams and their average attendences










Blackburn Rovers FC - Ewood Park

===2000's average: 23.619===

2009-2010: 25,428
2008-2009: 24,899
2007-2008: 23,943
2006-2007: 21,275
2005-2006: 21,015
2004-2005: 22,315
2003-2004: 24,376
2002-2003: 26,225
2001-2002: 25,976
2000-2001: 20,740

not bad when you consider that the population of blackburn is a shy over 100,000. about a quarter of the town on average go to every home game, which make us the highest supported club town in the premier league, aswell as the most successful might i add haha!! ;-) and the most unfashionable aswell :-( 











and my beloved Dagenham & Redbridge FC

2009-2010: 2088
2008-2009: 2047
2007-2008: 2007
2006-2007: 1439
2005-2006: 1243
2004-2005: 1378
2003-2004: 1857
2002-2003: 3038 (bumped up by FA cup run)

we've always had some of the lowest attendances of any league we happen to be in, mainly due to the close proximity of West Ham and Leyton Orient but no matter!!


----------



## isaidso

chrisbramley85 said:


> Blackburn Rovers FC - Ewood Park
> 
> ===2000's average: 23.619===
> 
> not bad when you consider that the population of blackburn is a shy over 100,000.


That's really good. Is 100,000 the metropolitan population? I suppose there are 1,449,700 people in Lancashire alone so they draw from the whole county? England's geographically tiny so it's easy to get to games no matter where you live.

About the best we do in Canada when it comes to % of a population that goes to the games is the Saskatchewan Roughriders. They sell out their 30,048 stadium and there are only 200,000 in the whole metropolitan area of Regina. A whopping 85% of attendees come from the Regina area so that works out to 12.5% of the population attending games. Most cities in north America only manage about 3-4% of their population coming out to games at the very most.


----------



## bd popeye

isaidso said:


> ^^ Which teams get sell outs?


I put an * by all the sellouts. Check my post #596 A sellout in the NFL is all seats sold *excluding "Club seats".*

What are club seats??;

http://www.forbes.com/2004/09/02/cz_ab_0902nflclubseats.html


----------



## isaidso

Ok, thanks. 

I'm under the impression that club seats aren't available to the general public. They're sold on a contract basis for maximum profit to the organization. They're usually rather exclusive, allow access to restricted areas, but unlike corporate boxes they are open to the elements just like tier seating.

If there are seats that go unused they are usually in the corporate boxes and club level seating rather than general admission seats. That's why a stadium can be listed as sold out, yet they are still not at capacity. Are all the club seats and boxes full?


----------



## bd popeye

> If there are seats that go unused they are usually in the corporate boxes and club level seating rather than general admission seats.


True..but this year Oakland, Tampa Bay, St Louis, Jacksonville & San Diego have been have difficulties selling out games.



> That's why a stadium can be listed as sold out, yet they are still not at capacity.


Yes.



> Are all the club seats and boxes full?


Not always. Depends on how much corporate interest and hi-rollers live in a city willing to spend big bucks on NFL football. Cities like NYC, Philly, Boston, Chicago & Washington have no problem selling out club seats & season tickets for years in advance.

The Green Bay Packers have a waiting list over 40 years long for season tickets. Read the links below.

NFL Waiting List

Forbes NFL waiting list insight


----------



## Greece

*Greek Football Attendance*

Greek average attendance of the 5 most popular clubs in Greece, but not including season ticket holders so they aren't really official, because for some reason the Greek Football Federation (EPO) doesn't include season-ticket holders. So this is basically for amount of tickets sold, and not actual attendance, but here it is:
2006-2007:
AEK Athens-17,251
PAOK Thessaloniki-8,336
Aris Thessaloniki-8,748
Panathinaikos Athens-14,356
Olympiakos Piraeus-22,415

2007-2008:
AEK Athens-22,499
PAOK Thessaloniki-11,127
Aris Thessaloniki-7,700
Panathinaikos Athens-9,213
Olympiakos Piraeus-24,200

2008-2009:
AEK Athens-15,781
PAOK Thessaloniki-16,338
Aris Thessaloniki-11,406
Panathinaikos Athens-19,242
Olympiakos Piraeus-25,371

2009-2010:
AEK Athens-13,526
PAOK Thessaloniki-16,637
Aris Thessaloniki-13,235
Panathinaikos Athens-27,464
Olympiakos Piraeus-21,421

2009-2010 Play-Offs (Useless competition that is killing the Superleague)-
AEK Athens-11,169
Aris Thessaloniki-6,653
Olympiakos Piraeus-13,871
PAOK Thessaloniki-24,275


----------



## Greece

2010-11 Average Attendances so far (Through Week 6)-
Please note that this does NOT include season-ticket holders, because the only figures included are SOLD TICKETS for that specific name, and season-ticket holders don't count so there are really some more people there.
*Avg. Attendance/Stadium Capacity (# of Games)

Panathinaikos Athens-33,112/71,030 (1)
Olympiakos Piraeus-26,348/33,334 (2)
PAOK Thessaloniki-16,818/28,701 (3)
AEK Athens-11,392/71,030 (3)
Aris Thessaloniki-11,370/22,800 (3)
Olympiakos Volos-5,593/9,000 + 22,700 [Using two stadiums] (2)
Iraklis Thessaloniki-4,528/28,028 (4)
Panserraikos-3,531/9,500 (2)
*AO Kavala-2,971/12,500 [Expanding to 14,000 by mid-season] (4)
AEL Larissa-2,861/13,108 + 17,000 [Building a new stadium] (4)
Panionios Athens-2,786/11,700 (3)
FC Skoda Xanthi-2,560/7,361 (3)
Ergotelis-2,558/26,400 (3)
Asteras Tripolis-2,371/6,430 (2)
Kerkyra-1,611/2,685 + 23,588 [Using two stadiums] (4)
Atromitos Athens-1,605/8,939 (3)

*AO Kavala's stadium is currently having some repairs so they aren't 12,500 seats now since some got destroyed 

Three Games were played behind close doors:
FC Skoda Xanthi @ Panathinaikos Athens
Kerkyra @ Olympiakos Piraeus
PAOK Thessaloniki @ Panathinaikos Athens
^This one is a derby game, so it hurt attendance badly.


----------



## chrisbramley85

isaidso said:


> That's really good. Is 100,000 the metropolitan population? I suppose there are 1,449,700 people in Lancashire alone so they draw from the whole county? England's geographically tiny so it's easy to get to games no matter where you live.
> 
> About the best we do in Canada when it comes to % of a population that goes to the games is the Saskatchewan Roughriders. They sell out their 30,048 stadium and there are only 200,000 in the whole metropolitan area of Regina. A whopping 85% of attendees come from the Regina area so that works out to 12.5% of the population attending games. Most cities in north America only manage about 3-4% of their population coming out to games at the very most.


yeah the 'town' of blackburn has a population of roughly 105,000. take that into account the borough of dagenham in east london/essex has a population of roughly 200,000 and they get gates of roughly 2,300 per game but with the added pressure of far bigger clubs nearby such as leyton orient (who are now in the same league as the daggers thanks to our amazing over achievements under the legend that is Gary Hill) and West Ham. (ps if you're after some interesting reading about a modern football fairytale look up the history of Dagenham & Redbridge FC and trust me you wont be disappointed!!)

blackburn do get fans coming from the neighbouring towns but even when you take that into account its hardly a massive catchment area at all as there are so many clubs in lancashire such as Blackburn, Bolton, Wigan, Burnley (scum), Accrington Stanley, Preston, Blackpool, Bury, Morcambe and you can also take into account the neighbouring areas such as Greater Manchester (which includes Man Utd, Man City, Rochdale, Oldham, Stockport) and the Liverpool area aswell (which includes Liverpool and Everton) and a lot of those areas inbetween are primarily rugby league towns aswell such as St. Helens, Wigan (split roughly 50/50 between rugby and football) and Warrington (which is strictly) Cheshire but all in all there are a lot of clubs of various football codes who all do pretty well to pull in the punters given the amount of clubs in that vacinity.

i must say blackburn probably does the best compared to the big clubs lke Man Utd and Liverpool as they have fans across the whole country and Blackburn are so unfashionable its untrue!!


----------



## Andy-i

Patrick said:


> First four german leagues at the moment: I have excluded the figures of B-teams in the 3. Liga and the Regionalliga, and I have only listed the ones from the Regionalliga (which has 3 different divisions à 18 teams) which have more than 1000 viewers per game.



Heres the same for England this season.










The numbers for the lower leagues show how popular Football is in England.

In comparison:
2nd Tier of RU has an average of 2223 for 12 only teams.
2nd Tier of RL has average of 1519 for 11 teams


----------



## isaidso

chrisbramley85 said:


> blackburn do get fans coming from the neighbouring towns but even when you take that into account its hardly a massive catchment area at all as there are so many clubs in lancashire such as Blackburn, Bolton, Wigan, Burnley (scum), Accrington Stanley, Preston, Blackpool, Bury, Morcambe...


That's a ton of clubs. It would be interesting to find statistics on per capita attendance at football from country to country. I did the United States and Canada below:

*UNITED STATES 
Football attendance (all codes): 64,745,852
Population: 310,548,000 (2010)
0.208 football games/year/American*

NCAA Division 1: 37,483,158 (2008)
NCAA Division 2: 5,972,993 (2008)
NFL: 17,469,552
MLS: 3,303,299 (not including Toronto)
USL: 516,850 (not including Montreal and Vancouver)

*CANADA 
Football attendance (all codes): 3,006,677
Population: 34,289,000 (2010)
0.088 football games/year/Canadian*

CFL: 2,100,016 
CIS: 341,329 
MLS: 305,160 (Toronto)
USL: 180,494 (Montreal)
USL: 79,678 (Vancouver)

It seems that football is roughly twice as popular in the United States as it is in Canada. Canada holds its own with the United States in attendance at all football codes except when it comes to college football. Canadian college football attendance (CIS) would need to increase 14 fold (or to around 4.8 million) to reach US levels of interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_attendance_figures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attendance_figures_at_domestic_professional_sports_leagues
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attendance_figures_at_domestic_professional_sports_leagues
http://www.kenn.com/the_blog/?p=2264

All figures 2009 unless otherwise indicated.


----------



## bd popeye

^^ For college football in the US those figures mean nothing because college football fans come from all over a region if not the US to attend games. Many attending games are alumni of said University and have a great allegiance to that school... simple. 

Some members may wonder if there are different levels of Pro and college football in the US. The answer is yes and no. In the US there's almost zero chance for a DIV II NCAA football program moving up to Div I. It does happen..but not often.

In the pros there is another pro league. The United Football Leauge. However they are not affilated with the NFL and they have only five teams.

NCAA Division football is the _dominant_ "lower tier"hno: football in the US. And probably the second most popular sport in the US.

Division II NCAA football averaged 3,458 fans per game for 148 schools.

..not to mention the thousands of High school level football programs in the US.

A few selected NCAA Division I football scores and attendance from yesterday.

Ohio St. 49, Purdue 0 
Ohio Stadium, Columbus OH - Attendance: 105,387

Alabama 41, Tennessee 10 
Neyland Stadium, Knoxville TN - Attendance: 102,455

Iowa St. 28, Texas 21 
Darrell K Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium, Austin TX - Attendance: 100,142

Auburn 24, LSU 17 
Jordan-Hare Stadium, Auburn AL. Attendance: 87,451

Navy 35, Notre Dame 17
New Meadowlands Stadium, East Rutherford, NJ - Attendance: 75,614

Georgia 44, Kentucky 31 
Commonwealth Stadium, Lexington KY - Attendance: 70,884

Wisconsin 31, Iowa 30 
Kinnick Stadium, Iowa City IA - Attendance: 70,585

Washington 14, Arizona 44
Arizona Stadium, Tucson AZ - Attendance: 56,244

Duke 7, Virginia Tech 44 
Lane Stadium/Worsham Field Blacksburg VA - Attendance: 66,233

East Carolina 37, Marshall 10 
Dowdy-Ficklen Stadium, Greenville NC - Attendance: 50,145

Clemson 27, Georgia Tech 13 
Clemson SC - Attendance: 77,000

Pittsburgh 41, Rutgers 21 
Heinz Field. Pittsburgh PA - Attendance: 50,425


----------



## weava

bd popeye said:


> In the US there's almost zero chance for a DIV II NCAA football program moving up to Div I. It does happen..but not often.


Just in the last few years there have been like 10 schools move up. Also there are talks of a bunch of FCS schools looking to move to FBS since the WAC has openings.


----------



## isaidso

bd popeye said:


> ^^ For college football in the US those figures mean nothing because college football fans come from all over a region if not the US to attend games. Many attending games are alumni of said University and have a great allegiance to that school... simple.


This isn't about football allegiances. The data is about how many people go to watch football games from country to country. 80,000 people at football game is 80,000 people at a football game. What part of your country those people come from is irrelevant.


----------



## bd popeye

isaidso said:


> This isn't about football allegiances. The data is about how many people go to watch football games from country to country. 80,000 people at football game is 80,000 people at a football game. What part of your country those people come from is irrelevant.


Thank you. No slight on you...but... I must be missing something because I don't get it. Sorry.:uh: Maybe I need a different explanation.

edit about 20 minutes later..I get it now..thanks!


----------



## chrisbramley85

isaidso said:


> That's a ton of clubs. It would be interesting to find statistics on per capita attendance at football from country to country. I did the United States and Canada below:
> 
> *UNITED STATES
> Football attendance (all codes): 64,745,852
> Population: 310,548,000 (2010)
> 0.208 football games/year/American*
> 
> NCAA Division 1: 37,483,158 (2008)
> NCAA Division 2: 5,972,993 (2008)
> NFL: 17,469,552
> MLS: 3,303,299 (not including Toronto)
> USL: 516,850 (not including Montreal and Vancouver)
> 
> *CANADA
> Football attendance (all codes): 3,006,677
> Population: 34,289,000 (2010)
> 0.088 football games/year/Canadian*
> 
> CFL: 2,100,016
> CIS: 341,329
> MLS: 305,160 (Toronto)
> USL: 180,494 (Montreal)
> USL: 79,678 (Vancouver)
> 
> It seems that football is roughly twice as popular in the United States as it is in Canada. Canada holds its own with the United States in attendance at all football codes except when it comes to college football. Canadian college football attendance (CIS) would need to increase 14 fold (or to around 4.8 million) to reach US levels of interest.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_attendance_figures
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attendance_figures_at_domestic_professional_sports_leagues
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attendance_figures_at_domestic_professional_sports_leagues
> http://www.kenn.com/the_blog/?p=2264
> 
> All figures 2009 unless otherwise indicated.


yeah it is a lot of clubs!! they are just the professional football clubs aswell spanning over the 'football league' whihc is the top 4 leagues in the country. there must be dozens of semi pro football teams in the area aswell, spanning another dozens semi pro leagues!!


----------



## crazydude

South Africa's Currie Cup attendances. The Currie Cup is SA's highest level of rugby union, it works on a provincial union basis (not clubs). The teams are spilt into 2 divisions, the premeir division with 8 teams, and the first division with 6 teams. Each division playes a double round robin, so 7 home games in the premier division and 5 in the first division. This is followed by semi finals and a final in each division. The top 2 from the 1st division have to play off against the bottom 2 from the premier division to win promotion.

Figures are taken from Wikipedia, and many matches are missing attendances.

Regular season:

Premier Division

Blue Bulls
based in Pretoria, stadium holds about 50 000
6 110, 21 478, 9 893, 25 774, 35 356
average: 19 722

Free State Cheetahs 
based in Bloemfontein, stadium holds about 46 000
15 098, 1 000, 17 000, 13 017, 17 541, 13 348
average: 12 834

Golden Lions 
based in Joburg, stadium holds about 60 000
10 113, 3 112, 13 531, 10 000, 25 315, 8 591
average: 11 777

Western Province
based in Cape Town, stadium holds about 50 000
18 365, 15 666, 47 835, 23 867, 14 939, 18 972, 51 900
average: 27 363

Griquas
based in Kimberely, stadium holds about 18 000
1 000, 1 000, 1 000, 1 000, 1 000, 7 000
average: 2 000

Natal Sharks
based in Durban, stadium holds about 55 000
25 573, 12 486, 22 095, 26 406, 15 690, 27 402, 18 707
average: 21 194

Pumas
based in Witbank, played 2 matches in Nelspruit, stadiums hold about 20 000 and 40 000
1 000, 1 000, 20 000
average: 7 333

Leopards 
based in Potchefstroom, played 3 matches in Rustenburg, stadiums hold about 15 000 and 42 000
400, 600, 2 000, 1 500
average: 1 125

First Division

Eastern Province Kings
based in Port Elizabeth, stadium holds about 48 000
5 000, 5 000, 7 000
average: 5 667

Border Bulldogs
based in East London, stadium holds about 16 000
1 500, 500, 1 000
average: 1 000

Boland Cavaliers
based in Wellington, stadium holds abot 3 500
1 000, 900, 800
average: 900

South Western Districts Eagles
based in George, stadium holds about 10 000
500, 2 500, 3 500, 1 000
average: 1 875

Falcons
based in Kempton Park, stadium holds about 7 000
500, 1 500, 1 000, 500, 1 000
avergae: 900

Griffons
based in Welkom, stadium holds about 17 000
500, 100, 100, 300
average: 250

Some play offs are still taking place, so I will add them when they are completed, 30 October.


----------



## bd popeye

weava said:


> Just in the last few years there have been like 10 schools move up. Also there are talks of a bunch of FCS schools looking to move to FBS since the WAC has openings.


Thank you for that correction. So now which schools have moved up or are trying to move up? Thank you!


----------



## KingmanIII

bd popeye said:


> Thank you for that correction. So now which schools have moved up or are trying to move up? Thank you!


BSU, USF, UCF, UConn, Marshall, pretty much the entire Sun Belt, to name a few.


----------



## Scba

I think Western Kentucky is the most recent to move up to full Div. 1


----------



## bd popeye

KingmanIII said:


> BSU, USF, UCF, UConn, Marshall, pretty much the entire Sun Belt, to name a few.


I need to clarfiy.. there's a difference between DI and DI A.. 

Thanks.. but I think Marshall may have been a Div I A school for some time...since 1997.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_University

No matter ..NCAA DI A football is the second most popular sport in the US. Period!


----------



## bd popeye

NFL scores and attendance for week seven of the 2010 season.

New York 41, Dallas 35 
Cowboys Stadium, Arlington TX - Attendance: 91,375

Oakland 59, Denver 14 
Invesco Field at Mile High, Denver CO - Attendance: 75,835

Carolina 23, San Francisco 20 
Bank of America Stadium, Charlotte NC - Attendance: 72,741

Baltimore 37, Buffalo 34 (OT) 
M&T Bank Stadium, Baltimore MD - Attendance: 71,220

Green Bay 28, Minnesota 24 
Lambeau Field, Green Bay WI - Attendance: 71,107

Cleveland 30, New Orleans 17 
Louisiana Superdome, New Orleans LA - Attendance: 70,077

Pittsburgh 23, Miami 22 
Sun Life Stadium, Miami Gardens FL - Attendance: 69,867

Tennessee 37, Philadelphia 19 
LP Field, Nashville TN - Attendance: 69,143

Kansas City 42, Jacksonville 20 
Arrowhead Stadium, Kansas City MO - Attendance: 69,105

New England 23, San Diego 20 
Qualcomm Stadium, San Diego CA - Attendance: 68,836

Atlanta 39, Cincinnati 32 
Georgia Dome, Atlanta GA - Attendance: 67,665

Seattle 22, Arizona 10
Qwest Field, Seattle WA - Attendance: 67,132

Washington 17, Chicago 14 
Soldier Field, Chicago IL - Attendance: 62,155

Tampa Bay 18, St. Louis 17 
Raymond James Stadium, Tampa FL - Attendance: 42,020..pitiful!!

Only one non-sellout!! ^^

Week seven average attendance;

*69,121*

NFL 2010 season Average attendance;

*68,446*


----------



## isaidso

bd popeye said:


> Thank you. No slight on you...but... I must be missing something because I don't get it. Sorry.:uh: Maybe I need a different explanation.
> 
> edit about 20 minutes later..I get it now..thanks!


No worries. :cheers1:


----------



## isaidso

*Average Attendance in Canadian pro football after Week #17:*








1.







Edmonton Eskimos 35,379 (capacity 62,531)
2.







Calgary Stampeders 31,099 (capacity 35,650)
3.







Saskatchewan Roughriders 30,048 (capacity 30,048)
4.







Winnipeg Blue Bombers 26,587 (capacity 29,533)
5.







Montréal Alouettes 25,012 (capacity 25,012)
6.







BC Lions 24,183 (capacity 27,500)
7.







Hamilton Tiger-Cats 23,877 (capacity 30,000)
8.







Toronto Argonauts 22,025* (capacity 53,506)

* One Toronto 'home game' was played in Moncton, New Brunswick on Sunday, September 26th before a sell out crowd of 20,725.


----------



## bd popeye

Excellent attendance for the CFL. Excellent!

isaidso, CFL question for you. Have there ever been any recent plans to expand the CFL to perhaps 10 teams?.Humm...If so where would those 2 extra teams play???

Hey didn't Baltimore MD have a team some years ago for a short while?? And what happened to the Ottawa Rough riders??


----------



## You are to blame

MLS just finished it's regular season, the following are the final team averages for 2010


*MLS Average 16,675*

*







Seattle Sounders FC........36,173	







Los Angeles Galaxy..........21,436	







Toronto FC.....................20,453	







Philadelphia Union............19,254	







New York Red Bulls...........18,441	







Houston Dynamo..............17,309	







Real Salt Lake.................17,095	







Chicago Fire....................15,814	







Columbus Crew................14,641	







Chivas USA.....................14,575	







D.C. United.....................14,531	







Colorado Rapids...............13,328	







New England Revolution....12,986	







FC Dallas........................10,815	







Kansas City Wizards..........10,287







San Jose Earthquakes.........9,659*

*Expansion teams for 2011







Portland Timbers







Vancouver Whitecaps FC*


----------



## isaidso

^^ Nice job on the logos. It's a bit of work, but worth it. There are some great logos in MLS, but some names that try to hard to sound European. Is the Montreal Impact moving to MLS in 2012 then? I thought they were coming in next year.


----------



## isaidso

bd popeye said:


> Excellent attendance for the CFL. Excellent!


For the most part, I agree. I do find attendance figures for Toronto disturbingly low though. Support in Montreal is much stronger than the 25,012 figure suggests since they play in a tiny stadium. It's been sold out for 10 years. A good indication of the interest level was on display when 400,000 Montrealers showed up for last year's victory parade for the Alouettes in downtown Montreal. It was a massive turn out to cheer on their Alouettes.



bd popeye said:


> isaidso, CFL question for you. Have there ever been any recent plans to expand the CFL to perhaps 10 teams?.Humm...If so where would those 2 extra teams play???....And what happened to the Ottawa Rough riders??


10 teams by 2015 seems like a distinct possibility.

It's been a dream of the league to become a truly national league for decades. To this day, there is still no team in the Maritimes. Questions as to whether the region had a large enough population were always aired, but a lack of a decent stadium was always the big problem. 

Moncton recently built a stadium and hosted the first regular season CFL game ever held in the Maritimes. Moncton only has 125,000 people, but sold out their 20,750 stadium in 32 hours. The city and province really impressed a lot of people on a number of fronts and they're definitely on the league's radar now.

The Rough Riders, founded way back in 1876, folded due to massive mismanagement and asinine decision making at head office. After many years, the fans had enough and stopped coming. 

A solid Ottawa management team has been secured and have been granted a new franchise for 2013 conditional on a stadium being CFL ready. The north stands were demolished due to structural instability and they should be commencing with a new stand in the spring of 2011.

The argument for Halifax is stronger than the argument for Moncton out east, but it's Moncton that has the stadium. Nevertheless, the league could easily pan out as shown below. I live in Toronto, but would instantly become a huge supporter of a Maritime team. (I'm from Halifax)

*EAST
Montreal
Hamilton
Toronto
Ottawa (2013)
Moncton (2014)*

*WEST
Winnipeg
Saskatchewan
Edmonton
Calgary
BC
*



bd popeye said:


> Hey didn't Baltimore MD have a team some years ago for a short while??


Baltimore did have a CFL team at one point. It was a very successful franchise and even won the Grey Cup in 1995. A move by the NFL into Baltimore convinced the Baltimore Stallions that they'd be better off in Montreal. The Stallions became the Alouettes. Baltimore Stallion fans from Maryland still show up at the Grey Cup game every year despite not having a team. 

*The CFL's Baltimore Stallions in blue/silver*


----------



## BoulderGrad

isaidso said:


> ^^ Nice job on the logos. It's a bit of work, but worth it. There are some great logos in MLS, but some names that try to hard to sound European. Is the Montreal Impact moving to MLS in 2012 then? I thought they were coming in next year.


Seattle 2009
Philadelphia 2010
Portland 2011
Vancouver 2011
Montreal 2012
New York Cosomos 2012-13 (most likely)
Orlando City SC 2013-2014 (possibly)


----------



## BoulderGrad

Seattle is expected to open up the hawks nest for Sounders games next season. This will boost capacity to about 39,000-40,000 seats:
http://www.sounderatheart.com/2010/...-owner-joe-roth-eyes-hawks-nest-for-expansion

Hawks Nest (pulled from big soccer forum, posted by pc4th) Currently they tarp it off as shown for Sounders games:









It is the eventual goal that they fill the whole stadium for each game.


----------



## bd popeye

isaidso, Thanks for the info on the CFL. I hope it continues to be successful.

'You are to blame"..Thanks for posting those MLS info & logos. The MLS is slowly growing...and that's a good thing!


----------



## thescene

THe attendance in Seattle should continue to soar with the entry of fierce rivals Portland and Vancouver.


----------



## krudmonk

BoulderGrad said:


> Seattle 2009
> Philadelphia 2010
> Portland 2011
> Vancouver 2011
> Montreal 2012
> New York Cosomos 2012-13 (most likely)
> Orlando City SC 2013-2014 (possibly)


Orlando is bogus. They just stole Austin's D-2 team and now aim to turn it into an MLS side in a couple years? And they're backed by a board member from some Premier League minnows? Total crap by a Brit who thinks MLS is still smalltime.


thescene said:


> THe attendance in Seattle should continue to soar with the entry of fierce rivals Portland and Vancouver.


The Sounders averaged about 3,000 back when they actually played either of those teams. Most fans barely know Portland or Vancouver. I guess I should give more credit to their marketing team by now, though.

Although I think Seattle and Portland faced off in last year's USOC, if I remember correctly. It was in Portland, though.


----------



## claraa

AMAZING BUT, LOOK THIS LINK IS ALL WHAT YOU HAVE TO KNOW
AFTER THAT COMMENT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_CBk3HfKtA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_CBk3HfKtA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_CBk3HfKtA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_CBk3HfKtA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_CBk3HfKtA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_CBk3HfKtA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_CBk3HfKtA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_CBk3HfKtA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_CBk3HfKtA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_CBk3HfKtA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_CBk3HfKtA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_CBk3HfKtA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_CBk3HfKtA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_CBk3HfKtA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_CBk3HfKtA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_CBk3HfKtA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_CBk3HfKtA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_CBk3HfKtA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_CBk3HfKtA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_CBk3HfKtA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_CBk3HfKtA


----------



## bd popeye

WTH^^??

Oh well spammers must play.

NCAA Division 1A attendance and scores from 10.30.2010

*







Penn St. 41, Michigan 31







*

*Beaver Stadium, University Park PA - Attendance: 108,539*


*







Oregon 53, USC 32







*

*Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum - Attendance: 88,726*

*







Colorado 10, Oklahoma 43







*

*Gaylord Family - Oklahoma Memorial Stadium, Norman OK - Attendance: 84,173*


*







Nebraska 31, Missouri 17







*

*Memorial Stadium, Lincoln NE - Attendance: 85,907*


*







Tennessee 24, South Carolina 38







*

*Williams-Brice Stadium, Columbia SC - Attendance: 79,336*


*







Baylor 30, Texas 22







*

*Darrell K Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium, Austin TX - Attendance: 100,452*


*







Iowa 37, Michigan St. 6







*

*Kinnick Stadium. Iowa City IA - Attendance: 70,585*


*







Tulsa 28, Notre Dame 27







*

*Notre Dame Stadium, South Bend IN - Attendance: 80,795*


*







Texas A&M 45, Texas Tech 27







*

*Kyle Field, College Station TX - Attendance: 84,479*


*







Florida 34, Georgia 31 (OT)







*

*EverBank Field - Jacksonville, FL - Attendance: 84,444*


----------



## bd popeye

The NFL made its yearly appearance in the UK with a regular season game played in Wembley Stadium.

*







San Francisco 24, Denver 16







*

*Wembley Stadium - London, England - Attendance: 83,941*


----------



## bd popeye

NFL scores & attendance for week 8 of the 2010 season

*







Kansas City 13, Buffalo 10







*

*Arrowhead Stadium, Kansas City MO - Attendance: 66,625*

*







Miami 22, Cincinnati 14







*

*Paul Brown Stadium, Cincinnati OH - Attendance: 63,179*

*







St. Louis 20, Carolina 10







*

*Edward Jones Dome, St Louis MO - Attendance: 52,281*

*







Detroit 37, Washington 25







*

*Ford Field, Detroit MI - Attendance: 42,329....pitifulhno: *

*







Green Bay 9, New York 0







*

*New Meadowlands Stadium, East Rutherford NJ - Attendance: 78,484*

*







San Diego 33, Tennessee 25







*

*Qualcomm Stadium, San Diego CA - Attendance: 59,260*

*







Tampa Bay 38, Arizona 35







*

*University of Phoenix Stadium, Glendale AZ - Attendance: 61,857*

*







New England 28, Minnesota 18







*

*Gillette Stadium, Foxboro MA - Attendance: 68,756*

*







Oakland 33, Seattle 3







*

*Oakland Coliseum, Oakland CA - Attendance: 35,721..pitifulhno: 
*

*







New Orleans 20, Pittsburgh 10








*

*Louisiana Superdome, New Orleans LA - Attendance: 70,011*


----------



## isaidso

*Average Attendance in Canadian pro football after Week #18:*








1.







Edmonton Eskimos 35,025 (capacity 62,531)
2.







Calgary Stampeders 30,715 (capacity 35,650)
3.







Saskatchewan Roughriders 30,048 (capacity 30,048)
4.







Winnipeg Blue Bombers 26,587 (capacity 29,533)
5.







Montréal Alouettes 25,012 (capacity 25,012)
6.







BC Lions 24,327 (capacity 27,500)
7.







Hamilton Tiger-Cats 23,877 (capacity 30,000)
8.







Toronto Argonauts 22,069* (capacity 53,506)

* One Toronto 'home game' was played in Moncton, New Brunswick on Sunday, September 26th before a sell out crowd of 20,725.


----------



## isaidso

College football was popular in Canada prior to 1950, but interest sharply declined after that. The sport has enjoyed significant growth the last decade, but from a very small fan base. There are 25 college football teams* in Canada spread over 4 conferences. Through Week #5, here are the average attendances for the 25 schools:

*College Football Season Average Attendances:*

01. Université Laval - 44,299 (3 games) - 14,766
02. University of Western Ontario - 28,184 (3 games) - 9,395
03. Queen's University - 14,530 (2 games) - 7,265
04. Université de Sherbrooke - 14,437 (2 games) - 7,219
05. University of Saskatchewan - 10,593 (2 games) - 5,297

06. McMaster University - 15,273 (3 games) - 5,091
07. Université de Montreal - 9,731 (2 games) - 4,866
08. University of Ottawa - 8,701 (2 games) - 4,351
09. Wilfred Laurier University - 12,649 (3 games) - 4,216
10. Saint Mary's University - 7,952 (2 games) - 3,979

11. University of Guelph - 11,846 (3 games) - 3,949
12. St. Francis Xavier University - 6,500 (2 games) - 3,250
13. Concordia University - 5,990 (2 games) - 2,995
14. University of Regina - 8,825 (3 games) - 2,942
15. McGill University - 8,381 (3 games) - 2,794

16. Mount Allison University - 5,569 (2 games) - 2,785
17. University of Calgary - 7,533 (3 games) - 2,511
18. University of Windsor - 2,500 (1 game, 1 unreported) - 2,500
19. University of Toronto - 7,014 (3 games) - 2,338
20. Bishop's University - 5,409 (3 games) - 1,803

21. University of Manitoba - 3,600 (2 games) - 1,800
22. Acadia University - 3,582 (2 games) - 1,791
23. University of Alberta - 3,534 (2 games) - 1,767
24. University of British Columbia - 4,477 (3 games) - 1,492
25. York University - 514 (1 game, 2 unreported) - 514

National Average - 233,652 (54 games, 3 unreported) - 4,327

* University of Waterloo's entire football team was been suspended for 1 season due to doping. They are expected to rejoin the Ontario Conference in 2011. 

Side note: There are rumours that more schools will field football teams in the near future; most likely in Quebec or Atlantic Canada.


----------



## bd popeye

Thanks for that info isaidso. 

And I like how you post the CFL attendance averages. I'd do that with the NFL but it would be very time consuming...

In the mean time here's a link to the 2010 NFL average attendance through eight weeks..

2010 NFL attendance by team


----------



## isaidso

No problem and thanks for the compliment. I have a spreadsheet on Excel that I set up. I input data after each week and it automatically tabulates average attendance for each team and the whole league. I had one for college football last year, but just did the CFL this time around.


----------



## bd popeye

You are welcome.. I don't know how to do spread sheets and such things..:|

I see you posted the college attendances in Canada. Nice.

I have a question. Why is it that college sports especially football and basketball are so popular in the US and the rest of the world is focused on (pro) club soccer?
Those players must come from somewhere. Right? Someone must watch them play? Do they start off in the lower leagues or what? Do they have youth leagues and high school leagues? Just how does it work?


----------



## isaidso

I took a 1 week course on Excel, and it's remarkably easy to learn. If you have the time and inclination, I'd highly recommend it. Excel comes in really handy sometimes.

Canada and the United States are islands to themselves when it comes to sporting culture. The only marked difference between these 2 countries is in the area of collegiate sports. Collegiate football and basketball in Canada and the US developed in unison at the same time, but a divergence happened around 1940. College sports boomed in the US, and they nose dived in Canada. 

The reasons are partially cultural and partially due to population. Hockey has always dominated sporting life in Canada with everything else fighting for the scraps. Football and basketball never received the money or support in Canada that it enjoyed in the US and stagnated. 

Population also played a key role. The US is going to need 9 times as many teams as Canada to satisfy demand for sports due to having 9 times the population. 32 NFL teams and 29 NBA teams just isn't nearly enough for 309 million people. The US needs all those NCAA teams. Can you imagine how starved for sports Americans would be if none of those NCAA teams existed?

Conversely, Canada just isn't big enough to support 8 pro football teams, 6 NHL teams, and a full slate of college teams as well. I'm a big college football and basketball fan so I'm rather envious of what you have in the US. 4,000 for college football is considered a big turn out here.

As far as soccer goes, it's by far the biggest sport on the planet. In most countries, it's the only sport that matters. Soccer absolutely dominates the sporting culture globally. Look at England! They only have 50 million people and they have 116 professional soccer teams in 5 divisions. 116! Then they have literally hundreds of teams below that trying to work their way up.

There's literally no room for collegiate sports on top of that. Why would they be interested when they have so many teams already? Besides, it's all about soccer in most countries. Football is really a Canada/US passion, while basketball is a distant 2nd to soccer globally.

US (309 million people, 32 NFL teams)
England (50 million people, 116 soccer teams)

The US needs collegiate sports to fill the demand, the rest of the world does not.


----------



## footballff

Can anyone explain why the Seattle Sounders are so popular? I mean, Galaxy has Beckham and Donovan, Red Bulls have Henry and Marquez, but not the fanbase of the Sounders. Impressive for Seattle!


----------



## bd popeye

*Average NFL attendance through week 9 of the 2010 season.

62,305
Arizona Cardinals
est 1994

67,157
Atlanta Falcons
est. 1966 

71,222
Baltimore Ravens
est. 1996

65,620
Buffalo Bills
est. 1960 

72,972
Carolina Panthers
est. 1995 

62,137
Chicago Bears
est. 1920 

64,191
Cincinnati Bengals
est. 1968 

65,922
Cleveland Browns
est. 1946 

87,138
Dallas Cowboys
est. 1960 

75,837
Denver Broncos
est. 1960 

54,132
Detroit Lions
est. 1934 

70,861
Green Bay Packers
est. 1919 

71,070
Houston Texans
est. 2002 

66,835
Indianapolis Colts
est. 1984 

63,407
Jacksonville Jaguars
est. 1995 

68,803
Kansas City Chiefs
est 1961*


----------



## bd popeye

*Post #2

Average 2010 National Football League attendance through week nine.

*  *69,812*
Miami Dolphins
est. 1966 
 *
63,865*
Minnesota Vikings
est. 1961 
 *
68,756*
New England Patriots
est. 1971 
 *
70,141*
New Orleans Saints
est. 1967 
 *
78,172*
New York Giants
est. 1925 
 *
78,263*
New York Jets
est. 1963 
 *
45,137*
Oakland Raiders
est. 1995 
 *
69,144*
Philadelphia Eagles
est. 1933 
 *
64,502*
Pittsburgh Steelers
est. 1933 
 *
63,244*
San Diego Chargers
est. 1961 
 *
69,732*
San Francisco 49ers
est. 1946 
 *
67,142*
Seattle Seahawks
est. 1976 
 *
52,377*
St. Louis Rams
est. 1995 
 *
50,506*
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
est. 1976 
 *
69,143*
Tennessee Titans
est. 1999 

*88,638 * 
Washington Redskins 
est 1937


----------



## Calvin W

Tennessee Titans? Since when do they average 88,638 in a stadium that holds 68,798? Think someone somewhere has made a big mistake......


----------



## slipperydog

Calvin W said:


> Tennessee Titans? Since when do they average 88,638 in a stadium that holds 68,798? Think someone somewhere has made a big mistake......


That's Washington Redskins, the respective attendance is listed ABOVE each team.


----------



## bd popeye

^^ I think there's a problem with my post because those logo images are hotlinked..


----------



## isaidso

I thought those US teams were much older than they are. Most of them were founded after 1960? :shocked:

Here's a list for Canada's pro teams:

*Hamilton Tiger-Cats 1869* (Tigers amalgamated with Wildcats to form Tiger-Cats in 1950)
*Montreal Alouettes 1872* (Montreal Football Club renamed Alouettes in 1946)
*Toronto Argonauts 1873*
*Ottawa Rough Riders 1876* (Folded in 1996)
*Winnipeg Bluebombers 1879* (Winnipeg Rugby Football Club merged with others to form the Bluebombers in 1932)
*Edmonton Eskimos 1895* (Esquimaux Football Club renamed Edmonton Eskimos in 1910)
*Saskatchewan Roughriders 1910*
*Calgary Stampeders 1945* (Calgary's first football club was formed in 1891)
*BC Lions 1954*


----------



## slipperydog

isaidso said:


> I thought those US teams were much older than they are. Most of them were founded after 1960? :shocked:


Only 10 teams were founded after 1960. But the dates listed above are only when they were established in those cities or joined the league. Some have been around a lot longer than that, they have just moved cities or played in different leagues. For example, the Cardinals have been around since 1898, Rams since 1937, Colts since 1953. So 22 teams were founded in 1960 or before, 6 were founded in the 60s and 70s, and only 4 were founded in the latest 90s expansion.


----------



## isaidso

slipperydog said:


> Only 10 teams were founded after 1960. But the dates listed above are only when they were established in those cities or joined the league. Some have been around a lot longer than that, they have just moved cities or played in different leagues. For example, the Cardinals have been around since 1898, Rams since 1937, Colts since 1953. So 22 teams were founded in 1960 or before, 6 were founded in the 60s and 70s, and only 4 were founded in the latest 90s expansion.


OK, thanks. I knew there have been football clubs in some US cities for at least a century.


----------



## slipperydog

Based on your numbers from the CFL, it looks like up there, the pro game developed first. In the US, college football developed first and was the dominant level of football interest. So the idea of pro football was still pretty new, and didn't really become widely popular until the 50s and 60s.


----------



## isaidso

Well, the college teams in Canada are even older than the pro teams as the sport was developed at colleges. It all started in 1861:


> First documented football game was played at the University of Toronto on the present site of University College (400 yards west of Queen's Park) on November 9. One of the participants in the game involving University of Toronto students was (Sir) William Mulock, later it's Chancellor.


http://greycup.cfl.ca/page/grey-cup-history-timeline-1860


----------



## Rev Stickleback

isaidso said:


> Well, the college teams in Canada are even older than the pro teams as the sport was developed at colleges. It all started in 1861:
> 
> http://greycup.cfl.ca/page/grey-cup-history-timeline-1860


mind you, back then the sport was very different to now. Pretty much unrecognisable in fact, as the significant changes that made all of today's football type games different hadn't yet been invented.


----------



## isaidso

Rev Stickleback said:


> mind you, back then the sport was very different to now. Pretty much unrecognisable in fact, as the significant changes that made all of today's football type games different hadn't yet been invented.


It looked very different than todays football, but lots of significant changes to the sport did occur back then. The sport in Canada had moved substantially away from English rugby by 1860. Enough so, that the sport went by the new name 'rugby-football'. This new sport continued to evolve from 1861 onwards *and is still evolving to this day*: new rules get adopted, old ones are dropped.

Canadians look to 1861 as the beginnings of modern football. Like most schools in central Canada, McGill was already playing 'rugby football' by the time they met Harvard. Do Americans look to the varsity matches between McGill and Harvard in 1874? Lots of new rules came out of that varsity play, but the game had already moved well beyond rugby before that meeting. I believe Harvard was still playing rugby up till they met McGill.


----------



## bd popeye

slipperydog said:


> Only 10 teams were founded after 1960. But the dates listed above are only when they were established in those cities or joined the league. Some have been around a lot longer than that, they have just moved cities or played in different leagues. For example, the Cardinals have been around since 1898, Rams since 1937, Colts since 1953. So 22 teams were founded in 1960 or before, 6 were founded in the 60s and 70s, and only 4 were founded in the latest 90s expansion.


I missed this post.. anyway here are some more of the NFL historical lineage.

Cardinals
Chicago Cardinals (1920 - 1959)
St. Louis Cardinals (1960 - 1987)
Phoenix Cardinals (1988 - 1993)
Arizona Cardinals (1994 - Pres)

Raiders
Oakland Raiders (1960 - 1981)
Los Angeles Raiders (1982 - 1994)
Oakland Raiders (1995 - Pres)

Patriots
Boston Patriots (1960 - 1970)
New England Patriots (1971 - Pres)

Colts
Baltimore Colts (1953 - 1983)
Indianapolis Colts (1984 - Pres)

Jets
New York Titans (1960 - 1962)
New York Jets (1963 - Pres)

Chiefs
Dallas Texans (1960 - 1962)
Kansas City Chiefs (1963 - Pres)

Rams
Cleveland Rams (1937 - 1945)
Los Angeles Rams (1946 - 1994)
St. Louis Rams (1995 - Pres)

Titans
Houston Oilers (1960 - 1996)
Tennessee Oilers (1997 - 1998)
Tennessee Titans (1999 - Pres)


----------



## JYDA

isaidso said:


> The sport in Canada had moved substantially away from English rugby by 1860. Enough so, that the sport went by the new name 'rugby-football'.


new name? Rugby Football is rugby's full name. Football was not added at all. Saying "rugby" is just a short form just as soccer is short for As*soc*iation Football.


----------



## krudmonk

"Rugby football" doesn't even refer to one sport in particular, but a smaller family of codes.


----------



## parcdesprinces

^^ In France we say: :bowtie:
_"Football joué selon les règles de l’école de la ville de Rugby"
_

Shortly: 
_"Football joué selon les règles de l’école de Rugby"_

Or, even shorter: :colgate:
_"Football joué selon les règles de Rugby"_... 

Or..: :horse:
_"Rugby !"_


----------



## bd popeye

Some selected NCAA scores and attendance from yesterday

*







Utah 3, Notre Dame 28







*

*Notre Dame Stadium - Attendance: 80,795*


*







Oregon 15, California 13







*

*Memorial Stadium - Attendance: 65,963*


*







Georgia 31, Auburn 49







*

*Jordan-Hare Stadium - Attendance: 87,451*


*







Penn St. 14, Ohio St. 38







*

*Ohio Stadium, Columbus OH - Attendance: 105,466*


*







Mississippi St. 10, Alabama 30







*

*Bryant-Denny Stadium, Tuscaloosa AL - Attendance: 101,821*


*







Oklahoma St. 33, Texas 16







*

*Darrell K Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium, Austin TX - Attendance: 100,659*


*







ULM 0, LSU 51







*

*Tiger Stadium, Baton Rouge LA - Attendance: 92,518*


*







Tennessee 52, Mississippi 14







*

*Neyland Stadium, Knoxville TN - Attendance: 96,044*


*







Kansas 3, Nebraska 20







*

*Memorial Stadium, Lincoln NE - Attendance: 85,587*


*







Texas Tech 7, Oklahoma 45







*

*Gaylord Family - Oklahoma Memorial Stadium, Norman OK - Attendance: 85,116*


----------



## en1044

bd popeye said:


> *Oklahoma St. 33, Texas 1*


Lol. Clearly a typo, but still funny.

33-16


----------



## bd popeye

en1044 said:


> Lol. Clearly a typo, but still funny.
> 
> 33-16


Thanks! my bad. I get those scores from USA today and many times when you go to the page with the box score the score reads 0-0..I did not fill in that Texas score properly..hno:


----------



## en1044

If that was the actual reported final score, would anyone even question it? Haha.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

Walbanger said:


> Oh, and sorry to be that dickhead but Australian Rules Football is not a Rugby Sport, the Oval Ball shape is about as much common ground they have. It would stand independently with Gaelic Football.


It would quite possibly be fair to say that Aussie Rules has more in common with the original Association Football than any other football code, including association football. It certainly isn't a rugby derivative.


----------



## Kozhedub

Average capacity of Ukrainian Premier League stadiums is *20 710*.
Average attendance according to Premier League site is 9505 people per one round (up to 30.10.2010).


----------



## Quintana

*Eredivisie* (average of 18,745, 4,4% down compared to last season mainly because Excelsior got promoted while Sparta were relegated)

1. Ajax 44,426
2. Feyenoord 40,722
3. PSV 33,520
4. SC Heerenveen 25,810
5. FC Twente 23,738
6. FC Groningen 21,815
7. FC Utrecht 18,559
8. NAC Breda 18,204
9. AZ 16,188
10. Vitesse 14,907
11. Roda JC 13,437
12. NEC Nijmegen 12,311
13. ADO Den Haag 11,973
14. De Graafschap 11,794
15. Willem II 11,067
16. Heracles Almelo 8,460
17. VVV Venlo 7,522
18. Excelsior 3,321

Unfortunately, it does not look like Excelsior will relegate this season (Willem II and possibly VVV Venlo will).


----------



## isaidso

fanUltras said:


> Baseball
> *1. USA (MBL) 30 *
> 2. Japan 26
> 3. South Korea 11
> 4. Mexico 7
> + Dominikana?, Venezuela ?
> 
> 
> Basketball
> *1. USA (NBA) 17 *
> 2. Spain 7
> 3. Philippines 6,6
> - Italy, Australia, Germany 3,5-3,8


Those are Canadian - US


----------



## bd popeye

C'mon isaidso..There's one team from Canada in each of those leauges..*ONE*..so maybe it should be US-Canada...:|


----------



## westsidebomber

FBS College football (USA) set an all-time record for average attendance with an 46,632 average for 808 games for a total attendance of 37,678,722.

Pretty incredible stuff.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect//public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2011/february/ncaa+football+attendance+reaches+new+heights


----------



## bd popeye

^^Absoulutley! I challenge any league in any sport on this planet to beat these numbers...

Check out this attendance for the top 30 teams of NCAA Div 1A football..

For those of you that don't know the top three teams are in the same league(conference)

2010 NCAA DIVISION I FBS ATTENDANCE TEAM LEADERS
Rank School G Attendance Average
1. Michigan 111,825
2. Ohio St. 105,278
3. Penn St. 104,234
4. Alabama 101,821
5. Texas 100,654
6. Tennessee 99,781
7. Georgia 92,746
8. LSU 92,718
9. Florida 90,511
10. Auburn 86,087
11. Nebraska 85,664
12. Oklahoma 84,738
13. Texas A&M 82,477
14. Notre Dame 80,795
15. Southern California 79,907
16. Wisconsin 79,862
17. Clemson 77,469
18. South Carolina 76,668
19. Michigan St. 73,556
20. Florida St. 71,270
21. Iowa 70,585
22. Arkansas 68,932
23. Washington 66,264
24. Virginia Tech 66,233
25. Kentucky 66,070
26. Missouri 61,540
27. BYU 61,381
28. UCLA 60,376
29. Oregon 59,398
30. North Carolina 58,250


----------



## Ampelio

npmrsi said:


> 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Borussia Dortmund 77.385
> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bayern München 69.000
> 3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FC Schalke 04 61.388
> 4.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamburger SV 54.222
> 5.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. FC Köln 47.775
> 6.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eintracht Frankfurt 47.225
> 7.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. FC Kaiserslautern 45.982
> 8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bor. Mönchengladbach 44.612
> 9.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hannover 96 42.524
> 10.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. FC Nürnberg 40.801
> 11.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VfB Stuttgart 39.844
> 12.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Werder Bremen 35.332
> 13.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1899 Hoffenheim 29.825
> 14.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VfL Wolfsburg 28.234
> 15.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bayer Leverkusen 27.959
> 16.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FC St. Pauli 24.161
> 17.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SC Freiburg 23.344
> 18.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. FSV Mainz 05 20.267
> 
> _Bundesliga average_ *42.040*


Bundesliga kay: kay:



source: www.soccerway.com


----------



## Ampelio

Quintana said:


> *Eredivisie* (average of 18,745, 4,4% down compared to last season mainly because Excelsior got promoted while Sparta were relegated)
> 
> 1. Ajax 44,426
> 2. Feyenoord 40,722
> 3. PSV 33,520
> 4. SC Heerenveen 25,810
> 5. FC Twente 23,738
> 6. FC Groningen 21,815
> 7. FC Utrecht 18,559
> 8. NAC Breda 18,204
> 9. AZ 16,188
> 10. Vitesse 14,907
> 11. Roda JC 13,437
> 12. NEC Nijmegen 12,311
> 13. ADO Den Haag 11,973
> 14. De Graafschap 11,794
> 15. Willem II 11,067
> 16. Heracles Almelo 8,460
> 17. VVV Venlo 7,522
> 18. Excelsior 3,321
> 
> Unfortunately, it does not look like Excelsior will relegate this season (Willem II and possibly VVV Venlo will).


Eredivisie kay:

^^I'm just curious with the capacity of Polman stadion and Seacon stadion hno:

source: www.soccerway.com


----------



## Ampelio

Impressive English Premier League's crowds kay:


source: www.soccerway.com


----------



## Konig

Konig said:


> *Russian hockey*(bandy)
> 
> Russian Top League
> 
> 1999-2000 - 5 310
> 2000-2001 - 5 006
> *2002-2003 - 4 950*
> 
> Sibskana (Irkutsk)..................15900
> Kuzbass	(Kemerovo)................11100
> Rodina (Kirov).........................7889
> Start (Nizhniy Novgorod)..........7400
> Uralsky Trubnik (Pervouralsk).....7230
> Metallurg (Bratsk)....................6600
> SKA Neftyanik (Khabarovsk)......6300
> Jenisej (Krasnoyarsk)...............6200
> Volga (Ulyanovsk)...................6100
> Zorkij (Krasnogorsk).................4885
> Lokomotiv (Orenburg)...............4150
> Mayak (Krasnoturyinsk)............3930
> Sibselmash (Novosibirsk)...........2750
> Sayany (Abakan)....................1950
> Vodnik (Arkhangelsk)................1850
> Sever (Severodvinsk)...............1800
> Raketa (Kazan).......................1500
> Stroitel (Syktyvkar).................1300
> Severonickel (Monchegorsk)......1150
> SKA Zabajkalets (Chita)...........1100
> Junost (Omsk).........................600
> SKA Sverdlovsk (Yekaterinburg)..550
> 
> 2004-2005 - 4 710
> 2005-2006 - 4 135
> 2006-2007 - 3 553
> 2008-2009 - 3 954
> 2009-2010 - 2 794
> 2010-2011 - 2 576(continue)
> 
> Sweden Elitserien
> 2007-2008 - 1 344


http://www.bandysidan.nu/ibdb/stats.php?sprak=eng&land=3&statland=4&artal=2002


----------



## Konig

*KHL* (20 Russian clubs + 1 Belarus +1 Latvia + 1 Kazakhstan) 
Regular season 2010\11 - *5793*

*Dinamo (Minsk).......................10538 (15000)
Avangard (Omsk).....................9303 (10318)
Lokomotiv (Yaroslavl)................8998 (9046)
SKA (St Petersburg).................8170 (11439)
Salavat Yulaev (Ufa)................7998 (7950)
Dinamo (Riga)..........................7619(10300)*
Amur (Khabarovsk)...................7078(7100)
Traktor (Chelyabinsk)...............7067(7500)
*Sibir (Novosibirsk)....................6778(7500)
Metallurg (Magnitogorsk)...........6502(7700)
Atlant (Mytishchi)....................5959(7000)
Dinamo (Moscow)....................5591(8512)
Neftekhimik (Nizhnekamsk)........4889(5500)*
Torpedo (Nizhniy Novgorod)......4844(5500)
*Barys (Astana)........................4819(5332)
Ak Bars (Kazan).......................4812(8200)*
Avtomobilist (Yekaterinburg)......4158(5570)
*Yugra (Khanty-Mansiysk)...........3412(5500)
Severstal (Cherepovets)............3406(6064)*
Metallurg (Novokuznetsk)...........3061(7533)
Vityaz (Chekhov)......................3009(3300)
*Spartak (Moscow).....................2953(5530)*
CSKA (Moscow)........................2270(5600)
http://www.sports.ru/tribuna/blogs/oraznom/160144.html
***play-off clubs


----------



## Konig

*Russian Footbal Premier League*

Season 2010 - *12428*

Spartak (Moscow)...................25167
Zenit (St Petersburg)...............20613
Alania (Vladikavkaz).................16167	
Kryliya Sovetov (Samara)..........15200
Lokomotiv (Moscow)................13266	
Rubin (Kazan).........................12782
Tom (Tomsk)..........................11953
Anzhi (Makhachkala)................11160	
Rostov (Rostov-on-Don)...........10633	
Amkar (Perm)..........................10527
Sibir (Novosibirsk).....................9800
CSKA (Moscow)........................9594
Spartak (Nalchik)......................9467
Terek (Grozny).........................8497
Dinamo (Moscow).....................7163
Sarurn (Ramenskoe)..................6853

http://football.sport-express.ru/russia/premier/2010/statistics/people/

*First Division *

Season 2010 - *4372*

Kuban (Krasnodar).....................8316
Dinamo (Bryansk).......................6947	
FC Krasnodar............................6263
Zhemchuzhina (Sochi)................5995	
Salyut (Belgorod).......................5658	
Mordovia (Saransk)....................5368	
Luch (Vladivostok).....................4947	
Avangard (Kursk).......................4774	
Baltika (Kaliningrad)....................4458	
Volga (Nizhniy Novgorod).............4342
KAMAZ (Naberezhnye Chelny).......4337
Ural (Yekaterinburg)....................3868 
SKA (Khabarovsk).......................3745	
Volgar (Astrakhan)......................3658
Rotor (Volgograd)........................3526	
Shinnik (Yaroslavl).......................3023
FC Nizhniy Novgorod....................2934	
Irtysh (Omsk).............................2200
FC Khimki...................................1576 
Dinamo (St Petersburg)................1500

http://football.sport-express.ru/russia/first/2010/statistics/people/


----------



## fanUltras

Record attendance opening of K-league season

SEOUL, South Korea - The K-League kicked off its 2011 season over the weekend with a record attendance.

With the addition of its 16th team, the league got off to a hot start with 10 goals scored on the first day alone.

A combined 193,959 fans went to see the eight games on opening weekend, breaking the previous record of 172,142 in 2008. More than 51,000 fans saw the FC Seoul-Suwon game at Seoul World Cup Stadium despite cloudy and chilly weather, breaking the previous one-game record of 47,928 spectators on April 3, 2004.

Gangwon - Gyeongnam (15,497)
Gwangju - Daegu (36,241)
Pohang - Seongnam (17,353)
Sangju - Incheon (16,400)
FC Seoul - Suwon (51,606)
Jeju - Busan (4,172)
Jeonbuk - Chunnam (17,932)
Ulsan - Daejeon (34,758)


----------



## Djakza

Average attendance for Serbian SuperLeague:









NOTE: BSK Borca and FK Metalac are not playing at their stadiums.

So,the average for the whole league is only *2228* fans per game.


----------



## Konig

Crvena Zvezda & Spartak Moskva:cheers:


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

westsidebomber said:


> FBS College football (USA) set an all-time record for average attendance with an 46,632 average for 808 games for a total attendance of 37,678,722.
> 
> Pretty incredible stuff.
> 
> http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect//public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2011/february/ncaa+football+attendance+reaches+new+heights


Good rebound! I was wondering if attendance would rise after the economy got a little better.


----------



## bigbossman

Djakza said:


> Average attendance for Serbian SuperLeague:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOTE: BSK Borca and FK Metalac are not playing at their stadiums.
> 
> So,the average for the whole league is only *2228* fans per game.


awful tbf. Do people just stay home and watch games on television? Are people still interested in Serbian club football? Is it the hooliganism, the shit athletics stadiums or the fact there are only three big clubs in the league?


----------



## Djakza

It's everything combined.Crappy football,two(yes,TWO) stadiums with floodlights in whole Superleague.People rather watch EPL/Serie A/Primera etc. than domestic league.And most of all-corruption(what can you do when a man publicly talks about how he used to fix matches and is planning on doing it again!?).Only Crvena Zvezda stands out,but even their attendance is very low compared to stronger leagues,but it's still a "phenomenon" when you see avarage attendance of most Balkan leagues.


----------



## bd popeye

2228 a game..jeez.. I'm not kidding high school football(American) averages more than that here in eastern Iowa. So does HS basketball.


----------



## bigbossman

Djakza said:


> It's everything combined.Crappy football,two(yes,TWO) stadiums with floodlights in whole Superleague.People rather watch EPL/Serie A/Primera etc. than domestic league.And most of all-corruption(what can you do when a man publicly talks about how he used to fix matches and is planning on doing it again!?).Only Crvena Zvezda stands out,but even their attendance is very low compared to stronger leagues,but it's still a "phenomenon" when you see avarage attendance of most Balkan leagues.


Do people still support their teams? Say they maybe still a partizan fan but they don't go to games? In England and Germany the crowds were bad (relative to the population) in the mid 1980s but as soon as things were sorted out the fans returned. 

In England no football is allowed to be broadcast between 14:45 and 17:15 on Saturdays to protect our football (although people stream games or watch dodgy satellite broadcasts now). That means officially we don't get any foreign football either. What time do games in Serbia kick off? Do people watch the Serbian league on TV at all?

Nothing can be done about match fixing unless the amount of money available to the players increase and that won't happen because the population of your individual countries is too small. How much political will is there for a Balkan league, because to me that seems the only way that clubs in that region can get the money to sort the situation out.



bd popeye said:


> 2228 a game..jeez.. I'm not kidding high school football(American) averages more than that here in eastern Iowa. So does HS basketball.


Stop it 

You're comparing Eastern Iowa a region of a state in a wealthy inudstrialised nation, playing in indoor gyms (basketball) or for less than half the year once a fortnight (american football) with Serbian football a country which has been torn apart by war and political strife with a underdeveloped economy (by European standards) playing football for 10 months of the year competing with televised football aired at the same time (with no broadcast restrictions) from the best leagues in the World. You go figure. There is a reason why in your country there is a law stopping the NFL playing on Saturdays (and Fridays iirc) between September and December..


----------



## bd popeye

> Stop it


Bigbossman ... I don't do politics. I was just posting my thoughts on that attendance. No more no less. 

From what some have posted I'm happy the people in Serbia have some form of sporting event to attend.I hope for the sake of those living there in Serbia the situation improves..soon.



> There is a reason why in your country there is a law stopping the NFL playing on Saturdays (and Fridays iirc) between September and December.


Actually I don't think there's a law just a mutual agreement between the NFL and High School and college sports.



> or for less than half the year once a fortnight (american football)


High School football, NFL and NCAA football is played weekly with one or two bye weeks during the season. American football does run from September to early December. Most high school play 10-12 games depending on where they are located. Most HS seasons are over before the third week in November....the NCAA season is 12-14 weeks plus bowl games a month or so after the season closes. And the NFL is a 16 game affair running from September until January. With the Super Bowl played the first Sunday in February.


----------



## bigbossman

bd popeye said:


> Bigbossman ... I don't do politics. I was just posting my thoughts on that attendance. No more no less.
> 
> From what some have posted I'm happy the people in Serbia have some form of sporting event to attend.I hope for the sake of those living there in Serbia the situation improves..soon.


Fair enough on here you get a lot of dick measuring is all.




> Actually I don't think there's a law just a mutual agreement between the NFL and High School and college sports.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_Broadcasting_Act_of_1961



> The law has been interpreted to include the so-called "blackout rules" which protect a home team from competing games broadcast into its home territory on a day when it is playing a game at home. It also, in effect, protects high school football and college football game attendance by blacking out pro football games locally on Friday evenings and Saturdays during those sports' regular seasons.


http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/15C32.txt



> The first sentence of section 1291 of this title shall not apply
> to any joint agreement described in such section which permits the
> telecasting of all or a substantial part of any professional
> football game on any Friday after six o'clock postmeridian or on
> any Saturday during the period beginning on the second Friday in
> September and ending on the second Saturday in December in any year
> from any telecasting station located within seventy-five miles of
> the game site of any intercollegiate or interscholastic football
> contest scheduled to be played on such a date if -
> (1) such intercollegiate football contest is between
> institutions of higher learning both of which confer degrees upon
> students following completion of sufficient credit hours to equal
> a four-year course, or
> (2) in the case of an interscholastic football contest, such
> contest is between secondary schools, both of which are
> accredited or certified under the laws of the State or States in
> which they are situated and offer courses continuing through the
> twelfth grade of the standard school curriculum, or the
> equivalent, and
> (3) such intercollegiate or interscholastic football contest
> and such game site were announced through publication in a
> newspaper of general circulation prior to August 1 of such year
> as being regularly scheduled for such day and place.





> High School football, NFL and NCAA football is played weekly with one or two bye weeks during the season. American football does run from September to early December. Most high school play 10-12 games depending on where they are located. Most HS seasons are over before the third week in November....the NCAA season is 12-14 weeks plus bowl games a month or so after the season closes. And the NFL is a 16 game affair running from September until January. With the Super Bowl played the first Sunday in February.


I know this, but you play at home once a fortnight, away once a fortnight for less than 6 months. The football season lasts 43-44 weeks (August-May) with breaks depending on the climate, and how successful the team is that's a long season. That's all I was trying to say.


----------



## bd popeye

> Fair enough on here you get a lot of dick measuring is all


I gotcha.. and thanks for the links. And yes I do know the football season in the rest of the world outside of the US is very long! Thanks again!


----------



## Djakza

bigbossman said:


> Do people still support their teams? Say they maybe still a partizan fan but they don't go to games? In England and Germany the crowds were bad (relative to the population) in the mid 1980s but as soon as things were sorted out the fans returned.
> 
> In England no football is allowed to be broadcast between 14:45 and 17:15 on Saturdays to protect our football (although people stream games or watch dodgy satellite broadcasts now). That means officially we don't get any foreign football either. What time do games in Serbia kick off? Do people watch the Serbian league on TV at all?
> 
> Nothing can be done about match fixing unless the amount of money available to the players increase and that won't happen because the population of your individual countries is too small. How much political will is there for a Balkan league, because to me that seems the only way that clubs in that region can get the money to sort the situation out.


Well,people still support Zvezda and Partizan a lot(unofficiall numbers are ~45% of the country are Zvezda fans,and ~30% Partizan fans,with ~8mil of ppl in Serbia),but those numbers are ridiculous,70% of them don't know basic stuff about the clubs,but there is a lot of potential for both clubs.There is actually a "protected" period when no games whould be broadcasted(Sunday at 14:00,with is standard kick-off time),but it's rarely respected.People watch serbian league on the TV,but in 95% the top two clubs(Four networks broadcast the games,RTS(national TV)-mostly partizan,a few "minor" clubs,Prva TV-has a contract with Zvezda,ArenaSport-most of the teams and Sportklub with a few games a year).

The Balkan league(or the "ex-yu" league) is not possible.There has been a lot of talking for a few years now,but it wouldn't even be that good.The domestic football would suffer,there are difficoulties with UEFA,and mostly fans(ultras).There's still much hate between Serbia-Croatia-Bosnia,and everyone is affraid what would happen in games such as Dinamo-Zvezda,Hajduk-Partizan etc.The wounds of the war are still fresh.And there are lots of rumors that clubs(Zvezda above all) are intentionally ruined so mafia(or whatever) can buy the clubs at lower prices when the privatisation comes.But i can assure you-when(or if) the football becomes good there will be a lot of people on stadiums.I could bet you that if Barcelona had the same team as Zvezda,they would have under current 15k average of Zvezda(not saying that Zvezda would have 90k+ with a good team).


----------



## bigbossman

Djakza said:


> Well,people still support Zvezda and Partizan a lot(unofficiall numbers are ~45% of the country are Zvezda fans,and ~30% Partizan fans,with ~8mil of ppl in Serbia),but those numbers are ridiculous,70% of them don't know basic stuff about the clubs,but there is a lot of potential for both clubs.There is actually a "protected" period when no games whould be broadcasted(Sunday at 14:00,with is standard kick-off time),but it's rarely respected.People watch serbian league on the TV,but in 95% the top two clubs(Four networks broadcast the games,RTS(national TV)-mostly partizan,a few "minor" clubs,Prva TV-has a contract with Zvezda,ArenaSport-most of the teams and Sportklub with a few games a year).


Interesting, what about Vojvodina?



> The Balkan league(or the "ex-yu" league) is not possible.There has been a lot of talking for a few years now,but it wouldn't even be that good.The domestic football would suffer,there are difficoulties with UEFA,and mostly fans(ultras).There's still much hate between Serbia-Croatia-Bosnia,and everyone is affraid what would happen in games such as Dinamo-Zvezda,Hajduk-Partizan etc.The wounds of the war are still fresh.


I mean the whole of the Balkans, with Romania, Greece and Bulgaria too. Platini is not against regional leagues iirc, but a west balkans one would still be too small to make an impact imho.

Also they have to confront the fears sooner or later, putting it off isn't going to make the first encounter any better. What happens if they meet in the Europa league at night??



> And there are lots of rumors that clubs(Zvezda above all) are intentionally ruined so mafia(or whatever) can buy the clubs at lower prices when the privatisation comes.But i can assure you-when(or if) the football becomes good there will be a lot of people on stadiums.I could bet you that if Barcelona had the same team as Zvezda,they would have under current 15k average of Zvezda(not saying that Zvezda would have 90k+ with a good team).


When is privatisation coming? 

I don't doubt that football is popular in Belgrade/Serbia, and I agree Barcelona can't even fill their stadium with the best team football has ever seen (tm) so I can only imagine if they were playing in the Catalan league against village teams what their crowds would be.


----------



## Djakza

Vojvodina,as third strongest club is popular in Novi Sad,and in Vojvodina region.
Greece and Romania already have a solid league,they would have no interest in a regional league,maybe Bulgaria and Hungary,but it's not likely.
As far as privatisation goes,a new "law of sport" is cming by the end of the year,witch will define what is what,and the privatisation should come in 2012.It'll be interesting to see how will they privatisate top clubs,becouse both Zvezda and Partizan want the "spanish model",with "socios".A club not owned by one man,but with tens of thousands of them(like Barcelona).


----------



## massp88

bd popeye said:


> ^^Absoulutley! I challenge any league in any sport on this planet to beat these numbers...
> 
> Check out this attendance for the top 30 teams of NCAA Div 1A football..
> 
> For those of you that don't know the top three teams are in the same league(conference)
> 
> 2010 NCAA DIVISION I FBS ATTENDANCE TEAM LEADERS
> Rank School G Attendance Average
> 1. Michigan 111,825
> 2. Ohio St. 105,278
> 3. Penn St. 104,234
> 4. Alabama 101,821
> 5. Texas 100,654
> 6. Tennessee 99,781
> 7. Georgia 92,746
> 8. LSU 92,718
> 9. Florida 90,511
> 10. Auburn 86,087
> 11. Nebraska 85,664
> 12. Oklahoma 84,738
> 13. Texas A&M 82,477
> 14. Notre Dame 80,795
> 15. Southern California 79,907
> 16. Wisconsin 79,862
> 17. Clemson 77,469
> 18. South Carolina 76,668
> 19. Michigan St. 73,556
> 20. Florida St. 71,270
> 21. Iowa 70,585
> 22. Arkansas 68,932
> 23. Washington 66,264
> 24. Virginia Tech 66,233
> 25. Kentucky 66,070
> 26. Missouri 61,540
> 27. BYU 61,381
> 28. UCLA 60,376
> 29. Oregon 59,398
> 30. North Carolina 58,250


No doubt college football see huge attendance. But you have to remember, those teams are playing at most 8 home games a year. I will compare it to a Premier League club. They are playing at least 1 match a week, a lot of time 2 (between league, Carling, FA Cup and Europe) and their season runs for more than half the year. 

I am not hating on college football, I love it. I am just saying they have a sweet deal playing only 8 home games at most and a lot of those schools have thousands of students who have nothing else to do on a Saturday than go get wasted and watch some football.


----------



## bd popeye

Thank you.^^^^. The physicality of American football truly limits the number of games. 

Also a limited number of home games virtually assures large attendance.

By the way most schools limit the number of student tickets sold. Schools want the boosters and alumni to attend games because those folks spend money like no other.

I do not want to get into the old my sport is better than your sport argument. Each sporting culture is different by region, country and continent.

massp88, Enjoy your EPL!


----------



## derzberb

bd popeye said:


> Each sporting culture is different by region, country and continent.


true, and this is what it makes interesting. why should i be interested in sporting culture of others, if it were exactly the same as in my neighbourhood?


----------



## Arthurlp10

Brazilian Championchip 2010

380 games
TOTAL PUBLIC (1.2) 5,638,806
AVERAGE PUBLIC (1.2) (based on 380 games) 14 839
____________________________________________

Team / Stadium / Capacity of the stadium / Total public / Average attendance
Corinthians / Pacaembu Stadium / 40.000 / 521.477 / 27.446
Ceará / Castelão Stadium / 55.000 / 445.869 / 23.467
Fluminense / Engenhão Olympic Stadium* / 45.000 / 436.870 / 22.993
Grêmio / Olimpico Monumental Stadium / 45.000 / 387.016 / 20.369
Flamengo / Engenhão Olympic Stadium* / 45.000 / 359.946 / 18.945
Botafogo / Engenhão Olympic Stadium / 45.000 / 355.837 / 18.728
Internacional / Beiro Rio Stadium / 55.000 / 315.975 / 16.630
Atlético Paranaense / Arena da Baixada / 25.000 / 311.160 / 16.377
Cruzeiro / Arena do Jacaré** / 20.000 / 305.369 / 16.072
Vitória / Barradão Stadium / 30.000 / 301.131 / 15.849
São Paulo / Morumbi Stadium / 66.000 / 279.385 / 14.704
Vasco / São Januário Stadium / 28.000 / 265.371 / 13.967
Atlético Mineiro / Arena do Jacaré** / 20.000 / 255.495 / 13.447
Palmeiras / Pacaembu Stadium*** / 40.000 / 208.443 / 10.971
Avaí / Ressacada Stadium / 19.000 / 179.487 / 9.447 / 
Santos / Vila Belmiro Stadium / 21.000 / 174.802 / 9.200
Goiás / Serra Dourada Stadium / 42.000 / 151.390 / 7.968
Atlético Goianiense / Serra Dourada Stadium / 42.000 / 149.924 / 7.891
Guarani / Brinco de Ouro Stadium / 38.000 / 147.040 / 7.739
Prudente / Prudentão Stadium / 32.000 / 86.819 / 4.569

*The Maracanã stadium where the clubs sent their games went into work at half the league, its capacity was 86,000.
**The Mineirão stadium where these clubs sent their games went into work at half the league, its capacity was 70.000.
***The Palestra Itália stadium where the club had its game in the works entered in the middle of the league, its capacity was 32.000.

Ten Largest publics: 
PUBLIC / GAME / ROUND
76,205 / Vasco 2 X 2 Fluminense / 15th
57,454 / Fluminense 3 X 0 Internacional / 14th
57,035 / Flamengo 0 X 0 Vasco / 12th
44,591 / Ceará 2 X 0 São Paulo / 31 th
44,500 / Ceara 0 x 0 Corinthians / 8th
44,171 / Ceará 2 X 2 Flamengo / 33th
42,667 / São Paulo 2 X 0 Corinthians / 34th
41,661 / Grêmio 2 X 2 Internacional / 31th
41,457 / Grêmio 3 x 0 Botafogo / 38th
41,007 / Flamengo 0 X 0 Santos / 19th


----------



## bd popeye

I have a question.. What is the average price for a ticket to an association football match in these countries listed below. I just checked MLS tickets and the prices are sky high..

http://www.ticketpredator.com/content/mls/index.html

Brazil
Argentina
UK
Italy
Germany

Thanks!


----------



## bigbossman

^^ I don't know about averages but specifics depends on the club, depends on the division, depends on the part of ground and depends on the opposition. One thing to also note is clubs take fans from far smaller population pools so clubs with larger pools tend to have bigger fan bases.

Germany

Arsenal 

http://www.arsenal.com/membership/buy-tickets



> CURRENT MATCH DAY TICKET PRICES
> Emirates Upper/Lower Tier	Category A	Category B
> Centre Upper	£96	£67.50
> Centre Upper Back	£72.50	£51
> Next to Centre Upper	£72.50	£51
> Next to Centre Upper Back	£63.50	£45
> Wing Upper	£63.50	£45
> Wing Upper Back	£57	£40
> Corner Upper	£63.50	£45
> Goal Upper	£68.50	£48
> Goal Upper Back	£57	£40
> 
> Centre Lower	£54	£37
> Wing Lower	£49	£34
> Corner Lower	£49	£34
> Goal Lower	£49	£34
> 
> Family Enclosure
> Adults - Lower Tier	£49	£34
> Adults - Upper Tier	£63.50	£45
> Senior Citizen/Cannon Club - Lower Tier	£21	£15
> Senior Citizen/Cannon Club - Upper Tier	£27	£20
> Junior Gunners - Lower Tier	£19	£14
> Junior Gunners - Upper Tier	£25	£18
> 
> Category A = big games as well as league games vs Tottenham, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester United and Manchester City. West Ham used to be category A not sure why they aren't any more


They are ridiculous to be fair, Arsenal play in a very poor area and discriminate against our huge working class fan base! We are amongst the highest in England and Europe.


----------



## Djakza

Wow,that's really expensive,the cheapest ticket is £34 for an adult.If i remember correctly,the tickets for UCL match Partizan vs Arsenal were 8€,20€,26€,and fans thought that they were too expensive


----------



## bd popeye

Thank you for than answer! Those are high prices.



> They are ridiculous to be fair, Arsenal play in a very poor area and discriminate against our huge working class fan base! We are amongst the highest in England and Europe.


A similar situation exist in the US. The average range from a low of $55 to a high of $118 USD a game. Club seats are much higher. The moderate and low income fan cannot generally afford to attend a game. The other major sports in the US prices per game are lower but still out of the reach of many fans...

NHL $55
MLB $25
NBA $49
MLS $20

In MLB there's a wide range of average ticket prices.. For instance the New York Yankees average ticket is $73 USD!!
While the Milwaukee Brewers are $21 USD.


----------



## KingmanIII

bigbossman said:


> ^^ I don't know about averages but specifics depends on the club, depends on the division, depends on the part of ground and depends on the opposition. One thing to also note is clubs take fans from far smaller population pools so clubs with larger pools tend to have bigger fan bases.
> 
> Germany
> 
> Arsenal
> 
> http://www.arsenal.com/membership/buy-tickets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CURRENT MATCH DAY TICKET PRICES
> Emirates Upper/Lower Tier Category A Category B
> Centre Upper £96 £67.50
> Centre Upper Back £72.50 £51
> Next to Centre Upper £72.50 £51
> Next to Centre Upper Back £63.50 £45
> Wing Upper £63.50 £45
> Wing Upper Back £57 £40
> Corner Upper £63.50 £45
> Goal Upper £68.50 £48
> Goal Upper Back £57 £40
> 
> Centre Lower £54 £37
> Wing Lower £49 £34
> Corner Lower £49 £34
> Goal Lower £49 £34
> 
> Family Enclosure
> Adults - Lower Tier £49 £34
> Adults - Upper Tier £63.50 £45
> Senior Citizen/Cannon Club - Lower Tier £21 £15
> Senior Citizen/Cannon Club - Upper Tier £27 £20
> Junior Gunners - Lower Tier £19 £14
> Junior Gunners - Upper Tier £25 £18
> 
> Category A = big games as well as league games vs Tottenham, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester United and Manchester City. West Ham used to be category A not sure why they aren't any more
> 
> 
> 
> They are ridiculous to be fair, Arsenal play in a very poor area and discriminate against our huge working class fan base! We are amongst the highest in England and Europe.
Click to expand...

and that's after paying ~ £25-30 for membership just for the opportunity to buy tickets at face value


----------



## bigbossman

bd popeye said:


> Thank you for than answer! Those are high prices.
> 
> 
> 
> A similar situation exist in the US. The average range from a low of $55 to a high of $118 USD a game. Club seats are much higher. The moderate and low income fan cannot generally afford to attend a game. The other major sports in the US prices per game are lower but still out of the reach of many fans...
> 
> NHL $55
> MLB $25
> NBA $49
> MLS $20
> 
> In MLB there's a wide range of average ticket prices.. For instance the New York Yankees average ticket is $73 USD!!
> While the Milwaukee Brewers are $21 USD.


The big difference is you have the benefit of games being on free-to-air television. A New York Giants fan in New York won't miss a beat and won't have to pay for it (as long as they sell out), whereas in most of Europe all league games are sold to pay television. In England the 2 FA Cup games per round, the League Cup semis and final, 1 champions league game a round, 3 Europa league games per round and England internationals are shown free. For example in about two hours Manchester United vs Arsenal will be free in the FA Cup on our 2nd biggest TV network (ITV). 

Also the premier league only televises 138 of the 380 games in England, this is because of the TV blackout with have between 14:45 and 17:15. 3pm is the traditional kick off time for English football and therefore almost all games kick off at that time to appease fans. And therefore the TV companies pick the best games each week to be moved and televised (unopposed) but have restrictions on who they can pick. These is last season's premier league TV picks:

Finishing position/Team/Televised Live
2	Man Utd	24
3	Arsenal	23
1	Chelsea	22
5	Man City	22
7	Liverpool	22
4	Tottenham	20
6	Aston Villa	16
8	Everton	13
10	Blackburn	13
9	Birmingham	11
17	West Ham	11
18	Burnley	11
11	Stoke	10
12	Fulham	10
13	Sunderland	10
14	Bolton	10
15	Wolves	10
16	Wigan	10
19	Hull	10
20	Portsmouth	10

As you can see there is a minimum of 10 games and a maximum of 24. So Basically as an Arsenal fan who has supported them since about 7 years old, if I want to seem all games I have to get a season ticket but they are off limits as our waiting list is over 40,000 (and you have to pay to be on it anyway), next we have match-to-match tickets but then I have to become a red member (£25) to get them of which they only guarantee 1,500 per game, we have 140,000 red members by the way. So if I can't get to games there is always the option of TV, but because of EU rules saying the premier league can't sell to one company as it is monopolistic I have to subscribe to both Sky Sports and ESPN (115 games on sky, 23 on ESPN) which is £25 per month, even then I will miss out on at least 14 league games a season. Not to mention all the cup and European games which are scattered around different networks. This is essentially why illegal streaming first rose over here, I didn't stream originally to get games for free (I had sky sports) I streamed to get the games that weren't televised in England but were televised abroad.

The reason for the blackout is to protect the lower leagues, because if Arsenal, Chelsea or Tottenham were on TV regularly at the same time as other London area teams then those clubs would eventually struggle to to pull fans into stadiums especially with each passing generation. In other countries they have used their brains and moved the lower leagues to different kick off times, but in England tradition is holding us back (However it has had the inadvertent effect of pushing up the demand for the limited supply of televised premier league games, meaning we get the most money for TV rights in Europe). There are plenty of proposals to move games to have premier league slots, championship slots, semi pro slots etc (like abroad) and introduce NFL style regional coverage (on pay TV) with blackouts and hopefully something like that will come in soon. As it is frustrating being not able to afford to watch your team live but also being restricted from watching them on television and it surely doesn't benefit the smaller clubs in the premier league as for example someone living in Stoke who can't get to games is more likely to Manchester United on television than their local team.

What the blackouts have done is basically kept high attendance in stadiums compared to other countries (with the exception of the Bundesliga) and kept ticket prices and demand for tickets high, even in the lower league. I mean Crystal Palace (another London team) who are struggling against relegation out of the championship (league below the premier league) charge these prices:



> Grade A
> 
> ADULTS/ CONCESSION/ JUNIOR/ U12s
> Main Stand £35.00 £22.50 £20.00
> Lower H/Dale £25.00 £18.00 £15.00
> Upper H/Dale £30.00 £18.00 £15.00
> Gallery £35.00 £22.50 N/A N/A
> Croydon Ad & Family Stand £25.00 £18.00 £15.00 £10.00
> Arthur Wait £30.00 £18.00 £15.0
> 
> Grade B
> 
> ADULTS /SNR CONC & STUDENTS/U16s
> Main Stand £30.00 £20.00 £15.00
> Lower H/Dale £20.00 £15.00 £10.00
> Upper H/Dale £25.00 £15.00 £15.00
> Gallery £30.00 £20.00 N/A
> Croydon Ad & Family Stand £20.00 £15.00 £10.00 £7.00 (U12s) FOC with full
> paying adult (U6s)
> Arthur Wait £25.00 £15.00 £10.00
> Directors Box £40.00 £25.00


http://www.cpfc.co.uk/staticFiles/af/52/0,,10323~152239,00.pdf

This isn't even for top class football, but they can charge that because Palace fans have no other way of watching them on television, unlike in foreign countries where they televise all lower league games. In one way this is good because there crowds are maintained, but the problem is their average crowds have gone progressively down (from 24k to 14K) since they last played in the premier league (2005) and they are losing fans (and potential new fans) by either not charging fair prices for the level of football or not being on television regularly. Obviously if they get to the premier league again new fans will appear willing to be extorted but as of now that looks a long way off.

Like I said in many ways I can understand the pricing policies of the American sports leagues as they have essentially restricted the supply of teams to the market and thus each team has a ridiculous huge fan base, in real terms Manchester United would probably not be top ten in the NFL based upon their fan support in England (where most of their money comes from). When you look at those prices you can see that baseball obviously uses the large markets differently as MLB has so many games it doesn't need to charge high prices and I'd assume it doesn't exclude people from attending (a few games a season) as much as the other sports. Whereas like I said NFL is on free-tv and I suppose doesn't matter, and by the looks of watching the sport, it seems one of the few that are better on TV than live in person. Just an aside I've always wondered how much the NFL would get if it was only on pay TV given that ESPN pays $1bn a year for 17 games a season.


----------



## bd popeye

Excellent post bigbossman. And thank you for the honest information. 

Too bad the real football fan without the financial means to attend games cannot follow all there's teams games on TV.

I could imagine the outcry from NFL fans if only selected games were on TV and some were on pay per view. Pay per view is available for games not televised in your area.



> Just an aside I've always wondered how much the NFL would get if it was only on pay TV given that ESPN pays $1bn a year for 17 games a season.


They also televise 3 preseason games(friendlies)..That is a good question. I'm guessing between $50 & $75 a game for pay per view...more if they do the playoffs.. don't give them any ideas!!! Trust me ESPN , CBS, FOX & NBC more than make up the revenue spent on those TV contracts with advertisements sold during those broadcast.



> I have to get a season ticket but they are off limits as our waiting list is over 40,000


Several teams in the NFL have extremely long list for season tickets..Green Bay, Washington both New York teams , Chicago and Denver come to mind. More than likely the short NFL season is the cause of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_season_ticket_waiting_lists



> The Green Bay Packers have the most famous waiting list, with more than 86,000 names. Turnover is generally low; the Packers estimate that only 90 tickets turn over every year, a rate which would mean a name placed on the list today would be eligible for season tickets in 955 years. It is a common custom in Green Bay and other Wisconsin cities to put a baby's name on the list as soon as the birth certificate is obtained. Transfer of standing to surviving relatives is permitted by the Packers.
> 
> The Washington Redskins were reported to have the most number of names on their waiting list at over 150,000. However, recent investigations question if a waiting list exists at all. The New York Giants, New York Jets, Philadelphia Eagles, Pittsburgh Steelers, and Denver Broncos historically have also maintained long waiting lists for season tickets.


----------



## koolio

Not really useful for European teams but every year, ESPN collects data on how affordable it is to watch all the NHL, NBA, MLB and NFL teams every season. They also apply other parameters such as success to rank the teams from most enjoyable to least. Either way, here is their list sorted by most affordable to most expensive:

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/teamrankings/_/category/aff#table



> TEAM	AFFORDABILITY
> TKTS	PRK	CONC
> 1.	Los Angeles Angels	1	2	4	2
> 2.	Milwaukee Brewers	2	4	7	5
> 3.	Tampa Bay Rays	3	5	2	15
> 4.	Nashville Predators	4	6	8	22
> 5.	Pittsburgh Pirates	5	1	36	47
> 6.	Jacksonville Jaguars	6	9	14	17
> 7.	Buffalo Bills	7	7	23	18
> 8.	Oakland Athletics	8	3	75	24
> 9.	Oklahoma City Thunder	9	11	6	3
> 10.	Colorado Rockies	10	8	27	43
> 11.	Green Bay Packers	11	18	3	1
> 12.	Minnesota Twins	12	13	12	14
> 13.	Arizona Diamondbacks	13	12	25	13
> 14.	Phoenix Coyotes	14	17	1	42
> 15.	Buffalo Sabres	15	16	11	7
> TKTS	PRK	CONC
> 16.	Kansas City Royals	16	10	62	39
> 17.	San Antonio Spurs	17	23	9	6
> 18.	New Orleans Saints	18	20	19	11
> 19.	Detroit Tigers	19	15	32	49
> 20.	Texas Rangers	20	14	34	57
> 21.	New Orleans Hornets	21	24	18	23
> 22.	Orlando Magic	22	26	21	12
> 23.	Atlanta Braves	23	22	28	48
> 24.	Cincinnati Reds	24	21	40	56
> 25.	Anaheim Ducks	25	28	47	8
> 26.	Carolina Hurricanes	26	29	38	20
> 27.	Pittsburgh Penguins	27	32	10	4
> 28.	Philadelphia Phillies	28	27	50	25
> 29.	Charlotte Bobcats	29	25	24	77
> 30.	St. Louis Cardinals	30	31	16	31
> TKTS	PRK	CONC
> 31.	Florida Marlins	31	19	63	106
> 32.	Detroit Red Wings	32	36	15	9
> 33.	Tennessee Titans	33	33	30	26
> 34.	St. Louis Blues	34	30	31	62
> 35.	Florida Panthers	35	34	5	98
> 36.	Arizona Cardinals	36	41	13	21
> 37.	Utah Jazz	37	37	20	30
> 38.	Baltimore Ravens	38	42	26	16
> 39.	Indianapolis Colts	39	49	17	19
> 40.	Pittsburgh Steelers	40	47	29	10
> 41.	Atlanta Falcons	41	44	37	36
> 42.	Dallas Mavericks	42	43	46	32
> 43.	Milwaukee Bucks	43	46	42	28
> 44.	Cleveland Indians	44	39	53	74
> 45.	Tampa Bay Lightning	45	48	39	45
> TKTS	PRK	CONC
> 46.	Minnesota Timberwolves	46	35	78	92
> 47.	Atlanta Hawks	47	52	44	55
> 48.	San Jose Sharks	48	56	48	27
> 49.	Houston Texans	49	58	43	35
> 50.	Carolina Panthers	50	57	45	38
> 51.	Seattle Mariners	51	40	93	82
> 52.	San Diego Padres	52	45	85	61
> 53.	Chicago White Sox	53	53	74	37
> 54.	Washington Capitals	54	61	55	33
> 55.	Miami Heat	55	62	57	41
> 56.	Minnesota Vikings	56	60	60	44
> 57.	Dallas Stars	57	55	79	53
> 58.	Chicago Blackhawks	58	67	49	29
> 59.	Baltimore Orioles	59	51	69	95
> 60.	Toronto Blue Jays	60	38	112	99
> TKTS	PRK	CONC
> 61.	Miami Dolphins	61	66	61	40
> 62.	Houston Astros	62	54	66	96
> 63.	Ottawa Senators	63	59	70	71
> 64.	Washington Nationals	64	50	100	87
> 65.	Memphis Grizzlies	65	65	33	101
> 66.	Cleveland Cavaliers	66	73	35	34
> 67.	Indiana Pacers	67	68	22	107
> 68.	San Francisco Giants	68	63	97	70
> 69.	Denver Nuggets	69	70	52	67
> 70.	Los Angeles Kings	70	64	88	89
> 71.	Portland Trail Blazers	71	69	59	80
> 72.	New Jersey Devils	72	72	76	46
> 73.	Houston Rockets	73	76	51	64
> 74.	Detroit Pistons	74	74	65	79
> 75.	Columbus Blue Jackets	75	75	56	105
> TKTS	PRK	CONC
> 76.	Denver Broncos	76	83	64	51
> 77.	Phoenix Suns	77	86	54	50
> 78.	Seattle Seahawks	78	77	84	69
> 79.	Kansas City Chiefs	79	78	95	59
> 80.	Cincinnati Bengals	80	81	68	78
> 81.	Sacramento Kings	81	79	73	84
> 82.	New Jersey Nets	82	71	107	111
> 83.	Philadelphia Flyers	83	87	67	52
> 84.	Cleveland Browns	84	82	71	85
> 85.	Minnesota Wild	85	91	41	54
> 86.	San Francisco 49ers	86	85	98	72
> 87.	San Diego Chargers	87	88	86	65
> 88.	New York Islanders	88	80	96	112
> 89.	St. Louis Rams	89	89	80	86
> 90.	Colorado Avalanche	90	95	58	58
> TKTS	PRK	CONC
> 91.	Los Angeles Clippers	91	84	103	114
> 92.	Detroit Lions	92	92	92	91
> 93.	Philadelphia Eagles	93	96	77	68
> 94.	Oakland Raiders	94	93	90	75
> 95.	Atlanta Thrashers	95	94	72	104
> 96.	Los Angeles Dodgers	96	90	113	100
> 97.	Tampa Bay Buccaneers	97	98	81	81
> 98.	Calgary Flames	98	97	104	66
> 99.	Dallas Cowboys	99	99	94	63
> 100.	New England Patriots	100	102	89	60
> 101.	Chicago Bulls	101	101	87	94
> 102.	New York Jets	102	103	83	73
> 103.	Golden State Warriors	103	100	106	110
> 104.	Edmonton Oilers	104	106	82	102
> 105.	Chicago Bears	105	107	101	76
> TKTS	PRK	CONC
> 106.	Boston Bruins	106	104	109	108
> 107.	Philadelphia 76ers	107	105	117	113
> 108.	Boston Celtics	108	108	105	97
> 109.	Montreal Canadiens	109	109	91	90
> 110.	New York Giants	110	111	102	93
> 111.	Washington Wizards	111	110	108	117
> 112.	Toronto Raptors	112	112	119	120
> 113.	Vancouver Canucks	113	113	110	103
> 114.	Chicago Cubs	114	115	115	83
> 115.	Los Angeles Lakers	115	118	99	88
> 116.	New York Mets	116	114	116	116
> 117.	Boston Red Sox	117	116	114	109
> 118.	Washington Redskins	118	117	118	118
> 119.	New York Yankees	119	119	111	115
> 120.	New York Rangers	120	120	120	119
> TKTS	PRK	CONC
> 121.	New York Knicks	121	121	121	121
> 122.	Toronto Maple Leafs	122	122	122	122


Here is the link for the overall rankings:

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/teamrankings#table


----------



## Arthurlp10

bd popeye said:


> I have a question.. What is the average price for a ticket to an association football match in these countries listed below. I just checked MLS tickets and the prices are sky high..
> 
> http://www.ticketpredator.com/content/mls/index.html
> 
> Brazil
> Argentina
> UK
> Italy
> Germany
> 
> Thanks!


A lot depends on each club.
Here in Brazil, for example, the cheapest ticket to a game of my team Libertadores costs R$50($30 or 22€).
The average amount charged by the big clubs in Brazil is more or less this.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

bigbossman said:


> ^^ One thing I have noticed watching AFL on ESPN is the larger away followings that you get, which kind of make "home" attendances misleading. For example when Manchester United pull 76,000, 73,000 or so are United fans, but AFL crowds seem to be close to 50:50 especially the big games. I can't imagine what crowds European stadiums would get if away fans could buy tickets indiscriminately.


At German grounds it certainly is possible to buy tickets for home sections if you are an away fan.

I went to a 2nd division title decider between Koln and Duisburg in 2005, and although there was a designated away section, there were numerous Duisburg fans about in the home areas. This didn't seems to be a problem to anyone, although Duisburg lost 4-0, and they weren't there a full time.

A week or so ago Borussia Moenchengladbach were at home to Borussia Dortmund, and Dortmund had 18,000 away fans there.


----------



## canarywondergod

Rev Stickleback said:


> At German grounds it certainly is possible to buy tickets for home sections if you are an away fan.
> 
> I went to a 2nd division title decider between Koln and Duisburg in 2005, and although there was a designated away section, there were numerous Duisburg fans about in the home areas. This didn't seems to be a problem to anyone, although Duisburg lost 4-0, and they weren't there a full time.
> 
> A week or so ago Borussia Moenchengladbach were at home to Borussia Dortmund, and Dortmund had 18,000 away fans there.


18,000?! thats crazy numbers! Do German stadiums not have a percentage away allocation? That is a certain percent of the total capacity must be for away fans.


----------



## bigbossman

Rev Stickleback said:


> At German grounds it certainly is possible to buy tickets for home sections if you are an away fan.
> 
> I went to a 2nd division title decider between Koln and Duisburg in 2005, and although there was a designated away section, there were numerous Duisburg fans about in the home areas. This didn't seems to be a problem to anyone, although Duisburg lost 4-0, and they weren't there a full time.


They are extroadinary events you are talking about though. Gladbach stranded bottom, Dortmund rolling towards the title, you don't get that kind of away support at every game. Napoli had a similar situation against Bologna a few weeks back where they took pushing 15-20,000 away fans. 

One thing you do notice Germany stadiums is the away end (save for the terraced section) is not segregated. 

Also you should know/remember it used to be like that in England. I remember reading about how Arsenal played your team in the cup in the early 70s and overtook elm park... I've also heard QPR always used to get their ground taken over by other London club's (particularly Chelsea) in the 70s/80s. Here's a video of Palace-orient from Palace's promotion run in 1979, apparently the ground was 15-20,000 palace and only 5,000 or so Orient fans in their own stadium...








> A week or so ago Borussia Moenchengladbach were at home to Borussia Dortmund, and Dortmund had 18,000 away fans there.


I've heard it was closer to 30,000 their fans were all over the stadium, if you watch the video. 

It's still not like the australian situation though



canarywondergod said:


> 18,000?! thats crazy numbers! Do German stadiums not have a percentage away allocation? That is a certain percent of the total capacity must be for away fans.


In Germany iirc it's 15% of capacity (or something like that) same as for the FA cup.


----------



## magic_johnson

I do alot of travel to see my team play in the AFL, and there's generally no "away area." You just buy tickets in general public section. Very (very?) few fights between supporters, generally just good banter that creates atmosphere.


----------



## CharlieP

The Aviva Premiership (English rugby union) regular season finished today:

Leicester Tigers - *20,806* (22,463)
Harlequins - *18,274* (17,336)
London Wasps - *16,756* (18,616)
London Irish - *16,227* (13,394)
Northampton Saints - *13,358* (13,122)
Gloucester Rugby - *13,041* (12,586)
Bath Rugby - *11,853* (11,656)
Saracens - *10,310* (23,910)
Exeter Chiefs - *9,153* (N/A)
Sale Sharks - *8,246* (7,609)
Leeds Carnegie - *5,751* (6,046)
Newcastle Falcons - *5,317* (6,087)

Average: *12,360* (13,614)


----------



## Patrick

the first three leagues in Germany have finished this weekend, and here are the average attendance numbers for the season 2010/11:


green= 1. bundesliga, orange= 2. bundesliga, red= 3. liga.

80
79 | Borussia Dortmund (79.151)
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69 | Bayern München (69.000)
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61 | Schalke 04 (61.320)
60
59
58
57
56
55
54 | Hamburger SV (54.446)
53
52
51
50
49
48
47 | 1. FC Köln (47.782) | Eintracht Frankfurt (47.365)
46 | 1. FC Kaiserslautern (46.392) | Hertha BSC (46.131)
45 | Borussia M'gladbach (45.189)
44
43 | Hannover 96 (43.903)
42 | 1. FC Nürnberg (42.020)
41
40
39
38 | VfB Stuttgart (38.788)
37 | Werder Bremen (37.620)
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29 | TSG Hoffenheim (29.871)
28 | VfL Wolfsburg (28.887) | Bayer Leverkusen (28.633)
27
26
25
24 | FC St. Pauli (24.314)
23 | SC Freiburg (23.018)
22
21 | Fortuna Düsseldorf (21.051)
20 | FC Augsburg (20.481) | Mainz 05 (20.182)
19 | 1860 München (19.762)
18 | Alemannia Aachen (18.137)
17 | Eintracht Braunschweig (17.404) | Dynamo Dresden (17.228)
16
15 | VfL Bochum (15.037)
14 | Karlsruher SC (14.780) | Hansa Rostock (14.753) | Union Berlin (14.272) | MSV Duisburg (14.171)
13 | Arminia Bielefeld (13.580) | VfL Osnabrück (13.326)
12
11 | Energie Cottbus (11.408)
10 | Erzgebirge Aue (10.255)
09
08 | FC Ingolstadt (8.078)
07 | SC Paderborn (7.945) | SpVgg Fürth (7.803) | Kickers Offenbach (7.352)
06 | Rot-Weiß Erfurt (6.268) | 1. FC Heidenheim (6.003)
05 | Rot-Weiß Oberhausen (5.947) | Carl Zeiss Jena (5.642) | 1. FC Saarbrücken (5.048)
04 | TuS Koblenz (4.761) | Wehen Wiesbaden (4.164) | FSV Frankfurt (4.142)
03 | VfR Aalen (3.650) | Jahn Regensburg (3.280)
02 | Babelsberg (2.875) | Burghausen (2.763) | Ahlen (2.515) | Sandhausen (2.191) | Unterhaching (2.063)
01 | svwbremen2 (1.014)
00 | fcbmünchen2 (948) | vfbstuttgart2 (727)


----------



## fanUltras

Swiss Super League Switzerland - 2010/11
average attendance 11.365

1 FC Basel 29.044 
2 BSC Young Boys Bern 21.500 
3 FC 1879 Sankt Gallen 12.762 
4 FC Zürich 11.750 
5 FC Sion 10.550 
6 FC Luzern 7.993
7 Grasshopper Club Zürich 6.789 
8 Neuchâtel Xamax FC 5.136 
9 FC Thun 1898 4.792 
10 AC Bellinzona 3.338 

Lega Calcio Serie A, Italy 2010-2011
average 24.306

1 FC Internazionale Milano 59.697 
2 AC Milan 1899 53.916 
3 SSC Napoli 45.608 
4 AS Roma 33.952 
5 SS Lazio 29.122 
6 US Cittŕ di Palermo 24.812 
7 ACF Fiorentina 23.608 
8 Genoa C & FC 23.466 
9 UC Sampdoria 23.330 
10 Juventus FC 21.966 
11 Bologna FC 19.810 
12 AS Bari 19.752 
13 Udinese Calcio 17.554 
14 AC Cesena 16.469 
15 Parma FC 14.524 
16 Calcio Catania 13.731 
17 Cagliari Calcio 13.000 
18 AC Chievo Verona 12.676 
19 US Lecce 1908 10.729 
20 Brescia Calcio 8.403


----------



## fanUltras

CHINA
Chinese Super League 2011
9 round 
average - 18,284

1 Guangzhou Evergrande 44,118
2 Beijing Guoan 37,043 
3 Shaanxi Renhe 34,612 
4 Liaoning Whowin 21,601 
5 Henan Construction 17,739
6 Jiangsu Sainty 15,845 
7 Tianjin Teda 15,002 
8 Changchun Yatai 14,069 
9 Dalian Shide 13,600
10 Shenzhen Ruby 12,155 
11 Nanchang Hengyuan 11,738 
12 Shanghai Shenhua 11,625 
13 Shandong Luneng 11,447 
14 Chengdu Blades 11,438 
15 Qingdao Jonoon 9,181 
16 Hangzhou Greentown 7,904


----------



## GEwinnen

My summary of the 2010/2011 Bundesliga season:


----------



## GEwinnen

> I've heard it was closer to 30,000 their fans were all over the stadium, if you watch the video.



This is impossible, Borussia (the real one:lol sold 26,000 season tickets and they gave many tickets to Borussia's (the real one) fan club organisations.


----------



## bigbossman

GEwinnen, could you do the median figures as well, they'd paint a much better picture of Bundesliga true attendances and also why in Germany do they never publish accurate numbers?



GEwinnen said:


> This is impossible, Borussia (the real one:lol sold 26,000 season tickets and they gave many tickets to Borussia's (the real one) fan club organisations.


eh?


----------



## Rev Stickleback

bigbossman said:


> One thing you do notice Germany stadiums is the away end (save for the terraced section) is not segregated.
> 
> Also you should know/remember it used to be like that in England. I remember reading about how Arsenal played your team in the cup in the early 70s and overtook elm park...


In the games I've been to, at least, there is no away end (beyond the terrace) in Germany. With tickets readily available over the internet, it'd be very easy for away fans to buy seats in home stands.

As I said though. It didn't cause any problems. 

It wasn't that long ago in England that away fans who wanted to sit could do so anywhere in the ground at many grounds around the country.

Back in the 70s there was no such thing as an away end at most grounds in England. At many grounds you could just go in and stand where you want. Reading was like that until the end of the 1970s. I think the Arsenal visit was an all-ticket game though, so unless Arsenal fans trekked to Reading and joined the ticket queues, it's hard to see how they'd have taken over the ground.


The lack of an away end would certainly have helped boost crowd numbers in the past, particularly for derby games.


----------



## GanEden

CharlieP said:


> The Aviva Premiership (English rugby union) regular season finished today:
> 
> Leicester Tigers - *20,806* (22,463)
> Harlequins - *18,274* (17,336)
> London Wasps - *16,756* (18,616)
> London Irish - *16,227* (13,394)
> Northampton Saints - *13,358* (13,122)
> Gloucester Rugby - *13,041* (12,586)
> Bath Rugby - *11,853* (11,656)
> Saracens - *10,310* (23,910)
> Exeter Chiefs - *9,153* (N/A)
> Sale Sharks - *8,246* (7,609)
> Leeds Carnegie - *5,751* (6,046)
> Newcastle Falcons - *5,317* (6,087)
> 
> Average: *12,360* (13,614)


Lots of *free *tickets I see.


----------



## GanEden

T74 said:


> No, unlike some codes, AFL fans actually sit in the same areas. There are some reserved seats for club members, but much of the stadium is general admission. As such, it's impossible to say how many are home versus away supporters.
> 
> A massive factor is the AFL has ten sides in Melbourne, so you cam see your team play if it's against another Melbourne side.
> 
> Also big chunks of the stadium are reserved for members of the stadium itself, so these fans can be of any club, and may be just neutral observers.


And all 10 virtually play at the same ground whilst RL in Sydney still has its spreaded out suburban stadiums.


----------



## GanEden

2011 Average NRL crowds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_NRL_season 

And a week to week basis http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showthread.php?t=371571


----------



## Djakza

Average for Serbian Jelen Super League(football):


----------



## bigbossman

Rev Stickleback said:


> In the games I've been to, at least, there is no away end (beyond the terrace) in Germany. With tickets readily available over the internet, it'd be very easy for away fans to buy seats in home stands.
> 
> As I said though. It didn't cause any problems.


For me having grown up in the era of defined away ends I don't like the mixing. It takes away from the us and them dynamic which I believe creates a great image.



> It wasn't that long ago in England that away fans who wanted to sit could do so anywhere in the ground at many grounds around the country.


Well I know hooligan firms eventually graduated to the seats. I know Arsenal used to buy tickets in Spurs and Chelsea's seats in the mid/late 80s and vice versa. To me that doesn't sound much of a good thing.



> Back in the 70s there was no such thing as an away end at most grounds in England. At many grounds you could just go in and stand where you want.Reading was like that until the end of the 1970s.


I know this apparently away clubs with a big and fight ready following (Chelsea, Spurs, West Ham and Man United) used to congregate in the north west corner of the north bank with the aim of steaming into the centre.



> I think the Arsenal visit was an all-ticket game though, so unless Arsenal fans trekked to Reading and joined the ticket queues, it's hard to see how they'd have taken over the ground.


Well I've heard stories that in the early 70s when Arsenal's hooligan following was at its height we swamped Elm Park and Fratton Park in the Cup. No doubt it is probably a nostalgia tinged exaggeration.



> The lack of an away end would certainly have helped boost crowd numbers in the past, particularly for derby games.


Or it could be argued helped reduce it, looking back many iirc many london clubs got lower crowds than would be expected against West Ham because normal fans probably stayed away for fear of an indiscriminate beating.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

bigbossman said:


> For me having grown up in the era of defined away ends I don't like the mixing. It takes away from the us and them dynamic which I believe creates a great image.


It's no less in Germany. The away fans in "home" sections are typically in addition to the fans in the away terrace, rather than instead of. The fans will go for the terrace, and if that fills, sit somewhere nearby.



> Well I know hooligan firms eventually graduated to the seats. I know Arsenal used to buy tickets in Spurs and Chelsea's seats in the mid/late 80s and vice versa. To me that doesn't sound much of a good thing.


typically it wouldn't be the hardcore that's go in the seats. At Spurs for example, you could get on the terraces for £2.20, but the seats would be about £7 (which seemed _really_ expensive back then) so most would still go in the terraces.

I went in the seats at away grounds with Reading a few times, normally when it was hammering with rain and the away end was completely uncovered. Some places did used to offer away seats as well, but often at smaller places like Crewe they wouldn't. Crewe had a rather charming system of season ticket holders being given a sticker that they put on a seat to claim it as theirs for the year.

Any home fans likely to cause trouble would invariably be on the terraces, not in the seats, which made things less tense.




> Well I've heard stories that in the early 70s when Arsenal's hooligan following was at its height we swamped Elm Park and Fratton Park in the Cup. No doubt it is probably a nostalgia tinged exaggeration.


Given that Elm Park held a quite unbelievable 27000 back then, it would have required a quite astonishing away turnout to be true.



> Or it could be argued helped reduce it, looking back many iirc many london clubs got lower crowds than would be expected against West Ham because normal fans probably stayed away for fear of an indiscriminate beating.


I was actually thinking of prior to then, the 50s and 60s. What you say is ture though. My old boss at work was a Chelsea "lad" in the 70s/80s and he said he once went to Millwall thinking it would be great with Chelsea taking over the place. Instead he had to spend the whole game pretending to be a Millwall fan so the "spotters" didn't see him reacting the wrong way to the action on the pitch.


----------



## bigbossman

Rev Stickleback said:


> It's no less in Germany. The away fans in "home" sections are typically in addition to the fans in the away terrace, rather than instead of. The fans will go for the terrace, and if that fills, sit somewhere nearby.


I know, it does look odd when you watch german football to see the away fans caged into one little corner (btw I still can't believe German football still cages fans) and then a trickle of mixed fans behind the goal. I don't know I like seeing a stadium bathed in one teams colours it looks more impressive.



> typically it wouldn't be the hardcore that's go in the seats. At Spurs for example, you could get on the terraces for £2.20, but the seats would be about £7 (which seemed _really_ expensive back then) so most would still go in the terraces.


Well what I heard was mid 80s so they wouldn't be detected many London firms would go into the seats during games to avoid escorts etc..

I seem to recall reading (in football grounds of Britain 87 edition) that season tickets at spurs where more than double United's around that time. I know United were the cheapest, but I didn't know they were dirt cheap in comparison to your Arsenal or Spurs. It put's their attendance lead into perspective. 



> I went in the seats at away grounds with Reading a few times, normally when it was hammering with rain and the away end was completely uncovered. Some places did used to offer away seats as well, but often at smaller places like Crewe they wouldn't. Crewe had a rather charming system of season ticket holders being given a sticker that they put on a seat to claim it as theirs for the year.


How many of their 25 fans took that one up? I bet you miss Reading's tour of the lower leagues and the provincial backwaters :lol:



> Any home fans likely to cause trouble would invariably be on the terraces, not in the seats, which made things less tense.


Yeah but surely this evolved with the police and detection?



> Given that Elm Park held a quite unbelievable 27000 back then, it would have required a quite astonishing away turnout to be true.


They probably meant the terraces, do you know the attendance of the game?



> I was actually thinking of prior to then, the 50s and 60s. What you say is ture though. My old boss at work was a Chelsea "lad" in the 70s/80s and he said he once went to Millwall thinking it would be great with Chelsea taking over the place. Instead he had to spend the whole game pretending to be a Millwall fan so the "spotters" didn't see him reacting the wrong way to the action on the pitch.


LOL i've heard plenty of those type of stories, at least he had (i assume) the same accent, heard all sorts from people going up north and being asked what the time is. It's amazing to think of what you lot had to put up with just to watch a game of football.


----------



## mlm

Danish Superliga 2010-2011:

1.	FC København - *17.325*
2.	Brøndby IF	- *12.849*
3.	OB	- *8.650*
4.	FC Midtjylland	- *7.212*
5.	AaB	- *6.992* 
6.	Esbjerg fB	- *6.750* 
7.	Randers FC	- *5.131*
8.	FC Nordsjælland	- *4.469*
9.	AC Horsens	- *4.196* 
10.	Silkeborg IF	- *3.812*
11.	SønderjyskE - *3.280* 
12.	Lyngby BK	- *2.832*


----------



## Rev Stickleback

bigbossman said:


> I know, it does look odd when you watch german football to see the away fans caged into one little corner (btw I still can't believe German football still cages fans) and then a trickle of mixed fans behind the goal. I don't know I like seeing a stadium bathed in one teams colours it looks more impressive.


That is one thing I do like about German games - their fans do wear colours. A lot of fans in England seem convinced it's a kids/day trippers thing. 




> I seem to recall reading (in football grounds of Britain 87 edition) that season tickets at spurs where more than double United's around that time. I know United were the cheapest, but I didn't know they were dirt cheap in comparison to your Arsenal or Spurs. It put's their attendance lead into perspective.


Man Utd used to pride themselves on being the cheapest team in the top flight. The difference in terrace prices wasn't that much, but the seats were more expensive in London. Seats used to be roughtly twice the price of terraces, more like how Germany in now.



> How many of their 25 fans took that one up? I bet you miss Reading's tour of the lower leagues and the provincial backwaters :lol:


Funnily enough quite a few do. One of the higher demands for tickets this season was for our cup tie at Stevenage, as people wanted to go to a small ground again.



> Yeah but surely this evolved with the police and detection?


It just seemed to be an unwritten rule, that if you went in with the home fans there was a degree of respect.

It was much like the AFL games I've been to, where crowds are mixed*. You do get a bit of banter between fans, but it's light-hearted rather than antagonistic.


* there is usually an away contingent allocated an area behind one goal, but most can be anywhere.



> They probably meant the terraces, do you know the attendance of the game?


The ground only had 3000 seats. 25,756 were there, even though 27,000 tickets were sold.



> LOL i've heard plenty of those type of stories, at least he had (i assume) the same accent, heard all sorts from people going up north and being asked what the time is. It's amazing to think of what you lot had to put up with just to watch a game of football.


He said that they had people who'd walk round through the crowd looking for people showing signs of getting excited during opposition moves. He spent 90 minutes wildly cheering his own team being thrashed 0-3.


----------



## bigbossman

Rev Stickleback said:


> That is one thing I do like about German games - their fans do wear colours. A lot of fans in England seem convinced it's a kids/day trippers thing.


Isn't that because of the way football was in the 80s people never got used to regularly wearing colours and shirts anymore and that mentality has just completely infected football?


> Man Utd used to pride themselves on being the cheapest team in the top flight. The difference in terrace prices wasn't that much, but the seats were more expensive in London. Seats used to be roughtly twice the price of terraces, more like how Germany in now.


I suppose it all added up during a season and it probably provided equivalent patrons in London and Manchester with a different experience as you could get more bang for your buck up north. 

I remembering watching a video from the early 80s on youtube where they went around Derby asking people why they didn't go to football (as the crowds had dropped dramatically) and most of them answered it was too expensive which is eye opening considering the prices then compared to now. What were Reading's prices like during that period?


> Funnily enough quite a few do. One of the higher demands for tickets this season was for our cup tie at Stevenage, as people wanted to go to a small ground again.


I can understand that, I suppose the stadiums at the top are samey and it's probably nice feeling like you are the big boys. Although does Scunthorpe not count, it looked like a fair few of you guys at the game at Glanford Park towards the end of last season.



> It just seemed to be an unwritten rule, that if you went in with the home fans there was a degree of respect.


Fair enough



> It was much like the AFL games I've been to, where crowds are mixed*. You do get a bit of banter between fans, but it's light-hearted rather than antagonistic.
> 
> 
> * there is usually an away contingent allocated an area behind one goal, but most can be anywhere.


Is this away contingent the guys who wave the pom poms when a goal is scored perchance? 

In someways the mixing of fans seems strange in that you would've thought it would kick off every now and again. Obviously a different mentality down there.


> The ground only had 3000 seats. 25,756 were there, even though 27,000 tickets were sold.


I'd assume they meant the Town end or whatever the hardcore Reading end was. But like all the stories of yore exaggeration is a running theme. 

No doubt there was more than the 25,756 officially counted. In 1972 there was officially 63,000 in Highbury for Arsenal-Derby but most say that the real number was closer to 80,000. Frightening to think of the crowding (not that I don't think terracing should be re-introduced mind).



> He said that they had people who'd walk round through the crowd looking for people showing signs of getting excited during opposition moves. He spent 90 minutes wildly cheering his own team being thrashed 0-3.


LOL I've heard stories like that especially involving Palace-Millwall games (even at home). There's one on youtube of Ipswich trying to have a go at The Den with disastrous consequences.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

bigbossman said:


> Isn't that because of the way football was in the 80s people never got used to regularly wearing colours and shirts anymore and that mentality has just completely infected football?


the trend for not wearing colours is quite recent. Part of it is probably douggie bimson-esque "hooligan chic" in not wanting to look like a "scarfer". There's also the trend among many bigger clubs where fans don't want to look like day-trippers - particularly among clubs whose fans are often acused of being glory-hunters.



> What were Reading's prices like during that period?


Early 80s? Probably about £1.50.



> I can understand that, I suppose the stadiums at the top are samey and it's probably nice feeling like you are the big boys.


Nah. It's just sort friendlier, with people not taking all quite so seriously. You don't tend to get so many fans, veins bulging, shouting abuse, as if just being at their ground is a personal insult.



> Is this away contingent the guys who wave the pom poms when a goal is scored perchance?


Yeah



> In someways the mixing of fans seems strange in that you would've thought it would kick off every now and again. Obviously a different mentality down there.


Maybe it's regularity. Before the AFL (then VFL) went national, every single match was a derby. Many of the grounds were close enough that you could walk to some away games.

Collingwood's ground (and fans) did sometimes have a nasty reputation though.



> No doubt there was more than the 25,756 officially counted. In 1972 there was officially 63,000 in Highbury for Arsenal-Derby but most say that the real number was closer to 80,000. Frightening to think of the crowding (not that I don't think terracing should be re-introduced mind).


I've no idea how 27000 fitted in there. At the last game, with the terraces unchanged beyond a small section for segregation, in only held 15,000.


----------



## Ecological

Taarabt sparks £10m chase after midfielder reveals he's ready to call time on QPR
By JOE BERNSTEIN
Last updated at 11:29 AM on 19th June 2011

Comments (4)
Add to My Stories
Share
Adel Taarabt is spoiling for a move to Newcastle and insists newly-promoted QPR are not good enough to stay in the Premier League. 

Contract talks between the skilful midfielder and the club have broken down and the 22-year-old wants to leave. But he will do so under a cloud if he is sold after tipping QPR for relegation in their first season back in the top flight.

‘They want me to stay four years on the same terms,’ said Taarabt about the club who revived his reputation after a tough time at Tottenham. ‘I don’t want to sign for four years then after one year I am going to be back in The Championship. 

Ace Adel: Taarabt was voted the best player in the Championship last season
‘No disrespect, but if we keep the same players, it will be very difficult to stay in the Premier League when you are playing Manchester United and Chelsea.’ 

Taarabt had already talked of his ambitions to join Chelsea or Arsenal but seems to have settled for Newcastle. 

Alan Pardew had a £5million bid for him rejected in January and is re-building after the sales of Englishmen Andy Carroll, to Liverpool in January, and Kevin Nolan to West Ham last week. 

Newcastle have already brought in Demba Ba and Sylvain Marveaux but will have to find £10m for Taarabt and offer an attractive pay deal. 

‘I helped QPR win promotion but they will not offer me a better contract,’ said Taarabt, who was voted the best player in the Championship last season. ‘They say I am already on big wages.’ 

Champions: but Taarabt as tipped QPR to go straight back down
Taarabt’s contract runs until 2013 but it is believed there is a break clause that could be activated by the Moroccan next summer. 

However, he claimed QPR have had offers but have told him they will only let him go for £10m. 

‘It’s a lot of money because I have not been successful yet in the Premier League,’ he said. ‘But when Rangers sell me, they have to give 40 per cent of the fee to Tottenham, my first club.’ 

Interested: Alan Pardew is rebuilding at Newcastle
Despite interest from Paris St-Germain and Juventus, Taarabt wants to stay in the Premier League. 

*He said: ‘Why should I go to France and play some games in front of 7,000 people? I like it in England. The stadiums are full all the time. *:lol:

‘I understand that QPR have changed my life. People had almost forgotten me when I joined from Tottenham. But I don’t think they are being fair to me.’


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...y-quit-QPR-spark-10m-chase.html#ixzz1PimsaS3U


----------



## fanUltras

Argentina Primera A 
Clausura 2011

River Plate 45200 
Boca Juniors 40333 
Racing Club 30555 
Newell s Old Boys 28666 
Velez Sarsfield 25444 
San Lorenzo 23555 
Independiente 22100 
Gimnasia La Plata 21888 
Colon Santa Fe 19300 
Quilmes 18222 
Estudiantes de La Plata 18200 
Huracan 17000 
Lanus 16800 
Tigre 15600 
All Boys 13833 
Olimpo Bahia Blanca 13500 
Banfield 12888 
Argentinos Juniors 11800 
Godoy Cruz Mendoza 10666 
Arsenal Sarandi 9833

Average 20769 

Poland Ekstraklasa 2010-2011

1 KKS Lech Poznan 18.635 
2 Legia Warszawa 17.139 
3 Wisla Kraków 15.394 
4 Korona Kielce 8.713 
5 Górnik Zabrze 8.700 
6 KS Cracovia 8.521 
7 RTS Widzew Lódz 8.041 
8 WKS Slask Wroclaw 7.563 
9 Zaglebie Lubin 7.403 
10 Lechia Gdansk 7.254 
11 Ruch Chorzów 5.844 
12 Arka Gdynia 5.727 
13 Jagiellonia Bialystok 5.651 
14 KSP Polonia Warszawa 4.667 
15 Polonia Bytom 3.617 
16 GKS Belchatów 3.069 

average 8.496


----------



## GEwinnen

fanUltras said:


> Argentina Primera A
> Clausura 2011
> 
> Poland Ekstraklasa 2010-2011
> 
> 1 KKS Lech Poznan 18.635
> 2 Legia Warszawa 17.139
> 8 WKS Slask Wroclaw 7.563
> 10 Lechia Gdansk 7.254


Poland will have some nice white elephants in these cities after the Euro 2012:crazy:...


----------



## MS20

Football's kicking ass around the world. :cheers: Love it. Nothing comes even close, its incredible. To have so many leagues in varying economic and demographic conditions and to be putting up these numbers always impresses me. It just seems to be improving year on year. And the toughest market in the US has probably been the most impressive.


----------



## bd popeye

*National Football League Week ONE Scores & Attendance 2011 season*

New England 38, Miami 24 
Sun Life Stadium, Miami Gardens FL - Attendance: 66,860

Oakland 23, Denver 20 
Sports Authority Field at Mile High Stadium, Denver CO. - Attendance: 75,671

Detroit 27, Tampa Bay 20 
Raymond James Stadium, Tampa FL - Attendance: 51,274

Buffalo 41, Kansas City 7 
Arrowhead Stadium, Kansas City MO - Attendance: 68,755

Philadelphia 31, St. Louis 13 
Edward Jones Dome, St Louis MO - Attendance: 56,722

Cincinnati 27, Cleveland 17 
Cleveland Browns Stadium, Cleveland OH - Attendance: 67,321

San Francisco 33, Seattle 17
Candlestick Park. San Francisco CA - Attendance: 69,732

San Diego 24, Minnesota 17 
Qualcomm Stadium, San Diego CA - Attendance: 66,716

Chicago 30, Atlanta 12 
Soldier Field, Chicago IL - Attendance: 62,115

Houston 34, Indianapolis 7 
Reliant Stadium. Houston TX - Attendance: 71,444

Baltimore 35, Pittsburgh 7 
M&T Bank Stadium, Baltimore MD - Attendance: 71,434

Jacksonville 16, Tennessee 14 
EverBank Field, Jacksonville FL - Attendance: 61,619

New York 27, Dallas 24 
MetLife Stadium, Arlington TX - Attendance: 78,702

Arizona 28, Carolina 21 
University of Phoenix Stadium, Glendale AZ- Attendance: 60,627

Washington 28, New York 14 
FedEx Field, Prince George's County, MD - Attendance: 80,121

Green Bay 42, New Orleans 34 
Lambeau Field, Green Bay WI - Attendance: 70,555

*Average attendance 68,868*


----------



## bd popeye

*NCAA(College) Division 1A attendance of over 90,000 on 10 September 2011*

Michigan 35, Notre Dame 31 
Michigan Stadium(The Big House), Ann Arbor MI - Attendance: 114,804

Alabama 27, Penn St. 11 
Beaver Stadium, University Park PA - Attendance: 107,846

Ohio St. 27, Toledo 22 
Ohio Stadium, Columbus OH - Attendance: 105,016

Texas 17, BYU 16 
Darrell K Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium, Austin TX - Attendance: 100,995

Tennessee 45, Cincinnati 23 
Neyland Stadium, Knoxville TN - Attendance: 94,207

South Carolina 45, Georgia 42 
Sanford Stadium, Athens GA - Attendance: 92,746

LSU 49, Northwestern St. 3 
Tiger Stadium, Baton Rouge LA - Attendance: 92,405


----------



## West12Rangers

can you give us an idea of on average,how many home games those NFL and college teams play per season? i realise this will vary depending on if the team makes the play-offs


----------



## BoulderGrad

West12Rangers said:


> can you give us an idea of on average,how many home games those NFL and college teams play per season? i realise this will vary depending on if the team makes the play-offs


NFL is 16 game regular season schedule, so 8 home games, plus playoffs

NCAA, the standard schedule is 12 games (some teams play 13), bowl games and conference championships are played at neutral sites. Some rivalry games are played at neutral sites (e.g. U of Colorado is in Boulder, Colorado State is in Fort Collins, but the CU v CSU game is played in Denver). So average is probably between 5 and 6 home games/season.


----------



## West12Rangers

BoulderGrad said:


> NFL is 16 game regular season schedule, so 8 home games, plus playoffs
> 
> NCAA, the standard schedule is 12 games (some teams play 13), bowl games and conference championships are played at neutral sites. Some rivalry games are played at neutral sites (e.g. U of Colorado is in Boulder, Colorado State is in Fort Collins, but the CU v CSU game is played in Denver). So average is probably between 5 and 6 home games/season.
> 
> 
> thats not many games....(the opposite of baseball)i'm guessing fans want to make the most of the few home games they have


----------



## bd popeye

> So average is probably between 5 and 6 home games/season.


Some teams play as many as seven. By scheduling easy opponents for an easy win.

For instance Ohio State has a 12 game schedule....But they have 7 home games. For instance Akron & Toledo ,no powerhouses, where their first two home opponents this season.


----------



## West12Rangers

bd popeye said:


> Some teams play as many as seven. By scheduling easy opponents for an easy win.
> 
> For instance Ohio State has a 12 game schedule....But they have 7 home games. For instance Akron & Toledo ,no powerhouses, where their first two home opponents this season.


it's still not a lot,is it?though i guess they can only play other College teams and dont want to be travelling all over the US


----------



## BoulderGrad

West12Rangers said:


> it's still not a lot,is it?though i guess they can only play other College teams and dont want to be travelling all over the US


Umm...? There are about 120 other college football programs just in Div 1-A. Those teams can also play teams from 1-AA which has a similarly large number.

The things limiting football schedules is football. If they played as many games as baseball teams, no one would make it out alive. Quite the violent game (cue comparison arguments with rugby, hockey, lacrosse, etc). One game a week is all they can reasonably manage, and more than 12-16 games over the course of a year would take its toll.

The one extra bit to the for the NCAA is that the players are all supposed to be 'student athletes' which has become a fairly meaningless term in this day in age in sports. But because of that, rules limit how much practice time and game time they're allowed. For example, college basketball and hockey typically play about 40 games/ year, while the NBA and NHL have 82 game schedules.


----------



## isaidso

BoulderGrad said:


> One game a week is all they can reasonably manage, and more than 12-16 games over the course of a year would take its toll.


I agree with your arguments, but 20-25 games/year is do-able. The Canadian Football League plays 18 games/year in its regular season. A Grey Cup champion will play 1 pre-season game, 18 regular season games, and 3 playoff games for a total of 22 games. Pro teams in Canada play significantly more games than their counterparts in the United States despite having more extreme weather conditions to deal with. Some games are played outside in -25C and blizzard conditions.


----------



## West12Rangers

BoulderGrad said:


> Umm...? There are about 120 other college football programs just in Div 1-A. Those teams can also play teams from 1-AA which has a similarly large number.
> 
> The things limiting football schedules is football. If they played as many games as baseball teams, no one would make it out alive. Quite the violent game (cue comparison arguments with rugby, hockey, lacrosse, etc). One game a week is all they can reasonably manage, and more than 12-16 games over the course of a year would take its toll.
> 
> The one extra bit to the for the NCAA is that the players are all supposed to be 'student athletes' which has become a fairly meaningless term in this day in age in sports. But because of that, rules limit how much practice time and game time they're allowed. For example, college basketball and hockey typically play about 40 games/ year, while the NBA and NHL have 82 game schedules.


i see what you are saying,i wouldnt expect them to play as many games as baseball,but the season seems a bit short.....especially in the NFL...if you are a fan,in theory,your season could be over very quickly if your team gets off to a poor start
the comparison with rugby is understandable,and the players in rugby stay on the pitch for the entire 80 minutes,with only the one half time break


----------



## bd popeye

This sort of discussion always starts when American football is mentioned.

I don't think the NFL could play 25 games in a season. 18 maybe.. The game is to violent. Too many injuries.

Below is a link to the NFL injury report for the first week of the NFL season.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/injuries

I've never witness a CFL game in person on the field. Only on TV. For s short period in my life I worked for a security firm that did security for sporting events, NFL games, Concerts, Tv..the entertainment industry in general.

I can tell you from first hand experience that the hitting, tackling, running and pure violence of an NFL game is far above any sport that I ever did security for. Bar none. 

The NFL is a violent game.



> Umm...? There are about 120 other college football programs just in Div 1-A. Those teams can also play teams from 1-AA which has a similarly large number.


...and the total average attendance for all 120 teams is about 42,000 a game..the PDF file is not working..so..

Here's the top NCAA Division one attendance.


----------



## West12Rangers

well,i think Rugby might give the NFL a run for its money in the violence/injury stakes.


----------



## bd popeye

What causes the injuries in the NFL is the speed a foot of the game. If you where ever on the field for an NFL game you'd know what I'm posting about. Rugby is nor played at the speed a foot of the NFL. Nor is the sort of blocking done in American foot ball. Also only the player with the ball may be touched in Rugby.

There are no collisions like this in Rugby. I can't stand the alleged music. 











_I'm done discussing American football Vs Rugby, soccer or any sport. Think what you may. Some folks love their sports. That's fine with me. .... >>> in the USA we love ours._


----------



## isaidso

I've compiled a list for the number of clubs with average attendance over 25,000 by country. I've included both pro and amateur football teams. Figures are for the last completed season. 

United States 116
England 18
Germany 16
Spain 10
Italy 5

France 5
Canada 5
Netherlands 4
Portugal 3
Scotland 2

Turkey 2
Greece 1
Belgium 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_attendances_of_European_football_clubs
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect...ERES&CACHEID=d47a560045aad7aab88ffc9080650d5b
http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance/_/year/2010

Australia? Brazil? China? Argentina? Russia? What other countries are missing from the list? United States figures include all 32 NFL teams and 84 NCAA Division I teams. Canadian figures are for CFL teams from my own data base.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

A little tough to compare given the differences in number of games.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

isaidso said:


> I've compiled a list for the number of clubs with average attendance over 25,000 by country. I've included both pro and amateur football teams. Figures are for the last completed season.
> 
> United States 116
> England 18
> Germany 16


England should be 21 and Germany 17.


----------



## GunnerJacket

isaidso's list illustrates why we really shouldn't lump all codes together. Despite the shared origins you cannot compare American football w/ world football in this capacity due to the different seasonal structures, especially if you're dragging collegiate ball into the forum. It's too simple for a school to average 25k for 6 or 5 home game stretch to be measured as a peer reference against a lower tier pro team in Germany with some 20+ games and much higher ticket prices. Really an apples-to-oranges debate here, even moreso than looking at just top flights of pro leagues.


----------



## bd popeye

Phriggin' Ogre said:


> A little tough to compare given the differences in number of games.


OK. I'll give you another example.

In Major League Baseball 19 of 30 teams average 25,000 plus a game..that over an 81 game home schedule. The Philadelphia Phillies and New York yankees both averaged over 45,000 fans a game. Over MLB averaged 30,000+ fans a game.

Remember that during the football season in the US other pro & college sports are also going on. 

In September MLB is in full blast. From late October to December the NBA and NHL are opening their seasons. Not to mention college footbal and basketball. ..college basketball kicks up in December...Oh yea there's college hockey. What sort of attendance do other nations have at college sporting events? Just asking..

Some selected NCAA Division One Football attendance figures from last week..

LSU 38, Tennessee 7 
Neyland Stadium, Knoxville TN - Attendance: 101,822

Oklahoma St. 38, Texas 26 
Darrell K Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium, Austin TX - Attendance: 100,101

Penn St. 23, Purdue 18 
Beaver Stadium, University Park PA - Attendance: 100,820

Florida 6, Auburn 17 
Jordan-Hare Stadium, Auburn AL - Attendance: 87,451

Indiana 7, Wisconsin 59 
Camp Randall Stadium, Madison WI - Attendance: 80,732

Michigan 14, Michigan St. 28 
Spartan Stadium, Lansing MI - Attendance: 77,515

Iowa 41, Northwestern 31 logo
Kinnick Stadium, Iowa City IA - Attendance: 70,585


----------



## Scba

The United Football League's attendance rose this year, averaging 15,088, but it wasn't enough, and it looks likely that the league will be no more after this weekend.


----------



## bd popeye

> It's too simple for a school to average 25k for 6 or 5 home game stretch to be measured as a peer reference against a lower tier pro team in Germany with some 20+ games and much higher ticket prices


Humm the average ticket price for a NCAA division one A game varies from $50 USD to $207 a game...here's a chart. Top matches can be much higher.

What are the average ticket prices for the lower divisions in Germany? Thank you!


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

GunnerJacket said:


> isaidso's list illustrates why we really shouldn't lump all codes together. Despite the shared origins you cannot compare American football w/ world football in this capacity due to the different seasonal structures, especially if you're dragging collegiate ball into the forum. It's too simple for a school to average 25k for 6 or 5 home game stretch to be measured as a peer reference against a lower tier pro team in Germany with some 20+ games and much higher ticket prices. Really an apples-to-oranges debate here, even moreso than looking at just top flights of pro leagues.


Are you kidding? College Football ticket prices easily rival the NFL and EPL!

EDIT: Blah, didn't see the post above.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

isaidso said:


> I've compiled a list for the number of clubs with average attendance over 25,000 by country. I've included both pro and amateur football teams. Figures are for the last completed season.
> 
> United States 116
> England 18
> Germany 16
> Spain 10
> Italy 5
> 
> France 5
> Canada 5
> Netherlands 4
> Portugal 3
> Scotland 2
> 
> Turkey 2
> Greece 1
> Belgium 1
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_attendances_of_European_football_clubs
> http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect...ERES&CACHEID=d47a560045aad7aab88ffc9080650d5b
> http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance/_/year/2010
> 
> Australia? Brazil? China? Argentina? Russia? What other countries are missing from the list? United States figures include all 32 NFL teams and 84 NCAA Division I teams. Canadian figures are for CFL teams from my own data base.


Australia has 17 clubs with an average game attendance over 25,000. 15 of which are AFL based clubs


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> Australia has 17 clubs with an average game attendance over 25,000. 15 of which are AFL based clubs


If you include baseball, there's 135 teams for the US.


----------



## isaidso

GunnerJacket said:


> isaidso's list illustrates why we really shouldn't lump all codes together. Despite the shared origins you cannot compare American football w/ world football in this capacity due to the different seasonal structures, especially if you're dragging collegiate ball into the forum. It's too simple for a school to average 25k for 6 or 5 home game stretch to be measured as a peer reference against a lower tier pro team in Germany with some 20+ games and much higher ticket prices. Really an apples-to-oranges debate here, even moreso than looking at just top flights of pro leagues.


It's simply a list of teams that draw 25,000+; nothing more, nothing less.

If some people are going to extrapolate that to mean that these teams are comparable financially or comparable by some other measure, *that's their erroneous conclusion.* People are continually inferring that data is suggesting things it's not meant to suggest. Can't people just look at numbers for purely their quantitative information? 

25,000 bums in the stands means 25,000 people went to go watch it live. Jeesh! :|


----------



## isaidso

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> Australia has 17 clubs with an average game attendance over 25,000. 15 of which are AFL based clubs


Thanks, I'll add them. Are the other two rugby? 17's a huge number for a country the size of Australia! kay:

*Number of clubs with average attendance over 25,000 by country*
United States 116
England 18
Australia 18
Germany 16
Spain 10

Italy 5
France 5
Canada 5
Netherlands 4
Portugal 3

Scotland 2
Turkey 2
Greece 1
Belgium 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_attendances_of_European_football_clubs
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect...ERES&CACHEID=d47a560045aad7aab88ffc9080650d5b
http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance/_/year/2010


----------



## isaidso

Rev Stickleback said:


> England should be 21 and Germany 17.


Are those figures on the link I provided wrong? Which teams were missed and could you provide a link?


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

isaidso said:


> Thanks, I'll add them. Are the other two rugby? 17's a huge number for a country the size of Australia! kay:


There's one A-League team (Soccer), one NRL team (Rugby League) and one Super 8 team (Rugby Union) plus fifteen AFL teams. I miscalculated at first, so there's 18 teams all together.

Here they are though,

1. Collingwood Magpies (60,960)
2. Essendon Bombers (51,451)
3. Carlton Blues (50,965)
4. Geelong Cats (43,812)
5. Hawthorn Hawks (43,194)
6. Richmond Tigers (40,695)
7. Melbourne Victory (40,351)
8. West Coast Eagles (35,925)
9. St Kilda Saints (35,679)
10. Melbourne Demons (33,231)
11. Brisbane Broncos (33,209)
12. Adelaide Crows (30,559)
13. Freemantle Dockers (30,108)
14. Sydney Swans (30,012)
15. Queensland Reds (29,924)
16. Western Bulldogs (28,705)
17. North Melbourne Kangaroos (28,074)
18. Brisbane Lions (25,190)


AFL, NRL, A-League (Soccer), Super 8 (Rugby Union)


----------



## Andy-i

Rev Stickleback said:


> England should be 21 and Germany 17.


This season so far, teams over 25K average:

Germany is 21: 17 in the Bundesliga and 4 in Bundesliga2
England is 15 12 in the EPL and 3 in FLC


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> Humm the average ticket price for a NCAA division one A game varies from $50 USD to $207 a game...here's a chart. Top matches can be much higher.
> 
> What are the average ticket prices for the lower divisions in Germany? Thank you.


Fair enough, but we'll have to factor in how many of those cfb ticket prices include the annual "donation" to the athletic dept. And how many of those games include free attendance by students (a practice I know several ACC, PAC and CUSA schools use.)

I get what everyone is saying, just trying to hedge the discussion from the erroneous conclusions isaidso was referring about. Having been all up and down the attendance material for years these are such different animals. But I'll leave it be.


----------



## bd popeye

> Fair enough, but we'll have to factor in how many of those cfb ticket prices include the annual "donation" to the athletic dept.


those charge's may be applied to alumni & other high rollers.

I know back in '97 or '98 I went to a USC game in LA and the tickets face value was $56.


----------



## isaidso

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> There's one A-League team (Soccer), one NRL team (Rugby League) and one Super 8 team (Rugby Union) plus fifteen AFL teams. I miscalculated at first, so there's 18 teams all together.
> 
> Here they are though,
> 
> 1. Collingwood Magpies (60,960)
> 2. Essendon Bombers (51,451)
> 3. Carlton Blues (50,965)
> 4. Geelong Cats (43,812)
> 5. Hawthorn Hawks (43,194)
> 6. Richmond Tigers (40,695)
> 7. Melbourne Victory (40,351)
> 8. West Coast Eagles (35,925)
> 9. St Kilda Saints (35,679)
> 10. Melbourne Demons (33,231)
> 11. Brisbane Broncos (33,209)
> 12. Adelaide Crows (30,559)
> 13. Freemantle Dockers (30,108)
> 14. Sydney Swans (30,012)
> 15. Queensland Reds (29,924)
> 16. Western Bulldogs (28,705)
> 17. North Melbourne Kangaroos (28,074)
> 18. Brisbane Lions (25,190)
> 
> 
> AFL, NRL, A-League (Soccer), Super 8 (Rugby Union)


Thanks for digging that up, and nice colour coding! I'll change the chart. Those are numbers Canada can only dream of. Hopefully, we can get up to 10 in a few years but as of now it's this:

1. Edmonton Eskimos (35,025)
2. Calgary Stampeders (30,715)
3. Saskatchewan Roughriders (30,048)
4. Winnipeg Blue Bombers (26,083)
5. Montreal Alouettes (25,012)

All CFL.

Not a single team in Toronto manages more than 25,000! Let's just say that it's not exactly a great city for a football fan.


----------



## isaidso

Andy-i said:


> This season so far, teams over 25K average:
> 
> Germany is 21: 17 in the Bundesliga and 4 in Bundesliga2
> England is 15 12 in the EPL and 3 in FLC


What are the final numbers for last year as the chart is for season end numbers.


----------



## crazydude

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> There's one A-League team (Soccer), one NRL team (Rugby League) and one Super 8 team (Rugby Union) plus fifteen AFL teams. I miscalculated at first, so there's 18 teams all together.
> 
> Here they are though,
> 
> 1. Collingwood Magpies (60,960)
> 2. Essendon Bombers (51,451)
> 3. Carlton Blues (50,965)
> 4. Geelong Cats (43,812)
> 5. Hawthorn Hawks (43,194)
> 6. Richmond Tigers (40,695)
> 7. Melbourne Victory (40,351)
> 8. West Coast Eagles (35,925)
> 9. St Kilda Saints (35,679)
> 10. Melbourne Demons (33,231)
> 11. Brisbane Broncos (33,209)
> 12. Adelaide Crows (30,559)
> 13. Freemantle Dockers (30,108)
> 14. Sydney Swans (30,012)
> 15. Queensland Reds (29,924)
> 16. Western Bulldogs (28,705)
> 17. North Melbourne Kangaroos (28,074)
> 18. Brisbane Lions (25,190)
> 
> 
> AFL, NRL, A-League (Soccer), Super 8 (Rugby Union)


Super 8? The SA, Aus and NZ rugby competition is called Super Rugby now. 

Also, according to Wiki, the Melbourne Victory's highest attendance was 32 231 last season.

Working from Wiki, 3 SA rugby teams had attendances over 25 000 for Super Rugby, over their 8 home matches in 2011. They are the Stormers with 41081, Bulls with 32105, and SHarks with 29139.

I'll try to get the stats for the 2011 Currie Cup, which is played by 'similair' teams, though they are likely lower.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine

^^appreciate it. It's troublesome trying to find correct figures, with many sites (for sports other than Rugby League and AFL) giving different numbers. The attendance I got for the A-League was from Wiki, which I had also seen the number repeated elsewhere, so I took it as a truth. I think it's an attendance from a year when Melbourne Victory were playing good


----------



## Andy-i

isaidso said:


> What are the final numbers for last year as the chart is for season end numbers.


England 18 (15PL, 3FLC) *blackburn averaged 24999 but I didn't include them.
Germany 16 (15BL, 1BL2)

Stats from:
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/?cc=5739


----------



## bd popeye

A link to NFL attendance so far this 2011 season..

http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance


----------



## crazydude

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> ^^appreciate it. It's troublesome trying to find correct figures, with many sites (for sports other than Rugby League and AFL) giving different numbers. The attendance I got for the A-League was from Wiki, which I had also seen the number repeated elsewhere, so I took it as a truth. I think it's an attendance from a year when Melbourne Victory were playing good


I know the feeling, lots of Currie Cup matches don't seem to have attendance reports, and even Premier Soccer League attendance figures aren't easy to come by.

Working only with Supersport figures, the Premier Soccer League in South Africa has an average of 5789 people per match. That's after 8 rounds of the 2011-12 season.

Source: Supersport


----------



## Djakza

So far in Serbia, better than last years but still pretty bad.
No. TEAM Avg. Attendance(Last season)


1. Crvena Zvezda 12.255 (13.293)

2. Novi Pazar 7.500 (promoted)

3. Radnicki KG 7.333 (promoted)

4. Partizan 6.657 (7.241)

5. Vojvodina 6.500 (3.300)

6. Sloboda 4.625 (promoted)

7. Spartak 4.375 (1.567)

8. Hajduk 2.875 (578)

9. Smederevo 2.758 (1.687)

10. Borac 2.000 (1.593)

11. Jagodina 1.900 (2.027)

12. BSK Borca 1.527 (629)

13. Javor 875 (1.020)

14. Metalac 863 (1.230)

15. Rad 760 (1.081)

16. OFK Beograd 420 (950)

So, average attendance this season is 3.514, witch is a lot better than last season's 2.459. And there are yet to be played two 30.000+ games(Crvena Zvezda vs Partizan).


----------



## weava

isaidso said:


> I've compiled a list for the number of clubs with average attendance over 25,000 by country. I've included both pro and amateur football teams. Figures are for the last completed season.
> 
> United States 116
> England 18
> Germany 16
> Spain 10
> Italy 5
> 
> France 5
> Canada 5
> Netherlands 4
> Portugal 3
> Scotland 2
> 
> Turkey 2
> Greece 1
> Belgium 1
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_attendances_of_European_football_clubs
> http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect...ERES&CACHEID=d47a560045aad7aab88ffc9080650d5b
> http://espn.go.com/nfl/attendance/_/year/2010
> 
> Australia? Brazil? China? Argentina? Russia? What other countries are missing from the list? United States figures include all 32 NFL teams and 84 NCAA Division I teams. Canadian figures are for CFL teams from my own data base.


Did you include the NCAA-FCS teams like App state that average over 25k? UTSA is also a new team and are averaging around 30k


----------



## isaidso

weava said:


> Did you include the NCAA-FCS teams like App state that average over 25k? UTSA is also a new team and are averaging around 30k


Very observant! Yes, Appalachian State is in there. UTSA isn't listed in my link, so I didn't include it.


----------



## bigbossman

^^Come on you can't count college football, they play a small mount of games per year with schedules design to increase interest.



bd popeye said:


> Humm the average ticket price for a NCAA division one A game varies from $50 USD to $207 a game...here's a chart. Top matches can be much higher.
> 
> What are the average ticket prices for the lower divisions in Germany? Thank you!


How can you compare average ticket prices when college plays 5-7 games and lower league football over here generally plays over 19. We should compare total ticket prices then add in other expenses tacked on to going to more games a season. To the true cost.


----------



## bd popeye

^^Because I did..

The point is that sports in the US is very popular. You know that. There are many sporting events taking place all the time. motorsports, baseball, football, basketball, soccer, lacrosse, ice hockey.etc..etc. At all levels...

If anyone believes that their country has better fans or spends more money at games and on gear. So be it. I just know how we roll in the US.

What ever sport you like or I like is part of our cultures. Let us except that.

I don't like to argue with people. It is fruitless. I try to make point of facts.
No more..no less.

bigbossman, if I've offended you or anyone else I sincerely apologize.


----------



## isaidso

^^ Don't mind them bd_popeye! I'm Canadian but from London originally; I'm very familiar with how they view Canada/US culture. Cutting up our sports is a national past time in the UK. 

How's attendance with the Hawkeyes this year? I wish we had college teams that drew as well as yours. I'm green with envy. 



bigbossman said:


> Come on you can't count college football, they play a small mount of games per year with schedules design to increase interest.


Football in Canada and the US play only a few games because it's too punishing to play more than once/week. These are businesses if you haven't noticed. All clubs organize and market to increase interest. You want us to play on Monday at 5 am during a hurricane, perhaps? :lol:

Any way you slice it, the US has about 116 football teams that draw 25,000 fans/game. It is what it is.


----------



## West12Rangers

isaidso said:


> ^^ Don't mind them bd_popeye! I'm Canadian but from London originally; I'm very familiar with how they view Canada/US culture.
> 
> How's attendance with the Hawkeyes this year? I wish we had college teams that drew as well as yours. I'm green with envy.
> 
> 
> 
> Football in Canada and the US play only a few games because it's too punishing to play more than once/week. These are businesses if you haven't noticed. All clubs organize and market to increase interest. You want us to play on Monday at 5 am during a hurricane, perhaps? :lol:
> 
> Any way you slice it, the US has about 116 football teams that draw 25,000 fans/game. It is what it is.


i'm not sure i know what your talking about re:Cutting up our sports is a national past time in the UK...we just had 80k for the NFL game at Wembley,mainly made up of UK based fans.I thought bigbossman made a perfectly valid point.The only thing we object to here is certain owners of EPL clubs trying to americanise football,like setting up "franchises"(how i hate that word)trying to do away with relegation/promotion etc


----------



## bigbossman

bd popeye said:


> ^^Because I did..
> 
> The point is that sports in the US is very popular. You know that. There are many sporting events taking place all the time. motorsports, baseball, football, basketball, soccer, lacrosse, ice hockey.etc..etc. At all levels...


That would be the point if you weren't comparing them to other countries asking how much ticket prices are. I was showing you that it is futile to do that.



> If anyone believes that their country has better fans or spends more money at games and on gear. So be it. I just know how we roll in the US.


Who was the one who posted a list of average ticket prices and asked wht the prices in the German lower leagues were? It was you. You're the one trying to make it into an issue.



> What ever sport you like or I like is part of our cultures. Let us except that.
> 
> I don't like to argue with people. It is fruitless. I try to make point of facts.
> No more..no less.
> 
> bigbossman, if I've offended you or anyone else I sincerely apologize.


Your passive aggressiveness is tedious now. 

You have not offended me, I just pointed out the flaw in the logic of your post, is all.



isaidso said:


> ^^ Don't mind them bd_popeye! I'm Canadian but from London originally; I'm very familiar with how they view Canada/US culture. Cutting up our sports is a national past time in the UK.


Originally from London didn't you say you moved from New Cross when you were 3. That's hardly _from_ London.

And it seems like you have forgotten the quite amicable debate we had on the difference between our sporting cultures in this very thread, not so long ago. To say cutting up your sports is our "past time" is nonsense. It seems reaffirming the persecution complex is yours though. 



> Football in Canada and the US play only a few games because it's too punishing to play more than once/week.


That's not the point and you know it.



> These are businesses if you haven't noticed. All clubs organize and market to increase interest. You want us to play on Monday at 5 am during a hurricane, perhaps? :lol:


Once again you have deliberately missed the point and inserted a bit of sarcasm to cover up the fact that your argument is weak especially given the fact that you are arguing against something I didn't say hno:

I said:

_*"Come on you can't count college football, they play a small mount of games per year with schedules design to increase interest."*_

How does that tally with anything you wrote. West Ham don't create their schedule they get what they are given, they aren't grouped with regional historical rivals, they've been demoted to play lesser opposition until which time they win their place back. They don't play 5-7 home games a season, they play a minimum of 23 this season. Thus you can't compare the favourable circumstances of college football to the unfavourable ones in European lower leagues.



> Any way you slice it, the US has about 116 football teams that draw 25,000 fans/game. It is what it is.


It is what it is? Yeah to someone who doesn't want to derive meaning from statistics, who doesn't want them to show what he doesn't want to find out. But to those who do, looking at the number of games, the population pool a team has to draw from, opponents and scheduling these things all matter. 

But then again this shit wouldn't be an issue if people didn't keep comparing leagues not just from different countries but different sports with different organisational and structures. But I didn't do that you did, you're the one who is trying to compare stats without analysis, not me. So if you do don't expect people to say wow how great those stats are without pontificating on why that is first.

Anyway that's me for this debate, it just had to be said.


----------



## isaidso

bigbossman said:


> Originally from London didn't you say you moved from New Cross when you were 3. That's hardly _from_ London.


Nice try, but I was a lot older than that. You know very well that cutting up north American sport happens with great frequency in Britain.



bigbossman said:


> That's not the point and you know it.


I have zero idea what your point was other than to dismiss the fact that 25,000 people are at those football games. 25,000 is 25,000 is 25,000. They play fewer games so that 25,000 didn't actually happen? Was that your point? :weird:


----------



## flierfy

isaidso said:


> I have zero idea what your point was other than to dismiss the fact that 25,000 people are at those football games. 25,000 is 25,000 is 25,000. They play fewer games so that 25,000 didn't actually happen? Was that your point?


It's a difference whether 25'000 turn up six or 23 times a year. That add up to 425'000 more fans in the stands. Which means additional £8.5m (with £20 per ticket) that supporters have to fork out. Quite a substantial difference.


----------



## GOOT

One thing to keep in mind for college football is that schools typically make people first donate money to the school before even being able to buy season tickets.

At University of Florida you give a minimum of $150 per seat just to have the right to buy that seat as a season ticket. This price goes up with each section too. From $150, all the way up to $2600 per seat....and that's before you have to even pay for the ticket to the game.


----------



## kerouac1848

isaidso said:


> I have zero idea what your point was other than to dismiss the fact that 25,000 people are at those football games. 25,000 is 25,000 is 25,000. They play fewer games so that 25,000 didn't actually happen? Was that your point? :weird:


The point is that statistical analysis and comparison is meaningless without context. You can make numbers tell you anything you want, but that often just wouldn't be anything useful. Don't you get taught this at school/college? I think you know this, hence you selectively quote BBM in your reply.


----------



## miguelon

The thing with american football, is that different unique factors come together:

1.- A nationwide fanbase 
2.- Great media coverage and marketing strategies
3.- Few and well organized games
4.- High income population
5.- "Cool factor" among most of its fans
6.- Domestic market above of 300 million
7.- Most local makerts are big urban centers (above 2 millions per market)
7.- Few competition within the sport (American Football fans can only watch NFL or College, and thats it, unlike soccer, where you have at least 8 major leagues, plus Champions League, Europa League, Libertadores Cup, international friendlies, all the confederation events (Euro, America Cup, African Cup,Gold Cup, WC qualifiers, etc.... and of course the World Cup.


Most major football (soccer) leagues have some of the factors I mentioned, but non of them have it all together. So a literal comparison might be unfair. 

Both the United States and Europe have a great passion for their respective sports, is just a different way of selling it.


----------



## vadin

miguelon said:


> 7.- Most local makerts are big urban centers (above 2 millions per market)


This is definitely not true for college football. The teams with the most fan support are from small college towns. For example:
Michigan(Ann Arbor)
Ohio State(Columbus)
Oklahoma(Norman)
Tennessee(Knoxville)
Penn St.(University Park)
Alabama(Tuscloosa)
Nebraska(Lincoln)
Notre Dame(South Bend)
and on and on.......


----------



## kerouac1848

^^Don;'t most of those towns also have support way beyond the city boundaries? Also they have a monopoly on support.

I lived and worked about 45mins away from Louisville KT some years ago, a city of around 800k I think and where the biggest support was for the college basketball team. From what I remember their supporter base stretched way beyond the core city, certainly where I was based which was over 40 miles away.


----------



## miguelon

vadin said:


> This is definitely not true for college football. The teams with the most fan support are from small college towns. For example:
> Michigan(Ann Arbor)
> Ohio State(Columbus)
> Oklahoma(Norman)
> Tennessee(Knoxville)
> Penn St.(University Park)
> Alabama(Tuscloosa)
> Nebraska(Lincoln)
> Notre Dame(South Bend)
> and on and on.......



Strictly speaking yes they are in small towns but their fan base is from a much wider area, sometimes a whole state, and almost always there is a metropolitan area within driving distance.


----------



## gincan

JYDA said:


> Platini said he was open to the idea of a balkan league. It's obviously the only way clubs from the region could ever regain competitiveness in Europe.


I'm sure the nationalistic spirits could make a transnational balkan league very competitive, they could include albanians, greeks and bulgars just for the fun. The main concern would be the safety of the away fans though, Crvena Zvezda vs Željezničar has enough explosive potential to start a smaller war.


----------



## Patrick




----------



## robbery4774

Patrick said:


>


Thanks! The german stats are correct. But im not sure about La liga and Seria a stats. 

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/stats/attendance/_/league/ita.1/italian-serie-a?cc=5739

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/stats/attendance/_/league/esp.1/spanish-primera-division?cc=5739

The average attendance of the smaller clubs in la liga and seria a looks sad. 
Probably it would be better to reduce the leagues from 20 to 18 => quality rises, attendance rises and second league get a boost
Value and importance of the matches rise, because the gap between the Europe places and relegation places are smaller=less boring games between midfield clubs


----------



## lpioe

Spanish newspaper Marca made an interesting report today about football attendances and prices of tickets.
For the ticket prices they looked at the 4 best championships in Europe. Average price for a ticket is highest in Spain (56€), followed by Italy (52€), England (44€) and Germany (32€). This came very surprising for me, especially because average wages are lower in Spain and Italy than in England and Germany. 
They only considered the match day tickets though, in Spain you usually get a big discount for season tickets compard to single tickets and I think it's the same in Italy.

Here is a graphic with cheapest and most expensive ticket prices for all the teams in these 4 leagues: http://www.marca.com/2012/03/02/multimedia/graficos/1330720526.html
For the spanish teams they did not include the prices for games vs Barça and Madrid. In Camp Nou for example the most expensive ticket vs Madrid is 265€ according to the official website. And many smaller teams have the cheapest ticket vs these teams at 90-100€.

If you click on "Aforo y assistencia a los campos de ligas europeas" you can see a chart showing the % of occupation of all the leagues in Europe.


----------



## Djakza

Top attendences yesterday:


> Attendance: 80,720 - B.Dortmund 2-1 Mainz (Germany)
> Attendance: 72,442 - Barcelona 3-1 Sporting (Spain)
> Attendance: 55,263 - Hamburger 0-4 Stuttgart (Germany)
> Attendance: 52,744 - Hertha 1-0 Werder (Germany)
> Attendance: 47,000 - Rangers 1-2 Hearts (Scotland)
> Attendance: 44,922 - Liverpool 1-2 Arsenal (England)
> *Attendance: 41,250 - Crvena Zvezda 1-0 Spartak (Serbia)*
> Attendance: 30,210 - Bayer04 2-0 Bayern M (Germany)


:cheers:
And attendance yesterday in the Serbian League:

Crvena zvezda - Spartak Zlatibor voda 1:0 - "Marakana" *41.250*

Novi Pazar - Partizan 1:1 - "Gradski stadion u Novom Pazaru *8.500*

Sloboda - Jagodina 1:2 - "Gradski stadion" u Užicu *2.000*

Borac - Javor 1:0 - "stadion Borca kraj Morave" *1.500 *


----------



## 1708

*Allsvenskan, Sweden - 2011*

Team - Ave - Cap - %
Malmö FF - 14 891 - 24 000 - 62%
AIK – 12 908 - 36 608 - 35%
IFK Göteborg – 12 187 - 19 000 - 64%
Helsingborgs IF – 10 088 - 17 200 - 59%
Djurgårdens IF – 10 015 - 14 417 - 69%
IF Elfsborg – 9 536 - 16 894 - 56%
Örebro SK – 8 316 - 14 500 - 57%
Kalmar FF – 8 027 - 12 105 - 66%
IFK Norrköping – 7 570 - 16 800 - 45%
Halmstad BK– 5 157 - 15 500 - 33%
GAIS – 5 132 - 19 000 - 27%
Gefle IF – 4 897 - 7302 - 67%
Mjällby AIF – 3 658 - 7 000 - 52%
BK Häcken – 3 389 - 8 480 - 40%
Trelleborgs FF – 3 119 - 10 000 - 31%
Syrianska FC – 3 090 - 8 000 - 38%

Total - 7 271 - 15 425 - 47%

Highest attendance - 28,931 Djurgårdens IF - AIK
Lowest attendance - 1,510 Trelleborgs FF vs. Halmstads BK


----------



## ajax56

I am looking for an average attendance of the Turkish league and the individual clubs. Where can I find attendance of the 2010/11 and the present?
Really I can not find.


----------



## Luigi742

*A-League Attendances 2011-12 season*

League Average: (10,819)
League Highest: 50,334 (Brisbane Roar vs Perth Glory)

*Adelaide United*
Highest: 14,573
Average: 8,083
Stadium: Hindmarsh Stadium (17,000)










*Brisbane Roar (champions)*
Highest: 50,334 (grand final)
Average: 13,157
Stadium: Suncorp Stadium (52,500)










*Central Coast Mariners*
Highest: 14,838
Average: 9,607
Stadium: Bluetongue Stadium (20,119)










*Melbourne Heart*
Highest: 26,579
Average: 9,082
Stadium: AAMI Park (30,500)










*Melbourne Victory*
Highest: 40,351
Average: 20,281
Stadium: AAMI Park (30,500) and Etihad Stadium (56,347)










*Newcastle Jets*
Highest: 17,245
Average: 12,117
Stadium: Ausgrid Stadium (33,000)










*Perth Glory*
Highest: 13,695
Average: 8,309
Stadium: nib Stadium (22,000)










*Sydney FC*
Highest: 18,180
Average: 11,861
Stadium: Allianz Stadium (45,500)










*Wellington Phoenix*
Highest: 20,078
Average: 8,691
Stadium: Westpac Stadium (36,000)










*Gold Coast United (now defunct)*
Highest: 6,927
Average: 3,546
Stadium: Skilled Park (27,400)


----------



## datax

Average attendance in T-mobile Ekstraklasa 2011/12:

1. Legia Warszawa - 20,9k
2. Lechia Gdańsk - 17,1k
3. Śląsk Wrocław - 16,5k
4. Wisła Kraków	- 16,1k
5. Lech Poznań	- 15,3k
6. Cracovia - 8,2k
7. Korona Kielce	- 7,9k
8. Widzew Łódź	- 6,5k
9. Zagłębie Lubin - 6,5k
10. Ruch Chorzów - 5,9k
11. Polonia Warszawa - 3,8k
12. Jagiellonia Białystok	- 3,8k (new stadium U/C)
13. Podbeskidzie Bielsko-Biała - 3,1k
14. Górnik Zabrze - 3,1k (new stadium U/C
15. ŁKS Łódź - 2,7k
16. GKS Bełchatów - 2k


----------



## www.sercan.de

ajax56 said:


> I am looking for an average attendance of the Turkish league and the individual clubs. Where can I find attendance of the 2010/11 and the present?
> Really I can not find.


They aren't published.
Only Galatasaray SK's attendances are known.

2011-2012:
34,685 (Total: 693,705)


----------



## isaidso

Luigi742 said:


> *A-League Attendances 2011-12 season*
> 
> League Average: (10,819)
> League Highest: 50,334 (Brisbane Roar vs Perth Glory)


Nice breakdown. Canada only has 3 teams, but here's their attendance so far this season:

*Montreal Impact - Average: 40,529*
Chicago @ Montreal 58,912
Toronto @ Montreal 23,120
Portland @ Montreal 19,223
Los Angeles @ Montreal 60,860

*Toronto Reds - Average: 19,022*
San Jose @ Toronto 20,070
Columbus @ Toronto 18,944
Chivas USA @ Toronto 18,476
Chicago @ Toronto 19,255
Washington @ Toronto 18,364

*Vancouver Whitecaps - Average: 18,615*
Montreal @ Vancouver 21,000
Washington @ Vancouver 19,394
Kansas City @ Vancouver 15,382
Dallas @ Vancouver 18,027
San Jose @ Vancouver 19,271

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Montreal_Impact_season
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Toronto_FC_season
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Vancouver_Whitecaps_FC_season


----------



## Patrick

www.sercan.de said:


> They aren't published.
> Only Galatasaray SK's attendances are known.
> 
> 2011-2012:
> 34,685 (Total: 693,705)


why is that so?


----------



## mehaya

Do you know the golf Irons? The quality is so good, so fashionable design, the price is so low, many stars are very loving, Nicolas Cage is also very fond. You do not miss: http://www.todo-color.com/


----------



## www.sercan.de

Patrick said:


> why is that so?


Maybe because its so low? 
Actually i don't know it.
Sometimes the TFF or the media publish them, but honestly nobody cares about it.

From 1950s-mid1990's the attendances were given.

Some old one's I've found.

1980-1981
Fenerbahçe SK 32.671 
Galatasaray SK 31.480 
Beşiktaş JK 24.731 
Bursa SK 14.856 
Kocaeli SK 13.771 
Trabzon SK 12.852 
Adana SK 12.794 
Gaziantep SK 12.300 
Eskişehir SK 10.369 
Adana Demir SK 9.754 
Altay SK 7.347 
Mersin İdmanyurdu SK 6.787 
Zonguldak SK 5.699 
Bolu SK 4.679 
Ordu SK 4.244 
Rize SK 3.783 

AV: *13.007 *


----------



## Patrick

I'm sure at least the 3 big Istanbul clubs would make it into my graphic (>25000)


----------



## bd popeye

MLS attendance 29 AUG - 02 SEP 2012



Overall attendance by week highest to the lowest for the 2012 season



overall average attendance


----------



## bd popeye

NCAA Division 1 FBS attendance 09.98.2012. selected schools;

Michigan
Michigan Stadium - Attendance: 112,522

Ohio St
Ohio Stadium - Attendance: 104,745

Alabama
Bryant-Denny Stadium - Attendance: 101,821

Texas
Darrell K Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium - Attendance: 100,990

Louisiana State University (LSU)
Tiger Stadium - Attendance: 92,804

Tennessee 
Neyland Stadium - Attendance: 87,821

Texas A&M
Kyle Field - Attendance: 87,114

Oklahoma
Gaylord Family - Oklahoma Memorial Stadium - Attendance: 84,852

Notre Dame
Notre Dame Stadium - Attendance: 80,795

Clemson
Clemson Memorial Stadium - Attendance: 78,000

South Carolina
Williams-Brice Stadium - Attendance: 77,006


----------



## Pe67terh

how much is terracing??


----------



## bd popeye

Pe67terh said:


> how much is terracing??


There's no terracing in any stadium in the US. All US Stadiums are all-seaters. Here's some threads on US College, Pro American football stadiums & US soccer stadiums.
USA - College Football Stadiums

USA - Stadium and Arena Development News ‎

Soccer Stadiums of the USA and Canada

Some NCAA Div 1 FBS attendance from yesterday's games.

U. of Michigan
Michigan Stadium - Attendance: 110,708

The Ohio St. University
Ohio Stadium - Attendance: 105,232

U. of Tennessee
Neyland Stadium - Attendance: 102,455

Penn ST U.
Beaver Stadium - Attendance: 98,792

U. of Georgia
Sanford Stadium - Attendance: 92,746

Louisiana St U.
Tiger Stadium - Attendance: 92,177

U. of Nebraska
Memorial Stadium - Attendance: 85,290

Auburn U.
Jordan-Hare Stadium - Attendance: 85,214

U. of Wisconsin
Camp Randall Stadium - Attendance: 79,332

U of Iowa
Kinnick Stadium - Attendance: 70,585


----------



## bd popeye

..and MLS attendance for week 27..


----------



## KingmanIII

isaidso said:


> He's an exception to the rule and if you asked him about Canadian football and/or the Grey Cup he'd likely not know much, if anything. I'll repeat: it will take a prolonged and disciplined effort to get Canadian pursuits like *football* culturally relevant again there. (That's a hockey stick.)
> 
> Show me photos of the tens of thousands of Chinese-Vancouverites at the 2011 Grey Cup victory parade and I'd be open to changing my opinion. Btw, the Alouettes drew 400,000 to their 2010 Grey Cup victory parade.


I was being facetious bro... :lol:


----------



## isaidso

Alright. Ok, but I'm not from the hood. You can call me mister, if you want.


----------



## bd popeye

bd popeye said:


> thanks ..I did not know that. I'm sure _my_ Chargers use it.


The new NFL blackout rule.. the Chargers have opted out of the new rule. In fact their home game for tomorrow against Atlanta at Qualcomm is blacked out.


----------



## Welkin

koolio said:


> The Lions attendance is a disappointment. Best team in the league, best stadium in the league, reigning Grey Cup champions yet they still can't crack 30,000 average.


It might have something to do with the $93 sideline seats, $73-$93 for upper level tickets, $43 for endzone seats and $43 for upper level end zone seats. That is very expensive for CFL football. They got a little greedy on their pricing this year and the lack of fans willing to pay that much are proof positive.


----------



## bd popeye

MLS 2012 attendance update..


----------



## KingmanIII

isaidso said:


> Alright. Ok, but I'm not from the hood. You can call me mister, if you want.


"Bro" was taken over by the mainstream a long time ago...


----------



## bd popeye

Selected NCAA Division I FBS Football attendance for 22 September 2012

Ohio State U
Ohio Stadium - Attendance: 105,019

U of Alabama
Bryant-Denny Stadium - Attendance: 101,821

Penn State U
Beaver Stadium - Attendance: 93,680

U of Georgia
Sanford Stadium - Attendance: 92,746

Auburn U
Jordan-Hare Stadium - Attendance: 86,721

Florida St U
Bobby Bowden Field at Doak S. Campbell Stadium - Attendance: 83,231

U of Nebraska
Memorial Stadium - Attendance: 84,923

U of Southern California
Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum - Attendance: 83,441

U of Notre Dame
Notre Dame Stadium - Attendance: 80,795

U of Wisconsin
Camp Randall Stadium - Attendance: 79,806


----------



## BoulderGrad

bd popeye said:


> MLS 2012 attendance update..


-San Jose will obviously improve with the new stadium. Same with DC and New England if they ever get them off the ground. 

-Chivas needs to move to SD. 

-Toronto FC needs to get their act together and they'll be back in the 20's


----------



## isaidso

*Canadian Football League*
*2012 Average Attendance After Week #13*










1. Edmonton Eskimos 36,414
2. Saskatchewan Roughriders 32,786
3. BC Lions 29,233
4. Calgary Stampeders 29,196

5. Winnipeg Blue Bombers 28,715
6. Hamilton Tiger Cats 25,195
7. Toronto Argonauts 22,396
8. Montreal Alouettes 22,228


Average attendance: 28,267


----------



## isaidso

Not much change in the Canadian Football League from Week #11 to Week #13 other than BC and Calgary switching places. Winnipeg's attendance is impressive considering how dismal the team has been without Buck Pierce. 

Attendance numbers in the big 3 cities (Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver) continue to be disappointing. I would have thought that hosting the Grey Cup would have given Toronto a boost at least to around 28,000/game.

Game day experience in Toronto is abysmal. A football specific stadium is the only solution.


----------



## bd popeye

@ isaidso... game day Edmonton in looks great!












> A member of the Edmonton Eskimos cheer squad flies through the air during their CFL game against Calgary Stampeders in Calgary. Photographer: (C)Todd Korol


----------



## KingmanIII

isaidso said:


> Winnipeg's attendance is impressive considering how dismal the team has been without Buck Pierce.


Why did the Bombers let go of Fred Reid? I remember seeing his record-breaking game a couple of years ago on tape-delay -- did he start getting injured? 



> Game day experience in Toronto is abysmal. A football specific stadium is the only solution.


Agreed. With tailgating lots.


----------



## isaidso

KingmanIII said:


> Why did the Bombers let go of Fred Reid? I remember seeing his record-breaking game a couple of years ago on tape-delay -- did he start getting injured?


Fred Reid had a serious knee injury. The Bombers let go of Fred Reid last season after Chris Garrett’s emergence as a star running back. Chris Garrett tore his achilles heel right before the season kicked off leaving Winnipeg with a depleted back field.

Regarding the game day experience in Toronto. I've almost given up going to football at Skydome which says a lot. I go to 1 game with my league, but beyond that I try to head down to Hamilton instead or go to U or T games at Varsity Stadium. High school games in the Maritimes have better game day atmosphere than Argonauts games. It's really horrible.



bd popeye said:


> @ isaidso... game day Edmonton in looks great!


Game day in all 4 prairie cities have a reputation for being great, with Regina's something extra special. Btw, that photo above is a game at McMahon Stadium in Calgary.


----------



## bd popeye

isaidso said:


> Game day in all 4 prairie cities have a reputation for being great, with Regina's something extra special. Btw, that photo above is a game at McMahon Stadium in Calgary.


Thanks! 

I wish some broadcast(non-cable) network would carry CFL games in the US.hno:.Oh well..


----------



## JJG

KingmanIII said:


> "Bro" was taken over by the mainstream a long time ago...


Really? 

We use it in DFW all the time as an "urban thing".


----------



## isaidso

bd popeye said:


> Thanks!
> 
> I wish some broadcast(non-cable) network would carry CFL games in the US.hno:.Oh well..


You actually can't even get it on free tv in Canada any more. You need basic cable or internet to get it. When it went off free tv a few years ago, I had to switch to internet streaming. Strangely, CFL television numbers jumped after the move despite being available to fewer Canadians. I moved into a building that includes free cable a year ago, so now I have both options: cable and internet. 

I love football, but don't like tv enough to pay for it. Can you at least get the Grey Cup game? I've been watching it for 31 years straight, but bought tickets to the event for the first time. It's 2 months away, but I'm already giddy with excitement.

Btw, how are your Hawkeyes doing?


----------



## KingmanIII

isaidso said:


> You actually can't even get it on free tv in Canada any more. You need basic cable or internet to get it. When it went off free tv a few years ago, I had to switch to internet streaming. Strangely, CFL television numbers jumped after the move despite being available to fewer Canadians. I moved into a building that includes free cable a year ago, so now I have both options: cable and internet.
> 
> I love football, but don't like tv enough to pay for it. Can you at least get the Grey Cup game? I've been watching it for 31 years straight, but bought tickets to the event for the first time. It's 2 months away, but I'm already giddy with excitement.
> 
> Btw, how are your Hawkeyes doing?


NBC Sports Network (formerly Versus) shows the odd CFL game here and there.


----------



## bd popeye

> Can you at least get the Grey Cup game? I've been watching it for 31 years straight, but bought tickets to the event for the first time. It's 2 months away, but I'm already giddy with excitement.
> 
> Btw, how are your Hawkeyes doing?


Some yeras the Grey cup is available on cable..but lately..nope.

I'm no Hawkeye fan. They are 2 & 2. I've only lived in Iowa for eight of my 59 years. I'm loyal to USC, Cal Berkeley & Ohio State(I grew up in Ohio).. My NFL team is the Chargers where as I lived in San Diego for 26 of my adult years.


----------



## isaidso

^^ I was a tad presumptuous. I'm a bit surprised that the Grey Cup doesn't get widely aired in a football mad US; even the curiosity factor alone. I suppose between NFL, NCAA, and high school football there isn't much interest in yet another league. 

It's the Grey Cup, but I suppose its going head to head with US product. I'll post some photos!



KingmanIII said:


> NBC Sports Network (formerly Versus) shows the odd CFL game here and there.


I see. Is that cable?


----------



## bd popeye

> I suppose between NFL, NCAA, and high school football there isn't much interest in yet another league.


People would watch it...trust me they would. The Canadian game is wide open..lots of scoring if memory serves me correctly.

I'm surprised that this year none of our European friends have not chimed in with the old.. "The population of those US cities is such that those cities could support more NFL teams" Of course stating this without realizing the the many levels of American Football in the US plus the other pro sports ongoing at all times.


----------



## KingmanIII

isaidso said:


> I see. Is that cable?


:yes:


----------



## ChesterCopperpot

KingmanIII said:


> NBC Sports Network (formerly Versus) shows the odd CFL game here and there.


They are showing quite a lot in October and November - 9 in total - including both Eastern and Western semi-finals and finals - and the Grey Cup of course

http://www.nbcuniversal.presscentre.com/content/detail.aspx?ReleaseID=11540&NewsAreaId=2


----------



## isaidso

bd popeye said:


> People would watch it...trust me they would. The Canadian game is wide open..lots of scoring if memory serves me correctly.


That just says to me that the CFL needs to do a better job making their product available to more US households. 



bd popeye said:


> I'm surprised that this year none of our European friends have not chimed in with the old.. "The population of those US cities is such that those cities could support more NFL teams" Of course stating this without realizing the the many levels of American Football in the US plus the other pro sports ongoing at all times.


NCAA football is huge to the point that these teams basically serve the role that an NFL club would. The US has over 100 football teams that draw over 50,000 fans/game. '100+' is a better representation of the number of big league football teams in your country.


----------



## bd popeye

^^ You post the truth isaidso. NCAA football fills the void left by the billionaires club know as the NFL!

NFL attendance update after 4 weeks of the 2012 season.....


----------



## bd popeye

NFL Sunday night game on NBC is the #1 show in the USA..period. has been and will be..gotta luv the opening with Faith Hill..I do!


----------



## Archbishop

66,000 tickets sold to the Seattle Sounders-Portland Timbers game at Century Link this weekend.


----------



## bd popeye

Archbishop said:


> 66,000 tickets sold to the Seattle Sounders-Portland Timbers game at Century Link this weekend.


^^Wow.. now that is impressive! Someday far into the future that may be the average attendance at an MLS game.

Updated MLS attendance for 2012...


----------



## bd popeye

isaidso said:


> NCAA football is huge to the point that these teams basically serve the role that an NFL club would. The US has over 100 football teams that draw over 50,000 fans/game. '100+' is a better representation of the number of big league football teams in your country.


^^Exactly!


----------



## MS20

Archbishop said:


> 66,000 tickets sold to the Seattle Sounders-Portland Timbers game at Century Link this weekend.


MLS at 18,517 for the season so far, 30 weeks in. Guaranteed to be another record year, with aggregate attendance expected to break 6 million. 

San Jose breaking ground on their new stadium, murmurs of new stadiums in New England, DC and New York, and breaking 20,000 begins to look like a real possibility in the next 5-10 years.



bd popeye said:


> ^^Wow.. now that is impressive! Someday far into the future that may be the average attendance at an MLS game.


And people will still be questioning whether its made it. I don't think you have to worry about that in your lifetime, but assuming everyone is under 50 here, we could see mid 20,000, edging toward 30,000 in the next 20-30 years. Of course it will depend on stadium capacities. It remains to be seen whether MLS is happy with NBA/NHL sized capacities, or whether clubs will start expanding/building new homes.

In saying all that, I'm still waiting for Sounders fatigue. Interest has to level off soon enough surely.


----------



## isaidso

bd popeye said:


> Exactly!


Attendance at Canadian college football pales in comparison even accounting for the fact that we have 9 times fewer people. Regardless, I summarized Week #5 attendance figures.

*MAC beat Western 33-27 in front of a Homecoming crowd of 10,900* 









Total: 51,616 (13 games)
Average: 3,970

McMaster @ Western 10,900
Guelph @ Laurier 9,231
Laval @ Sherbrooke 8,332
Saint Mary's @ St. FX 3,800
Ottawa @ Queen's 3,252
Manitoba @ Regina 3,145
York @ Windsor 2,726
Saskatchewan @ Calgary 2,089
Montreal @ Concordia 2,087
McGill @ Bishop's 1,967
Toronto @ Waterloo 1,750
Mount Allison @ Acadia 1,236
UBC @ Alberta 1,101


----------



## GunnerJacket

MS20 said:


> San Jose breaking ground on their new stadium, murmurs of new stadiums in New England, DC and New York, and breaking 20,000 begins to look like a real possibility in the next 5-10 years.


Agreed, but it will require a lot of those teams right around 20k now to sustain those numbers regardless of on-field performance. For example, Toronto, while still doing really well, has dipped enough to threaten reaching this goal. New York has also been below par. So while we need the celler-dwellers to pick up the 20k mark won't be achieved without the upper-most clubs sustaining their suport.



> And people will still be questioning whether its made it.


Sadly, simply achieving NHL-like niche-sport status won't appease the naysayers, even if the TV numbers quadruple. When MLS gets their own pre-game shows on a major network, visits from something like ESPN Gameday and solid primetime coverage for the week building up to the MLS Cup final, then the masses will capitulate that pro soccer is a mainstay in the US! When MLS is headline material for Sportscenter...



> I don't think you have to worry about that in your lifetime, but assuming everyone is under 50 here, we could see mid 20,000, edging toward 30,000 in the next 20-30 years.


30k might be pushing it, if only because it would require quantum leaps for several clubs. There are no more Seattle's to be had, and for most every other team this would require a costly and risky stadium expansion. MLS and the owners will be patient and cautious in how they move forward with any measure to expand their team, the league, etc, and rightfully so. 

I do think we might see several showcase games that could boost attendance averages and revenues. Vancouver can literally raise the roof for select Cascadia Cup matches and teams like Philly and Chicago might get away with rivalry games in their respective NFL venues. But the priority is for the teams to maximize revenues and brand affinity, which includes making their home grounds an intrinsic experience for the fans.



> Of course it will depend on stadium capacities. It remains to be seen whether MLS is happy with NBA/NHL sized capacities, or whether clubs will start expanding/building new homes.


Better to have a right sized venue that's conducive to good atmosphere and your fans' needs than to over-reach and lose profit margin. Right now profit-per-seat is more important than overall profits.

I'll try to find it, but an article from earlier this year suggested that if each team sustained a 92% occupancy rate for seating that a) the league would average about 21k per match and b) every team could be profitable. And that's without truly vaunted television revenues. If MLS could do that I suspect everyone would have just cause to be thrilled. I know I would be.



> In saying all that, I'm still waiting for Sounders fatigue. Interest has to level off soon enough surely.


*knocks on wood*

I think they're doing it right and trust them to not overshoot the mark. I'd be more concerned about the prospects of the same sensation occuring at places like KC and Toronto, because at the lower attendance levels a 1,000 person drop off represents 5+%!! For now there's enough around the whole league for the collective "new car smell" to keep enthusiasm high, but if some teams don't win enough will they begin to see sagging averages like DC and Dallas?


----------



## MS20

GunnerJacket said:


> 30k might be pushing it, if only because it would require quantum leaps for several clubs. There are no more Seattle's to be had, and for most every other team this would require a costly and risky stadium expansion. MLS and the owners will be patient and cautious in how they move forward with any measure to expand their team, the league, etc, and rightfully so.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess yeah. Minnesota could be a sleeper hit, and LA possibly moving in to Farmers. Hypothetically, MLS could have 3 teams averaging over 30k by the end of the decade. I wouldn't even say its overly unrealistic. Possible, but not probably.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Better to have a right sized venue that's conducive to good atmosphere and your fans' needs than to over-reach and lose profit margin. Right now profit-per-seat is more important than overall profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No arguments there. If Seattle didn't exist, I would say that every MLS stadium must have not a seat over 20,000. I really like the compact, intense nature of stadiums like Livestrong. They look and sound great. But theres a nagging feeling with Seattle around that many other teams could begin to replicate numbers over 30,000 in the next 20 years. It hasn't even begun to scrape the potential it has.
> 
> MLS is such a different league compared to what it was 6 years ago before Toronto came in. Its kind of crazy how its changed so quickly. Whats happening now would have been laughed off 6 years ago as ravings of a lunatic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll try to find it, but an article from earlier this year suggested that if each team sustained a 92% occupancy rate for seating that a) the league would average about 21k per match and b) every team could be profitable. And that's without truly vaunted television revenues. If MLS could do that I suspect everyone would have just cause to be thrilled. I know I would be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you're right yeah, I've done the maths its definitely over 20,000, and could be as high as 22k if memory serves me. As for profitability, I'm not that phased by that. There will always be teams who lose money, it happens in every league seemingly. But hopefully the days of 300m being lost in the first 10 years of MLS are truly behind us.
Click to expand...


----------



## GunnerJacket

MS20 said:


> I guess yeah. Minnesota could be a sleeper hit, and LA possibly moving in to Farmers. Hypothetically, MLS could have 3 teams averaging over 30k by the end of the decade.


I once believed Minnesota and Rochester could've averaged over 20k but now I'm not so sure. Having been to MN to visit my in-laws I've found them more interested then casual fans but lacking the core supporters groups of like the Timbers Army or Sons of Ben. I think they could match the performance of Chicago or Columbus but beyond that I'm not convinced. 

As for LA to Farmers Field I'm sure they'd rather sell out the HDC more often, and might be too contractually tied to risk moving to a cavernous venue.



> But theres a nagging feeling with Seattle around that many other teams could begin to replicate numbers over 30,000 in the next 20 years. It hasn't even begun to scrape the potential it has.


Agree the potential is there but I don't think the phases of attendance growth are all equal. This has been quick ramp up due to proper venues AND club-owned venues that permit scheduling freedom not readily available in NFL stadiums. Especially given the frugal nature the clubs still have I simply think adding 10k+ seats to some of these smaller stadiums might be too big a jump. Toronto added 1k and we might see more of that based upon design options. Portland still has the ability to grow to some 24k without any formal construction, while LA could simply bowl-in the grassy end. 

My hesitation comes from seeing the results in NY and Chicago. I realize there are external issues (location, success, etc) but neither has been able to regularly fill their (by MLS standards) beautiful stadiums. 



> MLS is such a different league compared to what it was 6 years ago before Toronto came in. Its kind of crazy how its changed so quickly. Whats happening now would have been laughed off 6 years ago as ravings of a lunatic.


Agreed. It also needs to be celebrated more so as to let the general sporting world hear about this success. What we need more than ever, though, is to get people watching the games on TV. Viewing parties for supporters who can't travel, meeting other footie friends in the bars, etc. Convince the sponsors the product is popular so the owners continue to grow the league. Heck, I even make it a point to click on MLS web sites just to help their hit counts



> As for profitability, I'm not that phased by that. There will always be teams who lose money, it happens in every league seemingly. But hopefully the days of 300m being lost in the first 10 years of MLS are truly behind us.


The league by and large is profitable these days so I don't suspect we'll ever see such huge losses again unless they strike out on several international "star" signings. But the profitability is huge in order for the owners to feel safe in reinvesting. MLS is now one generation old. One more generation out it will become a fixed part of US sporting lexicon and a bigger part of the global soccer landscape. They don't NEED to pull a 30k average to raise respect, but they do need to limit the instances of <15k attended events and improve their performance against the Mexican teams. Do this and viewership will reach the next level, more $ will come in, more stars will play in MLS, and then it will really reach the next level.


----------



## MS20

*GunnerJacket*



> I once believed Minnesota and Rochester could've averaged over 20k but now I'm not so sure. Having been to MN to visit my in-laws I've found them more interested then casual fans but lacking the core supporters groups of like the Timbers Army or Sons of Ben. I think they could match the performance of Chicago or Columbus but beyond that I'm not convinced.


My only argument for Minneapolis stems from this blog post: http://www.kenn.com/the_blog/?p=4650. I don't doubt what you're saying about Minneapolis, though history seems to suggest there could be something in the water there. It doesn't signify a guaranteed Seattle Mark II, but where theres smoke theres fire. If Zygi buys in, I like the odds of 20k+. 



> As for LA to Farmers Field I'm sure they'd rather sell out the HDC more often, and might be too contractually tied to risk moving to a cavernous venue.


True. On the one hand as you say they don't sell out HDC regularly, even if attendance is over 20k. On the other hand, Farmers Field opens up new opportunities for attendance from other parts of the city. I'm a zealot when it comes to downtown stadiums. 

The league by and large is profitable these days so I don't suspect we'll ever see such huge losses again unless they strike out on several international "star" signings. But the profitability is huge in order for the owners to feel safe in reinvesting. MLS is now one generation old. One more generation out it will become a fixed part of US sporting lexicon and a bigger part of the global soccer landscape. They don't NEED to pull a 30k average to raise respect, but they do need to limit the instances of <15k attended events and improve their performance against the Mexican teams. Do this and viewership will reach the next level, more $ will come in, more stars will play in MLS, and then it will really reach the next level.[/QUOTE]

Well said. I still cant believe people stuck with it during the early 00's.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Well currently the Minnesota Stars of the NASL are drawing about 3,000 fans per game in their 12,000 stadium. Granted, the modern NASL is a far cry from the old NASL, let alone MLS, but it suggests the Twin Cities aren't poised to outdraw someone like Colorado, let alone Philly or Portland.

And I won't even bother regarding Zygi.

Regarding Farmers Field, true enough Carson isn't the most central and accessible destination for Galaxy/LA soccer fans, so if Farmers is designed to offer a Qwest-like experience at 1/2 capacity then I'd be willing to support the move. Perchance, the Galaxy might field test that concept with a few games (against anyone but Chivas) to see how well that works before committing to the move. It would certainly be nice to have the two LA teams with their own venues, if Chivas is retained in LA.



> I still cant believe people stuck with it during the early 00's.


Thank you Uncle Phil and Co. Sincerely, thank you.


----------



## MS20

GunnerJacket said:


> Perchance, the Galaxy might field test that concept with a few games (against anyone but Chivas) to see how well that works before committing to the move. It would certainly be nice to have the two LA teams with their own venues, if Chivas is retained in LA.


Yeah actually that would be the best scenario. Host 2-3 games a year at a capped Farmers Field. In fact if they managed to strike some deal to play a few games a year there, they wouldn't even have to move from Carson. 

As for Chivas, the less said about them the better. They made sense when the league was having an identity crisis.


----------



## GunnerJacket

MS20 said:


> As for Chivas, the less said about them the better. They made sense when the league was having an identity crisis.


For some of us the Chivas idea never made sense. Makes MLS look more like a farm league.


----------



## isaidso

GunnerJacket said:


> For some of us the Chivas idea never made sense. Makes MLS look more like a farm league.


Maybe they can move them to some city like Edmonton. Edmonton has a long history of massive support for soccer. 47,000 Edmontonians showed up for a U-20 Women's soccer game in 2002. They've had lots of big crowds like that.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

bd popeye said:


> @ isaidso... game day Edmonton in looks great!


Does that, er... girl have a ***** or am I seeing things?




bd popeye said:


> Updated MLS attendance for 2012...



Almost exactly the same attendance as the French Ligue 1. Time to focus on improving the football too, along with the infrastructure.... Things are looking well.


----------



## MS20

isaidso said:


> Maybe they can move them to some city like Edmonton. Edmonton has a long history of massive support for soccer. 47,000 Edmontonians showed up for a U-20 Women's soccer game in 2002. They've had lots of big crowds like that.


With so many cities in the US still without a team, I dont like the odds for Edmonton, even if Canadian teams have in many ways given legitimacy to the league since their arrival. 



alexandru.mircea said:


> Almost exactly the same attendance as the French Ligue 1. Time to focus on improving the football too, along with the infrastructure.... Things are looking well.


Marseille renovations are really hurting Ligue 1's attendance. Would be above 20k comfortably. 

That list shows MLS has 6 clubs (the bottom 6) that could be doing better. One of those clubs is set to begin construction (San Jose); one of them seems close to finalizing something (DC United); one of them seems to be in the process of looking for one (NE Revs). Dallas, for me, is a victim of location, and I dont see it improving drastically playing out of Frisco. Chivas needs to burnt to the ground, and Columbus needs a...well nothing drastic.


----------



## lwa

Rascar said:


> There's no doubt the top 14 is now the bigger league, though it's certianly not out of sight, certainly not on average attendances anyway. The Top 14 does have 2 more teams though and significantly higher TV ratings.


Yes, the Top 14 is by no means out of sight (and I don't expect it to be any time soon), but it's when you look to the second division you see the difference between France and England. There isn't much below the Premiership in England - obviously varies depending who comes down, but last season the Championship averaged 1,900, and only Bristol breaking the 3,000 barrier. (with 12 teams and a rather odd format, thats a total of 343,000 if wikipedia is to be believed). Figures may be slightly better this season with Newcastle coming down, whilst London Welsh went up.

Compare this to ProD2, which with 16 teams and a far more regular home and away format pulled in 980,699, or an average of over 4,000 per game last season (This despite my source - the LNR's own website - missing the attendance figures for some 17 fixtures; including the game where Grenoble lifted the trophy, and a home fixture for the leagues best supported team on the same day.) La Rochelle are getting over 10,000 every week even in ProD2, and many of the others are averaging 4-5,000

Oh, and season before last, Lyon played Grenoble (a top of the table clash at the time) in front of over 30,000 people. Most clubs in the Aviva or the Pro 12 can only dream of crowds like that!


----------



## Rev Stickleback

Daviegraham said:


> Very impressive from the Bundesliga. No suprise though really for me, in my opinion the best league in Europe.
> 
> The English Championship, the domestic 2nd division, averaged 17,841 last season. Decent considering there are 24 clubs and puts it just behind Ligue 1.
> 
> League 1, the domestic 3rd division, averaged 7,528 (24 clubs).
> 
> League 2, the domestic 4th division averaged 4,477 (24 clubs)
> 
> Without trawling through 80 pages is there any comparison to other European countries 2nd, 3rd and 4th divisions?


This lists most leagues
http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm

Only Germany at 17,233 comes close as a 2nd tier, with the 3rd tier back on 4500. Regional football (multiple leagues) actually does better than England though.

The next best second tier is Spain, at just over 7000.


----------



## CharlieP

Rev Stickleback said:


> Rugby Union averaged around 11,500 last season.


The Aviva Premiership averaged 12,406 last season.


----------



## bd popeye

Selected NCAA FBS Football Attendance from 10.27.2012

Penn State
Beaver Stadium, UNIVERSITY PARK, PA
ATTENDANCE: 107,818

Alabama
Bryant-Denny Stadium, TUSCALOOSA, AL
ATTENDANCE: 101,821

Nebraska
Memorial Stadium, LINCOLN, NE
ATTENDANCE: 86,160

Oklahoma
Oklahoma Memorial Stadium, NORMAN, OK
ATTENDANCE: 86,031

Auburn 
Jordan-Hare Stadium, AUBURN, AL
ATTENDANCE: 85,119

Neutral site "Georgia Bulldogs" designated as the home team
Everbank Field, JACKSONVILLE, FL 
ATTENDANCE: 84,644

Wisconsin
Camp Randall Stadium, MADISON, WI
ATTENDANCE: 80,538

South Carolina
Williams-Brice Stadium, COLUMBIA, SC
ATTENDANCE: 80,250

Florida State 
Doak Campbell Stadium, TALLAHASSEE, FL
ATTENDANCE: 71,467


----------



## bd popeye

For 2011 the top 25 NCAA FBS schools home game average attendance ..


----------



## bd popeye

Final MLS attendance for 2012


----------



## human187

Great thread! Here are some numbers about association football in Russia and Ukraine, i am editing wikipedia on that, for this season. For now, when 13 out of 30 season games were played in both championships (higher leagues), average attendances are 13 107 for Russia and 13 575 for Ukraine. Second division attendances are 3 976 and 2 140, accordingly.

In Ukraine, there are only 7 teams with attendance above 10k, and 12 such clubs in Russia.

Ukraine:

http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/pictor2/view/597513/

Russia:

http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/pictor2/view/597512/

*UPD*: Average stadium capacity in Ukraine is 30 800, average occupancy is 47,3%. Numbers for Russia - 24 800 and 53,9%, respectively.

Most "football-loving" cities in post-soviet countries (attendance in major league only):

http://fotki.yandex.ru/users/pictor2/view/597514/

For Russia things will change a lot in next 5 years (hopefully), a lot of new stadiums are planned. In Ukraine there is no need in new stadiums now. In recent years attendance tend to grow, but slowly, for both countries.


----------



## bd popeye

NFL home game attendance averages 2012.. week 8.


----------



## bd popeye

Last night my team the San Diego Chargers played a Thursday night game against the KC Chiefs. Chargers won..who cares?.. the announced attendance;

Qualcomm Stadium - Attendance: 55,831 ( capacity - 70,561) 

Many of them disguised as empty seats.hno: This is what happens when your home team sucks. Low attendance. Especially in a city with many other attractions besides the local NFL 11.


----------



## human187

bd popeye said:


> Last night my team the San Diego Chargers played a Thursday night game against the KC Chiefs. Chargers won..who cares?.. the announced attendance;
> 
> Qualcomm Stadium - Attendance: 55,831 ( capacity - 70,561)
> 
> Many of them disguised as empty seats.hno: This is what happens when your home team sucks. Low attendance. Especially in a city with many other attractions besides the local NFL 11.


Heh. Man, you, folks from USA, just do not know what low attendance mean  Last round of main russian sports league (ass. football Premier League), three out of four Moscow teams played home:

Matchup (home team-guest) - attendance/capacity/occupancy %:

Lokomotiv-Amkar - 10 110 / 28 800 / 35.1%
Spartak-Mordovia - 7 969 / 84 745 / 9.4%
Dynamo-Krylya Sovetov - 3 107 / 18 000 / 17.2%

One round before, fourth Moscow team played at home:
CSKA-Rubin - 8 764 / 18 000 / 17,2 / 48.6%

The GOOD attendance in Moscow, as we think here (haha), was during the biggest local derby (early october):
Spartak-CSKA - 54 228 / 84 745 / 63.9%

The population of Moscow is about 11.9 mln. The whole Moscow metro is about 15-17 mln, and the ticket prices are fairly low (not high, for sure), comparing to salaries.

There are many reasons of low attendance in Moscow and Russia, I hope this situation will change in years to come.

P.S. The most sad thing about this is that most clubs are sponsored by rich companies, and they do not really need money from tickets/TV rights, which are very low compared to spending. Accordingly to expert opinions, total budget of 16 Premier League this season is about $1.3 bln (mostly, players salaries), $435 mln of that sum - 4 Moscow clubs. You can't cover such spending selling tickets here, so it will be hard to solve the problem of low attendance 

*UPD*: about low attendance when the team plays bad - look again at 3 107 fans of Dinamo Moscow. They have really failed the start of the season this year, and almost everybody just stopped watching their home games. And that is a great club, playing from 1923, with a great history (for example, arguably the greatest goalkeeper of all time, Lev Yashin, played for Dynamo, who is the only keeper in history to be named European Footballer of the Year, the only keeper to get Ballon d'Or, and FIFA World Keeper of the XX Century).


----------



## kuquito

*Costa Rica's Primera Division Average attendance*
(Figures for the clausura tounament 2012)

*TEAM...AVERAGE ATTENDANCE...VENUE..........CAPACITY*

1. Saprissa........ 14,990.....Ricardo Saprissa....23,112 
2. Alajuelense...... 9,720.....Alejandro Morera....17,895 
3. Herediano......... 4,064.....Eladio Rosabal.........7,321 
4. Limón............... 3,220.....Juan Goban............2,500
5. Cartaginés......... 3,090.....Fello Meza............12,000 
6. Santos.............. 2,058.....Ebal Rodriguez........4,500 
7. San Carlos......... 2,109.....Carlos Ugalde..........5,600 
8. Puntarenas........ 2,027.....Lito Perez...............4,105 
9. Pérez Zeledón.... 1,119......Otto Ureña.............6,100
10.Belén............... 1,117......Polideportivo...........4,000 
11.Orión.................. 544......Tarrazu..................2,000 

*Total Attendance:* 467,907
*Average Attendance* 4,012

Some games were held at the National Stadium (35,093 capacity)

source: www.unafut.com


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> Last night my team the San Diego Chargers played a Thursday night game against the KC Chiefs. Chargers won..who cares?.. the announced attendance;
> 
> Qualcomm Stadium - Attendance: 55,831 ( capacity - 70,561)


The NFL is almost bulletproof, because that's not a shabby raw number and the TV ratings for last night were still solid for the NFL network. BUT, the league is closer to the overkill threshold than ever before now that Thursday night is a regular feature. Combine that with HD access to every game and like all sports even the vaunted NFL is that much more sensetive to fan apathy. I expect we'll see more future venues with lower regular capacities but also with an ability to add more seating for special events. (Like JAX) Hopefully the variance in attendances and gameday receipts won't be so great as to thwart the league's competitive balance.



human187 said:


> Heh. Man, you, folks from USA, just do not know what low attendance mean  Last round of main russian sports league (ass. football Premier League), three out of four Moscow teams played home:


Hopefully the new venues for the 2018 World Cup will provide some boost, but it is a shame the league is so reliant on owners/sponsors. Population and economic figures suggest the potential is there for a strong league, but it will take some time to evolve from the current form. Especially while the fanbase has an established perception of the league. 

Would help to get a few more strong clubs from outside Moscow, clubs that are built around their appeal to the fan base rather than just financially well-heeled.


----------



## eMKay

The Russian league faces stiff competition from the KHL though, doesn't it?


----------



## human187

eMKay said:


> The Russian league faces stiff competition from the KHL though, doesn't it?


Not really true, the attendance of KHL is high mostly in cities with low football attendance. And, for today, average KHL match attendance is only about 6200 ^^ Also, there is not so many big arenas for now.


----------



## isaidso

*Canadian Football League*
*End of Season: 2012 Average Attendance*










Courtesy of Rod Pedersen

The BC Lions defeat the Saskatchewan Roughriders 17-6 at home to end the regular season. Attendance was 36,357. Playoffs start next week. BC and Montreal get a first week bye as they finish 1st in their respective divisions. Saskatchewan travels to Calgary in the West Semi-final while Edmonton travel to Toronto in the East Semi-final. The 100th Grey Cup will be decided November 25th in Toronto.

1. Edmonton Eskimos 34,318
2. Saskatchewan Roughriders 32,351
3. BC Lions 30,356
4. Calgary Stampeders 28,665

5. Winnipeg Blue Bombers 27,981
6. Hamilton Tiger Cats 25,724
7. Toronto Argonauts 23,690
8. Montreal Alouettes 22,457


*2012 Average attendance: 28,193*


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

College Football in Los Angeles yesterday..


UCLA at the Rose Bowl - 81,673
USC at the Colosseum - 93,607

Not too shabby.


----------



## bd popeye

NFL attendance week 9 2012 season.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Is it possible, I wonder, to know the total numbers of people that go and see official matches each matchday in certain countries? Even estimates would be useful.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

del pls


----------



## KingmanIII

alexandru.mircea said:


> Is it possible, I wonder, to know the total numbers of people that go and see official matches each matchday in certain countries? Even estimates would be useful.


It's possible, but outside of the top-flight divisions it would be very difficult.

How far down the league structure would you go? You're talking about rummaging for official attendance figures for several hundred lower-tier clubs.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

I think with the Dallas example, they admit people into the grounds of the stadium into an area where you can watch the game on big tv screens, but can't actually get into the stadium itself.


----------



## Leedsrule

^Makes sense and is a good idea acctually. Although iirc from the documents I read they should still count as capacity if they are admited into the stadium. Anyway, dosent matter really, jw.


----------



## flierfy

Rev Stickleback said:


> I think with the Dallas example, they admit people into the grounds of the stadium into an area where you can watch the game on big tv screens, but can't actually get into the stadium itself.


It is pretty daft way to calculate a match attendance when people are added who saw nothing more than a bloody screen.


----------



## crazydude

2013 Africa Cup of Nations:

Some final statistics

Total attendance 729 000, average attendance 22 781, numbers taken from ESPN

To put that in context, these are the numbers since 1996:
2012 Gabon Equatorial Guinea: 456 332, 14 260
2010 Angola: 543 500, 18 741
2008 Ghana: 714 000, 22 313
2006 Egypt: no data
2004 Tunisia: 553 500, 17 297
2002 Mali: 570 000, 17 813
2000 Ghana Nigeria: 677 500, 21 172
1998 Burkina Faso: 412 800, 12 900
1996 South Africa: 640 880, 22 099

Numbers taken from each tournament's Wikipedia page. 

So, SA has the best attended AFCON under the current format.


----------



## www.sercan.de

According to Fanatik live match reports the (rough) average attendances in Turkey

1.	Galatasaray	41,790
2.	Fenerbahçe	39,714
3.	Beşiktaş	21,726
4.	Trabzon	15,213
5.	Bursa	14,042
6.	Kayseri	12,655
7.	Elazığ	12,598
8.	Eskişehir	11,573
9.	Ordu 9,560
10.	Gençlerbirliği	8,191
11.	Sivas	8,067
12.	Gaziantep 7,982
13.	Kasımpaşa	7,382
14.	Akhisar 7,167
15.	Mersin	6,747
16.	IBB	4,759
17.	Antalya	4,608
18.	Karabük	4,018

LEAGUE: 13,211


----------



## Jitem

when i saw that ibb over 4k attendance, understand that fanatik lies. after u/c stadiums completed i think beşiktaş ll have 35-40k, trabzon 35-40k, bursa 35-40k, eskişehir 25-30k avarage. other teams dont have much potential. izmir teams, adana teams, ankaragücü and samsun should promote to super league coz they have lots of fans.


----------



## Dan Striker

I am surprised how low the average attendances in Turkey are accroding to those figures. Such a big country and fanatical about football.


----------



## www.sercan.de

Jitem said:


> when i saw that ibb over 4k attendance, understand that fanatik lies. after u/c stadiums completed i think beşiktaş ll have 35-40k, trabzon 35-40k, bursa 35-40k, eskişehir 25-30k avarage. other teams dont have much potential. izmir teams, adana teams, ankaragücü and samsun should promote to super league coz they have lots of fans.


Away fans 
They had 25k vs TS



Dan Striker said:


> I am surprised how low the average attendances in Turkey are accroding to those figures. Such a big country and fanatical about football.


Very old stadiums and small stadiums (mainly just 10-15k)


----------



## KingmanIII

Dan Striker said:


> I am surprised how low the average attendances in Turkey are accroding to those figures. Such a big country and fanatical about football.


Outside of the top 5-6 European leagues there's usually a sharp dropoff after the two or three clubs at the top of the attendance table.


----------



## Jitem

new stadiums gonna change a lot of things. gs had about 15k avarage in ali sami yen but now 40k. even kayseris avarage is more than eskişehir. its strange coz eskişehir has much more fans. only reason is stadium kayseri has modern comfortable stadium but eskişehirs stadium small, old and doesnt have roof even. in 3 years avarage attendances ll increase a lot when new stadiums completed.


----------



## www.sercan.de

Turkey for 2003-2004 season (according to sports minister)

1. Galatasaray 47.394 (although it was the worst season since 1982) 
2. Fenerbahçe 24.893 
3. Beşiktaş 11.239 
4. Trabzon 9.049 
5. Diyarbakir 7.194 
6. Konya 6.893 
7. Malatya 6.738 
8. Denizli 4.864 
9. Ankargücü 4.821 
10. Bursa 4.786 
11. Ç. Rize 4.487 
12. Elazig 4.442 
13. Gençlerbirliği 3.578 
14. Gaziantep 3.206 
15. A. Sebatspor 2.403 
16. Istanbul 1.816 
17. Adana 1.413 
18. Samsun 1.020 
LEAGUE: 8.346


2006-2007
1.	Fenerbahçe 39.542 
2.	Beşiktaş 26.249 
3.	Galatasaray 16.307 
4.	Bursa 16.225 
5.	Denizli 13.491 
6.	Konya 13.479 
7.	Trabzon 12.957 
8.	Kayseri 12.250 
9.	Sakarya 11.883 
10.	K. Erciyes 11.742 
11.	Gaziantep 11.227 
12.	Sivas 10.827 
13.	Gençlerbirliği 10.238 
14.	Ankaragücü 9.921 
15.	Manisa 9.764 
16.	Ankara 9.472 
17.	Antalya 9.380 
18.	Rize 8.222 
14.065


----------



## Kobo

*Manchester United declare attendances much higher than police figures*

Manchester United are adding as many as 24,000 fans on to crowd attendances compared with the actual number of people watching games at Old Trafford, according to police data.

Sir Alex Ferguson's team have not had a single crowd over 70,000 for a league match, police say, not taking in Monday's game against Manchester City. The club, in contrast, recorded attendances in excess of 75,000 every time. Instead Greater Manchester police's figures claim the average crowd for league matches, excluding City, is 10,000 below what the club say. The police records state it is 65,601 rather than the official figure of 75,527. In all competitions it is 61,739 rather than the club's 73,653.

United are still the best-supported club in England by some distance but the new set of figures claim Old Trafford was not even half-full for the Capital One Cup tie against Newcastle in September. The police recorded the number of people who passed through the turnstiles at 33,409. United gave the crowd as 46,358. In the next round, against West Ham, the disparity was even bigger. The police put down the crowd as 51,724, whereas United recorded it as 71,081.

When United played Cluj in the Champions League in December, having qualified for the knockout stages, the crowd was announced as 71,521. In fact, the police say it was 46,894.

The disparity is because United, in common with other clubs, release the number of people who bought tickets, whether or not they attend. The police keep their own record of actual match-goers for safety purposes and have released the data to the Redsaway fans' website under the Freedom of Information Act.

The figures show the high number of supporters who will buy tickets for matches without going. Arsenal are among the clubs who suffer the same problem on a large scale.

United's largest crowd of the season for a league match, according to the police, was 69,933 for Liverpool's visit in January (the club put it at 75,501). The lowest was against Southampton later that month. On that occasion the official attendance was given at 75,600 when, according to the police, the genuine figure was 59,766. In other words, almost 16,000 ticket-holders stayed away.

The Real Madrid match in the Champions League attracted the one 70,000-plus attendance at Old Trafford this season, in the data. The police recorded it at 72,299 whereas United declared it was 74,959, lower than any domestic league match because of Uefa's seating restrictions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/apr/12/manchester-united-attendances-police-figures


----------



## Lumbergo

^^^no shows are not uncommon but I bet in the case of Old Trafford it's because of a lot of people buying up tickets hoping to scalp them.


----------



## LucianPopa1000

In US stadiums they count stewards,cheerleaders,media,standing ppl on concourses,stading ppl in suites,clubs,restaurants...,cameramen,vendors...even people outside the stadium :lol;(@ the Super Bowl).
The correct attendance imo is seated and paying,with a view of the pitch,turf,court....


----------



## bd popeye

LucianPopa1000 said:


> In US stadiums they count stewards,cheerleaders,media,standing ppl on concourses,stading ppl in suites,clubs,restaurants...,cameramen,vendors...even people outside the stadium :lol;(@ the Super Bowl).
> The correct attendance imo is seated and paying,with a view of the pitch,turf,court....


Not true. Only people that count are ticket holders. Where do people get stuff like that?


----------



## LucianPopa1000

bd popeye said:


> Not true. Only people that count are ticket holders. Where do people get stuff like that?


at cowboys stadium they count the people in the clubs,who dont actually have a seat facing the turf,plus standing spectators on the edge of the seating,concourse,standing ppl i the suites..,not to mention the party pass


----------



## bd popeye

LucianPopa1000 said:


> at cowboys stadium they count the people in the clubs,who dont actually have a seat facing the turf,plus standing spectators on the edge of the seating,concourse,standing ppl i the suites..,not to mention the party pass


True..and they all have a ticket of some sort..

I'm not going to argue with you.


----------



## LucianPopa1000

^^ A ticket of some sort.In Europe u only have tickets that allow one to sit down and watch the game live;if you dont have a direct view of the field,turf....and have a designated seat u aint paying attendance.Only exception are suites.Thats here of course.


----------



## Otto Racecar

LucianPopa1000 said:


> at cowboys stadium they count the people in the clubs,who dont actually have a seat facing the turf,plus standing spectators on the edge of the seating,concourse,standing ppl i the suites..,not to mention the party pass


That's not the norm in the US. Yes some stadiums have standing room tickets but even then I would say that's not a regular occurrence in the US. I don't know any team who counts cheerleaders,concession workers, team shop employees, etc.. as part of the attendance figure. In fact I've never heard anyone state anything other then paid attendance in the US. There's possibly some exceptions to that but when they say for example: The Cleveland Browns had 73,200 in attendance, they mean 73,200 ticket holders who had seats whether they be suites or regular. US sporting events generally have absolutely no need to inflate attendance.


----------



## LucianPopa1000

I know only a few stadiums have SRO areas,i just gave an example.There are many standing ppl in the suites as well,some standing on the endge of the concourse-seating tiers.The media is i think, included im all sports in the final figure.Attendance doesnt have a clear cut definition.In Europe many announced attendances are bullshit,even at the biggest stadiums and games.Let us just drop it.


----------



## gavstar00

LucianPopa1000 said:


> ^^ The club would love the extra revenues though..


Any extra revenue would more than likely have to be held against paying for additional stewarding/police, share of profits from concessions etc with the WRU and probable cost of use. If you're not going to get over a certain % of total capacity it probably wouldn't break even so it'd end up costing money and with the greatest respect to Swansea I can't see them topping over 40,000 anytime soon


----------



## LucianPopa1000

^^ Well if they cannot sell 70k tickets they should stay at their own stadium.Its not worth renting a stadium of 75k and only sell 50K seats.


----------



## bd popeye

MLS week 9 of the 2013 season.


----------



## GEwinnen

The real football in the US will never be successful, very disappointing figures:-(


----------



## mamangvilla

^^^^
their number are actually pretty good compared to 5 or 6 years ago, heck they even got better attendance than brazilian league where football are the only sport people care there.

you have to remember that pro soccer is relatively a new thing to america. 
to put it into perspective, mls in america is akin to gfl in germany.


----------



## bd popeye

^^ Exactly



GEwinnen said:


> The real football in the US will never be successful, very disappointing figures:-(


The real "American football leauge", the NFL, in the US out draws by average attendance any pro sports league on this planet. Period.



Also in the US we have college football whose average attendance is..well see for yourself.

http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2012-01-26/ncaa-attendance-hits-new-high

Not to forget that in the US we have Major league baseball that draws 30,000 an they play 2,400 games a season...NBA & NHL.. and a long myriad of minor league sports, college sports and high school sports.

Enough said.


----------



## Kerrybai

Howdy everyone, I have been lurking for quite some time and decided to finally join :banana:



GEwinnen said:


> The real football in the US will never be successful, very disappointing figures:-(


I wouldn't be so dispondent. The attendance figures are very good considering how saturated the US market is with other sports. As a minority sport those are very good figures, more importantly the sport has taken off very well in certain areas such as the Northwest. The Chiva's USA franchise needs to be reconsidered though imo.


bd popeye said:


> ^^ Exactly
> 
> 
> 
> The real "American football leauge", the NFL, in the US out draws by average attendance any pro sports league on this planet. Period.


You can't really compare NFL with other sports in the world. An NFL team has 8-10 home games a year, where as a soccer team in England plays upwards of 20 home games a season.

IMO US baseball has the most impressive attendances considering how many games they play.


----------



## GunnerJacket

GEwinnen said:


> The real football in the US will never be successful, very disappointing figures:-(


a) You can't say "never" and assume it as fact. We don't know for sure what the future holds, because...

b) As mamangvilla said these figures are very strong compared to even recent history. And there's more to the story than just those raw numbers.

- Years ago the attendance counts were buoyed by special events like double-headers and tons of free ticket give-aways, meaning the averages were less real. These figures are accurate portrayals because those gimmicks aren't anywhere near as prevalent.

- Most teams now have their own stadiums, smaller and tailored to their needs. This creates not only better atmosphere but ensures the club controls the scheduling and the revenues.

- These figures continue to rise despite limited media exposure and an overabundance of foreign soccer dominating soccer broadcasts on TV. We're still having to pry some fans away from ManU and Milan telecasts in order to remind them of the local league.

Considering the young age of MLS and the relatively low status of soccer in the US, MLS is doing very well in terms of attendances compared to many other great leagues. Heck, Serie A is still at or below 25k! 

The reality is that only about 6 leagues have really strong numbers, and then there's a host of nations in the same range as MLS. Germany, Spain and England are more the exception than the rule.



bd popeye said:


> The real "American football leauge", the NFL, in the US out draws by average attendance any pro sports league on this planet. Period.


I'm pretty sure his comments were not a slight against the US but rather disappointment that soccer isn't doing better.


----------



## West12Rangers

bd popeye said:


> ^^ Exactly
> 
> 
> 
> The real "American football leauge", the NFL, in the US out draws by average attendance any pro sports league on this planet. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> Also in the US we have college football whose average attendance is..well see for yourself.
> 
> http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2012-01-26/ncaa-attendance-hits-new-high
> 
> Not to forget that in the US we have Major league baseball that draws 30,000 an they play 2,400 games a season...NBA & NHL.. and a long myriad of minor league sports, college sports and high school sports.
> 
> Enough said.


32 teams?in a country with a population of 350m?playing a handful of home games a season?The Pro Football leagues in England have 92,with a population of 60m,playing 20-30 home games a season.And what about the AFL down under...a population of 21m,with 18 teams,has amongst the highest average attendances for a national sporting League


----------



## bd popeye

Gents I apoligize for starting any controversy. The sports culture in the US is much different and varied that the rest of the World.



> I'm pretty sure his comments were not a slight against the US but rather disappointment that soccer isn't doing better.


I'm not a soccer fan.. I do want the MLS to succeed..very much so. And someday it will be perhaps the #2 or 3 pro sports league in the US.



> IMO US baseball has the most impressive attendances considering how many games they play.


I agree.. 2470 games with an average attendance of 30,000+. Impressive.



West12Rangers said:


> 32 teams?in a country with a population of 350m?playing a handful of home games a season?The Pro Football leagues in England have 92,with a population of 60m,playing 20-30 home games a season.And what about the AFL down under...a population of 21m,with 18 teams,has amongst the highest average attendances for a national sporting League


College and high school football fill the void for US American football fans.

The NFL could never play that many games in a season. There's be no players left because of the brutality of the hitting & injuries incurred..

You do realize that the NFL is simultaneously competing college football (several levels), MLB during the first month of the season and NHL and NBA and local High school sports the remainder of the season... 

Anyway this has been discussed many times in this forum. Once again there are multiple sports leagues competing for the US sports fans dollar when the NFL season is in full swing.

Here's the top 44 NCAA college football teams attendance for 2011. the 2012 link did not work...Most teams do not play in major US cities.

In the US we have our sports culture and in the UK, AUS and the rest of the world has there's. Enjoy what you have. I'm sure you all do! 

I'm out.



edit.. ah ha! the link is working.. here's a complete list of NCAA football attendance for 2012. It's in a PDF file.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect...ERES&CACHEID=48973f004e77fcf4b18ef98fccf39c15


----------



## bd popeye

West12Rangers said:


> 32 teams?in a country with a population of 350m?playing a handful of home games a season?The Pro Football leagues in England have 92,with a population of 60m,playing 20-30 home games a season.And what about the AFL down under...a population of 21m,with 18 teams,has amongst the highest average attendances for a national sporting League


One last thing.. the top 120 NCAA FBS "American" football schools averaged 45,000+ a game. that's 818 games with an total attendance of 37,000,000.



Now I'm out!


----------



## mamangvilla

I'm looking for the attendance figure for GFL, so far i only find the numbers fo the German Bowl -German version of superbowl- which is about 12k for the last 5 years. 

I'm still looking the regular season numbers, if it's anywhere near the number for the German Bowl than it is probably the best attended american football league outside of the USA.

Their record are 30,400 at German Bowl XXI in '99.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

Kerrybai said:


> I wouldn't be so dispondent. The attendance figures are very good considering how saturated the US market is with other sports. As a minority sport those are very good figures, more importantly the sport has taken oiff very well in certain areas such as the Northwest. The Chiva's USA franchise needs to be reconsidered though imo.


I agree. 

To anyone who doesn't, what would be considered an impressive average for a 5th choice sport in the country?



> You can't really compare NFL with other sports in the world. An NFL team has 8-10 home games a year, where as a soccer team in England plays upwards of 20 home games a season.


If premier league teams played 8-10 games, the league average would still not be anywhere near 65000 (even if the grounds had the capacity)


----------



## isaidso

West12Rangers said:


> 32 teams?in a country with a population of 350m?playing a handful of home games a season?


32 teams in a nation of 315 million is surprisingly little, but they have a good 70-100 big collegiate programs that fill the void in all those other markets. Then there are many lower levels where US football is well supported.


----------



## isaidso

Kerrybai said:


> IMO *major league* baseball has the most impressive attendances considering how many games they play.


Fixed.


----------



## Kerrybai

Rev Stickleback said:


> I agree.
> 
> To anyone who doesn't, what would be considered an impressive average for a 5th choice sport in the country?
> 
> 
> If premier league teams played 8-10 games, the league average would still not be anywhere near 65000 (even if the grounds had the capacity)


You are right, it was foolish of me to use a country with a population that small. If you compare Western Europe with the US you would get nearer to 65,000 attendance.

Anyway these attendance comparisons between sports are silly and here's why.

1. Some NFL stadiums are built smaller so that teams can pressure fans into buying season tickets and can charge premium prices. The Packers could build a 120k bowl and fill it for 8 games a year.

2. Secondly pricing. Arsenal have a 60,000 capacity stadium with 40,000 fans on a season waiting list even though they have the highest season ticket price in Europe. They could have built a 100k stadium and filled it but they didn't for whatever reason

- On top of that Bayern Munich get 70,000 20 plus games a year, however some of those tickets are sold at 10-15 euro a game. I'm sure the Packers could increase their season ticket waiting list by 50% if they charged prices that low.

You also have to consider sporting culture, Juventus are the biggest team in Italy yet they downsized from a 70k stadium to a 40k stadium because a lot of football fans in Italy prefer to watch games on tv.

If the Packers played 20 home games a year in a 100k bowl they would probably sell out so these comparisons are really not of any use.


----------



## flierfy

Rev Stickleback said:


> To anyone who doesn't, what would be considered an impressive average for a 5th choice sport in the country?


Considering the uncompetitive nature of American sport leagues with its mobile franchise which occupy marked-off territories, no attendance would ever impress me.



Rev Stickleback said:


> If premier league teams played 8-10 games, the league average would still not be anywhere near 65000 (even if the grounds had the capacity)


If the Premier League were a closed shop and had franchises which each got allocated a large city of its own then an average attendance of 65'000 wouldn't even be the limit.


----------



## bd popeye

> Considering the uncompetitive nature of American sport leagues with its mobile franchise which occupy marked-off territories, no attendance would ever impress me.


Uncompetitive?..mobile franchise? Huh?.. each one of us is entitled to his or her own opinion.

I'd never knock sports in another country simply because I do not live there. I live in the US.

I posted this.



> In the US we have our sports culture and in the UK, AUS and the rest of the world has there's. Enjoy what you have. I'm sure you all do!


----------



## flierfy

bd popeye said:


> Uncompetitive?..mobile franchise? Huh?.. each one of us is entitled to his or her own opinion.
> 
> I'd never knock sports in another country simply because I do not live there. I live in the US.
> 
> I posted this.


If you lived there you would know that sport leagues are explicitly excepted from anti-trust legislation. Each sport league in the USA forms a cartel and barely any of its franchises compete with each other. That is completely different playing field than for sport clubs in Europe where none is immune from relegation. Hence attendance figures can only be compared with caution.


----------



## LucianPopa1000

Comparing the NFL with Epl is wrong.Its more like the CL.Group phase(regular season) and ko stage.The att in US are even more impressive if u consider the tons of luxury seating.
I mean on avg a NFL stadium has aprox 60k standard seats,9k club seats(which are about 3 times more expensive),and 3k luxury suite seats(which cost as much as 13-15 k seats proly).


----------



## West12Rangers

bd popeye said:


> One last thing.. the top 120 NCAA FBS "American" football schools averaged 45,000+ a game. that's 818 games with an total attendance of 37,000,000.
> 
> 
> 
> Now I'm out!


this was your original comment

"the NFL, in the US out draws by average attendance any pro sports league on this planet. Period."...
we were not talking about college football...your boastwas about the NFL...i am aware of the attendances at other sports(including college)and how large they are...but i found your comment very dismissive of league's in other countries...just sounded..how can i say this...a touch arrogant?
It would be a bit like me saying "London,we have 12 pro football teams,where else on the planet"..without bothering to check,or realise that Cities like Moscow,Melbourne,Sydney, can rival London and have plenty of either football,AFL or rugby league teams


----------



## Kerrybai

Do many countries produce high numbers for amateur leagues?

College football - Division 1 FBS - ----------USA ----2011 ---46,074
Gaelic Games - All Ireland Championships ---Ireland --2009 --16,032
College football - Division 1 FSC ------------USA-----2011---9,620

College football and both of the Irish GAA finals have crowds of 80,000 plus for their finals.

I know that various other US college sports average up to 5,000.

Are there amateur/semi professional sports in other countries that draw large crowds?


----------



## bd popeye

You fellows just can't leave well enough alone.



> but i found your comment very dismissive of league's in other countries...just sounded..how can i say this...a touch arrogant?


I don't know anything about other countries attendance. Only what I read in this thread. I live in the US. I shall continue to post MLS and American football attendance.

I also posted this apparently some of you have missed this.



> Gents I apologize for starting any controversy. The sports culture in the US is much different and varied that the rest of the World.


Truly, I did not intend to start a controversy over sports attendance.

I also posted this..



> In the US we have our sports culture and in the UK, AUS and the rest of the world has there's. Enjoy what you have. I'm sure you all do!


Thank you and I'm out.


----------



## isaidso

Kerrybai said:


> Do many countries produce high numbers for amateur leagues?
> 
> College football - Division 1 FBS - ----------USA ----2011 ---46,074
> Gaelic Games - All Ireland Championships ---Ireland --2009 --16,032
> College football - Division 1 FSC ------------USA-----2011---9,620
> 
> College football and both of the Irish GAA finals have crowds of 80,000 plus for their finals.
> 
> I know that various other US college sports average up to 5,000.
> 
> Are there amateur/semi professional sports in other countries that draw large crowds?


To the best of my knowledge, it's largely a US phenomenon. Even in Canada with a long collegiate sports history, crowds are small. The system here grew in parallel with the one in the US, but around WW2 attendance in Canada stagnated or declined while attendance in the US got bigger and bigger and bigger.

Most large Canadian cities are well served by the CFL (Canada's pro football league) so for the most part there aren't any large population centres with no pro football like exists in the US. Interestingly, cities with no CFL also happen to be the ones where collegiate football is biggest. Laval football in Quebec City easily has the biggest game day crowds for amateur sport in Canada, usually between 14,000 and 18,000/game:






College basketball in Canada draws from just a few hundred to about 3000/game depending on the school. Occasionally, attendance spikes passed 8,000 but not very often. College football has a stronger following with attendance averaging around 3000/game for the 27 schools that field teams. 

The Vanier Cup (used to be called the College Bowl) drew 37,098 in 2012, so I suppose that's a half decent crowd. Below, McMaster University goes down to defeat against Université Laval at the Skydome in Toronto. I was at the 45 yard line in the lower bowl. 

*Canadian football: Université Laval vs. McMaster University*








Courtesy of Robin Leworthy Wilson

The Canadian Hockey League is a junior league for 16-20 year olds and is an umbrella group for the Western Hockey League, Ontario Hockey League, and Quebec Major Junior Hockey League. There are 60 teams: 52 in Canada, 8 in the United States. I found attendance figures for 2006-2007 online, so the whole CHL draws about 8.5 million fans/season. That's not bad actually!

WHL: 3,519,007	(4,673/game) 753 games in total
OHL: 2,670,267	(3,933/game) 679 games in total
QMJHL: 2,268,508 (3,601/game) 630 games in total


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attendance_figures_at_domestic_professional_sports_leagues


----------



## Kerrybai

@*isaidso* Thanks for the reply. I didn't know Canadian college football drew good crowds, I thought it was exclusive to the US. It's good to see Canadian colleges drawing big crowds too along with their American neighbours.

I can't find any semi professional/amateur leagues and tournaments outside of North America and Ireland that draw good crowds. I guess it's no surprise considering most sports are professional now.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

Kerrybai said:


> You are right, it was foolish of me to use a country with a population that small. If you compare Western Europe with the US you would get nearer to 65,000 attendance.


http://big-soccer.wikia.com/wiki/Average_attendances_of_European_football_clubs

the top 32 clubs in the whole of Europe averaged 52,151.




> Anyway these attendance comparisons between sports are silly and here's why....


what's silly is people getting bent out of shape over a completely accurate statement. 

There may be a multitude of reasons as to why the gridiron game is so popular in the USA, and why it'd be impossible for individual European countries to get near that, but that doesn't negate the clear fact that in terms of attendance, the NFL does blow any other pro league in the world out of the water.

Overall though, I think people in Europe just don't realise just how popular the sport is in the USA. On Friday nights it empties the streets in many towns just to watch the local high school team play.

And sports watching is a major pastime in the USA. Baseball averages 35000 a game and they play a minimum of 162 games each every year. 



flierfy said:


> Considering the uncompetitive nature of American sport leagues with its mobile franchise which occupy marked-off territories, no attendance would ever impress me.


Teams don't operate in marked off territories. There are several cities with more than one club in each sports league.

But I think if you are openly admitting that you refuse to be even slightly impressed by American sports crowds, then it shows just a tad of bias.



> If the Premier League were a closed shop and had franchises which each got allocated a large city of its own then an average attendance of 65'000 wouldn't even be the limit.


That's ridiculous, unless you think England can invent 20 cities with 2 million or so people in them as well, to host each club.

By population, Greater Manchester wouldn't even make it into the top 20 biggest urban areas of the USA.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Rev Stickleback said:


> the top 32 clubs in the whole of Europe averaged 52,151.


Good post.

Admittedly though, these 32 clubs don't play against each other on a regular basis. If they would, they could easily take advantage of the interest and grow up to attendances of around 70-80k (IMO) and superior revenues. That's why the Superleague idea still doesn't go away completely.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

alexandru.mircea said:


> Good post.
> 
> Admittedly though, these 32 clubs don't play against each other on a regular basis. If they would, they could easily take advantage of the interest and grow up to attendances of around 70-80k (IMO) and superior revenues. That's why the Superleague idea still doesn't go away completely.


How many would draw the same crowds if they weren't at the top every year?

Would people still be happy to pay £60 to watch Arsenal if they were one of the worst teams in the competition, with no prospect of a return to challenging near the top for several years?


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Rev Stickleback said:


> How many would draw the same crowds if they weren't at the top every year?
> 
> Would people still be happy to pay £60 to watch Arsenal if they were one of the worst teams in the competition, with no prospect of a return to challenging near the top for several years?


Being present at the highest level seems to always be better for the fans than being top dogs in a lesser competition. Think of all the smaller clubs that want to expand their stadiums when they enter the Premier league (and struggling with the attendances if they fall back to the Championship).

I suspect that if a European superleague was ever created (I hope it's not the case) they would solve this issue by reserving a way to keeps things fresh by involving new, eager clubs in the place of those that get blasé.


----------



## isaidso

Kerrybai said:


> @*isaidso* Thanks for the reply. I didn't know Canadian college football drew good crowds, I thought it was exclusive to the US. It's good to see Canadian colleges drawing big crowds too along with their American neighbours.


No problem. Canadian college football crowds aren't all that big compared to what one sees in the US, but they're substantial nonetheless. Football traces its roots to many of these schools, so its heartening to see these traditions continue. It's actually seeing a gradual resurgence which is very encouraging. 

The biggest crowds seem to be at these schools: Laval, Sherbrooke, Montreal, Queen's, Western, McMaster, Laurier, Saskatchewan, and Saint Mary's. Below would be a typical Canadian college football scene. As you can see you don't see the monster sized crowds common in the US, but it's still very much a part of the Canadian sporting landscape:


----------



## bd popeye

> Overall though, I think people in Europe just don't realise just how popular the sport is in the USA. On Friday nights it empties the streets in many towns just to watch the local high school team play.


So true. Friday night in the fall is High School football night. 



> As you can see you don't see the monster sized crowds common in the US, but it's still very much a part of the Canadian sporting landscape


Great fans in Canada enjoying there sports tradition.

Below an excellent example of FBS NCAA football game start.

Florida State Seminoles 2010 Vs Florida . Tomahawk Chop and team entrance. Just fast forward to 2:00 minutes..


----------



## isaidso

bd popeye said:


> Great fans in Canada enjoying there sports tradition.


Greetings from North of the 49th parallel! Nice video and wonderful atmosphere although 'Ohio Script' is still the best, imo. There's nothing quite like college football for me, Canadian or US. Ok, college basketball comes a close 2nd. :colgate:


----------



## bd popeye

isaidso said:


> Greetings from North of the 49th parallel! Nice video and wonderful atmosphere. There's nothing quite like college football for me. Ok, college basketball comes a close 2nd. :colgate:


Nice cheerleaders too!


----------



## isaidso

bd popeye said:


> Nice cheerleaders too!


For sure, there's a little something for everyone. :yes:


----------



## Howdy

flierfy said:


> *Considering the uncompetitive nature of American sport leagues with its mobile franchise which occupy marked-off territories, no attendance would ever impress me.*
> 
> 
> If the Premier League were a closed shop and had franchises which each got allocated a large city of its own then an average attendance of 65'000 wouldn't even be the limit.


What a peculiar comment..

Does the attendance of Newcastle Utd, for example, impress you, given that they are the only major team in that city? How about Olympique de Marseille?

The fact that the US leagues are franchised in no way devalues their crowds.


----------



## Kerrybai

Rev Stickleback said:


> http://big-soccer.wikia.com/wiki/Average_attendances_of_European_football_clubs
> 
> the top 32 clubs in the whole of Europe averaged 52,151.


Ah yes as I suspected the number is closer to 65,000. As another poster pointed out if Europe created a super-league with the top clubs attendances would be much higher. You have Benfica on that list at an average of 38,000. When they played Barcelona in the champions league they sold out their stadium with an attendance of around 63,000. Shakhtar are on the list at 36k and draw around an average of 48 in the champions league. Fans want to see the big teams and players visit their stadium etc

Anyway the problem I have with comparing sports based on numbers is that it does not take into account ticket prices and stadium sizes. I'm sure the patriots could fill a 120k bowl with a bunch of cheap seats. 

The US appetite for gridiron is huge. The attendances are very impressive and even if you take into account playing only 8 home games in a season it is still impressive, but if anything the numbers are a poor representation of how popular the sport is unless people have an understanding of ticket prices. The game day income is what makes US sports so enviable.


----------



## Kerrybai

Howdy said:


> What a peculiar comment..
> 
> *Does the attendance of Newcastle Utd, for example, impress you, given that they are the only major team in that city?* How about Olympique de Marseille?
> 
> The fact that the US leagues are franchised in no way devalues their crowds.


Sunderland are located in the metropolitan area.


----------



## www.sercan.de

TOP 30 Europe | April
http://www.stadionwelt.de/sw_stadien/index.php?folder=sites&site=top30


----------



## GEwinnen

Rev Stickleback said:


> the top 32 clubs in the whole of Europe averaged 52,151.


The top 32 clubs in the whole of Europe had a total attendance (league games only!) of 31,707,000.
(NFL: 17,668,000)


----------



## isaidso

^^ All that means is that overall attendance is higher due to more games played. One can't conclude anything beyond that.



Kerrybai said:


> Ah yes as I suspected the number is closer to 65,000. As another poster pointed out if Europe created a super-league with the top clubs attendances would be much higher. You have Benfica on that list at an average of 38,000. When they played Barcelona in the champions league they sold out their stadium with an attendance of around 63,000. Shakhtar are on the list at 36k and draw around an average of 48 in the champions league. Fans want to see the big teams and players visit their stadium etc
> 
> Anyway the problem I have with comparing sports based on numbers is that it does not take into account ticket prices and stadium sizes. I'm sure the patriots could fill a 120k bowl with a bunch of cheap seats.
> 
> The US appetite for gridiron is huge. The attendances are very impressive and even if you take into account playing only 8 home games in a season it is still impressive, but if anything the numbers are a poor representation of how popular the sport is unless people have an understanding of ticket prices. The game day income is what makes US sports so enviable.


Agree with all of that. The only concrete conclusion one can draw from attendance alone is how much a part of people's daily lives consists of going to a stadium to watch football. When one moves beyond that one has to look at television audience. Both speak to cultural relevance. 

One can still draw incorrect conclusions about the sports culture if one doesn't go one step further. Case in point, a first round NHL playoff game (round of 16, best of 7 series) in Toronto is only going to draw 19,000 fans (the size of the arena), but tickets are going for $700. So price comes third. How much money are people willing to pay to be a part of it? 

In the end, a club's revenue comes close to mirroring that. It's not perfect because some countries are richer than others so people have more money to spend on their passion. Television contracts work differently from league to league, as does a club's cut from merchandise revenue. 

Then there's population. Is Massillon high school football less culturally relevant to Massillon than the NY Giants are to NYC? They're obviously far far more dominant culturally despite 'only' drawing about 18,000 people to their games. Attendance alone is interesting, but it's important to recognize its limitations.


----------



## alwn

bd popeye said:


> I don't know anything about other countries attendance. Only what I read in this thread. I live in the US. I shall continue to post MLS and *American football *attendance.


What you call "american football" it looks so boring.. I watched once. The referee interrupted the match several times for TV advertising.. The last quarter took much longer than their defined length due to play stoppages. Both teams were looking to play overtime so it was a real struggle to reach the draw. Everything for the commercial one neighbor explained.. And the americans.. they were really happy, pop corn, cheerleaders, full contacts, advertising..


----------



## Scba

Stop. Trolling.


----------



## bd popeye

alwn said:


> What you call "american football" it looks so boring.. I watched once. The referee interrupted the match several times for TV advertising.. The last quarter took much longer than their defined length due to play stoppages. Both teams were looking to play overtime so it was a real struggle to reach the draw. Everything for the commercial one neighbor explained.. And the americans.. they were really happy, pop corn, cheerleaders, full contacts, advertising..


That's Ok if you don't like American football. Fine with me. I've been watching it since 1960 and will continue to so. Each one of us has his/her own likes and dislikes...

as I stated..



> In the US we have our sports culture and in the UK, AUS and the rest of the world has there's. Enjoy what you have. I'm sure you all do!


Enjoy your day!


----------



## isaidso

bd popeye said:


> That's Ok if you don't like American football. Fine with me. I've been watching it since 1960 and will continue to so. Each one of us has his/her own likes and dislikes...


Exactly! Besides, American football is the #1 sport in the United States while Canadian football is a solid #2 in Canada. I suppose we're all just delusional and haven't discovered those 'better' sports yet. :nuts:


----------



## vadin

flierfy said:


> If you lived there you would know that sport leagues are explicitly excepted from anti-trust legislation. Each sport league in the USA forms a cartel and *barely any of its franchises compete with each other*. That is completely different playing field than for sport clubs in Europe where none is immune from relegation. Hence attendance figures can only be compared with caution.


Wow!!! LMAO. You obviously have know idea what you're talking about. Please explain to me why the San Francisco Giants won't let the Oakland A's, who currently play in a stadium 10 miles away, move FURTHER away to San Jose. LOL.


----------



## flierfy

Rev Stickleback said:


> Teams don't operate in marked off territories. There are several cities with more than one club in each sports league.


These are three cities to be precise. And these cities are surrounded by exceptionally large conurbations. Every other franchise has a large city for itself.



Rev Stickleback said:


> That's ridiculous, unless you think England can invent 20 cities with 2 million or so people in them as well, to host each club.


England doesn't have to invent cities. There would be just 8 teams in such a league. That's all.



Rev Stickleback said:


> How many would draw the same crowds if they weren't at the top every year?


Rangers supporters answer this question imposingly at the moment.



Howdy said:


> Does the attendance of Newcastle Utd, for example, impress you, given that they are the only major team in that city? How about Olympique de Marseille?


What you forgot to mention, however, is that Newcastle itself is a rather small city located in a conurbation which is home to one other club of the same size. You don't have such a fierce competition in the USA that two top flight club compete with each other in such a small area.

Newcastle in fact did impress when they were playing in the 2nd division. 43'400 on average flocked to St James. They not only played less attractive opponents that season. Lots of games were played on midweek. Yet, supporters still came in large numbers.


----------



## mamangvilla

In Ranger's case, I think there's a difference between relegated because the club's parent company went bankrupt and relegated because the team sucked on the field.

In the first case, the supporter still flock to the games as an act of solidarity with the team. If the second case happened, I doubt the club's attendance would get as high as the Rangers getting right now in 4th div.


----------



## www.sercan.de

* Average Attendance - All Football Codes*


----------



## Rev Stickleback

flierfy said:


> These are three cities to be precise. And these cities are surrounded by exceptionally large conurbations. Every other franchise has a large city for itself.


That doesn't negate the fact that franchises don't give teams exclusive rights to a city. It'd just be a tad foolhardy to set up a rival team in the same city usually.



> England doesn't have to invent cities. There would be just 8 teams in such a league. That's all.


So where would you place 8 clubs to draw 65000 on average?



> Rangers supporters answer this question imposingly at the moment.


as already stated, clubs that have such sudden drops nearly always retain their fans. 

What they won't do is retain their fans if they either slide down the leagues or have years of entrenched mediocrity.


----------



## mamangvilla

Average attendance for 2013 Indonesian Super League

Arema Indonesia 26,608
Persib Bandung 20,993
Sriwijaya 17,906
Persipura Jayapura 16,573
Persisam Putra Samarinda 13,199
Persepam Madura United 13,269
Gresik United 11,176
Persela Lamongan 10,238
Persija Jakarta 7,816
Persidafon Dafonsoro 8,663
Mitra Kukar 7,460
Barito Putera 6,346
PSPS Pekanbaru 5,784
Persiba Balikpapan 4,118
Persita Tangerang 4,035
Pelita Bandung Raya 3,054
Persiram Raja Ampat 2,881
Persiwa Wamena 3,023
*League total 10,329*

As these are only the number of tickets sold, it may not reflect the actual attendance at the games. 
For most games the stadiums are full to capacity, but clubs rarely sold out all the tickets.:bash:


----------



## lwa

Average attendance for Rabodirect Pro 12 (2012/13)

Leinster 19,591
Munster 13,863
Ulster 10,343
Ospreys 9,274
Cardiff Blues 8,933
Scarlets 7,924
Newport-Gwent Dragons 6,518
Connacht 5,239
Glasgow Warriors 4,541
Edinburgh 4,521
Treviso 3,632
Zebre 2,025

League Average 8,034




Kerrybai said:


> Do many countries produce high numbers for amateur leagues?
> 
> College football - Division 1 FBS - ----------USA ----2011 ---46,074
> Gaelic Games - All Ireland Championships ---Ireland --2009 --16,032
> College football - Division 1 FSC ------------USA-----2011---9,620
> 
> College football and both of the Irish GAA finals have crowds of 80,000 plus for their finals.
> 
> I know that various other US college sports average up to 5,000.
> 
> Are there amateur/semi professional sports in other countries that draw large crowds?


The figures for Rugby Union in the early 90's must be fairly impressive (especially for Five Nations games), but alas not amateur any more.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

lwa said:


> The figures for Rugby Union in the early 90's must be fairly impressive (especially for Five Nations games), but alas not amateur any more.


Club game crowds were pretty awful. That's why there's barely a stand that still exists from those days - because the grounds were so basic.


----------



## flierfy

Rev Stickleback said:


> That doesn't negate the fact that franchises don't give teams exclusive rights to a city. It'd just be a tad foolhardy to set up a rival team in the same city usually.


Foolhardy or not, a franchise is no independent enterprise and therefore reliant on the agreement of its franchisor. And no franchisor agrees a move of one of its franchises next to another one when there plenty of other local markets waiting to get exploited. I shouldn't actually explain to you how franchising works, should I.



Rev Stickleback said:


> So where would you place 8 clubs to draw 65000 on average?


Gt London, Gt London, West Mids, Gt Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorks, West Yorks, Tyne&Wear.



Rev Stickleback said:


> as already stated, clubs that have such sudden drops nearly always retain their fans.
> 
> What they won't do is retain their fans if they either slide down the leagues or have years of entrenched mediocrity.


That doesn't explain why Newcastle remain very well supported despite being rather shite for years. Leeds drew more than 23'000 on average in the 3rd division. Likewise Norwich. What you seem to underestimate is that football supporters are extremely loyal regardless of success.


----------



## bd popeye

ESPN | MLS Attendance 2013

Week 10


----------



## mamangvilla

Chivas really need to rebrand themselves or relocate, San Diego perhaps?
It's become increasingly clear that they won't be able to compete in LA market against Galaxy's dominance.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

flierfy said:


> Foolhardy or not, a franchise is no independent enterprise and therefore reliant on the agreement of its franchisor. And no franchisor agrees a move of one of its franchises next to another one when there plenty of other local markets waiting to get exploited. I shouldn't actually explain to you how franchising works, should I.


Maybe you should, because you implied they have exclusive rights to a market, when they don't.




> Gt London, Gt London, West Mids, Gt Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorks, West Yorks, Tyne&Wear.


I'm still not convinced they'd average 65000, let alone at least 65000. Nor does it take into account the NFL could surely average much higher than 65000 if they built bigger stadiums.

And this still would be in a country where each city wouldn't also have two or three other major sports, often playing at the same time.

But really though (and I accept I used to be exactly the same) people in England don't really realise just how popular the game is in the USA. It's a country where college teams can average over 100,000 - 60 averaged over 40,000. 

Between a third and half of the country watch the superbowl every year. That's a fervour equivalent to when England make a world cup semi final or similar, when the country goes nuts for the game.

Your comment about no attendance figure in the USA would be enough to impress you rather hints at a lack of objectivity over the issue.



> That doesn't explain why Newcastle remain very well supported despite being rather shite for years. Leeds drew more than 23'000 on average in the 3rd division. Likewise Norwich. What you seem to underestimate is that football supporters are extremely loyal regardless of success.


For Newcastle being good, not being mediocre, is the blip.

Football fans can be loyal, but it's not the norm. At most places, a dip in fortunes will be met with a dip in crowds, just as they rise when fortunes improve.


edit:
I've probably wasted more than enough on this daft exchange


----------



## bd popeye

Barclay's Premier League attendance


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> ESPN | MLS Attendance 2013


Hopefully, as they've experienced in the past, Chicago, Colorado and Columbus will see modest increases as the season goes along. I know those three (among others) were hit with 1-2 games in snow and blustery winter weather.

I'm still waiting for Chicago to turn the corner attendance wise. That town's too big and blessed with enough footie fans to consistently linger so low in this regards. Toyota Park may not be in the ideal setting but it's a nice venue by all accounts and the Fire haven't been an abysmal franchise. No reason they can't fill it up on a regular basis. That I can think of.


mamangvilla said:


> Chivas really need to rebrand themselves or relocate, San Diego perhaps?
> It's become increasingly clear that they won't be able to compete in LA market against Galaxy's dominance.


I don't know that it's the Galaxy's dominance as much as it is the branding, but will defer to the locals to tell me. I know many MLS fans outside the area find the whole Chivas experiment to be a slap in the face to US soccer. 


bd popeye said:


> Barclay's Premier League attendance


By my read Sunderland, Everton and Villa are the ones struggling to sell out, largely due to the size of their venues being beyond current appeal. S'land actually did very well considering their standing this season, so even with empty seats 40k in the stands is solid. Toffee fans, meanwhile, are desperate for management to resolve their aging stadium woes and help the club stave off a slow financial slide. Too rich and deserving to fall too quickly, yet too poor to climb out of their current state. Villa's status hangs on a knife-edge right now regarding staying in the Premiership, but hopefully the youth they've been brooding this season will pay off down the line. Otherwise that's a whole lot of sold-out/nearly sold-out games.

If Spurs get their new ground, Fulham gets their expansion and some of the smaller teams (QPR, Wigan) are someday "swapped out" for bigger ones (Leeds, Forest...) then I can see the Premiership coming awfully close to that 40k mark. To surpass it, however, and challenge Germany for largest gates they'll need some other mid-table clubs to push the 40k mark themselves. If both Villa and Everton were gifted with refinements to their venerable stadiums that might boost attendance a little more regardless of on-field performance.


----------



## Kerrybai

Rev Stickleback said:


> I'm still not convinced they'd average 65000, let alone at least 65000. *Nor does it take into account the NFL could surely average much higher than 65000 if they built bigger stadiums.
> *


They could easily average 65,000. Take Tyne and Wear for example. The area has Newcastle averaging 50k and Sunderland averaging 40k plus a host of smaller teams in the area. Say Newcastle were kept, they would easily surpass 65k

Now lets take Liverpool at 45k. Right now they could easily fill 60k possibly more but there stadium is small. Remove Everton at 36k and Wigan 20k etc.

The same goes for Manchester and London speaks for itself.

Anyway the part I highlighted makes this debate fairly pointless. The NFL could average 90k if they wanted to.


----------



## Kerrybai

bd popeye said:


> ESPN | MLS Attendance 2013
> 
> Week 10


Some encouraging signs there imo. The top 10 have really solid support bases.

Chivas in LA look dead and buried, San Jose are waiting on a new stadium. New England and DC United could also benefit from new stadiums. The numbers at Chicago are disappointing though.

Do you have any information on minor league baseball attendances? I attended the Myrtle Beach Pelicans when I was in the US and they had a pretty size-able crowd.


----------



## KOSTYK

flierfy said:


> How badly attended must all the other home games of Steaua be when there were 6 matches way above the seasons average?


They played some games on their stadium, Ghencea (6 matches) and they had attendences between 2000 and 6000 per match.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Everything beyond a 10-15k average for Steaua is a bonus and is a direct consequence of the new national stadium. There is a lot of potential in Romania but authorities now need restraint in spending public money for stadiums until the sporting projects of the football clubs become viable (i.e. they get rid of the crooks owning them & the corruption is cleaned).


----------



## isaidso

Double post.


----------



## isaidso

mamangvilla said:


> I can see the reason for the expensive price at NFL, but an average of over $50 for a game in a league that play 81 home game in a season that's just pure greed.


The Canadian Football League isn't much cheaper. It's hard to get data on average ticket prices, but I imagine most people are paying in the $35-$50 range.


----------



## www.sercan.de

2012-2013 UEFA clubs
http://www.stadionwelt.de/sw_stadien/index.php?folder=sites&site=top30

1.Borussia Dortmund	80.482
2.Manchester United 75.530
3.FC Barcelona	71.350	
4.Bayern München	71.000
5.Real Madrid 68.876
6.Schalke 04	61.171
7.Arsenal FC	60.079
8.Hamburger SV	52.916
9.Newcastle United 50.517
10.Ajax 50.490
11.VfB Stuttgart	50.054
12.Borussia Mönchengladbach	49.722	
13.Eintracht Frankfurt	48.044	
14.Manchester City 46.974
15.Celtic 46.917
16.Inter 46.654
17.Fortuna Düsseldorf 46.026
18.Rangers 45.964
19.Feyenoord 45.147
20.Liverpool FC 44.749
21.Hannover 96	44.359
22.Atlético Madrid 43.921
23.AC Milan 43.651
24.Galatasaray 43.262	
25.Paris St. Germain 43.235	
26.Benfica 42.366
27.1. FC Nürnberg 41.518
28.Chelsea FC 41.462
29.Schachtar Donezk 41.203
30.1. FC Köln 40.646


----------



## GunnerJacket

Good for the Rangers fans for holding their line even in the third tier. I know their ultra's are still an issue but considering the fans didn't cause the team's financial woes it's nice to see they're still supportive of the players.


----------



## flierfy

GunnerJacket said:


> Good for the Rangers fans for holding their line even in the *third* tier. I know their ultra's are still an issue but considering the fans didn't cause the team's financial woes it's nice to see they're still supportive of the players.


Third tier? You mean fourth, don't you?


----------



## Guest

www.sercan.de said:


> 2012-2013 UEFA clubs
> http://www.stadionwelt.de/sw_stadien/index.php?folder=sites&site=top30
> 
> 1.Borussia Dortmund	80.482
> 2.Manchester United 75.530
> 3.FC Barcelona	71.350
> 4.Bayern München	71.000
> 5.Real Madrid 68.876
> 6.Schalke 04	61.171
> 7.Arsenal FC	60.079
> 8.Hamburger SV	52.916
> 9.Newcastle United 50.517
> 10.Ajax 50.490
> 11.VfB Stuttgart	50.054
> 12.Borussia Mönchengladbach	49.722
> 13.Eintracht Frankfurt	48.044
> 14.Manchester City 46.974
> 15.Celtic 46.917
> 16.Inter 46.654
> 17.Fortuna Düsseldorf 46.026
> 18.Rangers 45.964
> 19.Feyenoord 45.147
> 20.Liverpool FC 44.749
> 21.Hannover 96	44.359
> 22.Atlético Madrid 43.921
> 23.AC Milan 43.651
> 24.Galatasaray 43.262
> 25.Paris St. Germain 43.235
> 26.Benfica 42.366
> 27.1. FC Nürnberg 41.518
> 28.Chelsea FC 41.462
> 29.Schachtar Donezk 41.203
> 30.1. FC Köln 40.646


Many of those teams could be doing a lot better with bigger/newer stadiums. 

There are over 100 soccer clubs averaging over 20,000 in Europe. The only other sport which has teams averaging over 20,000 is rugby union, with around 3 or 4 clubs. I want to see rugby grow that number to 10 or so. I think it has the potential to establish itself as the second sport of Europe, though I think basketball will be second biggest long term. 

I think Europes version of the US big 4 will be soccer, basketball, hockey and rugby union. In many ways it already is like that, but I mean on a continental level. Hockey, basketball and rugby are much more regionalized than the situation here in the States. Then you have other regional sports like handball, volleyball, gaelic etc. 

Its a very unique continent! The dominance of soccer though seems to suffocate other sports, which is a shame.


----------



## Nikodem

KOSTYK said:


> Romania First Football League Average Attendance for 2012-2013 season:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.statisticifotbal.ro/liga_1_spectatori_2012-2013.htm


I must admit that I am quite surprised about such a low attendance in Romania. I thought Romania would have better results than Poland because of much better football level (= better players = better results) and f.e. 3 x capital derby (Steaua x Rapid x Dinamo). Excluding games played on National Stadium the result of whole league would be really poor.

As for Poalnd, there were 5 teams with average attendance over 10.000 per game.

1 Lech Poznań 22 641 
2 Legia Warszawa 18 078 (boycott of ultra fans at 5 home games)
3 Śląsk Wrocław 15 119 
4 Wisła Kraków 13 621 
5 Lechia Gdańsk 13 206

Two more clubs (Górnik Zabrze and Jagiellonia Białystok) would be probably able to get the av. attendance +10 k if their stadiums werent partly closed due to construction.

Highest attendance at one game: LECH POZNAŃ - Legia Warszawa 40.632
Highest av. attendance of one round: 5th, 12.848 per match


----------



## GunnerJacket

flierfy said:


> Third tier? You mean fourth, don't you?


I couldn't recall exactly how many tiers the SPL had. Either way Rangers are just now escaping the basement and still have a ways to go.


----------



## Rascar

5portsF4n said:


> Many of those teams could be doing a lot better with bigger/newer stadiums.
> 
> There are over 100 soccer clubs averaging over 20,000 in Europe. The only other sport which has teams averaging over 20,000 is rugby union, with around 3 or 4 clubs. I want to see rugby grow that number to 10 or so. I think it has the potential to establish itself as the second sport of Europe, though I think basketball will be second biggest long term.
> 
> I think Europes version of the US big 4 will be soccer, basketball, hockey and rugby union.


Rugby union is a young sport (in terms of being professional) so the leagues have not had a long time to grow. having ten or so teams averaging over 20,000, ie 4 in England, 4 in France, 2 in Ireland, is perfectly feasible, given that only 15 years ago not many averaged over 5,000. Just getting more teams over 10k would be good though, given that a lot of the bigger rugby teams are in small cities, and a lot of pro sports teams around the world survive on less.


----------



## KOSTYK

Nikodem said:


> I must admit that I am quite surprised about such a low attendance in Romania. I thought Romania would have better results than Poland because of much better football level (= better players = better results) and f.e. 3 x capital derby (Steaua x Rapid x Dinamo). Excluding games played on National Stadium the result of whole league would be really poor.
> 
> As for Poalnd, there were 5 teams with average attendance over 10.000 per game.
> 
> 1 Lech Poznań 22 641
> 2 Legia Warszawa 18 078 (boycott of ultra fans at 5 home games)
> 3 Śląsk Wrocław 15 119
> 4 Wisła Kraków 13 621
> 5 Lechia Gdańsk 13 206
> 
> Two more clubs (Górnik Zabrze and Jagiellonia Białystok) would be probably able to get the av. attendance +10 k if their stadiums werent partly closed due to construction.
> 
> Highest attendance at one game: LECH POZNAŃ - Legia Warszawa 40.632
> Highest av. attendance of one round: 5th, 12.848 per match


Romanian football is in very bad condition right now, because most of the team owners are waiting conviction in processes involving football, and Steaua's owner is already in jail for bribery.Dinamo played in 2 stadiums, thei old stadium (15.00 seats) and National Arena, but for a period of this season, until the owner had changed they have boycott the games. And Rapid lost 17 players in winter and went into insovency, and now they relegated to second league because they didn't get the license for next season. Rapid stadium capacity is down from 19.100 to 12.000 because a stand and some sectors from another one aren't safe. And also Steaua might be relegated because of conviction of their owner. In the same case as Rapid, two seasons ago, U Craiova and Poli Timisoara were regated, and they were teams that could get easy 17.000-20.000 season average spectators. 
Next season we will have teams from villages in first league, or seniors team of youth academy!


----------



## GunnerJacket

I've often touted that UEFA should be permissive of letting smaller nations either host merged leagues or foster additional regional tournament play that will help these teams and leagues create more economic opportunity. While the likes of Romania, Sweden and others might be able to field a few great stadiums and some strong teams, it's very tough to create an expansive league capable of paying livable wages and permitting truly professional play if half the teams are only averaging 10k or less. Would anything of that sort work for some of these struggling leagues in eastern Europe? Would Polish fans find a joint league with another country anymore appealing?


----------



## Guest

GunnerJacket said:


> I've often touted that UEFA should be permissive of letting smaller nations either host merged leagues or foster additional regional tournament play that will help these teams and leagues create more economic opportunity. While the likes of Romania, Sweden and others might be able to field a few great stadiums and some strong teams, it's very tough to create an expansive league capable of paying livable wages and permitting truly professional play if half the teams are only averaging 10k or less. Would anything of that sort work for some of these struggling leagues in eastern Europe? Would Polish fans find a joint league with another country anymore appealing?


I think it looks as if UEFA are warming to the idea. It seems it may be heading that way in the future. The one thing they probably don't want to see if nations that could host strong leagues by themselves teaming up with others (like the recent Russia-Ukraine talk). 

Though I don't see any natural partners for Poland. Whereas you have Netherlands-Belgium, Scandinavia, Austria-Switzerland, Russia-Ukraine (plus the other ex states of the Soviet Union), Czech Republic-Slovakia or the Balkans as obvious merger possibilities, I don't see any with Poland. The only one that could work might be a merger with Czech Republic and Slovakia. But Poland is the 8th biggest country in Europe, and might just need time to develop its own league. Its big enough to not need others.


----------



## Alex Roney

I've heard that the most likely leagues to be joined are the dutch and belgian league. They've been talking about it for years now.


----------



## Guest

Alex Roney said:


> I've heard that the most likely leagues to be joined are the dutch and belgian league. They've been talking about it for years now.


They are trial testing it for the men, so to speak, with the womens league involving Belgium and the Netherlands. But you're right that could be one of the first major European mergers, if Russia-Ukraine doesn't beat them first. 

Recently South East Asia decided to make an ASEAN competition. At this point I'm not sure what the format is, or what will end up happening to the national leagues, but the league will encompass most of South East Asia, 10 or so countries covering a population of over 600 million people. 

You have the England-Wales precedent, the US-Canada precedent, Australia-New Zealand, Switzerland-Liechtenstein, Spain-Andorra too. I think they will become a lot more common, especially for countries who are so disadvantaged against the larger ones.


----------



## mamangvilla

5portsF4n said:


> Recently South East Asia decided to make an ASEAN competition. At this point I'm not sure what the format is, or what will end up happening to the national leagues, but the league will encompass most of South East Asia, 10 or so countries covering a population of over 600 million people.


Do you have link or something about this? I live in ASEAN and I never even heard about this. We do have a regional competition, but its for national team which is the AFF Cup. 

A merge league in SEA would be interesting, but I'm not sure if its even viable as many of the countries already have a well established league.


----------



## flierfy

5portsF4n said:


> I think Europes version of the US big 4 will be soccer, basketball, hockey and rugby union. In many ways it already is like that, but I mean on a continental level. Hockey, basketball and rugby are much more regionalized than the situation here in the States. Then you have other regional sports like handball, volleyball, gaelic etc.
> 
> Its a very unique continent! The dominance of soccer though seems to suffocate other sports, which is a shame.


You have a rather false picture of sport in Europe.

Handball is no regional sport. It is one the most popular in fact. It could be even the second most popular one in Europe as is played virtually everywhere bar the British Isle.

Rugby Union on the other hand is pretty regional. Outside the British Isles and Southwestern France it is almost unknown. And even in Britain there is the small matter that Rugby League has the upper hand over Rugby Union in the North of England.
You mustn't be misled by some stunning crowds at Rugby internationals. Beside its showcases events Rugby Union is a rather small sport even in its heartland.

Hockey, however, is an even smaller sport. It is barely participated and gets attention only at Olympic games.


----------



## GunnerJacket

5portsF4n said:


> I think it looks as if UEFA are warming to the idea. It seems it may be heading that way in the future. The one thing they probably don't want to see if nations that could host strong leagues by themselves teaming up with others (like the recent Russia-Ukraine talk).


Agreed, but they can craft provisions based on defined thresholds. Maybe it's as a population cap (20M?), maybe an economic one for the league (TV revenues). Bottom line there needs to be an outlet for smaller nations to pool resources and allow bigger teams to be part of a bigger stage. 



> Though I don't see any natural partners for Poland...


Maybe it's 2-3 partners for league play. Maybe it's a micro-UEFA league for a particular region. I say define the thresholds above which certain leagues (ie: England, Spain, Germany, Italy and France) must remain independent, then look to the rest and say "What do you want to do?"


Alex Roney said:


> I've heard that the most likely leagues to be joined are the dutch and belgian league. They've been talking about it for years now.


Fine with me. I've heard Scotland wanting in with them, as well.


5portsF4n said:


> Recently South East Asia decided to make an ASEAN competition. At this point I'm not sure what the format is, or what will end up happening to the national leagues, but the league will encompass most of South East Asia, 10 or so countries covering a population of over 600 million people.


For regions like that something has to happen. I know they've once tried to make a single league for most of the Caribbean Islands but still lack the economy.

Bottom line, some political subdivisions are too small to compete by themselves and as such it would behoove UEFA/FIFA to find new models that will help them evolve.


----------



## Rascar

> Handball is no regional sport. It is one the most popular in fact. It could be even the second most popular one in Europe as is played virtually everywhere bar the British Isle.
> 
> Rugby Union on the other hand is pretty regional. Outside the British Isles and Southwestern France it is almost unknown. And even in Britain there is the small matter that Rugby League has the upper hand over Rugby Union in the North of England.
> You mustn't be misled by some stunning crowds at Rugby internationals. Beside its showcases events Rugby Union is a rather small sport even in its heartland.


These are the average crowds for the three largest domestic rugby competitions, how does handball compare?:

Top 14 (France): 14,024 
Aviva Prem (England): 12,480
Celtic/Italian Pro 12: 8,199 

(Heineken Cup (cross border):14,837)

And this middle tier between internationals and grass roots is a category where Rugby Union is not particularly strong.


----------



## flierfy

Rascar said:


> These are the average crowds for the three largest domestic rugby competitions, how does handball compare?:
> 
> Top 14 (France): 14,024
> Aviva Prem (England): 12,480
> Celtic/Italian Pro 12: 8,199
> 
> (Heineken Cup (cross border):14,837)
> 
> And this middle tier between internationals and grass roots is a category where Rugby Union is not particularly strong.


Handball Bundesliga (Germany): 4'555 (2011-12)


----------



## flierfy

GunnerJacket said:


> Maybe it's 2-3 partners for league play. Maybe it's a micro-UEFA league for a particular region. I say define the thresholds above which certain leagues (ie: England, Spain, Germany, Italy and France) must remain independent, then look to the rest and say "What do you want to do?"


If you seriously consider cross-border leagues then you cannot rule out categorically that no-one joins one the big leagues. Forming sensible leagues with sensible travel distances makes it necessary to allow Portugal to join Spain. Otherwise their geographic isolation would leave them on their own which would disadvantage them even more.

And what would you do with Switzerland? They are almost entirely enclosed by big countries. Who should they join? Austria probably. But Switzerland and Austria together are still not particularly big. And any other potential country that could group with them would be further east. I don't think that this could work.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Keeping in mind this is all just thinking out loud here...


flierfy said:


> If you seriously consider cross-border leagues then you cannot rule out categorically that no-one joins one the big leagues.


In terms of European law, no, but from UEFA and FIFA's standpoints I don't see why not. 

The intent of any such measure is to help bridge the financial gap between smaller nations and larger ones, otherwise the vast majority of professional leagues will be on the fringe of professionalism due to weak finances while the likes of La Liga and Bundesliga become larger and larger global enterprises. Independently the leagues of Norway, Sweden and Denmark will ever be humble ventures with only a handful of teams (if that) capable of making good money, developing strong talent and competing in Europe. As a joint Scandanavian League, though, with increased cross-over marketing potential and a deeper talent pool within the top tier they might prove more profitable and generate a few really solid clubs, a la the Netherlands.

Failure to craft the rules so that you're only letting weaker nations explore these options and you risk an exacerbation of the existing caste structure. Portugal joins up with Spain, Scotland with England, France with Belgium+Netherlands... In the end why bother with anything below the top 5 leagues?


> Forming sensible leagues with sensible travel distances makes it necessary to allow Portugal to join Spain. Otherwise their geographic isolation would leave them on their own which would disadvantage them even more.
> 
> And what would you do with Switzerland? They are almost entirely enclosed by big countries. Who should they join?


a) I don't think the travel would be that egregious if done right. Teams in the US routinely travel across 4 time zones.
b) This is where maybe the idea isn't joint leagues but some regionalized tournaments that gives these nations another opportunity to make more revenue. Perhaps Scotland and Portugal form an interleague competition for all their teams not involved in UEFA events? Maybe mini cup tournaments for Baltic Nations, Central Europe, Black Sea Nations, etc.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

flierfy said:


> Hockey, however, is an even smaller sport. It is barely participated and gets attention only at Olympic games.


In the USA hockey is ice hockey, not field hockey


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Interesting discussion.

Romania is an absolutely mess. After about a decade and a half since clubs were privatized and taken over by crooks, it's almost arrived at the end. There's no more money to be made (player development has disappeared, local authorities have stopped subsidizing), legal ways of avoiding debt payment have been eliminated, public interest is at historic lows. So the majority of historic clubs now consists of clubs that have disappeared, bankrupted, been relegated, and those left struggle to attract spectators. 

From the most important leagues in Europe, Serie A is the one that resembles somewhat Romanian football in terms of clubs and cities. Here's how Serie A would look like if it were like Romania right now:

Juventus doing well (Steaua)
Milan narrowly missing insolvency and administration, new owner comes in but is very cheap (Dinamo) 
Inter are insolvent, have entered administration and are relegated to 2nd division, potentially relegated to 4th division (Rapid)
Roma have ceased to exist (Poli Timisoara)
Napoli have ceased to exist (U Craiova)
Lazio are insolvent, in administration and relegated to second division (U Cluj)
Fiorentina are relegated for corruption, have never recovered since (FC Arges Pitesti)
Genoa have had a couple of years in the first division when a guy took them, but since he left it's back to second division mediocrity (UTA Arad)
Verona are having a good time and have ended on #2, just after Juventus! :lol: (Petrolul Ploiesti)
Palermo have been in second division mediocrity for a long time now (Farul Constanta) 
Bologna are a yo-yo club, now in second division (Iasi)
etc.

Out of the all time top 25 of Romanian football, only 7 will be in the first division next season. The clubs I listed as having major problems (relegation, administration, dissolution) represent cities number #2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12 and 13 in terms of population size. #1 is also very affected but keeps its best club at the top. In the first 19 cities (meaning above 100k in population), the only cities to be represented in the first division next season with their main clubs are #1 (Bucharest), 7, 8, 9 and 19 (Galati, Brasov, Ploiesti and Botosani). Instead, a couple of the larger cities (Cluj and Constanta) will be represented by new clubs, without much of a support. The rest will be made up by town clubs. No wonder the attendances are what they are.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Romania's _potential_, however, is quite big. Same for Poland and Ukraine. For Russia it's not a thing of potential anymore, we know they'll grow a lot. IMO any league that has the potential to draw crowds averaging over at least 10k in an average season would be sustainable, if the potential can be reached to a satisfying extent. Where I can see a threshold hard to jump over is the Balkans. I'm in favour of a ex-Yug league, especially as there's also the social and cultural connection between those countries and those clubs (in both the good sense and the bad one). Yugoslavia would be today a country of over 22M people. All those clubs getting back together would make up a much more interesting league and would boost the attendances of all of them. The competition would become more marketable, everyone would earn more revenue... 
I am also in favour of a Balkan cup involving clubs from Turkey, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria and Albania besides the ex-Yug ones. It could start smaller with, say, 8 clubs, to test the potential: Red Star Belgrade, Dinamo Zagreb, Steaua, Galatasaray, Olympiacos, CSKA Sofia, NK Maribor, maybe a club from Hungary too. They would play home & away, and the format would be two group of four, semis then the final. If the competition works, it would change from participation by invitation to qualification according to the position in the domestic league. As the vast majority of South-Eastern clubs don't live long in the CL and the EL, the competition could be played sometime in the spring. Or the pilot edition(s) could be first played in start of July, before the season starts. 
I don't think Russia needs the Soviet championship back, even if it was admittedly awesome. But a Cup for the top clubs of the former Soviet Union would be great, I think, and it could be conceived like the Balkan Cup I detailed above.


----------



## isaidso

Rev Stickleback said:


> In the USA hockey is ice hockey, not field hockey


Same in Canada.


----------



## Guest

mamangvilla said:


> Do you have link or something about this? I live in ASEAN and I never even heard about this. We do have a regional competition, but its for national team which is the AFF Cup.
> 
> A merge league in SEA would be interesting, but I'm not sure if its even viable as many of the countries already have a well established league.


Heres the link: http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-arti...ril/sportstalk_April18.xml&section=sportstalk

There are many links actually, just search ASEAN Super League 2015. 



flierfy said:


> You have a rather false picture of sport in Europe.
> 
> Handball is no regional sport. It is one the most popular in fact. It could be even the second most popular one in Europe as is played virtually everywhere bar the British Isle.
> 
> Rugby Union on the other hand is pretty regional. Outside the British Isles and Southwestern France it is almost unknown. And even in Britain there is the small matter that Rugby League has the upper hand over Rugby Union in the North of England.
> You mustn't be misled by some stunning crowds at Rugby internationals. Beside its showcases events Rugby Union is a rather small sport even in its heartland.
> 
> Hockey, however, is an even smaller sport. It is barely participated and gets attention only at Olympic games.


Hockey is very big in Scandinavia, Russia, Germany, Switzerland, Czech Rep, Sloakia, Slovenia, and a few others I cant think of off the top of my head. I may not be from Europe but to say it doesnt get attention is odd. It gets a lot of attention from what Ive seen. I am talking about ice hockey, just to clear up any confusion. 



Rascar said:


> These are the average crowds for the three largest domestic rugby competitions, how does handball compare?:
> 
> Top 14 (France): 14,024
> Aviva Prem (England): 12,480
> Celtic/Italian Pro 12: 8,199
> 
> (Heineken Cup (cross border):14,837)
> 
> And this middle tier between internationals and grass roots is a category where Rugby Union is not particularly strong.


Maybe flierfy has an impression that if its not as big as soccer it doesnt count. From everything Ive seen rugby is second only to soccer in France and the UK, which are the games "heartlands." Thats nothing to sniff at. 

My point wasnt to insult any one sport. But handball seems just as regional as rugby. And I truly do believe rugby has the better growth prospects.


----------



## flierfy

Rev Stickleback said:


> In the USA hockey is ice hockey, not field hockey


5portsF4n wrote about Europe though and not the USA.


----------



## Guest

flierfy said:


> 5portsF4n wrote about Europe though and not the USA.


Europe isnt culturally homogenous, unlike the US. 

Heres an example of a Swedish newspaper, where ice hockey is "hockey."

http://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/


----------



## flierfy

5portsF4n said:


> Hockey is very big in Scandinavia, Russia, Germany, Switzerland, Czech Rep, Sloakia, Slovenia, and a few others I cant think of off the top of my head. I may not be from Europe but to say it doesnt get attention is odd. It gets a lot of attention from what Ive seen. I am talking about ice hockey, just to clear up any confusion.


Your assessment of popularity of sports in Europe is not particular precise. Which isn't surprising considering the distance between you and this particular matter.
I can assure you that ice-hockey is not very big in Germany. And I haven't seen any proof that Rugby is really the no 2 sport in France.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Downright comparing arena sports such as handball or hockey with stadium sports such as football and rugby in terms of attendance is IMO of not much use, as handball or hockey are sports with an optimal experience when the crowds are much smaller. That's mainly because the ball / puck is small and travels very fast, making it hard to follow from a distance. The surface is also quite small. For example, watching handball in one of the higher row of a large arena such as Paris-Bercy (about 14k capacity in handball configuration) is in terms of visibility and enjoyment exactly the same as being in the top tier of the Stade de France for a football match. I've been to both these venues so I'm fairly certain on my comparison. I've never been to a hockey match though so I don't have first hand knowledge on it. Wikipedia contradicts itself but it looks to me as the best average attendance in domestic hockey is of about 17k (the NHL of course), which is a bit more than I would have expected but still obviously on another level compared to stadium sports. Basketball is at about the same (with 17k in NBA), but in basketball the ball is very large and it remains very visible throughout the match. 
In countries where handball is very popular you'll see large crowds only in the large cities with large sports arenas (usually the capital city of the more affluent of these countries) and big clubs with strong fan culture, for important matches when being there and supporting the club is more important than the actual game experience. That's why, for example, a basketball, handball or polo match between Panathinaikos and Olympiakos is not really representative for the sport in what attendances are concerned. Normally the importance of the sport is relying also on participation and TV figures, and not just match attendances which are never going to be very high.
In this sense I agree that rugby has a lot of potential. There are countries where there's good rugby but the lack of infrastructure, coverage and interesting competitions keep it very much underdeveloped (Romania, Georgia, Russia, Portugal etc.) In rugby's homes (British isles and France) there's also a lot of potential. I've never really understood why in club rugby many home matches aren't really home matches, and that always seemed to me to keep the potential down. In Western Europe pay tv is also keeping the potential down for some sports. For example, if you've already got one subscription for a chain that has your domestic football and another one that has Champions League football, you're not going to pay for a third subscription for some interesting secondary sports. And if the main sports chain to which you're subscribed does have hockey, domestic handball or the basketball Euroleague, they're going to be down in the packing order and will not be aired much. You're going to see an important match once in a while, and rather delayed instead of live. For example, if you have a regular basic TV package in France, like I have, you're not getting any handball or basketball in it. The main chain, Canal+, will show the championship final match for them, that's it. If you subscribe to their extra package, you get another sports channel. One! That's it, despite them being the main sports broadcaster in France. They're going to show one domestic handball match per week and two basketball matches. It doesn't say if live or delayed. If you're a rugby fan, then you're lucky, there's an extra extra channel dedicated to rugby only (like for football, too). If you like cycling but want something else other than Tour de France, you'll need to subscribe to Eurosport. Etc.


----------



## flierfy

5portsF4n said:


> Europe isnt culturally homogenous, unlike the US.
> 
> Heres an example of a Swedish newspaper, where ice hockey is "hockey."
> 
> http://www.aftonbladet.se/sportbladet/


Neither are the USA culturally homogeneous.

Aftonbladet is not a newspaper but an embarrassment to the entire Swedish nation.


----------



## Guest

flierfy said:


> Handball Bundesliga (Germany): 4'555 (2011-12)





flierfy said:


> Your assessment of popularity of sports in Europe is not particular precise. Which isn't surprising considering the distance between you and this particular matter.
> I can assure you that ice-hockey is not very big in Germany. And I haven't seen any proof that Rugby is really the no 2 sport in France.


German Handball average: 4,555, aggregate 1,389,389
German hockey attendance: 6,172 aggregate 2,246,716

The all conquering handball, according to you, performs worse than hockey in Germany. 

I dont have to be in Europe to do 5 minutes of research. 

Regarding France, what proof are you looking for? That its the 2nd highest average after soccer? Second highest aggregate attendance after soccer? That its national team plays to 80,000 sellouts every home game? That millions watch it on TV? That its media rights are worth hundreds of millions of dollars? That newspapers like LEquipe regularly feature it on their front page? What evidence would you like to see because Ill provide it for you, its just that I thought it was so obvious that it was very popular in France that it didnt really need statistics to back it up?


----------



## alexandru.mircea

flierfy said:


> And I haven't seen any proof that Rugby is really the no 2 sport in France.


This is common knowledge, though. It is stated on several wikipedia pages for example. It is second in terms of attendances (you'll find it hard to find any regular league competition to come close to Top 14's 14k average, in comparison basketball is bellow 4k), in terms of TV audiences (only sport to have an entry in France's all time top 10 most watched sports event, besides football; or another example, in 2010 the Heineken Cup final drew more TV viewers than the Champions League final, etc), and in terms of TV rights revenue (Top 14 earns 30 million / year, handball earns 2 million and basketball 4). An average club budget in basketball is about 5 million / year, while in Top 14 it's around 15 million / year. Interestingly, rugby is actually first in terms of public image according to this survey - 62% French people "prefer" rugby to football and 91% have a better image of rugby than of football. It is said that if Southern France was a country (Occitania), rugby would be head to head with football, possibly even surpassing football). The only criterium where rugby is not second is participation even if 400k registered players is very impressive. Getting into tennis, swimming or badminton is a completely different engagement to practicing rugby.


----------



## Guest

alexandru.mircea said:


> . I've never been to a hockey match though so I don't have first hand knowledge on it. Wikipedia contradicts itself but it looks to me as the best average attendance in domestic hockey is of about 17k (the NHL of course), which is a bit more than I would have expected but still obviously on another level compared to stadium sports. Basketball is at about the same (with 17k in NBA), but in basketball the ball is very large and it remains very visible throughout the match.


Both NBA and NHL play at over 90% capacity. Those average attendances are pretty close to maxing out capacity available. and actually hockey performs marginally better than basketball, even with smaller capacities at some arenas. 

To put it in perspective, the next best basketball and hockey leagues average almost 10,000 less.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

flierfy said:


> 5portsF4n wrote about Europe though and not the USA.


Yes, but whether you grasped the detail or not, he was clearly talking about ice hockey, so his point stands.


Of course much of the nationwide coverage of the big 4 US sports is a _relatively_ recent thing. There were no pro baseball teams in the west of the country until the 1950s. Same for the NBA. The NHL only had six teams until 1967, with none in the south or west.

One advantage the USA had in that respect, with regards to growing sports, is that unlike Europe, it's a single country, with nominally a common culture, language and media. Many in Spain, for example, will have never seen a rugby match in their lives, not even on tv, just as people in Germany won't have watched Gaelic football or cricket. 

With wall to wall sports channels to fill, that might change now, but it's not as if you can turn the tv on in Austria and watch the rugby highlights ITV show in the UK.


----------



## flierfy

5portsF4n said:


> German Handball average: 4,555, aggregate 1,389,389
> German hockey attendance: 6,172 aggregate 2,246,716
> 
> The all conquering handball, according to you, performs worse than hockey in Germany.


It may perform worse in one category but is ahead in others. Handball has way better viewing figures on television. It is played in schools and has quite likely more active members in clubs.



5portsF4n said:


> Regarding France, what proof are you looking for? That its the 2nd highest average after soccer? Second highest aggregate attendance after soccer? That its national team plays to 80,000 sellouts every home game? That millions watch it on TV? That its media rights are worth hundreds of millions of dollars? That newspapers like LEquipe regularly feature it on their front page?


Cycling attracts huge crowds on race-day, it is also watched by millions on TV and similar sums are paid for broadcasting rights. L'Equipe covers it on its front page too as there is vastly more than just Rugby and football.



5portsF4n said:


> What evidence would you like to see because Ill provide it for you, its just that I thought it was so obvious that it was very popular in France that it didnt really need statistics to back it up?


Well, then research the number of active players for once.



alexandru.mircea said:


> This is common knowledge, though. It is stated on several wikipedia pages for example. It is second in terms of attendances (you'll find it hard to find any regular league competition to come close to Top 14's 14k average, in comparison basketball is bellow 4k), in terms of TV audiences (only sport to have an entry in France's all time top 10 most watched sports event, besides football; or another example, in 2010 the Heineken Cup final drew more TV viewers than the Champions League final, etc), and in terms of TV rights revenue (Top 14 earns 30 million / year, handball earns 2 million and basketball 4). An average club budget in basketball is about 5 million / year, while in Top 14 it's around 15 million / year. Interestingly, rugby is actually first in terms of public image according to this survey - 62% French people "prefer" rugby to football and 91% have a better image of rugby than of football. It is said that if Southern France was a country (Occitania), rugby would be head to head with football, possibly even surpassing football). The only criterium where rugby is not second is participation even if 400k registered players is very impressive. Getting into tennis, swimming or badminton is a completely different engagement to practicing rugby.


The south-west is the least densely populated part of France though. And what does it tell us about the popularity of Rugby in the remaining parts of France when Rugby might even be the number one sport in the south-west? In France there are still as many people actively involved in handball or basketball as in rugby. Which is exactly the reason why I doubt that rugby is the clear-cut number two sport in France. Let alone the popularity of cycling there which is harder to compare to these ball-sports.


----------



## Rascar

You are right that you can use a myriad amount of statistics to prove a sports popularity- and for rugby participation is a poor one, given that it is a very physical, draining sport needing a high degree of organisation, that a lot of players give up by the age of 18, if not earlier, and most of the rest give up before middle age.(to a greater extent than football for example). For example I played football and tennis for far longer than rugby, it doesn't stop me being more of a fan of the latter.

Using the participation argument soccer is more popular than American football in the US, which is clearly wrong.

With regard to France it is a little unfair to just call it a SW thing, more the whole of the south, and to an extent Paris. Rugbys 2nd division averages similar to handball and basketball, which tells you something.

Sorry to come across as a rugby fanboy, I'm perfectly willing to admit it's not Europe's second team sport, but I think basketball beats it, not handball.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

flierfy said:


> The south-west is the least densely populated part of France though. And what does it tell us about the popularity of Rugby in the remaining parts of France when Rugby might even be the number one sport in the south-west? In France there are still as many people actively involved in handball or basketball as in rugby. Which is exactly the reason why I doubt that rugby is the clear-cut number two sport in France. Let alone the popularity of cycling there which is harder to compare to these ball-sports.


Yeah, the South-West is a small area of minor importance, but I wasn't talking about the South-West, I was talking about the whole South, which is huge; 16 million people, almost a third of the total population. This is it, with all the first division rugby clubs between 2008 and 2013 on its map:










As you can see, all the top French rugby clubs are in the South with the exception of the two Parisian clubs and the clubs in the Lyon area, which however are yo-yo clubs, they haven't spent much time in the Top 4 in that period. 

Comparatively, here's a map showing the locations of football, basketball, handball and volleyball clubs alongside the rugby clubs:










As you can see, football, basketball, handball and volleyball are very different in that they are evenly spread around the country, unlike rugby which is concentrated in the South. So they are not competing with rugby in the South. Only football competes with rugby in the South because while there are less top football clubs, football is the most popular sport nationally and the top Southern clubs are really big clubs (OM, Nice, Bordeaux especially). So it's true that in the whole South rugby more or less on the same level with football (without hard data though I would not go as far as to say it's the first sport, there). 

Further on it's true, like you say, that rugby's figures falter very much in the rest of the country, up to the point that it doesn't compete with football. But basketball and handball are still far away, in terms of attendances, TV figures, coverage, revenues. In the end, French rugby draws an average per match of over 17k for the first two divisions combined, compared to the over 10k of male basketball first and second divison, female basketball, male handball, male and female volleyball _combined_ (data from here, in the meantime they have grown for all sports but keeping the ratio). And a total of 3.46M spectators for rugby compared to somewhere over 2M for the other sports combined. I think that speaks for itself.
In terms of registered players it's very close: 432k rugby, 441k handball, 461k basketball. Which is excellent for rugby, as it is a tough sport indeed. 

All this said, however, I do agree that shown in relation to the population of the whole continent rugby's total attendance numbers are not that dominant like in the British isles and France and that's it's very possible that continentally basketball matches rugby or even surpasses it. Dunno about handball.


----------



## GunnerJacket

5portsF4n said:


> I'm talking about Tijuana's LigaMX team, the Xolos. Amazingly enough the Xolos have their own section on a prominent San Diego news site which goes to show that even with an MLS team, Latinos in the city may gravitate towards the Xolos. Sure there are limits to how popular a team from Tijuana can become in San Diego, but as long as they're on the border (and they've hosted games in San Diego I should add), it doesn't seem urgent to fill the San Diego void.


Fair enough, but Xolo's games aren't as easy to attend as would a local MLS side, plus the marketing and sponsors are wholly different and if anything we're trying to woo more fans to MLS and US soccer, not cede territory to Liga MX.

And while PHX could certainly work I'd suspect an LA-SD rivalry would be stronger from a local perspective, as would SJ-SD vs SJ-PHX. 

Either way it appears everyone outside the offices of MLS and Chivas are in agreement that the current model sucks! :cheers:


----------



## ObiUbamba

California has plenty of teams, the MLS must give a team to southeastern USA. 4 teams in California and none in Florida is just ridiculous. hno:


----------



## GunnerJacket

ObiUbamba said:


> California has plenty of teams, the MLS must give a team to southeastern USA. 4 teams in California and none in Florida is just ridiculous. hno:


Cal has three teams and we're talking about relocating one of them. MLS will get to the southeast when the elements are in place to ensure success, no sooner and rightfully so. (And I say that as someone living in metro ATL) They'll likely do it in pairs to ensure local rivals and to keep the league memberhsip balanced, but they also won't do anything that simply dilutes to the quality of the product.

MLS' success of late has come from following this cautious formula, so no need to rush it now. Especially with the league at a scheduling tipping point via 20 teams. They'll get NYCFC settled, address Chivas and help the stadium fights in DC and NE, while considering expansion options behind closed doors. I suspect once they have the new TV contracts resolved heading into 2015(16?), they'll use that time to work with their broadcast partners to gauge the potential candidates and their value to the league. Then we'll know from garber how highly they'll rate the urgency and the potential.


----------



## Otto Racecar

ObiUbamba said:


> California has plenty of teams, the MLS must give a team to southeastern USA. 4 teams in California and none in Florida is just ridiculous. hno:


Although I have no issue with orlando and or miami getting a mls team and definitely feel the southeast needs better representation, I think its important to point out that if miami and tampa had gotten their act together originally this would not be an issue.


----------



## miguelon

GunnerJacket said:


> Fair enough, but Xolo's games aren't as easy to attend as would a local MLS side, plus the marketing and sponsors are wholly different and if anything we're trying to woo more fans to MLS and US soccer, not cede territory to Liga MX.
> 
> And while PHX could certainly work I'd suspect an LA-SD rivalry would be stronger from a local perspective, as would SJ-SD vs SJ-PHX.
> 
> Either way it appears everyone outside the offices of MLS and Chivas are in agreement that the current model sucks! :cheers:


For a San Diego team to succeed, they need the latino fan base, and Im afraid that its a little to late for them. 
Tijuana Xolos, has invested a lot of money on their southern California operations, already have 2 soccer kids training programs in San Diego, they have a 1 San Diego born in the starting lineup. Also there is a official merchandise store in southern San Diego.

Most latin (and non latin) san diegans see Xolos as their own home team, and make a pretty good excuse to drink 3 dollar beers at the stadium (only a dream at SoCal stadiums)


8 years ago, would have made more sense, I don't think so any more.

Happens also the other way around, Tijuana baseball and football fans see the Padres and Chargers as their own home team.


----------



## alwn

www.sercan.de said:


> Turkey:
> 
> Galatasaray 43.262 (82%)
> Fenerbahçe 42.585 (84%)
> Beşiktaş 23.437 (73%)
> Bursa 15.621 (61%)
> Kayseri 14.529 (44%)
> Trabzon 14.412 (60%)
> Eskişehir 11.894 (88%)
> Elazığ 11.888 (85%)
> Ordu 8.931 (81%)
> Sivas 8.553 (57%)
> Gençlerbirliği 8.541 (44%)
> Akhisar 8.469 (51%)
> Gaziantep 7.831 (46%)
> Kasımpaşa 7.407 (51%)
> Mersin 5.860 (58%)
> Antalya 4.458 (56%)
> Karabük 4.347 (58%)
> IBB 3.989 (5%)
> 
> League average: 13.667 (60%)


Not bad.. Kasimpasa is growing fast :lol:


----------



## isaidso

bd popeye said:


> With a large Latino population I feel an MLS team in San Diego could average 17-20,000 a game.


Is it correct that in the United States, interest in soccer is strongly correlated with how big your latin American population is? In Canada, it has no bearing whatsoever.


----------



## GunnerJacket

isaidso said:


> Is it correct that in the United States, interest in soccer is strongly correlated with how big your latin American population is? In Canada, it has no bearing whatsoever.


Only in some markets. There are some metro areas where the Latino population defines a large part of the culture and a strong majority of the soccer culture. In some cases the non-Latino populace might then respond in a passive-aggressive manner, turning a blind eye to Latino or world cultures. Not out of racism as much as a fight to preserve their own customs. 

San Diego (and other cities like El Paso) are such special cases because they're border cities with distinctly Latino-tinged economies.


----------



## Guest

isaidso said:


> Is it correct that in the United States, interest in soccer is strongly correlated with how big your latin American population is? In Canada, it has no bearing whatsoever.


How does that logic make sense in Seattle, Portland or Kansas City for instance? And what is Toronto without first or second generation European immigrants?

Cant be selective about these things. Latinos are important to the future of soccer in America but even then we still face a large percentage of soccer loving Latinos who are completely apathetic to MLS. 



ObiUbamba said:


> California has plenty of teams, the MLS must give a team to southeastern USA. 4 teams in California and none in Florida is just ridiculous. hno:


South east will get a team. Orlando or Miami and Atlanta could fill the south east region adequately.


----------



## www.sercan.de

alwn said:


> Not bad.. Kasimpasa is growing fast :lol:


Erdogans was born in Kasimpasa


----------



## isaidso

5portsF4n said:


> How does that logic make sense in Seattle, Portland or Kansas City for instance?
> 
> Cant be selective about these things.


It was actually you who suggested the correlation, so I was asking whether that was a widely perceived truth. When making the case for SLC over Edmonton you said this:



5portsF4n said:


> - Salt Lake is 25% Hispanic/Latino and growing; Edmonton 1.2%.






5portsF4n said:


> And what is Toronto without first or second generation European immigrants?


I'm not sure why you're being so defensive, I'm simply asking a question regarding the latin American population in the United States. hno:


----------



## isaidso

GunnerJacket said:


> Only in some markets. There are some metro areas where the Latino population defines a large part of the culture and a strong majority of the soccer culture. In some cases the non-Latino populace might then respond in a passive-aggressive manner, turning a blind eye to Latino or world cultures. Not out of racism as much as a fight to preserve their own customs.
> 
> San Diego (and other cities like El Paso) are such special cases because they're border cities with distinctly Latino-tinged economies.


Thank you for your answer. It was very informative.


----------



## redbaron_012

Well seeing you asked about all football codes. We often get between 80,000 to 90,000 at home and away rounds of AFL...Then the finals closer to 100,000... We like football : ) Aussie Rules that is.


----------



## Ribarca

www.sercan.de said:


> 2012-2013 UEFA clubs
> http://www.stadionwelt.de/sw_stadien/index.php?folder=sites&site=top30
> 
> 1.Borussia Dortmund	80.482
> 2.Manchester United 75.530
> 3.FC Barcelona	71.350
> 4.Bayern München	71.000
> 5.Real Madrid 68.876
> 6.Schalke 04	61.171
> 7.Arsenal FC	60.079
> 8.Hamburger SV	52.916
> 9.Newcastle United 50.517
> 10.Ajax 50.490


These numbers seemed to be based on different methodologies. For Ajax they count the tickets sold and not the actual people attending. If Barcelona for example would do the same thing and count in all season ticket holders the number would be close to capacity as well.


----------



## Guest

isaidso said:


> I'm not sure why you're being so defensive, I'm simply asking a question regarding the latin American population in the United States. hno:


Sorry, but to me your question came across as another veiled "Canada has better support than US" comment. 

Having a large Latino community _can _ help, as is the case with Salt Lake, but its hardly the reason successful franchises are successful. As I said, looking towards Latinos to build support is no different to looking towards European immigrants in Toronto. 



> Is it correct that in the United States,* interest in soccer is strongly correlated with how big your latin American population is? In Canada, it has no bearing whatsoever.*


Latin American population in Canada 2011: *381,280*
Latin American population in USA 2010: *50,477,594*

Maybe it has no bearing in Canada because Canada has basically no Latinos. How can it have a bearing when there are so few of them? If there were millions of Latinos in Canada concentrated in cities - say Edmonton - then market assessments would, like the US markets, take that into account. Most franchises that have come in since the mid 2000s have placed less importance on Latino support (Seattle, Portland, Philadelphia, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver).


----------



## www.sercan.de

Ribarca said:


> These numbers seemed to be based on different methodologies. For Ajax they count the tickets sold and not the actual people attending. If Barcelona for example would do the same thing and count in all season ticket holders the number would be close to capacity as well.


Yes. I think some EPL teams (ManU, Arsenal) have the same "Ajax" system.

And maybe also the german teams.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Historically it is up to the leagues to set a standard for reporting attendance as either tickets sold or butts in the seats, and that standard would be based on whatever system the local authorities would require for various safety management laws. In the US the norm is typically tickets sold, because for accounting purposes that's more important in monitoring the health of the business. Some nations might want more hard counts of attendees, however, so they can properly plan and budget for traffic, safety, utility demand, etc.

But the latter case, while easily possible via technology, is also not as critical these days. I would imagine most clubs and leagues report tickets sold, since that remains a hard and true number and it's not the club's fault if someone can't/won't show up for a game. And rare is the case where the difference between that count and the actual attendance is some vast number warranting concern.

OMO, anyway.


----------



## Kerrybai

GunnerJacket said:


> Historically it is up to the leagues to set a standard for reporting attendance as either tickets sold or butts in the seats, and that standard would be based on whatever system the local authorities would require for various safety management laws. In the US the norm is typically tickets sold, because for accounting purposes that's more important in monitoring the health of the business. Some nations might want more hard counts of attendees, however, so they can properly plan and budget for traffic, safety, utility demand, etc.
> 
> But the latter case, while easily possible via technology, is also not as critical these days. I would imagine most clubs and leagues report tickets sold, since that remains a hard and true number and it's not the club's fault if someone can't/won't show up for a game. And rare is the case where the difference between that count and the actual attendance is some vast number warranting concern.
> 
> OMO, anyway.


Actually I believe the difference is quite large in Spain where many season ticket holders are selective of the games they attend.


----------



## mamangvilla

^^
What a waste! Paid for tickets but not using it, sounds rather illogical for me.

Unless the season ticket can be shared so when the holders can't attend, someone else can use the ticket.


----------



## bd popeye

GunnerJacket said:


> Historically it is up to the leagues to set a standard for reporting attendance as either tickets sold or butts in the seats, and that standard would be based on whatever system the local authorities would require for various safety management laws. In the US the norm is typically tickets sold, because for accounting purposes that's more important in monitoring the health of the business. .


Correct.^^



mamangvilla said:


> ^^
> What a waste! Paid for tickets but not using it, sounds rather illogical for me.
> 
> Unless the season ticket can be shared so when the holders can't attend, someone else can use the ticket.


In the National Football league in the US sold tickets are still counted as actual attendance. The unused sold tickets are refered to as "no-shows".


----------



## Rascar

mamangvilla said:


> ^^
> What a waste! Paid for tickets but not using it, sounds rather illogical for me.
> 
> Unless the season ticket can be shared so when the holders can't attend, someone else can use the ticket.


It is not that illogical, if a team is trying to attract supporters by offering season ticket holders every game for half price ( equivalent to the cost if they bought all tickets individually) then season ticket holders could miss 1/3 of the games and still be making financial sense.


----------



## Kerrybai

mamangvilla said:


> ^^
> What a waste! Paid for tickets but not using it, sounds rather illogical for me.
> 
> Unless the season ticket can be shared so when the holders can't attend, someone else can use the ticket.


A season ticket at FC Barcelona can be bought for as low as 200 euro. That allows an individual to attend 19 games.

The cheapest matchday ticket could be had for about 20 euro, however if you wanted to attend a game against Real Madrid you would pay much more, the same could be said for other 'big' games such as Espanyol, AM etc.

So basically it can make more economic sense to buy a season ticket even if you are not going to attend.

BTW unused tickets can be resold through the club's website.


----------



## bd popeye

MLS Attendance 2013 | ESPN

Game average is now 17,508.


----------



## Guest

ESPN lists MLS All Stars and Roma in their MLS attendance rankings? Interesting mix-up. Attendance recovering a bit now. Heres hoping it stays above the 17.5k figure.

*Canadian Football 2013 Preseason*



> Wed Jun 12 *Toronto	24 Winnipeg	6* 8:00 pm	Highlights	View Stats	Game Recap	*28,642* Game Tracker
> Thu Jun 13 *Hamilton	33 Montreal	26* 7:00 pm	Highlights	View Stats	Game Recap	*20,514* Game Tracker
> Fri Jun 14 *Saskatchewan	31 Edmonton	24* 9:00 pm	Highlights	View Stats	Game Recap	*26,623* Game Tracker


Great numbers.


----------



## Leedsrule

Can someone post the average attendances and percentages from the chinese league?


----------



## Guest

*Chinese Super League*

Pos	Team	Total	Average	Change
1	Guangzhou Evergrande	274,479	*39,211* +5.2%
2	Beijing Guoan	259,850	*37,121* +0.6%
3	Jiangsu Guoxin Sainty	192,529	*27,504* −11.7%
4	Shandong Luneng Taishan	162,621	*23,232* +15.3%
5	Wuhan Zall	120,865	*20,144* +200.6%†
6	Liaoning Whowin	98,999	*19,800* +6.2%
7	Shanghai Shenhua	97,749	*16,292* +10.3%
8	Guizhou Moutai	97,230	*16,205* −45.2%
9	Hangzhou Greentown	89,673	*14,946* +41.4%
10	Dalian Aerbin	76,709	*12,785* −18.9%
11	Changchun Yatai	60,820	*10,137* −20.1%
12	Tianjin Teda	59,859	*11,972* −15.5%
13	Guangzhou R&F	59,846	*9,974* +17.8%
14	Shanghai Shenxin	47,590	*9,518* −17.9%
15	Qingdao Jonoon	47,527	*7,921* −16.9%
16	Shanghai SIPG	31,518	*7,880* +153.1%†
League total	1,777,864	*18,714* −0.1%

No capacity percentages sorry, but they wouldnt be very high for most teams.


----------



## eMKay

^^^ Those are pretty impressive numbers ^^^


----------



## Guest

eMKay said:


> ^^^ Those are pretty impressive numbers ^^^


They're good but considering soccer is the biggest spectator sport in China (and one of only two major team sports along with basketball), its not unrealistic that the figures could be a lot higher, especially given how big their stadiums are. On the other hand most stadiums have a running track and could be considered oversized. 

Smaller rectangular stadiums (20-40,000 range) would be ideal for the CSL to forge ahead.


----------



## stoutekont

bd popeye said:


> MLS Attendance 2013 | ESPN
> 
> Game average is now 17,508.


Move Chivas USA to Orlando and then you can add two more clubs with an average attendance above 20,000: Orlando City SC and New York City FC.




5portsF4n said:


> They're good but considering soccer is the biggest spectator sport in China (and one of only two major team sports along with basketball), its not unrealistic that the figures could be a lot higher, especially given how big their stadiums are. On the other hand most stadiums have a running track and could be considered oversized.
> 
> Smaller rectangular stadiums (20-40,000 range) would be ideal for the CSL to forge ahead.


The problem is: Most Chinese people are very poor, they don't have a lot of time and money for soccer.


----------



## eMKay

5portsF4n said:


> They're good but considering soccer is the biggest spectator sport in China (and one of only two major team sports along with basketball), its not unrealistic that the figures could be a lot higher, especially given how big their stadiums are. On the other hand most stadiums have a running track and could be considered oversized.
> 
> Smaller rectangular stadiums (20-40,000 range) would be ideal for the CSL to forge ahead.


Most people I have met from China (a pretty large amount) have little interest in spectator sports, so for a country that doesn't follow sports, it's pretty impressive!


----------



## Guest

eMKay said:


> Most people I have met from China (a pretty large amount) have little interest in spectator sports, *so for a country that doesn't follow sports*, it's pretty impressive!


That's a gross and unfair generalization. 

Here's just one example

http://www.goal.com/en/news/14/asia...ampions-league-tv-audience-viewing-numbers-up



> China has contributed a total of 105 million viewers throughout the 2012 ACL [read: Asian Champions League] so far despite only three clubs competing, which is already 47 million ahead of the cumulative amount for the whole of the 2011 edition where only Tianjin Teda reached the final 16.
> 
> Guangzhou Evergrande's popularity in China is highlighted by the fact the top five most-watched games in the Middle Kingdom have involved them.
> 
> The Chinese champions Round of 16 clash with FC Tokyo was the most watched game, with a total audience close to 59 million, while on average 13.5 million tuned in in China.


And that doesn't even take into account their fanatical following of European soccer and the NBA.


----------



## GunnerJacket

stoutekont said:


> Move Chivas USA to Orlando and then you can add two more clubs with an average attendance above 20,000: Orlando City SC and New York City FC.


Methinks too many people are making very bold assumptions about Orlando. Yes, they've done well to date but color me suspiscious that they'll immediately surpass the likes of Philly or Toronto in terms of gameday support. I may be proven wrong, but for now I'm not sold they're THAT solid.


----------



## bd popeye

*MLS Attendance 2013 | ESPN*

Average attendance holding steady at 17,254 a match.


----------



## Guest

GunnerJacket said:


> Methinks too many people are making very bold assumptions about Orlando. Yes, they've done well to date but color me suspiscious that they'll immediately surpass the likes of Philly or Toronto in terms of gameday support. I may be proven wrong, but for now I'm not sold they're THAT solid.


They'll surpass it for a few years, as every new franchise seems to do. Remember that Orlando's attendances are among the highest ever for expansion candidates. Its also one of the cities that only has NBA to compete with, a scenario where MLS has usually benefited from. The hype and novelty will probably wear off after a few years and stabilize in the 16-19k region, which would be good.


----------



## GunnerJacket

5portsF4n said:


> Remember that Orlando's attendances are among the highest ever for expansion candidates. Its also one of the cities that only has NBA to compete with, a scenario where MLS has usually benefited from. The hype and novelty will probably wear off after a few years and stabilize in the 16-19k region, which would be good.


Anything over 16k would be great, but keep in mind all the recent expansion candidates* had a much deeper soccer history than Orlando. So while the Lions have 1.5 years of strong numbers the Cascadian trio and Montreal have years of established soccer support.

But like I said, if they pull it off then good for them.

*=Philly was on and off regarding pro soccer but is a much larger metro with strong soccer presence through local leagues, college and visits from European clubs. The Sons of Ben kept everything alive even when they had no team.


----------



## isaidso

5portsF4n said:


> Sorry, but to me your question came across as another veiled "Canada has better support than US" comment.
> 
> Maybe it has no bearing in Canada because Canada has basically no Latinos. How can it have a bearing when there are so few of them?


So my comment was accurate. It's a factor in the US, but not in Canada. Honestly, if you're going to think people have some petty juvenile agenda every time you read a post it's going to get pointless very quickly.


----------



## isaidso

*Canadian Football League*
*2013 Pre-Season Attendance*











Listed by Home Team

Winnipeg Blue Bombers 28,642
Montreal Alouettes 20,514
Edmonton Eskimos 26,623
Calgary Stampeders 26,328
Toronto Argonauts 6,204 (played at Varsity Stadium, Toronto; capacity 5,000)
Hamilton Tiger-Cats 12,732 (played at Alumni Stadium, Guelph; capacity 15,000)
Saskatchewan Roughriders 32,003
BC Lions 26,733

Total pre-season attendance: 179,779
Average attendance: 22,472


----------



## bd popeye

^^ Great attendance in Canada for games that do not count.."friendly" in Euro-speak.

The NFL pre-season does not start until August the 4th in Canton Ohio.


----------



## isaidso

bd popeye said:


> ^^ Great attendance in Canada for games that do not count.."friendly" in Euro-speak.
> 
> The NFL pre-season does not start until August the 4th in Canton Ohio.


I'm always surprised how many people go to pre-season games. I guess people are just dying for pro football after a 7 month wait. The Toronto and Hamilton games were tempered by small venues in Toronto and Guelph, but there's no denying that football is far more popular in western Canada. 

The regular season kicks off tonight at Winnipeg's new stadium. It sold out a while ago, but I'm hoping they will continue to sell out and be forced to re-configure the stadium at its larger capacity of 40,000. The Bombers are supposedly very weak this year so Investor Group Field will likely remain at 33,422.

Do NFL pre-season games typically kick off in Canton? Would it usually involve a team from Ohio: the Bengals or Browns?


----------



## bd popeye

isaidso said:


> Do NFL pre-season games typically kick off in Canton? Would it usually involve a team from Ohio: the Bengals or Browns?


1) Yes, the Hall of Fame(HOF) game always is the first pre-season game in recent years. It follows that weekends HOF inductions.

2) Nope, The participants vary each year.. this year it's the the Dallas Cowboys and the Miami Dolphins. 

For more info;

*Pro Football Hall of Fame Game*


----------



## isaidso

Thanks. One more question: does each team play just 1 pre-season game? Sell out in Winnipeg: 

*Canadian Football League*
*2013 Season Opener Attendance: 33,500*


----------



## bd popeye

> Thanks. One more question: does each team play just 1 pre-season game?


Nope.. they play four. Why? To generate revenue for the owners. Most season ticket packages require the purchase of pre-season games.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

In which case could it maybe be argued that attendance isn't that impressive, given that season ticket holders have no choice about buying those tickets as well?


----------



## bd popeye

Rev Stickleback said:


> In which case could it maybe be argued that attendance isn't that impressive, given that season ticket holders have no choice about buying those tickets as well?


I've not done it but if you average in the pre-season games the attendance overall will more than likely be over 60,000 a game. Just my guess.

I'll post the pre-season NFL attendance and we shall see.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

It's more the point that attendance isn't being driven by demand if people have no choice about buying those games.

The same thing happens at Manchester United, where commentators praise them for still getting 75000 for one-sided cup games against unattractive opposition, when in reality the terms of their season tickets gives them no option to opt out of such games.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Rev Stickleback said:


> It's more the point that attendance isn't being driven by demand if people have no choice about buying those games.
> 
> The same thing happens at Manchester United, where commentators praise them for still getting 75000 for one-sided cup games against unattractive opposition, when in reality the terms of their season tickets gives them no option to opt out of such games.


Of course they have a choice: Don't come! Or sell those game tickets, or don't buy season tickets, or buy them with someone else and split the games.

The alternative is they could give away the exhibition game tix for free and charge much more for the legitimate games, because that's basically what they're doing. You're not forced to attend, it's simply part of a bundled sale to make the overall deal sound sweeter. "Buy 8 games for $XYZ dollars each and we'll throw in 2 games free!"

Bottom line: If people show up then there is demand for the product.


----------



## isaidso

*Canadian Football League*
*2013 Week #1*










Montreal Alouettes @ Winnipeg Blue Bombers 33,500
Hamilton Tiger-Cats @ Toronto Argonauts 29,852
BC Lions @ Calgary Stampeders 26,625
Saskatchewan Roughriders @ Edmonton Eskimos 35,869

Week #1 attendance: 125,846
Week #1 average attendance: 31,462
Average attendance: 31,462


----------



## Rev Stickleback

GunnerJacket said:


> Bottom line: If people show up then there is demand for the product.


the true bottom line is that if they thought there was strong demand, they wouldn't need to force people to purchase games they might not want in order to purchase a season ticket.

It's like when small football clubs draw a big side in the cup, and make people purchase tickets for one or two other games as well as the cup ticket. The non league team who sees their crowds leap 500% for those other two games does not indicate a large demand for those games, just a large demand for the other game they actually wanted.

It's clever marketing, but unless you can say crowds for those games would be very similar if they hadn't been bundled up with the high demand tickets, it's not indicative of demand for those games.


----------



## bd popeye

*MLS Attendance 2013 | ESPN*

Season average is now 17,710 a game. Excellent!


----------



## Guest

The 50k at Stanford helped the average tremendously this week. 

Also fantastic figures in Canadian football. Great start. 30k+ a real possibility?


----------



## GunnerJacket

Rev Stickleback said:


> the true bottom line is that if they thought there was strong demand, they wouldn't need to force people to purchase games they might not want in order to purchase a season ticket.
> 
> ...
> 
> It's clever marketing, but unless you can say crowds for those games would be very similar if they hadn't been bundled up with the high demand tickets, it's not indicative of demand for those games.


We'll have to agree to disagree. If the pre-season games were sold seperately I've no doubt that they could sell those tix at insanely low prices while literally not dropping the price of the season tickets. They'd find a way to milk it because the correlating demand for regular season football is so high. 



5portsF4n said:


> The 50k at Stanford helped the average tremendously this week.


That's been one of the smartest moves the team has made hosting LA at The Farm. It's raised the team's (and the league's) profile and surely garnered increased support by feeding the appeal of the rivalry. Have they indicated whether or not this will continue after the new stadium is completed? 



> Also fantastic figures in Canadian football. Great start. 30k+ a real possibility?


I think so, even with some venues below that capacity. Much like MLS they've found a good chord with their audience and the stadiums are becoming more finely crafted for the affairs. They're staying true to their consumer base and rarely will that plan fail. 


bd popeye said:


> *MLS Attendance 2013 | ESPN*
> 
> Season average is now 17,710 a game. Excellent!


Would love to see everyone but Chivas surpass the 14k mark for the season. C'mon Fire, United and Revs fans! Work with us, people! 

Verily, I hope the United faithful can hold out because they were once a stalwart group. Feel badly that the team has been such an enigma while the stadium issue continues... to... drag... on...


----------



## bd popeye

GunnerJacket said:


> Verily, I hope the United faithful can hold out because they were once a stalwart group. Feel badly that the team has been such an enigma while the stadium issue continues... to... drag... on...


The United side deserves a new stadium.PERIOD.

However at this point I feel their attendance problems *may* be due to the popularity of the Washington Nationals of MLB. Who have averaged 33,702 fans a games over 38 home games played this season. That's competition for sports /entertainment dollars.


----------



## isaidso

bd popeye said:


> However at this point I feel their attendance problems *may* be due to the popularity of the Washington Nationals of MLB. Who have averaged 33,702 fans a games over 38 home games played this season. That's competition for sports /entertainment dollars.


Surely the Washington area is big enough that it can support multiple teams in large numbers at the same time? It's only when one looks at smaller cities under 2 million people where that starts to be an issue.


----------



## bd popeye

isaidso said:


> Surely the Washington area is big enough that it can support multiple teams in large numbers at the same time? It's only when one looks at smaller cities under 2 million people where that starts to be an issue.


Sure could. But right now the Washington Nationals and soon the Redskins will dominate the sports scene in the DC area..


----------



## BoulderGrad

isaidso said:


> Surely the Washington area is big enough that it can support multiple teams in large numbers at the same time? It's only when one looks at smaller cities under 2 million people where that starts to be an issue.





bd popeye said:


> Sure could. But right now the Washington Nationals and soon the Redskins will dominate the sports scene in the DC area..


DC United's attendance is sucking right now because they've fielded only 1 competitive season in the last 5 years. Doesn't help that RFK is ancient and cavernous for what they could hope to draw, but not as big an excuse as having your stadium 30 miles away from the population center that is to be your support (looking at you Boston). 

DC/Baltimore has plenty of people to support their 7 major sports franchises, they just need to get their act together on a few fronts to make the United successful again.


----------



## bd popeye

MLS Attendance 2013 | _ESPN_


----------



## bd popeye

stoutekont said:


> Who has I-League (India) attendance figures?


I searched and could find no figures.. Why don't you give it a search?


----------



## HoldenV8

The 2013 State of Origin series between Australian states Queensland and New South Wales concluded last night with Qld winning a record 8th straight Origin Series with a hard fought 12-10 win in a game marred by a complete moron streaking onto the field in the final minutes of the game (how this guy even got into the ANZ Stadium is beyond me.....he was already on a life ban from attending any NRL sanctioned game after streaking during the 2011 NRL Semi-Final game between the Wests Tigers and New Zealand Warriors at the Sydney Football Stadium - though I have to say that NSW coach Laurie Daley could have used this clown. He showed a fair bit of toe, pardon the pun as he was only wearing sneakers, in evading the ANZ Stadium security with a 140m dash down the field, and was very elusive. Not bad for someone described by police as being 'rather drunk').

Game 1 - ANZ Stadium (Sydney Olympic Stadium)
Attendance: 80,380 (record for Game 1 of a series)

Game 2 - Suncorp Stadium (Brisbane)
Attendance; 51,560

Game 3 - ANZ Stadium
Attendance: 83,813 (stadium record crowd since its reconfiguration after the 2000 Olympics, breaking the record set only 10 days earlier when 83,704 attended the final Wallabies vs British & Irish Lions rugby union test match).

Total attendance was 215,753 which set an aggregate record for the State of Origin series, breaking the record of 203,309 set in 2004. Average attendance over the 2013 series was 71,918.


----------



## bd popeye

*MLS average attendance this season has jumped up to 18,033 a game.:banana:

MLS Attendance 2013 | ESPN*http://espnfc.com/stats/attendance/_/league/usa.1/major-league-soccer?cc=5901


----------



## alexandru.mircea

How would you see the potential of MLS attendances when relating the figures to the populations of the urban areas that the clubs represent (using a similar ratio to that from the top European clubs)?


----------



## Walbanger

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> Liverpool FC played in front of a sold out MCG the other night, making it the largest crowd they have ever played for (95,446)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/willow222/9359038930/sizes/l/in/photostream/


Just shows how big the MCG is, 95 000 there and still seats available west of the MCC section in the Ponsford end.

Would have to be the largest stadium in the world. Imagine what it would hold if it had bench seating and narrower rows like an American College stadium.



bd popeye said:


> This is the top 30 teams home attendance.


That is truly amazing and awesome. I seriously envy the American College Sport system.


----------



## bd popeye

Walbanger said:


> Just shows how big the MCG is, 95 000 there and still seats available west of the MCC section in the Ponsford end.
> 
> Would have to be the largest stadium in the world. Imagine what it would hold if it had bench seating and narrower rows like an American College stadium.
> 
> That is truly amazing and awesome. I seriously envy the American College Sport system.


The interesting things about college football is during its off season(JAN-Aug) there's little talk or discussion about the sport outside of the areas it is played.. but as soon as September hits..

My favorite college team..


----------



## GunnerJacket

Oh, popeye. You've been such a good participant in these boards and then you had to go and reveal yourself as a Buckeye fan. hno: - 5 lifepoints for you! :tongue2:


I admit it seems a raucus scene and I routinely watch Michigan vs OSU. Such packed cathedrals of the game are part of what makes it so special.


----------



## bd popeye

GunnerJacket said:


> Oh, popeye. You've been such a good participant in these boards and then you had to go and reveal yourself as a Buckeye fan. hno: - 5 lifepoints for you! :tongue2:
> 
> 
> I admit it seems a raucus scene and I routinely watch Michigan vs OSU. Such packed cathedrals of the game are part of what makes it so special.


Yep I'm a Buckeye fan. I grew up in Cincinnati with many trips to New York City sprinkled in.

And there's nothing like the atmosphere at a NCAA FBS DIV-1 football game. Not in the US anyway.


----------



## isaidso

flierfy said:


> That is scarcely believable. The athletics in the same stadium at the same time must have attracted at least the same number of people.


Google is your friend. 



bd popeye said:


> And the stadium only seated 58,000 when the games opened. The stadium was not finished. How 72,000 attended the soccer match I do not know. Temporary seating plus standing room. isaidso more than likely knows more information.


Capacity was reduced to 58,000 after the Olympics. The stadium used to feature a complete bowl, but was later reduced to a 'horseshoe'. The '72,000' statistic is all over the internet. I wouldn't post a number if I hadn't checked first. Here's one link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Stadium_(Montreal)


----------



## bd popeye

> The stadium used to feature a complete bowl, but was later reduced to a 'horseshoe'. The '72,000' statistic is all over the internet


No problem. I was not trying to correct you I was racking my brain to remember things about the Big "O".

I actually remember when the Expos first played in Olympic Stadium . I do remember seats in the outfield. The stadium had an echo if I remember correctly.


----------



## isaidso

bd popeye said:


> No problem. I was not trying to correct you I was racking my brain to remember things about the Big "O".
> 
> I actually remember when the Expos first played in Olympic Stadium . I do remember seats in the outfield. The stadium had an echo if I remember correctly.


No worries. I have a love/hate relationship with that stadium. I think it's an extremely impressive looking structure, but not the greatest place to watch sports. The 72,000 record would have fallen by now if we had a larger stadium in Canada, but it looks likely to stand for many decades to come.

If Toronto ever wins a bid to host the summer Olympics it will most certainly be larger than 72,000 seats, but capacity would be reduced afterwards. Toronto has no need for a stadium larger than 40,000.


----------



## GarfieldPark

^^ If Toronto ever gets an NFL team, they'd probably neat at least a 70,000 seat stadium to fit in with the rest of the league.


----------



## shhyvoodoo

GarfieldPark said:


> ^^ If Toronto ever gets an NFL team, they'd probably neat at least a 70,000 seat stadium to fit in with the rest of the league.


Dont worry that won't ever happen...


----------



## flierfy

isaidso said:


> Capacity was reduced to 58,000 after the Olympics. The stadium used to feature a complete bowl, but was later reduced to a 'horseshoe'. The '72,000' statistic is all over the internet. I wouldn't post a number if I hadn't checked first.


That's doesn't explain, however, how it was possible to squeeze 72'000 into a venue whose capacity during the two Olympic week was 58'500. And when I watch this footage I don't even think that the attendance was bigger than 40'000.


----------



## bd popeye

_The *average* attendance at any MLS match this season is now *18,203.

*_*Major League Soccer Team Attendance Statistics - 2013 - ESPN FC*


----------



## isaidso

flierfy said:


> That's doesn't explain, however, how it was possible to squeeze 72'000 into a venue whose capacity during the two Olympic week was 58'500. And when I watch this footage I don't even think that the attendance was bigger than 40'000.


Well I just told you the capacity was 72,000 during the Olympics, but if you want to believe different that's your prerogative. At the 2008 Grey Cup, attendance was 66,308 and that's without the bowl in the upper tier being rebuilt. In the photo below you can clearly see that it's not 2 tiers in the end zone. At the Olympics, it was. I'm not sure how much more evidence you need, tbh.

*No complete bowl in the upper tier, attendance 66,308*


----------



## isaidso

GarfieldPark said:


> ^^ If Toronto ever gets an NFL team, they'd probably neat at least a 70,000 seat stadium to fit in with the rest of the league.


Toronto will never get an NFL team. They've demonstrated over and over that it's one of the worst football markets in north America. Regina, Edmonton, Calgary, and Winnipeg are far better football markets than Toronto. There are about 100 cities in Canada and the US that deserve a pro football team more. What Toronto needs is a football specific stadium for the football team it already has: the Argonauts.

Toronto can't get people out to support the oldest professional football team in north America and it wants a 2nd team? :hammer:


----------



## flierfy

isaidso said:


> Well I just told you the capacity was 72,000 during the Olympics, but if you want to believe different that's your prerogative. At the 2008 Grey Cup, attendance was 66,308 and that's without the bowl in the upper tier being rebuilt. In the photo below you can clearly see that it's not 2 tiers in the end zone. At the Olympics, it was. I'm not sure how much more evidence you need, tbh.


To believe an attendance of 72'000 I want to see the stadium packed and not half empty for the aforementioned game.


----------



## bd popeye

Dallas holds off Miami for 24-20 HOF Game win - Canton, OH - CantonRep.com



> The 2013 NFL (pre)season kicked off in Canton's OH Fawcett Stadium in front of a sellout crowd of 22,364.
> 
> Read more: http://www.cantonrep.com/news/x1465...ff-Miami-for-24-20-HOF-Game-win#ixzz2b6o9vPlR


The Dallas Cowboys defeated the Miami Dolphins 24-20 in what most of the World would call a friendly match. In the US we call it an exhibition game. 22,364 warm bodies attended the game...a sell out.


----------



## ObiUbamba

College sports are overhyped. People should focus on the city's PROFESSIONAL teams, not on some amateurs who should be focusing on academics.


----------



## KingmanIII

ObiUbamba said:


> College sports are overhyped. People should focus on the city's PROFESSIONAL teams, not on some amateurs who should be focusing on academics.


So people should have a stronger emotional bond to a franchise that blackmailed them with the threat of relocation for hundreds of millions of dollars for a new stadium, than for their own alma-mater, who likely existed in that area long before professional football or basketball did?

Also, most major college programs are located in small cities and towns with no major-league sports franchises.


----------



## ObiUbamba

If people had more loyalty/support for pro teams in their state, then teams wouldnt leave their main cities. American sport fans dont hold the kind of loyalty Europeans do to their sports teams, and as a result many pro teams (Jacksonville Jaguars an example) lose fans to amateur college athletes.


----------



## isaidso

flierfy said:


> To believe an attendance of 72'000 I want to see the stadium packed and not half empty for the aforementioned game.


Well you're on your own then. I'll go by the official figure that's circulated the last 37 years.


----------



## Lumbergo

ObiUbamba said:


> If people had more loyalty/support for pro teams in their state, then teams wouldnt leave their main cities. American sport fans dont hold the kind of loyalty Europeans do to their sports teams, and as a result many pro teams (Jacksonville Jaguars an example) lose fans to amateur college athletes.


you don't have a clue.:lol:


----------



## bd popeye

One pre-season game played in the NFL yesterday;

Lucas Oil Stadium, Indianapolis, IN Attendance: 66,181


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> MLS attendance figures .. Still above the 18,000 per-game figure!
> 
> *MLS 2013 Attendance | ESPN*


Add to this 18,161 in Dallas for the fun game from last night and *sigh* 8,221 for the Crew's visit to Chivas USA.

Still holding out a thread of hope we'll see everyone but Chivas finish over 14k per game, but that's looking less likely. Chicago should turn out since they're making a run for the post-season, but I'm not sure if SJ even has the means to host anymore bigger games. 

Regardless the numbers are holding strong. If SJ comes close to 16-18k once in their new venue that would be great. Couple that with a hopeful 18k from NYFC and I think we'd have finally reached the point where we can call MLS games a near sure-thing regarding turn-out and atmosphere. (Maybe not all events will be great, but that we'd have a fixed minimum on which to build)


----------



## alexandru.mircea

An interactive graphic showing the evolution of average attendances at football matches in Europe since the '80s: http://mat-sandbox.p.ht/foot/affluence_D1_europe.html 
Click on country names (at the right) to have them appear in the graphic.


----------



## GEwinnen

flierfy said:


> I don't know where you have got these numbers from. Kicker Sportmagazin, however, reports different numbers as marked in red.



fussballdaten.de


----------



## flierfy

GEwinnen said:


> fussballdaten.de


They seem to have corrected some numbers.


----------



## GunnerJacket

alexandru.mircea said:


> An interactive graphic showing the evolution of average attendances at football matches in Europe since the '80s: http://mat-sandbox.p.ht/foot/affluence_D1_europe.html
> Click on country names (at the right) to have them appear in the graphic.


Wow. I knew Italy had dropped off but didn't realize by how much. Really interesting also seeing how several of those leagues all compare. Wonder if we can find a comparable tool/graphic for other leagues around the globe?

Thanks for that link!


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Yeah, and what's particularly interesting for me is that the drop happening exactly during the process of Italy earning and consolidating its status of leading league in the world! The only thing I could think of was that maybe the drop was caused by old stadiums being torn down gradually in view of building new ones for the 1990 World Cup, meanwhile the clubs playing in smaller venues. I say that because there's a clear bump back in the 1990-91 season when all the new stadiums were available; it probably took a couple of seasons for the fans to figure that they hate the new stadiums and the attendances started to diminish again, despite Italian football still going strong. Just a hypothesis, mind.


----------



## GunnerJacket

alexandru.mircea said:


> The only thing I could think of was that maybe the drop was caused by old stadiums being torn down gradually in view of building new ones for the 1990 World Cup, meanwhile the clubs playing in smaller venues. I say that because there's a clear bump back in the 1990-91 season when all the new stadiums were available; it probably took a couple of seasons for the fans to figure that they hate the new stadiums and the attendances started to diminish again, despite Italian football still going strong. Just a hypothesis, mind.


I'm sure something like that was at play. Italia '90 featured mostly venues that, while good for the time, were athletics stadia with sparse amenities and limited premium seating. Nothing like what we're expecting these days - Brasil's renovations and new constructions for 2014 are a testament to the exact opposite approach!

4 years later the games in the US were played in NFL stadia that featured something much closer to the modern vision, likely spurring the renaissance toward more tailored venues. That event also highlighted the global potential of the game, leading to the expansion of the number of participants and the eventual appeal of playing the finals in Asia and Africa. The dollar value of the in-game experience was raised and Italy was ill-prepared to match the latest demands.

Which suits me fine since I find Serie A boring anyway! :tongue2:


----------



## isaidso

flierfy said:


> Yet, you haven't been to that particular game. Neither can you explain how a capacity crowd could have possibly been there when thousands of bright yellow seats shine through on TV. And what exactly does the CFL or one of its franchise have to do with the attendance figure of an Olympic event??


I haven't been to Saturn either, but I know it exists. You realize that you're only looking at a few minutes of footage that you happened upon. The gold medal game was sold out and the stadium full. 

The CFL? I clearly and repeatedly mentioned that the upper bowl 'end zone' seats were removed after the Olympics, thus *reducing* the capacity. The Grey Cup attendance of 66,308 is relevant in that it shows that even with thousands of seats removed the stadium still seats 66,308 people.... not the 40,000 that you suggested a few posts back.

66,308 at the Grey Cup? Put back the thousands of the seats removed in the end zone upper bowl and what number do you think one arrives at? Bingo: about 72,000!

:sleepy:


----------



## kerouac1848

alexandru.mircea said:


> Yeah, and what's particularly interesting for me is that the drop happening exactly during the process of Italy earning and consolidating its status of leading league in the world! The only thing I could think of was that maybe the drop was caused by old stadiums being torn down gradually in view of building new ones for the 1990 World Cup, meanwhile the clubs playing in smaller venues. I say that because there's a clear bump back in the 1990-91 season when all the new stadiums were available; it probably took a couple of seasons for the fans to figure that they hate the new stadiums and the attendances started to diminish again, despite Italian football still going strong. Just a hypothesis, mind.


I'm not sure. Attendances started dropping around '85, so a good five years before the WC. Two of the biggest grounds used, in Rome and Naples, only closed for renovation in '88/89, yet Napoli and Roma were seeing crowds drop before then. Works on the San Siro expanded the stadium by adding another tier and putting a roof, so neither Milan club left. Turin got a new ground on the outskirts rather than renovation, yet Juve and Torino saw numbers drop from the mid-80s onwards. Looking at the figures shows a general decline, including clubs whose homes weren't involved in the WC. 

I suspect TV might have been the main factor. Italy was the first country to start getting big deals for TV rights, hence why it grew rich, and Berlusconi built his media empire over the 80s by moving into TV. I don't know many games were shown or when they moved to PPV, but I imagine more games were shown on Italian TV during the latter '80s than elsewhere. 

If it's not the impact of TV it might be a combination of smaller factors (move to all-seater grounds, rising ticket prices, increasing violence, etc). 

Interesting to speculate nonetheless.


----------



## flierfy

isaidso said:


> I haven't been to Saturn either, but I know it exists. You realize that you're only looking at a few minutes of footage that you happened upon. The gold medal game was sold out and the stadium full.


Buying tickets and actual attending are two different things. They don't necessarily match. Especially not when two of the least favourable teams turn up in the final.
But when you are so sure that the official attendance figure is right then you certainly show us evidence that the stadium was really packed.


----------



## GunnerJacket

flierfy said:


> Buying tickets and actual attending are two different things. They don't necessarily match. Especially not when two of the least favourable teams turn up in the final.
> But when you are so sure that the official attendance figure is right then you certainly show us evidence that the stadium was really packed.


You two should get a room.


----------



## GunnerJacket

The always excellent weekly assessment of MLS attendance on BigSoccer.com is out with this week's data and the usual historical comparative data. The figures I've been finding most impressive I'm highlighting here:

*Year___	<10k___	>20k*
1996___	21.90%__	26.30%
1997___	25.00%__	16.30%
1998___	26.60%__	16.10%
1999___	32.30%__	15.10%
2000___	34.40%__	12.50%
2001___	26.60%__	17.70%
2002___	17.10%__	18.60%
2003___	23.30%__	18.00%
2004___	24.70%__	25.30%
2005___	27.10%__	17.70%
2006___	19.30%__	18.20%
2007___	_8.20%__	29.70%
2008___	11.00%__	24.80%
2009___	14.70%__	20.90%
2010___	_7.50%__	22.50%
2011___	_5.60%__	28.10%
2012___	_1.90%__	32.50%
2013___	_5.50%__	29.20%


The figures for 2013 are obviously incomplete while the season remains in progress, but overall this emphasizes the value of teams haveing their own stadiums to control schedules and attract fans. Think about it: At one time more than 1/3 of MLS games had crowds under 10,000 people!

Man the late 90's were some lean times.


----------



## bd popeye

Four pre-season (friendly) games in the NFL last night.



FirstEnergy Stadium, Cleveland, Ohio Attendance: 58,313

M&T Bank Stadium, Baltimore, Maryland Attendance: 70,527

Lincoln Financial Field, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Attendance: 69,144

Soldier Field, Chicago, Illinois Weather: 73°, Cloudy Attendance: 51,051


----------



## bd popeye

*MLS attendance is now at an average of 18,221 a match for 2013!:banana:

MLS Attendance 2013 |ESPN*http://espnfc.com/stats/attendance/_/league/usa.1/major-league-soccer?cc=5901


----------



## ObiUbamba

chivas might as well quit. no point in them taking up a slot that many other cities would love to have.


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> MLS attendance is now at an average of 18,221 a match for 2013!:banana:


Are they including the All-Star game in calculating that average? If so that's a bit disingenuous, IMO. 



ObiUbamba said:


> chivas might as well quit. no point in them taking up a slot that many other cities would love to have.


True enough but now a broken record. IIRC, the league was allowing the team till about next year to find a new home, which they've said is part of their plan to galvanize their own fan base. I can only assume the reason they've not been more proactive right now is that MLS revenues are meager enough as it is that the team can survive without the, what, $2M extra dollars they'd earn by having a 13k attendance?

I'd say the telling factor will be if we have a year where the disparity is a little bit more alarming. Should every other team surpass 14k next year while Chivas continues to mire <9k, then the league will hear it from their broadcast partners about the disinterest in showing Chivas home games on TV. Chivas' stagnation is one thing, but if they remain at this level while everyone else in the league moves forward then they've signed their own death warrant, I feel.


----------



## bd popeye

GunnerJacket said:


> Are they including the All-Star game in calculating that average? If so that's a bit disingenuous, IMO.


I don't know. But if they are I don't see how that one game could raise the average very much. Just my opinion.


----------



## GunnerJacket

It wouldn't be more than by 100 persons, I would guess, but it's more a principle thing for me. What if the game drew 27k in LA, or 35k in Seattle? The average is supposed to be indicative of typical support for a common MLS match, not some showcase that's been boosted by an opposing brand from overseas.

I know: Nit nit nit nit


----------



## bd popeye

GunnerJacket said:


> It wouldn't be more than by 100 persons, I would guess, but it's more a principle thing for me. What if the game drew 27k in LA, or 35k in Seattle? The average is supposed to be indicative of typical support for a common MLS match, not some showcase that's been boosted by an opposing brand from overseas.
> 
> I know: Nit nit nit nit


Trust me ..I understand.. I'm nerdy like that also!


----------



## isaidso

*Canadian Football League*
*2013 Week #6/7*










Hamilton Tiger-Cats @ Edmonton Eskimos 31,006
Winnipeg Blue Bombers @ BC Lions 26,856
Toronto Argonauts @ Montreal Alouettes 22,068
Saskatchewan Roughriders @ Calgary Stampeders 35,637

Week #6/7 attendance: 115,567
Week #6/7 average attendance: 28,892
Cummulative attendance: 632,784
Average attendance: 26,366


----------



## isaidso

*Canadian Football League*
*2013 Week #8*










Hamilton Tiger-Cats @ Winnipeg Blue Bombers 32,409
Montreal Alouettes @ Saskatchewan Roughriders 40,637
Calgary Stampeders @ BC Lions 29,201
Edmonton Eskimos @ Toronto Argonauts 19,656

Week #8 attendance: 121,903
Week #8 average attendance: 30,476
Cummulative attendance: 754,687
Average attendance: 26,953


----------



## bd popeye

Pre-season (friendly) games in the NFL this past weekend..Friday, Saturday Sunday & Monday.



Ralph Wilson Stadium, Orchard Park, New York Attendance: 60,164

FedEx Field, Landover, Maryland Weather: 74°, Clear Attendance: 68,740

Arrowhead Stadium, Kansas City, Missouri Attendance: 64,434

Gillette Stadium, Foxborough, Massachusetts Attendance: 68,756

Mercedes-Benz Superdome, New Orleans, Louisiana Attendance: 72,122

University of Phoenix Stadium, Glendale, Arizona Attendance: 59,698

Paul Brown Stadium, Cincinnati, Ohio Attendance: 43,462

Reliant Stadium, Houston, Texas Attendance: 71,401

Edward Jones Dome, St. Louis, Missouri Attendance: 53,375

CenturyLink Field, Seattle, Washington Attendance: 67,635

August 17, 2013 
MetLife Stadium, East Rutherford, New Jersey Attendance: 76,957(Jets home game)

August 18, 2013
MetLife Stadium, East Rutherford, New Jersey Attendance: 75,491(Giants home game)


----------



## isaidso

What's up with attendance in Cincinnati? 43,462 would be a great number here, but that looks quite low for the NFL.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

I just noticed on the resource I use that matches played behind closed doors because of sanctions are counted as matches with zero attendance. Is this normal? If so, I think it's stupid - they shouldn't be counted at all, from an attendance recording point of view these sporting events don't exist; instead they are counted as normal matches where absolutely nobody showed up.


----------



## bd popeye

isaidso said:


> What's up with attendance in Cincinnati? 43,462 would be a great number here, but that looks quite low for the NFL.


I don't know. I know some Cincinnati fans are in revolt over the teams owners. I searched the Cincinnati sports sources and I found the below discussion on the Bengals board.

*Harrison calling out the fans*

PS.. I grew up in Cincinnati ...


----------



## isaidso

Thanks for the link. I'd love for my team to be complaining about only having 43,000 at the stadium. Toronto home games have been as follows:

Game 1: 29,852
Game 2: 18,211
Game 3: 20,064
Game 4: 19,656

Toronto is basically a Leafs and soccer town. Everything else struggles for attention. Out west it's a different story:

Canada's Top 4 Pro Football Markets
Saskatchewan Roughriders: 37,768
Edmonton Eskimos: 32,728
Winnipeg Blue Bombers: 32,183
Calgary Stampeders: 29,880


----------



## GunnerJacket

Calling out the fans is rarely a good thing, especially when you're talking about a meaningless exhibition game. Sure, we'd all love to share in the undying enthusiasm of fanbases like the Packers or University of Michigan ( ), but not every team can enjoy such timeless success, either. Thank us for sponsoring your blessed life and lifestyle then leave the commentary to others, please.


----------



## bd popeye

isaidso said:


> Toronto is basically a Leafs and soccer town. Everything else struggles for attention. Out west it's a different story:


Hard to believe. But if you say so. I believe you. Where do the Blue Jays fall in that list?

Toronto Blue Jays average attendance 2013....32,318 a game after 63 home games. That ranks 13th in MLB out of 30 teams.

Toronto Blue Jay drew over 4 million fans a season during the '91, '92 & '93 seasons...they drew 3.8 million in 1990.. averaging 49,000 a game over a four year period.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/toroatte.shtml


----------



## isaidso

bd popeye said:


> Hard to believe. But if you say so. I believe you. Where do the Blue Jays fall in that list?
> 
> Toronto Blue Jays average attendance 2013....32,318 a game after 63 home games. That ranks 13th in MLB out of 30 teams.
> 
> Toronto Blue Jay drew over 4 million fans a season during the '91, '92 & '93 seasons...they drew 3.8 million in 1990.. averaging 49,000 a game over a four year period.
> 
> http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/toroatte.shtml


I'm not the only Torontonian to say that this is a Leafs town (and soccer). In other sports, Torontonians tune in when they're championship contenders or if they're enjoying momentary hype. The Jays attendance in the early 90s is a prime example of that. Torontonians will support something en masse if it's 'hot'. Only the Leafs and soccer get support no matter what.

13th highest attendance in MLB? That might sound great until one realizes that there are close to 9 million people within an hours drive of the Skydome. Only New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago have more people and all 3 of those markets support 2 teams. The Jays have the Golden Horseshoe all to themselves. 

It should be noted that baseball in these parts dates back to the very beginnings of the sport. Love of baseball is deeply entrenched in southwest Ontario, especially amongst old stock Canadians. One only need attend a game to notice the sea of white, middle class folk flooding into Toronto from the suburbs and points further out. For the most part, it's not 'new Canadians' going to these games. 

That said, if the Jays become contenders attendance will once again spike past 4 million as new Torontonians climb aboard the band wagon. It would go to 6 million if the stadium could hold them.


----------



## westsidebomber

isaidso said:


> What's up with attendance in Cincinnati? 43,462 would be a great number here, but that looks quite low for the NFL.


Eh, I wouldn't put much stock in that number aside from its a good indicator of how many season tickets have been sold. I imagine very few people wasted their money on a single game ticket for a preseason game so that 43K is probably somewhat close to the season ticket base. With how well the team has performed (playoff games aside) recently and how well they're expected to do this year I assume the majority of games will sellout, in spite of how much people despise Mike Brown.


----------



## eMKay

^^^ yup ^^^

I don't know if it's all teams, but a lot of teams require you to purchase preseason tickets too, so the preseason attendance numbers are a good indication of how many season ticket holders there are. Looks like Cincinnati might just be a bit overpriced, they have a good team now so that number should be higher if they were priced right.


----------



## isaidso

*Canadian Football League*
*2013 Week #9*










BC Lions @ Montreal Alouettes 22,465
Calgary Stampeders @ Toronto Argonauts 21,157
Winnipeg Blue Bombers @ Hamilton Tiger-Cats 13,138
Saskatchewan Roughriders @ Edmonton Eskimos 41,868

Week #9 attendance: 98,628
Week #9 average attendance: 24,657
Cummulative attendance: 853,315
Average attendance: 26,666


----------



## bd popeye

MLS Attendance update. Holding on at 18,138 per match average.

MLS Attendance 2013 | _ESPN_


----------



## BoulderGrad

bd popeye said:


> MLS Attendance update. Holding on at 18,138 per match average.
> 
> MLS Attendance 2013 | ESPN
> 
> http://imgur.com/GUmyetH


Seattle v Portland is tonight. Game has sold out the entire clink. 67000 people+ expected. I will be one of the. Giggity

Edit: on top of the rivalry game atmosphere which has sold this game out before, this is also Clint Dempsey's first home game as a sounder.


----------



## bd popeye

*OUTSTANDING* demonstration of support by the Sounders fans last evening.



> By Sports Network — The Sports Network
> 
> Clint Dempsey garnered most of the headlines ahead of his home debut for Seattle Sounders FC on Sunday, but it was Eddie Johnson who made the biggest impact by scoring the lone goal in a 1-0 victory over the Portland Timbers.
> 
> With Dempsey's first two appearances for Seattle coming on the road, fans flocked to CenturyLink Field to witness the American international's first home match as a Sounder - the attendance figure of 67,385 was the second largest stand-alone crowd in MLS history.
> 
> Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2013/08/26/2941847/recap-seattle-vs-portland.html#storylink=cpy







I gotta say after watching this video I'm convinced that someday soccer will be the #1 or #2 sport in popularity in the US. It's going to happen...


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> OUTSTANDING demonstration of support by the Sounders fans last evening.
> 
> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD665tBOofc#t=56">YouTube Link</a>
> 
> I gotta say after watching this video I'm convinced that someday soccer will be the #1 or #2 sport in popularity in the US. It's going to happen...


Oooof. Hard pressed to topple any of the big three, and Seattle is very much the exception rather than the rule. I do think mid-20k avg with more places matching that type of support is achievable in my lifetime. 
Something like that with near NHL levels of TV appeal would be great! No more suspicions about financial viability, higher grades of talent coming in...


----------



## Kerrybai

bd popeye said:


> *OUTSTANDING* demonstration of support by the Sounders fans last evening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gotta say after watching this video I'm convinced that someday soccer will be the #1 or #2 sport in popularity in the US. It's going to happen...


Thankfully the US appetite for sport is large enough to support 5+ large sports leagues. Heck once the MLS catches up with the big 4 maybe a 6th league will start to break through, Major League Lacrosse anyone ? :lol:


----------



## GunnerJacket

Kerrybai said:


> Thankfully the US appetite for sport is large enough to support 5+ large sports leagues. Heck once the MLS catches up with the big 4 maybe a 6th league will start to break through, Major League Lacrosse anyone ? :lol:


I'd laugh with you but MLLcontinues to labor on. The gulf between that and MLS is probably proportionate to the gulf between MLS and the NHL, and odds are it won't grow as quickly because it doesn't have the international appeal and history upon which to build. But there's no reason it can't continue to prosper as a minor niche league. I know I've watched a number of ACC and NCAA tournament matches.

I'd be curious to see if we'll ever find a women's league (hoops or footie) ever standing on it's own two feet. A shame the women's soccer league can't sustain itself even as a minor league. Would like to give those so inclined the chance to play as a profession.


----------



## bd popeye

*NFL 2013 Week 4 of the pre-season*



Ford Field, Detroit, Michigan Attendance: 60,921	

M&T Bank Stadium, Baltimore, Maryland Attendance: 70,554

Lambeau Field, Green Bay, Wisconsin Attendance: 74,030

O.co Coliseum, Oakland, California Attendance: 41,946

FedEx Field, Landover, Maryland Attendance: 62,748

Lucas Oil Stadium, Indianapolis, Indiana Attendance: 65,626

MetLife Stadium, East Rutherford, New Jersey Attendance: 74,971
Giants home game.

EverBank Field, Jacksonville, Florida Attendance: 59,149

Heinz Field, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Attendance: 51,852

Sun Life Stadium, Miami Gardens, Florida Attendance: 52,789

Sports Authority Field at Mile High, Denver, Colorado Attendance: 75,473

LP Field, Nashville, Tennessee Attendance: 69,143

AT&T Stadium, Arlington, Texas Attendance: 76,376

University of Phoenix Stadium, Glendale, Arizona Attendance: 59,773

Reliant Stadium, Houston, Texas Attendance: 71,611

Candlestick Park, San Francisco, California Attendance: 69,732


----------



## isaidso

bd popeye said:


> I gotta say after watching this video I'm convinced that someday soccer will be the #1 or #2 sport in popularity in the US. It's going to happen...


I hope not. The pre-eminence of domestic sports is one way in which Canada and the US are unique. Do we really want to become a cultural clone of everywhere else? It's nice to see MLS prosper, but not at the expense of our own culture.

It will be a sad day when we kick to the curb our own culture in favour of an imported one. I already live in a city where that's happening. Many here don't consider football to be part of their culture, but something played by hillbillies out west. Baseball is for suburban folks, while basketball is considered low brow. If you're hip you play soccer, cricket, and rugby. It's tragic and heartbreaking to watch.


----------



## bd popeye

isaidso said:


> I hope not. The pre-eminence of domestic sports is one way in which Canada and the US are unique. Do we really want to become a cultural clone of everywhere else? It's nice to see MLS prosper, but not at the expense of our own culture.


I agree with you.. North America sports culture is unique to the rest of the World. I do like it like that...

Still.. soccer is coming along slowly but surely...


----------



## isaidso

It may be inevitable. I just hope we recognize the value of our own culture before dismissing it without any thought. I don't think we necessarily need to be fans of our sports to make that happen. I've never been a hockey fan, but understand its cultural value regardless.


----------



## West12Rangers

bd popeye said:


> I agree with you.. North America sports culture is unique to the rest of the World. I do like it like that...
> 
> Still.. soccer is coming along slowly but surely...


 remind me how North American sports culture is unique?


----------



## isaidso

We developed our own sports that dominate the sporting landscape here, but I'm sure you knew that already so stop trolling.

HOCKEY, FOOTBALL, BASEBALL, BASKETBALL: North American originals.


----------



## Kerrybai

isaidso said:


> We developed our own sports that dominate the sporting landscape here, but I'm sure you knew that already so stop trolling.
> 
> HOCKEY, FOOTBALL, BASEBALL, BASKETBALL: North American originals.


That's not really unique though, countries like Ireland and Austrailia are the same. Also there is enough sports dollars to support 5 major leagues in the US.


----------



## bd popeye

Kerrybai said:


> That's not really unique though, countries like Ireland and Austrailia are the same. Also there is enough sports dollars to support 5 major leagues in the US.


..answer..



isaidso said:


> We developed our own sports that dominate the sporting landscape here, but I'm sure you knew that already so stop trolling.
> 
> HOCKEY, FOOTBALL, BASEBALL, BASKETBALL: North American originals.


And in the US do not forget the level of collegiate sports that draw millions of fans yearly. that is truly unique.


----------



## GunnerJacket

I'm as stoic and traditional as the next guy, if not moreso, but I think a lot of fans get wrapped up in thinking the way things are today are the way they've always been, when reality is far different. There've been rule changes, evolutions in broadcasting and in-game experiences, expansion and contraction, team's moving or rebranding, etc. Most fans from bygone eras would look at today's landscape and feel it's totally different, and not just because of integration and pro soccer - Shot clocks, the forward pass, night games at Wrigley...

Maybe population growth means we have leagues with 40+ teams. Maybe the NBA toys with their idea about raising the basket. The NFL and MLB have openly talked about teams outside the US and Canada. Heaven knows the NFL will tweak their rules and equipment again, and again, and again. Someday collegiate sports might officially lose amatuer status. Bottom line, there will be continued evolution by default, like it or not. 

The good news is I'm quite certain the US won't sacrifice their own. We like having the best leagues in those sports and will likely move heaven and earth to keep it that way.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^ Wasn't soccer also very popular in the US in the interbellum era? Then faded. 

If there ever was anything to the North-American sports other than autarchism, they will survive and do well in such a sports crazy land. So I doubt there's any need to worry. If anything it's going to be good, a good local league will help with the integration of new generation Americans.


----------



## GunnerJacket

alexandru.mircea said:


> ^ Wasn't soccer also very popular in the US in the interbellum era? Then faded.


I'm no historian but my best guess is that soccer in the US has at best been appreciated like Olympic athletics - During international events and/or when the national team excels people take notice, then it recedes back into general obscurity while our eyes turn to baseball, basketball, etc.

It's never had a professional level close to that of the major sports, in terms of support, exposure or money. Apart from the brief spending spree by the Cosmos most pro players in the US have needed second jobs or simply lived on meager wages. It took a generation of kids who'd grown up familiar with the game to combine with immigration and global media to enable the sport to maximize its niche appeal and reach the point it is today, which is easily the sport's peak in the US.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^ but weren't American football, baseball, hockey etc. also non-professional in the '20s and '30s? Please excuse my ignorance.

Whenever I hear about how soccer was very popular up to the '40 as a past-time of the newly arrived immigrants in their neighbourhoods, it's in soccer contexts (radio shows, articles) so maybe the thing is not put enough in context. Maybe when people say "very popular" they mean it in relation to the decline that came later, or maybe they don't relate it enough to the native sports to have a better understanding of what "very popular" meant to soccer in the interbellum.


----------



## bd popeye

> but weren't American football, baseball, hockey etc. also non-professional in the '20s and '30s? Please excuse my ignorance.


"Non-professional" (College) sports have been on going in the US since the late 1800s .

However pro sports *leagues/associations* started with the National Association of Professional Base Ball Players in 1871. The National Baseball league first season was 1876..NHL 1917.. The NFL 1920. .. now the NBA did not start until 1946.

General overview.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/371109-the-history-of-sports-in-the-united-states/


----------



## West12Rangers

isaidso said:


> We developed our own sports that dominate the sporting landscape here, but I'm sure you knew that already so stop trolling.
> 
> HOCKEY, FOOTBALL, BASEBALL, BASKETBALL: North American originals.




how is that unique?what about the Aussie Rules,and the Irish sports
Also,living in the UK,we have Football,Rugby and Cricket,which we INVENTED and developed,and that dominate here


----------



## bd popeye

West12Rangers said:


> how is that unique?what about the Aussie Rules,and the Irish sports
> Also,living in the UK,we have Football,Rugby and Cricket,which we INVENTED and developed,and that dominate here


I think his point maybe that soccer is not the dominate sport in North America. 

Also in the US we have levels of collegiate & high school sports leagues with paid attendance that do not exist in the rest of the World.


----------



## GunnerJacket

alexandru.mircea said:


> ^ but weren't American football, baseball, hockey etc. also non-professional in the '20s and '30s? Please excuse my ignorance.


Much like the early days of European soccer/football clubs, professional teams in the US started out as semi-pro teams that subsided on corporate sponsors and some gate receipts. When there were enough teams to constitute a league you began to have more full-time professional players because the money involved made its first big leap: A few teams displaying their talents here and there is equivalent to a circus, but a league with structured schedules and championships drew radio and eventually TV, in turn drawing more and larger sponsorships. 

So while there was indeed an era of amatuer status for each and every sport that was now so long ago and so brief an era that it barely registers.


> Maybe when people say "very popular" they mean it in relation to the decline that came later, or maybe they don't relate it enough to the native sports to have a better understanding of what "very popular" meant to soccer in the interbellum.


How about if we rephrase it this way: Soccer has always retained a fair level of popularity in the US, especially among recent immigrants. However, that popularity has never been strong enough to foster and sustain a professional league anywhere close to that of sports "founded" here. It's almost as if the people were looking to adopt anything new as a way of strengthening their independence!



West12Rangers said:


> how is that unique?what about the Aussie Rules,and the Irish sports
> Also,living in the UK,we have Football,Rugby and Cricket,which we INVENTED and developed,and that dominate here


If I'm reading him correctly, what he's saying is that the most popular sports in the US and Canada were created/ organized here rather than imported as a ready made sport. Basketball was created here, baseball and American football are decidedly different from their European ancestors and ice hockey was formalized in Canada. So yes other countries play those sports and yes other countries have their own unique/rare native sports, but the point is that these are the sports favored by sportsfans in the US and Canada as opposed to soccer, cricket, rugby, etc.


----------



## West12Rangers

bd popeye said:


> I think his point maybe that soccer is not the dominate sport in North America.
> 
> Also in the US we have levels of collegiate & high school sports leagues with paid attendance that do not exist in the rest of the World.




well,soccer is not the dominant sport in Australia...AFL dominates in most states there
and in the UK,Football,rugby and Cricket aren't imported..we invented them,they are the sports favoured by UK sports fans..Baseball,Basketball and Ice Hockey have been imported by the rest of the world and are very popular
so,in short,the US invented sports which were exported,these sports continue to dominate the US sports scence..the UK invented sports,which were exported and continue to dominate the domestic sports scene
i'm sorry,i still don't understand


----------



## Rev Stickleback

West12Rangers said:


> well,soccer is not the dominant sport in Australia...AFL dominates in most states there
> and in the UK,Football,rugby and Cricket aren't imported..we invented them,they are the sports favoured by UK sports fans..Baseball,Basketball and Ice Hockey have been imported by the rest of the world and are very popular
> so,in short,the US invented sports which were exported,these sports continue to dominate the US sports scence..the UK invented sports,which were exported and continue to dominate the domestic sports scene
> i'm sorry,i still don't understand


for unique* read "different", in that it really means no more than the USA has its own sports it invented which have generally been played almost wholly within North America.

It really just boils down to the USA having its own sporting culture, and a lot of people have a resistance to forms of "cultural imperialism". They'd regard it sad if their sporting culture was usurped by foreign sports.

In the UK we have the sports we invented, but we don't think of football or rugby being "English sports" in the same way that baseball or the NFL are American sports.


* unique, in the USA (and increasingly in the UK these days) means rare, rather than actually one of a kind. It's how things can be described as "very unique".


----------



## bd popeye

^^:applause: Exactly!


----------



## isaidso

Kerrybai said:


> That's not really unique though, countries like Ireland and Austrailia are the same.


Hockey, basketball, football, and baseball do not dominate the sports landscape of either country; *that sporting culture is only to be found in Canada and the United States.* Neither is the sports landscape of either Ireland or Australia dominated by sports developed domestically. Aussie Rules Football is home grown, but shares the spotlight with imported pursuits like cricket and rugby. The Irish have Gaelic Football, but once again it shares the spotlight with imported pursuits like soccer.

In Canada we have our own sporting culture, we didn't import it from somewhere else. Canadians invented/developed 4 new sports (baseball, football, basketball, hockey) that came to dominate the sporting landscape. Soccer has been the only foreign sport that's managed to make a dent although it's growing rapidly. Soccer may be the 'world's sport', but you'd never know it in Canada.

The only country that shares our sporting culture is the United States. In other words, the sporting culture of Canada/US is unique.


----------



## Kerrybai

isaidso said:


> Hockey, basketball, football, and baseball do not dominate the sports landscape of either country; *that sporting culture is only to be found in Canada and the United States.* Neither is the sports landscape of either Ireland or Australia dominated by sports developed domestically. Aussie Rules Football is home grown, but shares the spotlight with imported pursuits like cricket and rugby. The Irish have Gaelic Football, but once again it shares the spotlight with imported pursuits like soccer.
> 
> In Canada we have our own sporting culture, we didn't import it from somewhere else. Canadians invented/developed 4 new sports (baseball, football, basketball, hockey) that came to dominate the sporting landscape. Soccer has been the only foreign sport that's managed to make a dent although it's growing rapidly. Soccer may be the 'world's sport', but you'd never know it in Canada.
> 
> The only country that shares our sporting culture is the United States. In other words, the sporting culture of Canada/US is unique.


Ah I see you what mean. I interpreted what was been discussed as the US/Canada been the only countries where domestic sports are number 1. In those 2 nations its all about domestic sports where as the other countries mentioned might put domestic sports first, but are largely diluted with foregin sports too.

I might add that been from Ireland I can say that Irish sports remain number 1 in most areas and have no declined with the growing popularity of foreign sports, therefore I don't think Americans/Canadians should worry about the growth of Soccer, or other foreign sports for that matter. The US is large enough for its own domestic sports to grow in tandem with soccer/


----------



## Rascar

thomasKing said:


> I think your fears are rather over the top. Unless what you want is complete unawareness of other sports then I doubt much will change in the US anytime soon.
> 
> Cricket may be growing even quite fast in some Places like New York but I cant see it ever becoming much more than a niche sport in the US. One of the main reasons is probably that is has become so much easier with modern technology for immigrants to keep in touch with their own sports and in big cities there are plenty others to play with as well.
> 
> Rugby is not that big a sport apart from national teams. One of the most interesting things about it from an american point of view is that with so many small teams in europe requiring players there are lots of job opportunities for NFL-rejects, many of whom would probably have a realistic shot at living in the south of France for a few years, learn a language and return home with a million dollars before they are 30.


They are very different sports though, and unless you learn the skill set at a young age ( given that every position in rugby has to pass, tackle and ruck), you will always be at a disadvantage. However athletic an NFL reject is, he will have a lot more ground to cover than the hundreds of South Africans, NZers, Tongans etc who are looking for a contract in Europe.


----------



## isaidso

thomasKing said:


> I think your fears are rather over the top. Unless what you want is complete unawareness of other sports then I doubt much will change in the US anytime soon.


Except that we're already half there where I live: Toronto.  Things may be quite different in the US, but I don't live there.


----------



## lwa

isaidso said:


> You may be correct about Switzerland and Slovakia, but I'm not all that familiar with either place.
> 
> So hockey, baseball, rugby, and cricket are all about on an even keel? That was my sense of it as well. What's interesting to me is that I can't think of any nation where there's a mix of the two solitudes. * You're either in the hockey/baseball camp or rugby/cricket camp.*


Japan (Baseball, Rugby) has already been mentioned, but I would add;

Scotland - very much a football country, but Rugby and Hockey are far bigger than cricket - certainly in pro terms anyway. (I've even heard it claimed hockey was invented by scots immigrants playing shinty on ice... No idea if there's any truth in that or not.)

France - Rugby is massive, cricket non-existant. Not entirely sure how big Ice Hockey is (I know Handball is the big indoor sport, probably followed by basketball), but I know they play it. Which is more than can be said for cricket.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

thomasKing said:


> Rugby is capable of creating some seriously great ocassions, ...But realistically its not that big a sport. Its at best 3rd in the UK and perhaps second in France and elsewhere only popular in a few small countries.


Going by crowd numbers (and steering the thread a little) rugby (both codes) is far bigger than cricket in England.

The top cricket competition, the Twenty 20, average just under 7000. Rugby Union draws around 13000, and Rugby League around 11000.

The national cricket league averages just 3000, and that's the aggregate of crowds spread over 3-4 days.

I'm not sure which sport you thought might have pushed rugby into possibly 4th place.

Rugby does seem to be growing in Italy, at least on the international stage. Six nations games used to be played in the 30000 seat Stadio Flaminio in Rome, but games now pack out the Olimpico up the road.


Cricket used to be quite popular in North America in the dim and distant past. The very first cricket international match (perhaps the first in any sport) was between the USA and Canada, way back in 1844.


----------



## bd popeye

The 5th and last week of NFL pre-season games were played last night.



MetLife Stadium, East Rutherford, NJ Attendance: 76,957

Ralph Wilson Stadium, Orchard Park, NY Attendance: 48,605

Paul Brown Stadium, Cincinnati, OH, Attendance: 49,229

Gillette Stadium, Foxborough, MA, Cloudy Attendance: 68,756

Raymond James Stadium, Tampa, FL Attendance: 46,264

Georgia Dome, Atlanta, GA Attendance: 69,555

Sun Life Stadium, Miami Gardens, FL, Attendance: 43,019

Bank of America Stadium, Charlotte, NC, Attendance: 70,408

Arrowhead Stadium, Kansas City, MO, Clear Attendance: 65,053

Soldier Field, Chicago, IL, Attendance: 59,868

Mall of America Field at Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome, Minneapolis, MN, Attendance: 62,603

Edward Jones Dome, St. Louis, MO, Attendance: 53,364

AT&T Stadium, Arlington, TX, Attendance: 76,856

Sports Authority Field at Mile High, Denver, CO, Attendance: 75,465

CenturyLink Field, Seattle, WA, Attendance: 67,341

Qualcomm Stadium, San Diego, CA Attendance: 55,386


----------



## jonath841

Rugby is the second sport in France. This year the championship final was 80,000 spectators. stadiums are often full knowledge that this is the stage of about 15,000 people. while cricket is unknown dear to us.


----------



## bd popeye

In the US NCAA Division I Football Championship Subdivision (FBS) football is a big attraction.. The season started this past Thursday with a myriad of games. Most games will be played on Saturday's.

Home team is listed first.



Michigan..Michigan Stadium, Ann Arbor, Michigan Attendance: 112,618

Ohio State..Ohio Stadium, Columbus, Ohio Attendance: 103,980

Texas...Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium, Austin, Texas Attendance: 99,623

Tennessee..Neyland Stadium, KNOXVILLE, TN. ATTENDANCE: 97,169

Nebraska...Tom Osborne Field at Memorial Stadium, Lincoln, Nebraska Attendance: 91,185

Texas A&M..Kyle Field, College Station, Texas Attendance: 86,686

Auburn...Jordan-Hare Stadium, AUBURN, AL...ATTENDANCE: 85,095

Oklahoma...Gaylord Family-Oklahoma Memorial Stadium, Norman, Oklahoma Attendance: 84,911

Florida...Ben Hill Griffin Stadium at Florida Field, Gainesville, Florida Attendance: 83,604

Clemson...Memorial Stadium, Clemson, South Carolina Attendance: 83,830

South Carolina...Williams-Brice Stadium, Columbia, South Carolina Attendance: 81,572

Notre Dame...Notre Dame Stadium, South Bend, Indiana Attendance: 80,795

TCU...AT&T Stadium, Arlington, Texas Attendance: 80,230...neutral site, sort of..

Wisconsin...Camp Randall Stadium, Madison, Wisconsin Attendance: 76,306

VA Tech...Georgia Dome, Atlanta, Georgia Attendance: 73,114..neutral site

Washington..Husky Stadium, Seattle, Washington Attendance: 71,963

Iowa...Kinnick Stadium, IOWA CITY, IA ATTENDANCE: 67,402

Cal...Memorial Stadium, Berkeley, California Attendance: 58,816

Oregon....Autzen Stadium, Eugene, Oregon Attendance: 57,769


----------



## bd popeye

I forgot to post the MLS average attendance for this past week.. so here it is..


----------



## isaidso

^^ The NCAA has a football specific logo?



lwa said:


> Japan (Baseball, Rugby) has already been mentioned, but I would add;
> 
> Scotland - very much a football country, but Rugby and Hockey are far bigger than cricket - certainly in pro terms anyway. (I've even heard it claimed hockey was invented by scots immigrants playing shinty on ice... No idea if there's any truth in that or not.)
> 
> France - Rugby is massive, cricket non-existant. Not entirely sure how big Ice Hockey is (I know Handball is the big indoor sport, probably followed by basketball), but I know they play it. Which is more than can be said for cricket.


I wasn't insinuating that if you're in one camp that all sports in that camp are popular, but that the top sports in a country tend not to be a mixture of the 2 camps. Japan being a baseball and rugby nation would be an exception. I wouldn't classify hockey as popular anywhere in Britain. Basketball in France? I had no idea.


----------



## bd popeye

isaidso said:


> ^^ The NCAA has a football specific logo?


I'm not sure if that's an official logo..I'll check..

Yep..it is..

Check this page..it's right on the top left.;

http://www.ncaafootball.com/

edit.. there's now an logo for;

NCAA Division I Football Championship Subdivision (FBS)

*NCAA unveils new Football Championship Subdivision logo - NCAA*


----------



## Rev Stickleback

isaidso said:


> I wouldn't classify hockey as popular anywhere in Britain..


(Ice) Hockey is certainly more popular in Scotland than cricket. Two clubs in Edinburgh and Fife (or former incarnations of) have been constantly among the "bigger" clubs in the UK. The top division currently has four club from Scotland.

Cricket, on the other hand, barely exists at any meaningful level.

Hockey is probably the 5th most popular team sport in the UK, after football, rugby union, rugby league and cricket. There not a not to choose between it and basketball, although hockey used to just have the edge.

Both of the latter two get very little coverage though due to the popularity of the top four, and non-team sports such as F1, tennis, horse racing and golf.


----------



## isaidso

Wouldn't you say that 5th or 6th basically relegates hockey to fringe status in Britain? I've never been to Scotland, but while living in London I never ever heard about hockey nor noticed it in the sports pages. Maybe it was buried in there somewhere? :dunno:


----------



## isaidso

bd popeye said:


> I'm not sure if that's an official logo..I'll check..
> 
> Yep..it is..


Ok, thanks.


----------



## Rascar

Rev Stickleback said:


> (Ice) Hockey is certainly more popular in Scotland than cricket. Two clubs in Edinburgh and Fife (or former incarnations of) have been constantly among the "bigger" clubs in the UK. The top division currently has four club from Scotland.
> 
> Cricket, on the other hand, barely exists at any meaningful level.
> 
> Hockey is probably the 5th most popular team sport in the UK, after football, rugby union, rugby league and cricket. There not a not to choose between it and basketball, although hockey used to just have the edge.
> 
> Both of the latter two get very little coverage though due to the popularity of the top four, and non-team sports such as F1, tennis, horse racing and golf.


You are equating attendance in the pro domestic leagues as a measure of popularity, when it is only one of many factors to consider. Player numbers, TV audience, international tournaments, media profile, raw number of fans, are all arguably as or more important.

I think it is very generous to say Ice hockey is 5th in the UK, as using any other measure than attendance at pro games it is ranked much lower.

Going back to Cricket/Rugby in England, while Cricket obviously gets much lower domestic attendances due to the nature of the game, this ignores the fact that 90% of interest and revenue in cricket is generated by the national team and not the counties. IMHO the raw number of Cricket fans would be greater than rugby, I think a lot of football fans follow a bit of cricket, but can be quite hostile to rugby (just my POV).

Again with rugby, looking at attendances in the pro leagues doesn't reveal the whole picture, given that the only time of the year rugby can dominate the sports pages is during the 6 nations.


----------



## krudmonk

I've found London is not a good barometer for sport support across Britain.


----------



## kerouac1848

Rascar said:


> You are equating attendance in the pro domestic leagues as a measure of popularity, when it is only one of many factors to consider. Player numbers, TV audience, international tournaments, media profile, raw number of fans, are all arguably as or more important.
> 
> I think it is very generous to say Ice hockey is 5th in the UK, as using any other measure than attendance at pro games it is ranked much lower.


I agree, basketball is ahead for one. Participation rates and the grassroots of the game completely dwarfs ice hockey. It has strong roots in the school system and a much deeper and wider league structure from pro to amateur (admin and coaching is poor however). Coverage of the NBA has historically been far greater than the NHL, and European basketball has been available for years (not the same with European hockey).

The main difference is where ice hockey is popular (Sheffield, Nottingham and several other places) support seems stronger than professional basketball. However, the latter has a wider base and probably a higher median as a result.



> Going back to Cricket/Rugby in England, while Cricket obviously gets much lower domestic attendances due to the nature of the game, this ignores the fact that 90% of interest and revenue in cricket is generated by the national team and not the counties. IMHO the raw number of Cricket fans would be greater than rugby, I think a lot of football fans follow a bit of cricket, but can be quite hostile to rugby (just my POV).
> 
> Again with rugby, looking at attendances in the pro leagues doesn't reveal the whole picture, given that the only time of the year rugby can dominate the sports pages is during the 6 nations.


True. Domestic cricket cannot be attractive as long as international test cricket runs over Summer. There isn't room in the calendar for both, so they go in parallel and - naturally - the county game suffers. While this happens to an extent in Union, there are clear periods where the club game is left alone. 

Be interesting to see all the deals Sky signed for rugby and compare them to huge ones given to the ECB (before BT game and inflated rights).


----------



## Rev Stickleback

Rascar said:


> You are equating attendance in the pro domestic leagues as a measure of popularity, when it is only one of many factors to consider. Player numbers, TV audience, international tournaments, media profile, raw number of fans, are all arguably as or more important.


I think it's a pretty good measure. It's a measure of continued support, rather than bandwagon fans who only pay attention a few times a year. Wimbledon fortnight is hugely popular, but other tournaments, even grand slams, go completely unnoticed by everyone bar the genuine fans.



> I think it is very generous to say Ice hockey is 5th in the UK, as using any other measure than attendance at pro games it is ranked much lower.


which team sports would you put ahead of it?

Basketball is the obvious candidate, but if it is so much more popular, why aren't crowds in the domestic league bigger?

This is a thread about attendance after all, so it's not completely wild to concentrate on attendance.

More people play football(soccer) in the USA than play ice hockey, by quite some margin, but it would be a stretch to call it the bigger sport in the country.



> Going back to Cricket/Rugby in England, while Cricket obviously gets much lower domestic attendances due to the nature of the game, this ignores the fact that 90% of interest and revenue in cricket is generated by the national team and not the counties. IMHO the raw number of Cricket fans would be greater than rugby, I think a lot of football fans follow a bit of cricket, but can be quite hostile to rugby (just my POV).


I agree. There are more people who have an interest in cricket than in rugby. It's just that the overwhelming majority are bandwagon fans who've never been to a cricket match in their lives.



> Again with rugby, looking at attendances in the pro leagues doesn't reveal the whole picture, given that the only time of the year rugby can dominate the sports pages is during the 6 nations.


If cricket was played during the football season, it'd have the same problem. Ashes tours get a lot of coverage, but a tour to India or New Zealand gets much less.


----------



## Rascar

> I think it's a pretty good measure. It's a measure of continued support, rather than bandwagon fans who only pay attention a few times a year.


It's not a bad measure of a sport's popularity by any means- but IMO just one of several to take into account.



> Quote:
> I think it is very generous to say Ice hockey is 5th in the UK, as using any other measure than attendance at pro games it is ranked much lower.
> 
> which team sports would you put ahead of it?


I would say field hockey and basketball have far higher participation rates, as do probably lacrosse and water polo.
American football and field hockey have more coverage in the media, (albeit not a great deal). In the end it depends what weighting you put on various criteria. Don't get me wrong, ice hockey gets good crowds in certain cities, and I hope they can build on it.



> Again with rugby, looking at attendances in the pro leagues doesn't reveal the whole picture, given that the only time of the year rugby can dominate the sports pages is during the 6 nations.
> 
> If cricket was played during the football season, it'd have the same problem. Ashes tours get a lot of coverage, but a tour to India or New Zealand gets much less.


Just to clarify, I was arguing that rugby is _more_ popular than pro league attendances suggest, given the following the 6 nations has, and given that the tournament lasts for a few months I don't think the additional interest is just from bandwagon fans.


----------



## Otto Racecar

bd popeye said:


> I'm not sure if that's an official logo..I'll check..
> 
> Yep..it is..
> 
> Check this page..it's right on the top left.;
> 
> http://www.ncaafootball.com/
> 
> edit.. there's now an logo for;
> 
> NCAA Division I Football Championship Subdivision (FBS)
> 
> *NCAA unveils new Football Championship Subdivision logo - NCAA*


Just to clarify the logo that you are posting is for the NCAA Division 1 Football Championship Subdivision also known as FCS or formally 1-AA. This is the second tier of NCAA football. The first tier is Football Bowl Subdivision also known as FBS or formally 1-A.


----------



## Colm Flynn

Average attendance in english football so far in 2013/14 season.


----------



## GunnerJacket

With the usual caveat about the short length of the season, the unique structure designed to favor popular programs, the built in audience from student bodies, etc. No sports league on this planet is so coddled like Division I football.

And I say that as an avid fan.


----------



## bd popeye

GunnerJacket said:


> With the usual caveat about the short length of the season, the unique structure designed to favor popular programs, the built in audience from student bodies, etc. No sports league on this planet is so coddled like Division I football.
> 
> And I say that as an avid fan.


True. 100% true. 

I'm a long time D-1 fan.. Ohio State! Go Buckeyes!:banana:

For the outsider looking in ... students do not make up the majority of the attendance..alumni and persons loyal to that school do.


----------



## GunnerJacket

IIRC, a survey of 1A venues last year(?) found the average student section was about 7k strong, with highs at some larger schools approaching 15k. To be sure, bigger programs like OSU could max out w/out students, but @ 40k undergrads the de facto market is right there compared to smaller schools, driving demand.

Still, 100k+ is still impressive.


----------



## bd popeye

GunnerJacket said:


> .........
> Still, 100k+ is still impressive.


Yes it is.

I'm waiting for the day when all six teams with stadiums with 100,000+ capacity all have home games with 100,000+ fans.

That would be;



Might be a while before we see Neyland Stadium sold out. TN attendance like the team has been slipping the last few years.


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> Yes it is.
> 
> I'm waiting for the day when all six teams with stadiums with 100,000+ capacity all have home games with 100,000+ fans.


There's still a chance LSU could join them once they begin the meat of their actual construction this winter. You'd have to think a small part of their ego would want to push from 99k+ to 100k, even in these "lean" times. If we ever do get back to such highs I know the folks at UGA are still dreaming of breaching the 100k mark, as well. Can't imagine anyone else breaking into the 100k club for a while, now, unless Nebraska gets a real wild hair and some savvy architects.

I also wonder if we'll ever see the full 118k (or so) version of DKR Stadium in Texas or if the sport will decline before then? 



> Might be a while before we see Neyland Stadium sold out. TN attendance like the team has been slipping the last few years.


They still reach that when Bama comes to town, but obviously your vision would need Bama to host a home game, as well. Maybe when a ranked, but not really scary, UF or UGA rolls into town?

I wonder what the largest single-day attendance has been for 1A? Catch one of those early season weekends with most of your giants hosting bait fish and you could possibly break 70k.


----------



## isaidso

*Canadian Football League*
*2013 Week #11*










Calgary Stampeders @ Edmonton Eskimos 33,654
BC Lions @ Hamilton Tiger-Cats 13,101
Toronto Argonauts @ Montreal Alouettes 23,911
Saskatchewan Roughriders @ Winnipeg Blue Bombers 33,500


Week #11 attendance: 104,166
Week #11 average attendance: 26,042
Cummulative attendance: 1,084,035
Average attendance: 27,101


----------



## bd popeye

The 1st week of NFL 2013 regular season attendance. It will take at least three weeks for all teams to play home games.





*MLS attendance 2013*


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> The 1st week of NFL 2013 regular season attendance. It will take at least three weeks for all teams to play home games.


A few random observations:

- The three teams at the bottom remain the most often mentioned as candidates for moving, with that factor probably as much cause as effect these days.

- That being said, 55-59k for a sub-par franchise and griping ownership is still pretty good.

- Cleveland & Carolina = Two fan bases proving they're deserving of the NFL. The Browns fans deserve a good team more often.

- 61k in Pittsburgh. I realize they expect a down season, but that's kinda bad for a team that was talking about stadium expansion last year.

- 62k in Chicago. Should be a good team. Cue talk about how they wish they designed for more people. 


Meanwhile, re: those MLS figures...

- They shouldn't list both 'MLS All star game' and 'AS Roma' as seperate items, if at all.

- Don't think DC will get to 14k avg this year but there's an outside chance Chicago could make 15k. (3 sell outs = final avg near 15.1k) Not sure what the mark is for most MLS teams above 15k would be, and it's quite possibly the 15 currently there, but that would be such a nice thing to say that the league has 16 (and next year maybe 17+) teams averaging more than 15k per game! The league as a whole had 6 seasons below that average, and 3 more seasons below the 15.6k mark!

Truly some incredible growth and security there.


----------



## bd popeye

> - 62k in Chicago. Should be a good team. Cue talk about how they wish they designed for more people.


I feel the "new" Soldier Field was deliberately designed too small to put a big squeeze on ticket demand. Season ticket holders in Chicago will never give up their tickets.

I think Soldier Field should be at least 72,000.


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> I feel the "new" Soldier Field was deliberately designed too small to put a big squeeze on ticket demand.


 No doubt, and with all those premium seats I'm sure they make a ton of dough, but at some point you wonder if they would regret not being able to reach 72-75k. Missing out on a few thousand isn't such a big deal, but you'd think Chicago could get another 10-15k.


----------



## SheLL

Top 100 average attendance numbers in 2012/2013 list was compiled by a brasilian consultancy company. 

http://www.pluriconsultoria.com.br/...ecial - Ranking Mundo publico clubes 2013.pdf

Here is the top 30 list

10 German Clubs - 6 English Clubs - 3 Spanish Clubs - 2 Dutch Clubs - 2 Scottish Clubs - 2 Italien Clubs - 1 Portuguese Club - 1 Turkish Club - 1 American Club - 1 French Club - 1 Ukranian Club

1 Borussia Dortmund Alemanha 80.558 80.700 100%

2 Manchester UnitedInglaterra 75.530 75.811 100% 

3 Barcelona Espanha 71.681 99.354 72% 

4 Bayern Munique Alemanha 71.000 71.137 100% 

5 Real Madri Espanha 69.262 85.454 81% 

6 Schalke 04 Alemanha 61.171 61.673 99% 

7 Arsenal Inglaterra 60.079 60.355 100% 

8 Hamburgo Alemanha 52.931 53.000 100% 

9 Newcastle United Inglaterra 50.517 52.387 96% 

10 Ajax Holanda 50.490 53.052 95% 

11 Stuttgart Alemanha 50.106 60.449 83% 

12 Borussia Mönch. Alemanha 49.557 50.000 99% 

13 Eintracht Frankfurt Alemanha 48.126 51.500 93% 

14 Manchester City Inglaterra 46.974 47.805 98% 

15 Celtic Escócia 46.715 60.832 77% 

16 Fortuna Düsseldorf Alemanha 46.097 48.000 96% 

17 Inter Milão Itália 45.796 80.018 57% 

18 Rangers Escócia (3ª) 45.744 51.082 90% 

19 Feyenoord Rotterdã Holanda 45.441 51.177 89% 

20 Atlético de Madri Espanha 44.868 54.851 82% 

21 Liverpool Inglaterra 44.749 45.362 99% 

22 Hannover 96 Alemanha 44.547 49.000 91% 

23 Milan Itália 44.178 81.277 54% 

24 Paris Saint-Germain França 43.235 45.713 95% 

25 Seattle Sounders EUA 43.104 43.200 100% 

26 Benfica Portugal 42.364 65.647 65% 

27 Fenerbahce Turquia 42.255 50.509 84% 

28 Nuremberg Alemanha 41.518 50.000 83% 

29 Chelsea Inglaterra 41.462 41.837 99% 

30 Shakhtar Donetsk Ucrânia 41.203 51.504 80%


----------



## bd popeye

Entire article is in the link.... and a video.

*USA beats Mexico 2 nil before 24,584 in Columbus OH*




> The United States punched its ticket to next year’s World Cup in Brazil last night, defeating Mexico by a score of — what else? — 2-0 in a World Cup qualifier in a packed and partisan Crew Stadium.
> 
> A goal early in the second half by U.S. forward Eddie Johnson helped the Americans improve to 5-2-1 in the final round of CONCACAF regional qualifying and, coupled with a Honduras tie with Panama later last night, ensured the Americans will advance to Brazil for a seventh consecutive World Cup.
> 
> Johnson scored on a header off a corner kick by Landon Donovan. Donovan, the Major League Soccer star with the Los Angeles Galaxy who a three-month hiatus from the sport and considered retirement last winter, is perhaps Mexico’s greatest nemesis.
> 
> He made it 2-0 in the 78th minute, converting a cross by Mix Diskerud that Clint Dempsey slightly redirected toward the all-time U.S. scoring leader at the far post.
> 
> Donovan recorded the 57th goal and 57th assist of his U.S. career. It was his sixth goal in 16 games against Mexico, a team he flummoxed four years ago during a 2009 qualifier in Crew Stadium.
> 
> *A sold-out crowd of 24,584 — about 90 percent of them U.S. fans — chanted and drummed their way through high temperatures and humidity. It was 90 degrees at kickoff.*


----------



## bd popeye

bd popeye said:


> Yes it is.
> 
> I'm waiting for the day when all six teams with stadiums with 100,000+ capacity all have home games with 100,000+ fans.


Well now back in the first week of Sept 2010 4 teams did draw over 100,000 each..

Michigan 
Michigan Stadium - Attendance: 113,090

Ohio State 
Ohio Stadium • Attendance: 105,040 

Alabama 
Bryant-Denny Stadium - Attendance: 101,821

Penn St. 
Beaver Stadium - Attendance: 101,213

...and guess what? Check the attendance at Neyland Stadium that week.

Tennessee 
Neyland Stadium - *Attendance: 99,123(not a sellout!!)*


----------



## GunnerJacket

Tenn suffered several non-sellouts the past few years, and given the state of their team and the constructions going on that's perfectly understandable. Few programs are completely immune to fan sensitivity in tight times.


----------



## isaidso

bd popeye said:


> ...and guess what? Check the attendance at Neyland Stadium that week.
> 
> Tennessee
> Neyland Stadium - *Attendance: 99,123(not a sellout!!)*


That's still very good.


----------



## bd popeye

> Originally Posted by *bd popeye*
> _...and guess what? Check the attendance at Neyland Stadium that week.
> 
> Tennessee
> Neyland Stadium - *Attendance: 99,123(not a sellout!!)*_





isaidso said:


> That's still very good.


My point exactly..99,000 in attendance that September 2010 day and still not a sell out..outstanding attendance.

_Selected_ NCAA Division I FBS attendance this week. Home school listed first.

Michigan..Michigan Stadium(The Big House), Ann Arbor, MI *Attendance:* 107,120

Texas...Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium, Austin, TX *Attendance:* 101,474

Penn State...Beaver Stadium, University Park, PA *Attendance:* 92,855

Nebraska...Tom Osborne Field at Memorial Stadium, Lincoln, NE *Attendance:* 91,471

LSU...Tiger Stadium, Baton Rouge, LA *Attendance:* 89,113

Texas A&M...Kyle Field, College Station, TX *Attendance:* 87,596

Auburn..Jordan-Hare Stadium, Auburn, AL *Attendance:* 85,817

Oklahoma...Gaylord Family-Oklahoma Memorial Stadium, Norman, OK *Attendance:* 84,229

Michigan State...Spartan Stadium, East Lansing, MI *Attendance:* 71,626 

Arizona State...Sun Devil Stadium, Tempe, AZ *Attendance:* 66,155

Kentucky...Commonwealth Stadium, Lexington, KY *Attendance:* 65,445

USC...Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles, CA *Attendance:* 62,006

Cal...Memorial Stadium, Berkeley, CA *Attendance:* 62,467

Oklahoma State...Boone Pickens Stadium, Stillwater, OK *Attendance:* 59,061

Texas Tech...Jones AT&T Stadium, Lubbock, TX *Attendance:* 58,701

Oregon...Autzen Stadium, Eugene, OR *Attendance:* 57,895


----------



## isaidso

*Canadian Football League*
*2013 Week #12*










Hamilton Tiger-Cats @ Calgary Stampeders 26,649
Winnipeg Blue Bombers @ Edmonton Eskimos 29,499
Toronto Argonauts @ Saskatchewan Roughriders 36,703
Montreal Alouettes @ BC Lions 27,213


Week #12 attendance: 120,064
Week #12 average attendance: 30,016
Cummulative attendance: 1,204,099
Average attendance: 27,366


----------



## alexandru.mircea

2013-14 season ticket holder numbers for French football's Ligue 1:










http://politiques-sportives.blogspo...-ligue-1-201314-les-bons-et.html?spref=tw&m=1

Also in that table there are the numbers from last year, the stadium capacity, the filling percentage and the historical record for ST holders.


----------



## bd popeye

_Excellent attendance figures for the #5 pro sport in popularity in the USA..and the MLS is #3 in average attendance!_


----------



## isaidso

MLS is certainly in 5th by total attendance. In Canada, the rank of leagues by average attendance is as follows:

1. MLB
2. CFL
3. MLS
4. NHL
5. NBA

The NHL would likely be 3rd if arenas were larger. All 7 teams are at 100% capacity for the entire season. The CFL had been in first for years, but the Blue Jays got a big attendance bounce this year.


----------



## bd popeye

In the USA in average per-game attendance of the major pro sports leauges..

NFL....67,358 (2011)
MLB...30,895 (2012)
MLS...18,388 (2013)
NHL...17,721 (2012-13)
NBA...16,963 (2012-13)


----------



## GunnerJacket

Re: Updated MLS stats
United and Chicago made gains but Colorado dropped dangerously close to 15k. C'mon Rapid and Fire fans, let's aim to finish the season with both teams over the 15k mark!



bd popeye said:


> In the USA in average per-game attendance of the major pro sports leauges..
> 
> NFL....67,358 (2011)
> MLB...30,895 (2012)
> MLS...18,388 (2013)
> NHL...17,721 (2012-13)
> NBA...16,963 (2012-13)


For all the public abuse MLB often receives 30k is a great number for 82 home games, most of which are on weeknights or even during work days. Meanwhile that's a phenomenal figure for NHL. Moreso than MLS that's a great sign of the fan support driving that league back into greater public notariety.

One of these days I'd love to see an evaluation of such support across all sports for each metro market and as a nation. A sign of a really strong economy that we could support so many viable leagues. Or a sign that we really have too much time and money on our hands! 



isaidso said:


> MLS is certainly in 5th by total attendance. In Canada, the rank of leagues by average attendance is as follows:
> 
> 1. MLB
> 2. CFL
> 3. MLS
> 4. NHL
> 5. NBA
> 
> The NHL would likely be 3rd if arenas were larger. All 7 teams are at 100% capacity for the entire season. The CFL had been if first for years, but the Blue Jays got a big attendance bounce this year.


Shouldn't we discount the Jays and Raptors as a comparative element, though? Being the sole reps for Canada skews their status among the other leagues with 3-8 participating teams, IMO. For instance, your table would indicate MLB is the most popular league in Canada, which I'd contend isn't the case.


----------



## isaidso

I may as well fill in the numbers for Canada:

1. MLB 30,789 (so far 2013)
2. CFL 27,366 (so far 2013)
3. MLS 19,933 (so far 2013)
4. NHL 18,598 (2012-2013)
5. NBA 18,144 (2012-2013)
6. NLL 8,842 (2012)


----------



## isaidso

GunnerJacket said:


> For all the public abuse MLB often receives 30k is a great number for 82 home games, most of which are on weeknights or even during work days. Meanwhile that's a phenomenal figure for NHL. Moreso than MLS that's a great sign of the fan support driving that league back into greater public notariety.


Baseball attendance is phenomenal and dwarfs that of any other sport worldwide. The numbers for MLB are just staggering.



GunnerJacket said:


> A sign of a really strong economy that we could support so many viable leagues. Or a sign that we really have too much time and money on our hands!


Attending sporting events is certainly a luxury enjoyed by people who have the time and money for such things. It's no coincidence that attendance is high in affluent societies.



GunnerJacket said:


> Shouldn't we discount the Jays and Raptors as a comparative element, though? Being the sole reps for Canada skews their status among the other leagues with 3-8 participating teams, IMO. For instance, your table would indicate MLB is the most popular league in Canada, which I'd contend isn't the case.


If MLB had teams in Vancouver and Montreal, I doubt you'd see much of a dip in numbers... provided they had proper baseball stadia. Baseball remains deeply ingrained right across Canada despite only 1 MLB team. Canadians have been playing baseball since day 1 back in the 1830s. Basketball would do well in Vancouver, but I don't see any other city being able to support an NBA team. Basketball is a big sport in Nova Scotia, but it's a very small market.

That said, the NHL is easily #1 in Canada followed by the CFL. MLB is 3rd and could challenge for 2nd if they had another 2 teams here. MLS has 3 Canadian teams, but struggles to become nationally relevant because it's a new sport in Canada so it doesn't benefit from cultural relevance the same way baseball does. For MLS to become nationally relevant in Canada, it would need to move to at least 6 teams here. Currently MLS is a non-event in most of the country. NLL is 6th.

Side note: the league with the highest overall attendance in Canada isn't the NHL, it's the CHL. Not a lot of people realize that.


----------



## bd popeye

isaidso said:


> Baseball attendance is phenomenal and dwarfs that of any other sport worldwide. The numbers for MLB are just staggering.


Ahem.. so true..

MLB.. 2012 regular season attendance... 2,423 games...*Average attendance* ...30,895...Total attendance...74,859,268.

..'nuff said!


----------



## bd popeye

The 2nd week of NFL 2013 regular season attendance. It will take at least three weeks for all teams to play at least one home game.


----------



## bd popeye

_Selected_ NCAA Division I FBS attendance this week. Home school listed first.

Ohio State...Ohio Stadium, Columbus, OH Attendance: 103,595

Alabama...Bryant-Denny Stadium, Tuscaloosa, AL Attendance: 101,821

Texas...Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium, Austin, TX Attendance: 95,248

Georgia...Sanford Stadium, Athens, GA Attendance: 92,746

LSU...Tiger Stadium, Baton Rouge, LA Attendance: 92,638

Penn State...Beaver Stadium, University Park, PA Attendance: 92,371

Nebraska...Tom Osborne Field at Memorial Stadium, Lincoln, NE Attendance: 90,614

Florida...Ben Hill Griffin Stadium at Florida Field, Gainesville, FL Attendance: 90,074

Texas A&M...Kyle Field, College Station, TX Attendance: 86,542

Notre Dame...Notre Dame Stadium, South Bend, IN Attendance: 80,795

Wisconsin...Camp Randall Stadium, Madison, WI Attendance: 80,772

Florida State...Bobby Bowden Field at Doak Campbell Stadium, Tallahassee, FL Attendance: 74,841

Washington...Husky Stadium, Seattle, WA Attendance: 67,093

Iowa...Kinnick Stadium, Iowa City, IA Attendance: 66,886

VA Tech..Lane Stadium/Worsham Field, Blacksburg, VA Attendance: 64,060

USC...Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles, CA Attendance: 63,482

UCLA...Rose Bowl, Pasadena, CA Attendance: 58,263

Maryland...M&T Bank Stadium, Baltimore, MD Attendance: 55,677

Louisville...Papa John's Cardinal Stadium, Louisville, KY Attendance: 51,586

Stanford...Stanford Stadium, Stanford, CA Attendance: 50,424

Georgia Tech...Bobby Dodd Stadium, Atlanta, GA Attendance: 49,445


----------



## GunnerJacket

Thanks for including GT on your list this week, Popeye! Not often regarded among the big boys.

Was at the Georgia Tech game yesterday. Had about 2" of rain fall during the game, it was not fun. Sadly it was my daughters first game experience, but at least they won.


----------



## bd popeye

GunnerJacket said:


> Thanks for including GT on your list this week, Popeye! Not often regarded among the big boys.
> 
> Was at the Georgia Tech game yesterday. Had about 2" of rain fall during the game, it was not fun. Sadly it was my daughters first game experience, but at least they won.


Thank you!

Yes the GT Yellow Jackets aka "Ramblin' Wrecks" have a long history.... and it is an excellent engineering school.

*Georgia Institute of Technology*


----------



## GunnerJacket

Surprising non-sellouts from the weekend's college figures:

Texas...Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium, Austin, TX Attendance: 95,248
_I realize the team is struggling but I'd assumed the Longhorn fan base would be more dedicated._

Florida State...Bobby Bowden Field at Doak Campbell Stadium, Tallahassee, FL Attendance: 74,841
_FSU fans should be excited for their team this year so why not pack the stands?_

Washington...Husky Stadium, Seattle, WA Attendance: 67,093
_No sellout for their new stadium?!_


----------



## isaidso

*Canadian Football League*
*2013 Week #13*










Edmonton Eskimos @ Winnipeg Blue Bombers 28,859
Montreal Alouettes @ Hamilton Tiger-Cats 15,123 (played in Moncton, NB)
Toronto Argonauts @ Calgary Stampeders 28,781
BC Lions @ Saskatchewan Roughriders 39,373


Week #13 attendance: 112,136
Week #13 average attendance: 28,034
Cummulative attendance: 1,316,235
Average attendance: 27,422


----------



## GunnerJacket

Strong weekend for MLS (avg of 19,793), but apparently the Toronto faithful succombed to some lousy weather:

FCD	@	NYRB	18,976
Van	@	Mon	20,006
SKC	@	TFC	12,627
Chi	@	Col	19,010
DCU	@	NER	19,187
CUSA	@	Hou	20,157
SJ	@	RSL	20,504
Sea	@	LA	27,000
Col	@	Por	20,674


Had 2,000 more folks shown up somewhere the weekend avg would've topped 20k. Granted, most of the home teams are playoff contenders and those folks are anxious to define their post-season fate/standing. Helped to see the full house at LA, too. Still, that's nice to see a weekend wrap from MLS and see everyone but 1 game featuring 18.9K and above!


----------



## www.sercan.de

Current average attendance Süper Lig.

51.709 Beşiktaş
37.549 Galatasaray
29.267 Fenerbahçe
24.000 Bursa
13.250 Trabzon
12.500 Kayseri
12.333 Eskişehir
12.250 Gençlerbirliği
10.667 Konya
10.667 Rize
9.833 Sivas
8.500 Akhisar
8.250 Elazığ
6.100 Gaziantep
4.353 Karabük
6.500 Kasımpaşa
9.250 K. Erciyes
4.500 Antalya


League: 15.082


----------



## isaidso

^^ May I ask which of those clubs are Istanbul based and which are in Ankara?



GunnerJacket said:


> Strong weekend for MLS (avg of 19,793), but apparently the Toronto faithful succombed to some lousy weather:
> 
> SKC	@	TFC	12,627


That's a little shocking. Canadians will show up in a -20C snow storm for football although soccer fans maybe less inclined. Was it raining? Even so it's just rain.


----------



## GunnerJacket

isaidso said:


> That's a little shocking. Canadians will show up in a -20C snow storm for football although soccer fans maybe less inclined. Was it raining? Even so it's just rain.


I know it was raining based on video highlights but I can't say regarding the temp, wind, etc. I was quite surprised, as well, but didn't want to say anything more without knowing details. TFC fans have been pretty stout considering the product and are still strong contributors to the building atmosphere of the league so I'm not going to hound them too badly for this.

After all, their bad day is still 4k better than Chivas! :cheers:


----------



## isaidso

Agree. It's very likely an aberration and doubt we'll see that repeated. I don't think I've ever seen a crowd under 18,000 in Toronto. Like you suggested, they have a very solid and loyal following.


----------



## eMKay

isaidso said:


> ^^ May I ask which of those clubs are Istanbul based and which are in Ankara?
> 
> 
> 
> That's a little shocking. Canadians will show up in a -20C snow storm for football although soccer fans maybe less inclined. Was it raining? Even so it's just rain.


It wasn't just rain...Ok it was just rain but it was A LOT of rain. 2.7" of rain here in Buffalo, Toronto faced pretty much the same thing.


----------



## bd popeye

MLS attendance averages as the 2013 season winds down.


----------



## KingmanIII

isaidso said:


> ^^ May I ask which of those clubs are Istanbul based and which are in Ankara?


The top three are all Istanbul clubs; Gençlerbirliği is the only one representing Ankara.


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> MLS attendance averages as the 2013 season winds down.


Columbus and Dallas holding strong @ ~ 15.7k but I fear there are not enough games left for them to break 16k. Especially as Dallas seems to be reeling. 

Colorado is barely haning on just over 15k, with two home games left. Drawing just 13k against Dallas 2 weeks ago hurt. They're in the playoff chase and the home games are Saturday dates vs. Seattle on 10/5 and Vancouver, so if they can draw well vs. the Sounders they should stay over 15k.

I don't think any of the other bottom dwellers has the muster to make any upward moves. In fact, San Jose is likely to drop below the 13k mark since their last two games are at Buck Shaw Stadium and its 10.5k capacity. But while their total numbers will look dour they've been pretty steady in their home ground with an average of about 96% at Buck Shaw.

Looks like the league will remain above 18k overall, but may not surpass last year's mark. Still awesome progress, though, and it will hopefully only get better as San Jose and and United move into proper digs. Way to go MLS!


----------



## bd popeye

NFL 2013 attendance average after three games.


----------



## isaidso

I'm surprised that there are NFL clubs below 90% capacity. Is it rare?


----------



## bd popeye

isaidso said:


> I'm surprised that there are NFL clubs below 90% capacity. Is it rare?


Nope.. it's not rare..those teams that are under 90% are all candidates for relocation to LA. 

Go to the link below and use the drop down menu under "NFL Attendance - 2013" to check the past 12 years attendance;

*ESPN.com - 2013 NFL Football Attendance - National Football League -*


----------



## isaidso

What would be the next most likely markets for the NFL after Los Angeles? I'm assuming Portland, San Antonio, Austin, Columbus?


----------



## bd popeye

isaidso said:


> What would be the next most likely markets for the NFL after Los Angeles? I'm assuming Portland, San Antonio, Austin, Columbus?


Do you mean league expansion or moving a team to stated cities? 

Let's go with expansion. ..the same applies to franchise relocation. 

Well the first criteria is to have a billionaire willing to spend money on an NFL team. And a city/county/state willing to build a "state of the art NFL stadium" for such a team. So unless a city has a stadium plan ready to be put into motion _immediately_ with the commitment of an NFL team to move their.

LA is the only city I see right now with the potential of grabbing an NFL team.

Where would they play in any of those cities you listed? 

Columbus.. can't play in Ohio Stadium the Big 10 forbids pro games in it's stadiums or liquor sales..Yes I know about Minnesota a couple of years ago. No Stadium or owner.

Austin? Nope the Longhorns are king..and it would intrude on the Cowboys and Texans...and no NFL stadium. No owner.

Portland? No NFL stadium. No owner.

San Antonio? humm?? the Alamodome is too old by NFL standards. Too close to the Texans and Cowboys.

No owner. I do feel the city of San Antonio could support an NFL team. Perhaps the Alamodome could get a major renovation..I mean major.


----------



## Scba

Jacksonville, after the Jaguars move.


----------



## eMKay

^^ :lol::lol::lol: ^^ Good one. 

Only city I see as a possible NFL city after Los Angeles is San Antonio.


----------



## Cjones2451

eMKay said:


> ^^ :lol::lol::lol: ^^ Good one.
> 
> Only city I see as a possible NFL city after Los Angeles is San Antonio.


So then do you start talking London and Mexico City? I do not think Toronto is even on the radar


----------



## Kerrybai

^ I think expanding into Canada makes sense. Mexico City too.

Somewhere like London is also possible but it could struggle without having it's own 'European division'. Staying in NA seems to be the safest option for now.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Not that i suspect the NFL will expand soon, buuuut...

Las Vegas?
Salt Lake City?


----------



## Walbanger

*AFL Preliminary Finals*

Prelim 1, Fri 20th: *Hawthorn* 14.18 (102) defeated *Geelong* 15.7 (97) at *MCG, crowd: 85,569*
Prelim 2, Sat 21st: *Fremantle* 14.15 (99) defeated *Sydney* 11.8 (74) at *Patersons Stadium, crowd: 43,249* (100% capacity)

Grand Final, Sat 28th: Hawthorn Hawks vs Fremantle Dockers at MCG.

Fremantle defeated last years premiers Sydney to reach their first ever Grand Final.
Hawthorn return to the Grand Final after losing the GF last year to Sydney. Hawthorn had to break the "Kennett Curse" to advace over Geelong who held an 11 game winning streak over the Hawks since Hawthorns great upset of the Cats in the 2008 Grand Final, the Hawks last and 10th Premiership.

Hawthorn will be favorites but Fremantle have a dour style that is well suited to suffocating the opposition.

I hate both teams, Fremantle by 11 points.


----------



## bd popeye

GunnerJacket said:


> Not that i suspect the NFL will expand soon, buuuut...
> 
> Las Vegas?
> Salt Lake City?


Las Vegas.. gambling mecca for the World. The NFL has more bets placed upon it's games than any other sport in the US. The concern is that the illegal gamblers..aka bookies would flourish and disrupt the integrity of NFL games...influencing players and coaches....Also its illegal to bet on a team based in Nevada. So the casinos could take no action on any NFL game. The bookies would. That's illegal and the casinos would lose billions in revenue. Plus they have no NFL stadium.

Salt Lake City..Humm.. Too small market. Metro population 1.1 million. City population 190,000. No NFL stadium.


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> Also its illegal to bet on a team based in Nevada. So the casinos could take no action on any NFL game.


This part I wasn't aware about so it may prove an automatic deal killer, as to the rest, however, that's all become pretty moot given the now global reach of online gambling and the way people handle office pools and fantasy leagues. Vegas itself has been undergoing the family friendly makeover in response to declines in straight gambling revenues and to the extent the industry would want to influence a game I see no reason why it would be that much more difficult for them to reach Boston or Miami as readily as a team in their own backyard. In this day and age location is but a the most minor of factors in that regard.

I get the feeling it will take just the first pro franchise of any kind to locate in vegas, then we'll see the others show interest rather quickly.



> Salt Lake City..Humm.. Too small market. Metro population 1.1 million. City population 190,000. No NFL stadium.


True, but their population figures and GDP are comparable to (or in some instances better than) those for Buffalo, New Orleans and Jacksonville, and their general support for sports teams has proven first rate. To say nothing of possibly tapping into the whole Mormon following.

Like I said, I don't suspect the NFL will be expanding anytime soon, I'm just thinking out loud here.


----------



## Birmingham

Well the owner of Jacksonvilla has said when/if it moves it will be to London. 

They are due to play some home games @ Wembley for the next 4 seasons. 

Wembley have also expressed an interest of the Superbowl being played at the stadium although the earliest this would be is 2018. 

I can see London hosting a full-time franchise within 5 years. 

The next match in London is this Sunday. Minnesota Vikings V Pittsburgh Steelers. 

By 20,000 more people in the stadium then what they've got so far this season. 

Then next month Jacksonville Jaguars take on San Francisco 49ers.

It has been confirmed that 2014 will likely see 3 games being played. 

It is hoped by the head of NFL in the UK that discussions indicate a permanent franchise will be in London before the end of the decade. 

This is mainly due to Wembley seats becoming up for renewal in 2017 which means new sports could aim to take some sort of % control of the stadium. 

In all honesty. 2017/18 - London will be the home to one team. Most likely the Jaguars. 

I suspect they will be renamed the London Lions or the London Royals.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Birmingham said:


> Well the owner of Jacksonvilla has said when/if it moves it will be to London..


I can see the benefit of these one-off games but I still can't buy into the premise of such a remote franchise. The logistics simply don't work when you try to equalize schedules. Can you fathom regular trips across the Atlantic for that team, with the closest neighbor being 5 time zones away?! Let alone the occassional trip to the US west coast.

Now, if they had enough teams to make an European division, remnants of the old NFL-Europe (London, Edinburgh, Dublin, Frankfurt) maybe then you've got something. But competing for grounds and attention with the local soccer/football leagues would make it tough to say the least.

I say they'd be better off revisiting the original NFL Europe concept and see if modern media can help the crossover appeal, and maybe use that as a better training ground for up-and-coming players.


----------



## Otto Racecar

bd popeye said:


> Do you mean league expansion or moving a team to stated cities?
> 
> Let's go with expansion. ..the same applies to franchise relocation.
> 
> Well the first criteria is to have a billionaire willing to spend money on an NFL team. And a city/county/state willing to build a "state of the art NFL stadium" for such a team. So unless a city has a stadium plan ready to be put into motion _immediately_ with the commitment of an NFL team to move their.
> 
> LA is the only city I see right now with the potential of grabbing an NFL team.
> 
> Where would they play in any of those cities you listed?
> 
> Columbus.. can't play in Ohio Stadium the Big 10 forbids pro games in it's stadiums or liquor sales..Yes I know about Minnesota a couple of years ago. No Stadium or owner.
> 
> Austin? Nope the Longhorns are king..and it would intrude on the Cowboys and Texans...and no NFL stadium. No owner.
> 
> Portland? No NFL stadium. No owner.
> 
> San Antonio? humm?? the Alamodome is too old by NFL standards. Too close to the Texans and Cowboys.
> 
> No owner. I do feel the city of San Antonio could support an NFL team. Perhaps the Alamodome could get a major renovation..I mean major.


Although I agree with most of what your saying I will point out that although the big ten would prefer teams not to share stadiums with NFL teams it certainly has happened in the past with not only minnesota but with the bears playing in memorial stadium while soldier field was being renovated. It also is going to happen in the future with the Vikings playing in TFC bank stadium while their new stadium is being built. 

Les Wexner, who is the billionaire owner of Limited Brands(victoria secrets, bath and body works,etc.) has stated in the past that he would be interested in owning a columbus NFL expansion franchise. He certainly has the funds to build a stadium and Columbus has I believe the highest amount of Fortune 1000 companies in the country hq there per capita. The funds are there and the city government has a history of making things happen if motivated.

The biggest hindrance to a Columbus NFL team in my opinion is not the popular notion of OSU taking up too much fanbase or market size but simply the proximity to Cleveland,Cincy,Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, and Detroit.


----------



## Kerrybai

GunnerJacket said:


> I can see the benefit of these one-off games but I still can't buy into the premise of such a remote franchise. The logistics simply don't work when you try to equalize schedules. Can you fathom regular trips across the Atlantic for that team, with the closest neighbor being 5 time zones away?! Let alone the occassional trip to the US west coast.
> 
> Now, if they had enough teams to make an European division, remnants of the old NFL-Europe (London, Edinburgh, Dublin, Frankfurt) maybe then you've got something. But competing for grounds and attention with the local soccer/football leagues would make it tough to say the least.
> 
> I say they'd be better off revisiting the original NFL Europe concept and see if modern media can help the crossover appeal, and maybe use that as a better training ground for up-and-coming players.


Travelling from the US East Coast to London is comparable to the US west to US East Coast. 

Now the problem you have pointed out concerns a team like the 49'ers going the to play in London... well do you really feel the extra distance will be a major deal? The players all fly 1st class and would not feel major physical effects. The only problem I see is tv schedules but I'm sure something could be worked out.

NFL europe would be very difficult to make a success and here is why. 

The MLS works because it produces half decent players. It also has some foreign 'rejects' who help the quality of the league.

However NFL Europe would rely entirely almost entirely on US players who don't make it and as a result I don't think Europeans would support a local team of forgein rejects when they can watch the superstars on TV.

While the US is producing decent soccer players for the MLS places like Dublin, Frankfurt, London are not exactly producing quality QB's and WR's. 

In simpler terms I think the lack of local talent makes NFL Europe a tough sell.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Kerrybai said:


> Now the problem you have pointed out concerns a team like the 49'ers going the to play in London... well do you really feel the extra distance will be a major deal? The players all fly 1st class and would not feel major physical effects. The only problem I see is tv schedules but I'm sure something could be worked out.


I think the extra distance would be a problem in travel because the additional time for such trips would not only mean an entire day+ spent in travel but the time zone adjustment for such brief layovers can be killers. There're already credible arguments from west coast players lamenting the 1PM kickoffs when visiting the east coast. For a London team on the road that would be 8 AM for their body-clocks! 

Sure, it's entirely managable but I don't think we'd be getting the best out of the athletes under such conditions.



> NFL europe would be very difficult to make a success and here is why.
> 
> ...
> 
> In simpler terms I think the lack of local talent makes NFL Europe a tough sell.


That is a good point and arguably lead to the death of NFL Europe. My counter would be that global media has evolved to make it easier and more appealing for US fans to follow a European league, and if we are indeed theorizing that the talent is there to foster 2-4 NFL expansion franchises then perhaps 8 is not such a tall order in the near future. Plus the rules regarding the placement/loaning of players off existing NFL rosters (those struggling to gain significant PT) could be adjusted to make it easier to bring some secondary names to the league.

Granted, if the CFL had the same rules as the NFL that league could arguably serve the same consumer appeal. But if the NFL is trying to expand it's global reach, simply adding a franchise in London doesn't seem worth the price, IMO.


----------



## weava

Kerrybai said:


> However NFL Europe would rely entirely almost entirely on US players who don't make it and as a result I don't think Europeans would support a local team of forgein rejects when they can watch the superstars on TV.
> 
> While the US is producing decent soccer players for the MLS places like Dublin, Frankfurt, London are not exactly producing quality QB's and WR's.
> 
> In simpler terms I think the lack of local talent makes NFL Europe a tough sell.


aren't most basketball teams in Europe filled with american players? I'm sure that American football is going to become big in Europe in the next 20 years. I've watched some European American football games online this year and there are some decent skill players over there, the Vienna Vikings are pretty good and mostly European players.


----------



## kerouac1848

No, much of Europe (East and South certainly) have plenty of homegrown players. Although American players are common I wouldn't say most sides in countries where basketball is truly popular are 'filled' with US imports, certainly compared to a rebooted NFL Europe. Many European players are actually based in the US, whether NBA or College teams. 

I can't see American Football becoming big here tbh. It will have sizable - and loyal - niche support that provides it with decent media coverage, but there is no real grassroots. All the popular sports here have that, whether Pan-European (football, tennis), or regional (rugby, basketball, ice hockey) or domestic (cricket).


----------



## isaidso

GunnerJacket said:


> <NFL_Borg>We will add your likeness to our own. Resistence is futile.</NFL_Borg>


It does feel like the Borg sometimes. On another note, I'm surprised Atlanta isn't in MLS already. Do you see them joining in the next round of expansion?


----------



## muc

Kerrybai said:


> It's mostly European players. In fact countries like Spain produce a lot of talented players.
> 
> The problem with developing European American football players is largely a financial one. While soccer and Basketball can be played by kids for relatively low money, gridiron requires a lot of money for equipment etc, money that simply isn't available.
> 
> I could never see NFL europe working as the product would be so inferior to the NFL. The only way I see gridiron working in Europe is through expansion teams.


I fail to see why money for sports equipment would be less avilable in Europe than in the US. Living standards are quite comparable in many European countries and other relatively expensive sports (Skiing, Golf, Tennis etc.) are popular in Europe as well.

In Germany NFL Europe was doing quite ok. Frankfurt Galaxy could draw crowds of up to 30.000.


----------



## GunnerJacket

isaidso said:


> It does feel like the Borg sometimes.


Few organisms, let alone businesses, survive by simply standing pat. At least some level of change is needed to remain in such high standing with the consumer. The NFL is the biggest thing going right now but is quite different from 20 years ago, so I'm sure it will be further different 20 years ahead. 


> On another note, I'm surprised Atlanta isn't in MLS already. Do you see them joining in the next round of expansion?


Atlanta is a quixotic market compared to many others. Sunbelt community reared on suburban sprawl and transplants, with no natural sporting rivals and limited sporting success for the longest time. Thus it's taken a while for the locals to match the hometown spirit of their more established peers. But by most press accounts now Atlanta is a shoe-in for the next round of expansion provided 3 things: Arthur Blank wants in and pays the entry fee, they make sure the new Falcons stadium features a decent MLS-freindly set up, and there's a commitment to the marketing and management needed to succeed at the gate at all costs. Regarding that last point, MLS has made it a point of telling new owners that the league does not want to have to consider contraction or relocating new teams in the manner of Miami or Tampa, so they've asked these owners to be prepared to weather down times and show the means to really engage their specific community. 

If Blank says yes to all that then we'll see an ATL franchise by 2020.


----------



## BeestonLad

bd popeye said:


> Ok, the Red Sox streak for consecutive sellouts ended earlier this season.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...k-red-sox-record-sellout-streak-ends/2072633/


How odd, to go over 700 games selling out and then all of a sudden have a crowd 6-7k under capacity


----------



## Rev Stickleback

muc said:


> I fail to see why money for sports equipment would be less avilable in Europe than in the US. Living standards are quite comparable in many European countries and other relatively expensive sports (Skiing, Golf, Tennis etc.) are popular in Europe as well.


there isn't the funding for high-school/university sports that exists in the USA, so it's much harder for youngsters to get that introduction into playing the sport, regardless of whether the schools would offer it in the first place.


----------



## weava

Rev Stickleback said:


> there isn't the funding for high-school/university sports that exists in the USA, so it's much harder for youngsters to get that introduction into playing the sport, regardless of whether the schools would offer it in the first place.


youngsters don't play on school teams in the US at young ages. They play in privately run leagues such as "little league"(baseball), YMCA leagues(basketball), or "pop warner"(football). If poor people in the South of the US can afford these leagues, then so can rich Europeans. Baseball isn't the cheapest of sports either and its huge in latin america.

I have a coworker who told me around a week ago he has already spent $2,000 on his kids soccer team memberships who is only 9 years old. If anything, it seems to me that soccer is one of the most expensive team sports in the US for whatever reason. He told me he was putting his kid on a cheaper(and less competitive) team next year

It can also be noted that in baseball and basketball, many high school age players still play in private leagues such as AAU(basketball) and American Legion(baseball) 

Most schools don't start having teams until high school(ages 14-18) or some as early as middle school(ages 11-13)


----------



## isaidso

GunnerJacket said:


> Few organisms, let alone businesses, survive by simply standing pat. At least some level of change is needed to remain in such high standing with the consumer. The NFL is the biggest thing going right now but is quite different from 20 years ago, so I'm sure it will be further different 20 years ahead.


Quite right. Unfortunately this isn't just any old business. It's an integral part of this country's culture. 



GunnerJacket said:


> Atlanta is a quixotic market compared to many others. Sunbelt community reared on suburban sprawl and transplants, with no natural sporting rivals and limited sporting success for the longest time. Thus it's taken a while for the locals to match the hometown spirit of their more established peers. But by most press accounts now Atlanta is a shoe-in for the next round of expansion provided 3 things: Arthur Blank wants in and pays the entry fee, they make sure the new Falcons stadium features a decent MLS-freindly set up, and there's a commitment to the marketing and management needed to succeed at the gate at all costs. Regarding that last point, MLS has made it a point of telling new owners that the league does not want to have to consider contraction or relocating new teams in the manner of Miami or Tampa, so they've asked these owners to be prepared to weather down times and show the means to really engage their specific community.
> 
> If Blank says yes to all that then we'll see an ATL franchise by 2020.


I never thought of Atlanta having no natural sporting rival, but I guess it doesn't. It's such a big city that it's hard to imagine MLS failing there regardless of any negative circumstances/realities that might exist. It's sort of how the Argonauts survive because of the sheer size of the market rather than anything else.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

BeestonLad said:


> How odd, to go over 700 games selling out and then all of a sudden have a crowd 6-7k under capacity


Well, it was pretty well known that the last year or two of that streak had multiple games with less than capacity crowds. They hung on as long as they could lol


----------



## GunnerJacket

weava said:


> I have a coworker who told me around a week ago he has already spent $2,000 on his kids soccer team memberships who is only 9 years old. If anything, it seems to me that soccer is one of the most expensive team sports in the US for whatever reason. He told me he was putting his kid on a cheaper(and less competitive) team next year


The youth sports industry has gotten out of hand. The expectations for teams to have a 3rd uniform, matching travel bags and sweats is beyond silly, IMO. My daughter was poised to move up to a competetive cheer squad but the uniforms and accessories alone cost $800, and would change each year! Plenty of kids miss out on such higher levels of sport due to these restrictions, and don't even get me started on all the "fund raising" they make the kids do. 

But that's 'Merica for ya - Capable of taking anything and overcommercializing it to death!


isaidso said:


> Quite right. Unfortunately this isn't just any old business. It's an integral part of this country's culture.


BFD! If the NFL wants something, it's a coming after it! :tongue2: 


> I never thought of Atlanta having no natural sporting rival, but I guess it doesn't.


Due to the evolution of the country's big cities and transportation links ATL and Miami were the default markets for the southeast for most of the early years of pro sports' modern era. But those 2 cities are decidedly different and still 600+ miles apart. This meant many early ATL teams did commandeer much of the southeast as a regional fan base but during that time the Braves, Hawks and Falcons failed to succeed well enough to become something bigger culturally, then the fan base eventually thinned as pro sports expanded into other markets.


----------



## isaidso

GunnerJacket said:


> BFD! If the NFL wants something, it's a coming after it! :tongue2:


Thankfully, it looks like the NFL doesn't want us. We'll try and look as unappealing as possible for as long as possible. It's a BFD to us. :sad2:


----------



## muc

Rev Stickleback said:


> there isn't the funding for high-school/university sports that exists in the USA, so it's much harder for youngsters to get that introduction into playing the sport, regardless of whether the schools would offer it in the first place.


There isn't much funding for high school or unitversity sports in Europe because that's not where sport happens (apart from some "Physical Education" class). In Europe sport is usually done in clubs which are plentiful and usually all have a youth department. Every small town has a handful of clubs. They are usually very interested in getting new members so they keep membership fees low for children. Often they are subsidized by the city (providing land or buildings) and are being exempt from taxes (as they operate as non-profit organizations).

I don't think Ice Hockey equipment is much cheaper than American Football gear, yet this sport is very popular in many parts of Europe. Not only in the rich countries and not only for the rich kids.

If you want to make American Football more popular in Europe you need to convince the small local clubs to open American Football departments or found new clubs. Money for Equipment would really be the smallest of all issues.


----------



## GunnerJacket

isaidso said:


> Thankfully, it looks like the NFL doesn't want us. We'll try and look as unappealing as possible for as long as possible. It's a BFD to us. :sad2:


I wouldn't worry. The NFL actually enjoys the arrangement where the CFL is similar enough to hype "American" football fanatacism but the differences in seasons and game structure mean it's more of a compliment to the NFL than a threat. There's even been talk about the NFL Network bidding for CFL broadcast rights in the States in the future.

I'm thrilled to see the CFL doing so well of late. Would love to see it someday capable of 12-14 teams. I first got into it in the early days of ESPN, when the network was looking for summer TV inventory. Great way for US football fans to get their fix in the NFL off-season. Was always partial to Saskatchewan for some unkown reason.


----------



## GunnerJacket

muc said:


> If you want to make American Football more popular in Europe you need to convince the small local clubs to open American Football departments or found new clubs. Money for Equipment would really be the smallest of all issues.


You'll also surely get some pushback from the rugby crowd, who're trying to build their own fan base and industry.


----------



## isaidso

GunnerJacket said:


> I wouldn't worry. The NFL actually enjoys the arrangement where the CFL is similar enough to hype "American" football fanatacism but the differences in seasons and game structure mean it's more of a compliment to the NFL than a threat. There's even been talk about the NFL Network bidding for CFL broadcast rights in the States in the future.
> 
> I'm thrilled to see the CFL doing so well of late. Would love to see it someday capable of 12-14 teams. I first got into it in the early days of ESPN, when the network was looking for summer TV inventory. Great way for US football fans to get their fix in the NFL off-season. Was always partial to Saskatchewan for some unkown reason.


They do seem to compliment each other and the NFL has little to gain from the CFL's demise. We'll be back up to 9 teams next year and I'd be shocked if it didn't move to 10 before the decade is out. 12-14 will likely take till 2030. There just aren't enough large markets in the country to support more unless football makes a huge comeback in the Toronto area. 

Saskatchewan seems to be everyone's favourite team. In a tiny city that really has no business having a team in the first place yet has the most devoted fans in the nation. It's hard not to root for them. I'd love to see them break 40,000 for average attendance this year. They're currently at 39,049 with 3 home games left. They'd be the first CFL team in a very long time to do it if they can get there.


----------



## BoulderGrad

isaidso said:


> They do seem to compliment each other and the NFL has little to gain from the CFL's demise. We'll be back up to 9 teams next year and I'd be shocked if it didn't move to 10 before the decade is out. 12-14 will likely take till 2030. There just aren't enough large markets in the country to support more unless football makes a huge comeback in the Toronto area.
> 
> Saskatchewan seems to be everyone's favourite team. In a tiny city that really has no business having a team in the first place yet has the most devoted fans in the nation. It's hard not to root for them. I'd love to see them break 40,000 for average attendance this year. They're currently at 39,049 with 3 home games left. They'd be the first CFL team in a very long time to do it if they can get there.


The CFL's version of the green bay packers


----------



## isaidso

BoulderGrad said:


> The CFL's version of the green bay packers


Pretty much.


----------



## eMKay

weava said:


> I have a coworker who told me around a week ago he has already spent $2,000 on his kids soccer team memberships who is only 9 years old. If anything, it seems to me that soccer is one of the most expensive team sports in the US for whatever reason. He told me he was putting his kid on a cheaper(and less competitive) team next year


Obviously that is an exception to the norm, so using that example to say one of the cheapest teams sports is one of the most expensive team sports is a little ridiculous.


----------



## bd popeye

_Selected _NCAA Division I FBS football for this week. Home school listed first.

Michigan...Michigan Stadium, Ann Arbor, MI Attendance: 111,079

Tennessee...Neyland Stadium, Knoxville, TN Attendance: 102,455

Alabama...Bryant-Denny Stadium, Tuscaloosa, AL Attendance: 101,254

Nebraska...Tom Osborne Field at Memorial Stadium, Lincoln, NE Attendance: 90,458

Florida...Ben Hill Griffin Stadium at Florida Field, Gainesville, FL Attendance: 90,043

Auburn...Jordan-Hare Stadium, Auburn, AL Attendance: 86,504

Oklahoma...Gaylord Family-Oklahoma Memorial Stadium, Norman, OK Attendance: 84,992

South Carolina...Williams-Brice Stadium, Columbia, SC Attendance: 82,313

Florida State...Bobby Bowden Field at Doak Campbell Stadium, Tallahassee, FL Attendance: 74,909

Iowa...Kinnick Stadium, Iowa City, IA Attendance: 69,025

ASU Vs Notre Dame..AT&T Stadium, Arlington, TX Attendance: 66,960(neutral site)

Virginia Tech...Lane Stadium/Worsham Field, Blacksburg, VA Attendance: 65,632

Oklahoma State...Boone Pickens Stadium, Stillwater, OK Attendance: 58,841

Northwestern...Ryan Field, Evanston, IL Attendance: 47,330

Colorado...Folsom Field, Boulder, CO Attendance: 45,944

California...Memorial Stadium, Berkeley, CA Attendance: 44,682


----------



## isaidso

When Americans say ASU how does one know what school they're referring to? Aren't there quite a few ASUs?


----------



## bd popeye

isaidso said:


> When Americans say ASU how does one know what school they're referring to? Aren't there quite a few ASUs?


Nope.. ASU is Arizona State University or simply Arizona State.. If folks are talking about college football..they know..For instance..LSU is Louisiana State University. TCU Texas Christian University. Certain names just stick. 

There are some that are similar for instance in southern California The University of Southern California is USC or Southern Cal. In South Carolina the University of South Carolina is USC. But if you are a football fan and live in either place you know.

In the state Washington every football fan knows that U W is The University of Washington.

In California every football fan knows that UCLA is the University of California at Los Angeles. And Cal is the University of California at Berkeley. So on and so forth..

Here's a link to the the 120+ NCAA Division I FBS Football schools;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NCAA_Division_I_FBS_football_programs


----------



## GunnerJacket

Otto Racecar said:


> Although I agree the accent of THE may have something to do with ego I would also argue that there isn't a large college football power that doesn't have ego. Tosu is not something new and its history has very little to do with ego. The Ohio State University is the official name of the school and tosu has been used as a way of differentiating ohio st from other osu's by journalists since at least the 1920's.


Oh, I know it's official and many other schools have comparable designations (PSU) but few (LSU) are so ardent about the application. The problem is that it's less necessary in this day and age now that information about different institutions is so readily promoted and available, plus when you're already saying "Ohio State" (thanks largely to their fabled sports programs long known simply as Ohio State) no one these days thinks you're generically referring to the/any Ohio state university that happens to be located Athens or elsewhere. They haven't told ESPN to run "TOSU" on the sportsticker, and I've yet to see the marching band form T-O-S-U on the field, but I have seen O-S-U. Even various articles and publications will occassionally use the casual Ohio State, sans the The. 

But ever since the trademark(?) dispute with Ohio University in the late 80's, and in part the growing national competition for students, sponsors and recruits from other schools, including Oregon St and Okie St, we got a ramp up of emphasis on the The part of their namesake. The advent of modern media and the need to build and enforce brand power led to the mantra _We're not just any OSU, we're THE OSU!_ The use of the article, most likely initially applied as a casual clarification to the schools name, is now being brandied about as an earned title or Knighthood! This despite the fact there is no other Ohio State University on the whole planet!

I don't begrudge the folks who have to use the title officially; it's quite silly. But the school does indeed want everyone to know who's the boss in that state, much like LSU in LA, etc., and it makes them sound like bullies in the process. And that's just a pet peeve of mine.

From the school's website, which is ironically just osu.edu:

_*Why are we called "THE" Ohio State University"?*

In 1986, a new University logo was introduced in the hopes of moving away from the "OSU" symbol, which had been used since 1977. The change from simply "OSU" was said to "reflect the national stature of the institution." University officials wanted the institution to be known as "The Ohio State University," again, since OSU could also mean Oregon State and Oklahoma State University.

However, the "The" was actually part of the state legislation when the university was renamed in 1878. The following excerpt is from the Board of Trustee minutes:

"...the educational institution heretofore known as the 'Ohio Agricultural and Mechanical College,' shall be known and designated hereafter as 'The Ohio State University.'"

Those who wanted the name change thought the original name was too narrow in scope, and that it was inadequate for the institution that was the only beneficiary of the land grant act. President Edward Orton was insistent that a new name would separate the institution from other colleges in Ohio.

Legend also has it that "The" was used to show the other colleges which institution was supposed to be the leader in the state - both in size and in financial support from the legislature_


----------



## Otto Racecar

I certainly don't disagree with what your saying and as a graduate of both Ohio State and Ohio University and as a resident of the state of Ohio I certainly can attest that their is competition among the universities for national recognition. Ohio State certainly can rub Ohio University alumni the wrong way especially since Ohio U was the first university in the Northwest Territory and was founded 66 years prior to Ohio State. 

I honestly notice the word THE emphasized more by journalists and athletes on programs such as Monday Night Football far more then a concentrated effort on the part of the university. It is much more common to hear Welcome to the Ohio State University instead of welcome to THE Ohio State University on Ohio State's campus or advertisements although I'm sure it has happened. My only point is that the word THE or tOSU has been used for decades by journalists as a way of differentiating from other Osu's although you are correct in the statement that it is probably not as needed currently.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Thanks for the comments, Otto, and sorry for the sidebar everyone. Back to attendance minutiae!


----------



## isaidso

*Canadian Football League*
*2013 Week #15*










Hamilton Tiger-Cats @ Toronto Argonauts 28,467 
Saskatchewan Roughriders @ BC Lions 37,212
Montreal Alouettes @ Edmonton Eskimos 28,455
Winnipeg Blue Bombers @ Calgary Stampeders 26,293


Week #15 attendance: 120,427
Week #15 average attendance: 30,107
Cummulative attendance: 1,532,952
Average attendance: 27,374


----------



## poguemahone

First Week of the Australian A-League season

Sydney FC v Newcastle Jets at Allianz Stadium: 20,103

Central Coast Mariners v Western Sydney Wanderers at Bluetongue Stadium: 17,134

Melbourne Victory v Melbourne Heart at Etihad Stadium: 45,202

Wellington Phoenix v Brisbane Roar at Westpac Stadium: 8,239

Adelaide United v Perth Glory at Coopers Stadium: 10,320


----------



## bd popeye

It's late I'm tired I'll just post some selected NCAA Division I FBS attendance over 75,000. Home team listed first.

Penn State...Beaver Stadium, University Park, PA Attendance: 107,884

LSU...Tiger Stadium, Baton Rouge, LA Attendance: 92,980

Georgia...Sanford Stadium, Athens, GA Attendance: 92,746

Texas Vs Oklahoma, Cotton Bowl, Dallas, TX Attendance: 92,500..Neutral site

Georgia...Sanford Stadium, Athens, GA Attendance: 92,746

UCLA...Rose Bowl, Pasadena, CA Attendance: 84,272

Auburn...Jordan-Hare Stadium, Auburn, AL Attendance: 84,171

Clemson...Memorial Stadium, Clemson, SC Attendance: 77,506


----------



## isaidso

At the end of the season, would you post that chart the NCAA puts out showing average attendance by school? I'm interested to see how many schools are at 40,000 or over. I'm guessing about 70.


----------



## bd popeye

isaidso said:


> At the end of the season, would you post that chart the NCAA puts out showing average attendance by school? I'm interested to see how many schools are at 40,000 or over. I'm guessing about 70.


That chart does not appear until January.. but when it does I'll post it.

At quick glance there's about 60 schools averaging over 40,000 a game.

Here's one for 2012 NCAA Division I football attendance. 

http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_records/Attendance/2012.pdf


----------



## bd popeye

The MLS regular season is still in full swing. And I thought the MLB season was long. The Championship match this year for the MLS is not until Dec. 7th, 2013...and they started in March.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Not too many changes compared to the previous table, and most were of the downward trajectory, sadly. Combination of mid-week games and who was hosting. Houston dropped a little and now appears unlikely to break a 20k avg. San Jose fell below 13k as expected due to stadium size. Otherwise essentially holding serve with only 1-2 more home games left per team. League will finish strong with another banner year even if it doesn't surpass last year's numbers.

Meanwhile the press picked up on "rumours" of the league considering a schedule shift to play more in-line with the conventional European calendar. Can't say that I'd support that at all right now, if ever, and I'd say the burgeoning attendance figures are a sign that what MLS is doing right now works. Please guy, don't mess this up.


----------



## bd popeye

GunnerJacket said:


> Meanwhile the press picked up on "rumours" of the league considering a schedule shift to play more in-line with the conventional European calendar. Can't say that I'd support that at all right now, if ever, and I'd say the burgeoning attendance figures are a sign that what MLS is doing right now works. Please guy, don't mess this up.


And I agree..

Who's the genuis that wants to put the MLS up against..

1) The NFL..
2) The MLB pennant and playfoff races
3) NBA
4) NHL

and NASCAR and the PGA end of season?

Not a smart move.. Plus winter weather in , Montreal, Toronto, Chicago, New York, DC, New England, Columbus, Philadelphia, Denver..and even Seattle is not that pleasant in the winter...Also Dallas can be a bit nasty in January.

I'm sure the weather in North America in the winter has been discussed in this thread where as it is not conducive to good play on a soccer field..


----------



## weava

bd popeye said:


> And I agree..
> 
> Who's the genuis that wants to put the MLS up against..
> 
> 1) The NFL..
> 2) The MLB pennant and playfoff races
> 3) NBA
> 4) NHL
> 
> and NASCAR and the PGA end of season?
> 
> Not a smart move.. Plus winter weather in , Montreal, Toronto, Chicago, New York, DC, New England, Columbus, Philadelphia, Denver..and even Seattle is not that pleasant in the winter...Also Dallas can be a bit nasty in January.
> 
> I'm sure the weather in North America in the winter has been discussed in this thread where as it is not conducive to good play on a soccer field..


5 of the top 6 MLS teams in attendance are in cities without NBA teams
4 of the top 8 don't have MLB teams
3 of the top 5 cities only have teams from 1 of the big 4 leagues

The teams in those cities won't be competing against all of the big 4 for fans if they move the season but the league would be dumb to try and compete with the big 4 for national TV ratings.


----------



## bd popeye

weava said:


> 5 of the top 6 MLS teams in attendance are in cities without NBA teams
> 4 of the top 8 don't have MLB teams
> 3 of the top 5 cities only have teams from 1 of the big 4 leagues
> 
> The teams in those cities won't be competing against all of the big 4 for fans if they move the season but the league would be dumb to try and compete with the big 4 for national TV ratings.


Ok.. but as you know the winter weather in the northern regions of the US and Canada is brutal. And that, in my opinion would severely, affect attendance.

I agree that it would not be smart to move the season to be in sequenc with European leagues. The MLS cannot compete, TV ratings wise, with any of the other pro sports or NCAA football or NCAA basketball.


----------



## bd popeye

Actual game day attendance for the sixth week of the 2013 NFL season. Home team listed first.



Dallas Cowboys...AT&T Stadium, Arlington, TX Attendance: 90,239

New York Jets...MetLife Stadium, East Rutherford, NJ Attendance: 76,957

Denver Broncos...Sports Authority Field at Mile High, Denver, CO Attendance: 76,862

Kansas City Chiefs...Arrowhead Stadium, Kansas City, MO Attendance: 76,394

Cleveland Browns...FirstEnergy Stadium, Cleveland, Ohio Attendance: 71,513

Baltimore Ravens...M&T Bank Stadium, Baltimore, Maryland MD Attendance: 71,319

Houston Texans...Reliant Stadium, Houston, TX Attendance: 71,104

San Francisco 49ers...Candlestick Park, San Francisco, CA Attendance: 69,732

New England Patriots...Gillette Stadium, Foxborough, MA Attendance: 68,756

Seattle Seahawks...CenturyLink Field, Seattle, WA Attendance: 68,127

Buffalo Bills...Ralph Wilson Stadium, Orchard Park, NY Attendance: 67,739

Mall of America Field at Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome, Minneapolis, MN Attendance: 63,963

Tampa Bay Buccaneers...Raymond James Stadium, Tampa, FL Attendance: 62,505

Chicago Bears...Soldier Field, Chicago, IL Attendance: 62,374

San Diego Chargers...Qualcomm Stadium, San Diego, CA Attendance: 57,954


----------



## isaidso

bd popeye said:


> That chart does not appear until January.. but when it does I'll post it.
> 
> At quick glance there's about 60 schools averaging over 40,000 a game.
> 
> Here's one for 2012 NCAA Division I football attendance.


Thanks. When people see a chart like that it becomes plainly obvious that there are a good 150+ big football programs in the United States not just the 36 we see in the NFL.


----------



## isaidso

bd popeye said:


> Not a smart move.. Plus winter weather in , Montreal, Toronto, Chicago, New York, DC, New England, Columbus, Philadelphia, Denver..and even Seattle is not that pleasant in the winter...Also Dallas can be a bit nasty in January.
> 
> I'm sure the weather in North America in the winter has been discussed in this thread where as it is not conducive to good play on a soccer field..


Any move to a European schedule will be fought viciously by lots of northern cities. This is NOT Europe; we don't benefit from the gulf stream the way they do. I highly doubt Europeans would play through winter if they had a north American climate.



weava said:


> 5 of the top 6 MLS teams in attendance are in cities without NBA teams
> 4 of the top 8 don't have MLB teams
> *3 of the top 5 cities* only have teams from 1 of the big 4 leagues
> 
> The teams in those cities won't be competing against all of the big 4 for fans if they move the season but the league would be dumb to try and compete with the big 4 for national TV ratings.


You may as well change that to part in bold to 1 of the top 5 as both the Montreal Impact and Vancouver Whitecaps would certainly be competing against pro football, but in their case the CFL not the NFL. They may be weak pro football cities, but they still outdraw MLS.


----------



## apinamies

isaidso said:


> Any move to a European schedule will be fought viciously by lots of northern cities. This is NOT Europe; we don't benefit from the gulf stream the way they do. I highly doubt Europeans would play through winter if they had a north American climate.


That is true for many countries but few big leagues like Bundesliga have similar conditions in winter than northern USA and Southern Canada. It still works for Germany so I don't think MLS would have problem for weather but competition against other sport leagues would have of course far too tough.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

I hope the MLS sticks to its calendar, becomes the best and most influential league in the world, and the European leagues start needing to align their calendar. I effing hate the idea of having outdoor sports in winter.


----------



## GunnerJacket

alexandru.mircea said:


> I hope the MLS sticks to its calendar, becomes the best and most influential league in the world, and the European leagues start needing to align their calendar. I effing hate the idea of having outdoor sports in winter.


Thinking globally I imagine that we'll come to understand there is no singular season schedule that works out for everyone and become more accepting of those who deviate from the UEFA norm. After all, one hemisphere's summer is another's winter. 

But that's good. The variety not only ensure's each nation can do what's best for their fans but global media means we'll find infinite options of foreign leagues to follow during the lulls in our own home schedules. Vive la difference, as it were!


----------



## alexandru.mircea

The internet is bringing more and more idiots' "opinions" to the foreground, otherwise I can't explain all these waves of people beating the MLS with the "you need to align yourselves with the European calendar" stick. Back in my day not even the _European _leagues that didn't follow the Western Europe type of calendar were questioned about it. Those that eventually aligned themselves to an autumn-spring calendar did it with the purpose of reaching a more level playing field in European competitions, not because of subjective reasons.

My claim for a spring-autumn calendar is objectively founded, though. The current calendar is skewing spectator participation in terms of gender. No sane women with a bit of knowledge of health issues would sit her ass on a frozen plastic seat for about three hours. Surely the health of your reproductory system should prevail as a concern. Standing for the the same length of time is also a no-no for a hardworking person, especially if the day job involves a lot of standing. Consequently, I don't find surprising that when watching MLS highlights I notice that the two genders are much more evenly represented.

Where I live there are at least five months that qualify as bad weather for a women to go to stadiums. This is not necessarily "objective" like in women's case but I also can't explain why a man, also, wouldn't think the same when going out for match in cold rain at 2 degrees Celsius at 9PM, i.e. typical early November weather? That's not enjoyable. And to think that for the next three-four months it will only get worse...


----------



## bd popeye

ferro20 said:


> *Juventus Stadium* : 41.000
> 
> Always packed. :cheers:
> 
> 2013/14 Minimum 32,279 Maximum 39,594 Average 37,235 Full% 90.8%


That's nice..but don't you know..in the US 24 of the 32 National Football League teams play to 90% capacity? yep..That's a fact.

2013 NFL average attendance so far this season..


----------



## weava

bd popeye said:


> That's nice..but don't you know..in the US 24 of the 32 National Football League teams play to 90% capacity? yep..That's a fact.
> 
> 2013 NFL average attendance so far this season..
> [/URL]


and 14/32 are at 99%+ 
now Oakland on the other hand, there is no way they are at 80%. Half of their stadium is tarped off, they pretend half the stadium doesn't exist for capacity...


----------



## bd popeye

weava said:


> and 14/32 are at 99%+
> now Oakland on the other hand, there is no way they are at 80%. Half of their stadium is tarped off, they pretend half the stadium doesn't exist for capacity...


Yea..I saw the last part of their game with KC.. No way there were 50,000 at that game. no way.

Pitiful..call the movers...LA here come da' Raiders.


----------



## ferro20

Ok..but in Italy such an average is something extraordinary. Italian stadiums are half packed. 



bd popeye said:


> That's nice..but don't you know..in the US 24 of the 32 National Football League teams play to 90% capacity? yep..That's a fact.
> 
> 2013 NFL average attendance so far this season..
> 
> http://imgur.com/szvSBIA


----------



## bd popeye

ferro20 said:


> Ok..but in Italy such an average is something extraordinary. Italian stadiums are half packed.


Did not know that. Thanks for the info.

Here's the Italian Serie A Team Attendance for the '13 - '14 season ..looks very good to me.


----------



## ferro20

bd popeye said:


> Did not know that. Thanks for the info.
> 
> Here's the Italian Serie A Team Attendance for the '13 - '14 season ..looks very good to me.


 But we have to consider the capacity of the stadiums....


----------



## bd popeye

ferro20 said:


> But we have to consider the capacity of the stadiums....


Thanks again. I learn something new everyday.


----------



## GunnerJacket

ferro20 said:


> But we have to consider the capacity of the stadiums....


From afar it appears the issue is less the % capacity and more about the conditions of the venues. Most are woefully old, so not only are the teams playing in track stadiums but aging ones at that. Juve's stadium is essentially the only solid modern venue going.


----------



## Celt67

ferro20 said:


> But we have to consider the capacity of the stadiums....


May I ask what website that is ?


----------



## ferro20

GunnerJacket said:


> From afar it appears the issue is less the % capacity and more about the conditions of the venues. Most are woefully old, so not only are the teams playing in track stadiums but aging ones at that. Juve's stadium is essentially the only solid modern venue going.


Several different issues: recession, matches every day and every night on the TV, obsolete and far too big stadiums, non competitive teams, stadiums not suitable for families, etc.


----------



## Red85

bd popeye said:


> Did not know that. Thanks for the info.
> 
> Here's the Italian Serie A Team Attendance for the '13 - '14 season ..looks very good to me.


You can say about the level of the Dutch Eredivisie what you want, but I guess the averages are not far from this.

Edit:
Like I said. Source is wikipedia though, best I could find with an overall average. But seems legit. 
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eredivisie_2012/13

20.786 over last season.


----------



## bd popeye

Red85 said:


> You can say about the level of the Dutch Eredivisie what you want, but I guess the averages are not far from this.
> 
> Edit:
> Like I said. Source is wikipedia though, best I could find with an overall average. But seems legit.
> https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eredivisie_2012/13
> 
> 20.786 over last season.


Thank you! I get my figures from ESPN.

http://espnfc.com/stats/attendance/_/league/ned.1/dutch-eredivisie?cc=5901


----------



## Fabio1976

bd popeye said:


> Thank you! I get my figures from ESPN.
> 
> http://espnfc.com/stats/attendance/_/league/ned.1/dutch-eredivisie?cc=5901


Heracles 93k is a great joke


----------



## bd popeye

Fabio1976 said:


> Heracles 93k is a great joke


What is the actual figure? Thank you.

I'm no soccer fan.

Let me see..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heracles_Almelo

More than likely about 5 - 6,000...


----------



## GunnerJacket

If I had to guess I'd say the "7" in their overall total is an extra-digital typo.


----------



## GunnerJacket

ferro20 said:


> Several different issues: recession, matches every day and every night on the TV, obsolete and far too big stadiums, non competitive teams, stadiums not suitable for families, etc.


Would you say the first two factors have much of an impact? Those things are influential the world over so if they're a big factor why is it impacting Italy so severely compared to, say, Spain, France or England?


----------



## flierfy

German football heads into a winter break which is more like a Christmas break these days. Anyway, the final game of 2013 has been finished now. So I can display the key figures of the most relevant divisions mid-way through the season:


Zuschauer 2013-14 Ende Dezember par flierfy, bei ipernity


----------



## KingmanIII

^^ looked it up -- 1860 are barely drawing above the 2nd Bundesliga average -- yikes


----------



## bd popeye

Regular season attendance for the..





_I cannot find an exact figure but I think the league average game attendance is 66,000 to 68,000. The NFL plays 254 games total per-season. There's one week left in the season._


----------



## Harrys

bd popeye said:


> Thank you! I get my figures from ESPN.
> 
> http://espnfc.com/stats/attendance/_/league/ned.1/dutch-eredivisie?cc=5901


the capacity of SC Heracles Stadium is 8,500 seats, how they can have an average attendance of 93,886 ^^ more than any football club in Europe or NFL US team ? ^^


----------



## Harrys

ferro20 said:


> *Juventus Stadium* : 41.000
> 
> Always packed. :cheers:
> 
> 2013/14 Minimum 32,279 Maximum 39,594 Average 37,235 Full% 90.8%


I think Juventus built a stadium a little bit too small...a 50.000 capacity would be better


----------



## bd popeye

Harrys said:


> the capacity of SC Heracles Stadium is 8,500 seats, how they can have an average attendance of 93,886 ^^ more than any football club in Europe or NFL US team ? ^^


One of a couple of things..

someone goofed.

someone deliberately entered false figures. 

Once again I'm not an association football fan and I've not been to Italy since 1973.

Have a Merry Christmas.


----------



## ferro20

Harrys said:


> I think Juventus built a stadium a little bit too small...a 50.000 capacity would be better


JS was built taking in account several requisites: average attendance in Juventus FC history, budget, maximum profit, atmosphere. The aim is to minimize mainteinance expenses and to optimize profits with more season tickets and premiums seats (and more skyboxes, of course). The distance between the last row of the grand stand and the pitch is 49m. No "popular" seats....only "exclusive". No empty spaces in the stands mean high demand for few seats and the possibility for JFC to raise prices and boost revenues. In other words they prefer wealthy supporters..the ones you can squeeze better.


----------



## Red85

bd popeye said:


> What is the actual figure? Thank you.
> 
> I'm no soccer fan.
> 
> Let me see..
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heracles_Almelo
> 
> More than likely about 5 - 6,000...


Didn't knew the rural city of Almelo had the biggest stadium of the whole country.. by far!!!

No seriously. Heracles' Polman stadium is indeed 8.500, but 5 to 6.000 is to low. Average attendance is about 99%. 
Over the whole period 2005-2011: 8.416
Source (Dutch though...) 
http://www.hartvoorheracles.nl/columns/143/De_toeschouwers_van_Heracles,_column_door_Bert_Broeksma

One of the reasons they are in a fight with the citycouncil over a new 15.000 capacity stadium. 



Harrys said:


> the capacity of SC Heracles Stadium is 8,500 seats, how they can have an average attendance of 93,886 ^^ more than any football club in Europe or NFL US team ? ^^


Indeed someone is fucking up in here with Heracles, but the rest looks legit to me.


----------



## www.sercan.de

Turkey - Süper Lig - 2013-2014 (week 17)

1. Beşiktaş	JK | 44.782 | (59%)
2. Fenerbahçe SK | 38.944 | (77%)
3. Galatasaray SK | 35.531 | (67%)
4. Bursa SK | 21.938 | (85%)
5. Trabzon SK | 12.189 | (50%)
6. Eskişehir SK | 11.801 | (87%)
7. Gençlerbirliği SK | 11.639 | (61%)
8. Konya SK | 10.356 | (46%)
9. Kayseri SK | 10.178 | (31%)
10. Rize SK | 9.719 | (63%)
11. Sivas SK | 9.439 | (63)
12. Gaziantep SK | 9.311 | (55%)
13. Kasımpaşa SK | 8.306 | (57%)
14. Akhisar BSK | 8.250 | (50%)
15. Kayseri Erciyes SK | 7.650 | (23%)
16. Elazığ SK | 7.512 | (54%)
17. Antalya SK | 5.125 | (64%)
18. KDÇ Karabük SK | 4.014 | (54%)

LEAGUE: 14.816 | (58%)


----------



## bd popeye

Final regular season average attendance for the NFL in 2013.


----------



## Daviegraham

The current average attendances across the top 4 English football professional divisions.

*Premier League: *

Screen Shot 2013-12-30 at 13.35.41 by Daviegraham, on Flickr

*Championship: *

Screen Shot 2013-12-30 at 13.37.25 by Daviegraham, on Flickr

*League 1: *

Screen Shot 2013-12-30 at 13.37.55 by Daviegraham, on Flickr

*League 2: 
*

Screen Shot 2013-12-30 at 13.38.18 by Daviegraham, on Flickr


----------



## mamangvilla

one bad year and the attendance drop that much, what is it with the steelers nation?

they should be ashamed and look up to Cowboys crowds who still flocks and top the attendance number even tough their team are the perennial choker.


----------



## kuquito

Seattle Sounders are growing way faster than the other teams. Something Toronto could've done as well, but the team has been poorly managed.




bd popeye said:


> Final MLS attendance for 2013.


----------



## GunnerJacket

mamangvilla said:


> one bad year and the attendance drop that much, what is it with the steelers nation?
> 
> they should be ashamed and look up to Cowboys crowds who still flocks and top the attendance number even tough their team are the perennial choker.


Sadly, I agree. Except for the part about looking up to the Cowboys. No one should ever look up to that franchise, ever!  The more fitting candidate for your example would be the Cleveland Browns fanbase. 



kuquito said:


> Seattle Sounders are growing way faster than the other teams. Something Toronto could've done as well, but the team has been poorly managed.


I'm not sure Toronto could've achieved the same growth without the additional emphasis the Sounders have placed on their rapport with the fans. The Sounders have completely and formally embraced the fans there to build the gameday environment, regardless of team management. I do believe Toronto has the fans capable of that, but the team would have to reach out in that same way.


----------



## isaidso

Agree. There are a ton of soccer fans in Toronto, but the MLS team has not only produced a poor product on the field but treated fans poorly. They jacked up the price of tickets year after year. It's only recently that fans have started to revolt. Complacency and indifference to your fan base is no way to run a franchise.

Toronto could have been playing to 40,000/game if they had done things right from the get go. Misjudging the size of the fan base when approving BMO Field was their first mistake. Taking advantage of fans ensured that the fan base dwindled to the point where BMO Field doesn't sell out any more. It's all reversible, but they have a lot of broken fences to mend.


----------



## GunnerJacket

isaidso said:


> They jacked up the price of tickets year after year.


Well that's folly. Even if trying to account for COL increases, the product is young enough and lacking complete stability such that I'd have thought they held prices firm until things achieved more certainty.



> Toronto could have been playing to 40,000/game if they had done things right from the get go. Misjudging the size of the fan base when approving BMO Field was their first mistake.


I won't fault them for this because such a concept at the time was unheard of. Especially when you're talking about building anew. I doubt the Sounders would be packing 40k per if they didn't have a ready made facility.

What they should've done after the first couple seasons of sell-outs is begin that process of networking with the supporters groups to build the fanbase and plan for that 30-40k capacity someday.


----------



## Harrys

ferro20 said:


> JS was built taking in account several requisites: average attendance in Juventus FC history, budget, maximum profit, atmosphere. The aim is to minimize mainteinance expenses and to optimize profits with more season tickets and premiums seats (and more skyboxes, of course). The distance between the last row of the grand stand and the pitch is 49m. No "popular" seats....only "exclusive". No empty spaces in the stands mean high demand for few seats and the possibility for JFC to raise prices and boost revenues. In other words they prefer wealthy supporters..the ones you can squeeze better.


yeah, but having 50.000 wealthy supporters is better than have only 40.000...you can squeeze them moren ^^ specially when we know that Juve has more wealthy fans than Torino FC (more popular)

English teams (Man Utd,...) spends millions to add 5k or 10k seats to increase profitability...but the Juve didn't take this opportunity to build a big stadium feting its popularity


----------



## GunnerJacket

Harrys said:


> yeah, but having 50.000 wealthy supporters is better than have only 40.000...you can squeeze them moren ^^ specially when we know that Juve has more wealthy fans than Torino FC (more popular)
> 
> English teams (Man Utd,...) spends millions to add 5k or 10k seats to increase profitability...but the Juve didn't take this opportunity to build a big stadium feting its popularity


And again...

There is a naivete about how seemingly every team can automatically and regularly fill 50-60k stadiums. Juve's recent track record leading up to construction suggested uncertainty, and obviously they didn't have the built in waiting list for season tickets to indicate they should immediately shoot higher. Plus modern times are finding teams struggle to fill larger stadiums while competing against improving and expanding media outlets. So they built for something they knew would always be full and guarantee high profitability.

Also consider that building larger entails more up front costs (something that was of premium concern for Juve) and, apart from another round of suites, the additional seating from here out will not always be of premium value. In other words every additional common seat built from their second tier on up will incur a far lower rate of return on cost due to everything needed to accomodate the space - Structural support, concessions, access, etc.

Juve perhaps undershot by a few thousand, but their particular design is very compact and efficient from the construction costs standpoint and it's hard to argue with the resulting quality of the product. As far as venues go theirs is the best in Italy and is poised to help them remain one of the wealthiest clubs in Serie A. Wealthy enough that when the demand is there the club will be able to expand.

So while we can use hindsight and wishful thinking to say "They should've built larger!" the reality is that Juve made a very prudent business decision.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

Old Trafford also only held 44000 when it was first rebuilt as all-seater.


----------



## ferro20

Harrys said:


> yeah, but having 50.000 wealthy supporters is better than have only 40.000...you can squeeze them moren ^^ specially when we know that Juve has more wealthy fans than Torino FC (more popular)
> 
> English teams (Man Utd,...) spends millions to add 5k or 10k seats to increase profitability...but the Juve didn't take this opportunity to build a big stadium feting its popularity


Juventus Stadium now is perfect. In the future we'll see.


----------



## flierfy

Rev Stickleback said:


> Old Trafford also only held 44000 when it was first rebuilt as all-seater.


Old Trafford never was rebuilt as an all-seater.


----------



## bd popeye

This event did take place in an US Football stadium..

The game time temperature was about 15F(-9.4C)



> Maple Leafs beat Red Wings in snowy Winter Classic
> 
> ANN ARBOR, Mich. (AP) -- A lot of winter. Very little classic hockey.
> 
> Tyler Bozak scored the winning shootout goal and Jonathan Bernier made two saves in the heart-pounding final moments, lifting the Toronto Maple Leafs to a 3-2 victory over Detroit at the snowy Winter Classic in front of the largest crowd to watch a hockey game.
> 
> *The announced attendance Wednesday of 105,591 surpassed the 104,173 who saw Michigan and Michigan State skate in the same football stadium known as the Big House in 2010.*


----------



## isaidso

^^ Btw, 15F is -9.4C, not +9.4C! Water freezes at 0, so it's impossible for it to snow at +9.4C. It's would have to be zero or minus something. One of the beauties of the metric system. 



GunnerJacket said:


> Well that's folly. Even if trying to account for COL increases, the product is young enough and lacking complete stability such that I'd have thought they held prices firm until things achieved more certainty.


Agree and they're paying for it.



GunnerJacket said:


> I won't fault them for this because such a concept at the time was unheard of. Especially when you're talking about building anew. I doubt the Sounders would be packing 40k per if they didn't have a ready made facility.
> 
> What they should've done after the first couple seasons of sell-outs is begin that process of networking with the supporters groups to build the fanbase and plan for that 30-40k capacity someday.


Toronto is a rather unique soccer market in north America. Crowds to watch the WC have been massive here for a very very long time. Cameroon? Uruguay? Switzerland? There seems to be a 5,000 person cheering section parading around downtown for the tiniest country imaginable. Whole sections of town come to a stand still: Greektown, Little Italy, etc. When Italy, Portugal, Greece, or Brazil win a game, the whole city knows about it. 100,000 people take over Corso Italia when Italy gets to the knock out stage.

All they needed do was a little market research and they would have known that 20,000 was way too small. At the very least they should have approved a stadium that lent itself easily for expansion down the road. What did they do? Built it right against the lot line despite there being tons of room to move it over a good 100 feet. Now they can't add an extra tier on the west side. They'd have to tear the whole thing down and start over. 

It looks like BMO Field will get expanded to at least 28,000 any way. The Argonauts are sure to move in there. It's not confirmed yet, but it's looking quite likely.


----------



## Calvin W

Actually it can and often does snow at temps above 0C. As long as the air temp where the snow is formed is below zero and the snow falls quickly enough then yes it can snow even with a surface temp above zero. It will melt fairly quick but yes it can snow.....


----------



## isaidso

bd popeye said:


> Actually the major bowl games have good attendance. You will see on the seventh. The rest is hit or miss. And some of those figures are more than likely tickets distributed.
> 
> For instance.. school A get 15,000 tickets to see.. well they only sell say 9,000.. those 6,000 distributed unsold seats are counted as attendance..no foolin'. This occurs in bowl games.
> 
> The minor bowl games, many of those I posted, it is like who cares? Most are meaningless.


Like everything else, its driven by money. I suspect that they're money makers for schools even with lower attendance and little national interest across the US. 

Why did they move the big bowl games to the 7th. Didn't they used to be on New Years Day?


----------



## bd popeye

isaidso said:


> Why did they move the big bowl games to the 7th. Didn't they used to be on New Years Day?


Some still are played on News Year Day..

Rose Bowl...Rose Bowl, Pasadena, California Attendance: 95,173

Fiesta Bowl...University of Phoenix Stadium, Glendale, Arizona Attendance: 65,172

Gator Bowl...EverBank Field, Jacksonville, Florida Attendance: 60,712

Heart of Dallas Bowl...Cotton Bowl, Dallas, Texas Attendance: 38,380

Outback Bowl...Raymond James Stadium, Tampa, Florida Attendance: 51,296

Capital One Bowl....Florida Citrus Bowl, Orlando, Florida  Attendance: 56,629

The Orange, Sugar and Cotton Bowl games, all that were once New Years day bowl games, are played the first week of January because of money generated by television and attempt to give each game some notoriety in the crowded bowl season. Simple.

On Monday the BCS National Championship Game will be played in the Rose Bowl in Pasadena CA on Monday 6 January.


----------



## Patrick




----------



## Nikom

^^ Sporting Clube de Portugal missing, with an average of 32,115 (64,17% of capacity). And according to the source, the data from Porto and Benfica seem to be wrong source


----------



## bd popeye

Bowl game wrap-up..

BCS Championship....Rose Bowl, Pasadena, California Attendance: 94,208
Flordia State Seminoles defeated the Auburn Tigers... 34-31.

Sugar Bowl...Mercedes-Benz Superdome, New Orleans, Louisiana Attendance: 70,473

Orange Bowl...Sun Life Stadium, Miami Gardens, Florida Attendance: 72,080

BBVA Compass Bowl...Legion Field, Birmingham, Alabama Attendance: 42,717

GoDaddy Bowl...Ladd-Peebles Stadium, Mobile, Alabama Attendance: 36,119


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

wow, Rose bowl and national championship brought in 190,000 spectators.... LA and Pasadena will miss the BCS double dip. Read that the Rose bowl brings in about $350 million to the local economy (Rose parade attendees, parade goers, bands, etc really add up) and the BCS national Championship brings in another $60 million


----------



## Cjones2451

isaidso said:


> Often things are simply re-produced in Canada rather than adjusted/changed to suit Canadian tastes/standards... including hotel rooms. Other times, it's an over sight.


Most hotels I have been in you an adjust from C to F and vise-versa, mkaes it easier, I even do this when I am in hotels in the US, but if not I use the "double it (C Temp) and add 32 to get from C to F  Not exact but close


----------



## westsidebomber

bd popeye said:


> Bowl game wrap-up.. BCS Championship....Rose Bowl, Pasadena, California Attendance: 94,208 Flordia State Seminoles defeated the Auburn Tigers... 34-31. Sugar Bowl...Mercedes-Benz Superdome, New Orleans, Louisiana Attendance: 70,473 Orange Bowl...Sun Life Stadium, Miami Gardens, Florida Attendance: 72,080 BBVA Compass Bowl...Legion Field, Birmingham, Alabama Attendance: 42,717 GoDaddy Bowl...Ladd-Peebles Stadium, Mobile, Alabama Attendance: 36,119


Interesting that the Rose Bowl outdrew the BCS title game by almost 1,000. I wonder why? Were there more seats allocated to press for the title game and, in turn, weren't able to be sold?


----------



## GunnerJacket

Almost certain. The BCS title game draws the bigwigs from all 6 BCS conferences and every national CFB press pundit, whereas on New Years Day those folks are scattered to the four winds.


----------



## k5villan

bd popeye said:


> Capital One Bowl....


saw that and wondered how long it would be before some of the traditional ones lost their name, i take it its currently the rose bowl in association with... 

money talks i spose


----------



## GunnerJacket

k5villan said:


> saw that and wondered how long it would be before some of the traditional ones lost their name, i take it its currently the rose bowl in association with...
> 
> money talks i spose


Most lesser bowls have included a sponsor for a while now, while some simply forego the traditional bowl nickname route all together in favor of the sponsor. Of the major bowls that have dropped the nickname here's what I recall off the top of my head.

Peach -> Chick-Fil-A
Citrus -> Cap One
Hall of Fame -> Outback
Independence -> Advocare 100
Buffalo Wild Wings -> Copper

The _Peach_ part will return to the Chick-Fil-A Peach Bowl when it's incorporated into the new playoff scheme next year, as there is a subtle swing back in favor of having some type of nickname if you want to be considered worthwhile.


----------



## bd popeye

k5villan said:


> saw that and wondered how long it would be before some of the traditional ones lost their name, i take it its currently the rose bowl in association with...
> 
> money talks i spose


The Rose Bowl game took place on January 1st in the Rose Bowl. Michigan St Defated Stanford 24-20. 

The BCS Championship game also took place in the Rose Bowl on January 6th. Florida St defeated Auburn 34-13.

Of course Both games were sponsored by Vizio..The Rose Bowl game is still called the Rose Bowl.. not the "Vizio Bowl"..For now...:hmm: 

Logos please..


----------



## GunnerJacket

Well, technically it's called _The Rose Bowl presented by Vizio_. They couldn't bear having the title sponsor absorbed directly into the name so it's added at the end, but they can afford to get away with such vanity considering the games' popularity. But, IIRC, the agreement among the 6 games included in the playoff rotation requires a traditional nickname be included in the title, so I don't expect to ever see the Rose removed from the Rose Bowl. Especially since it's part of the City's overall Tournament of Roses celebration. 

Music City Bowl used to be "presented by ____" as well.


----------



## k5villan

isnt it the FA cup in association with Budweiser?

and barclays premier league (im sure managers can get fined if they just call it the prem in interviews)

how long till its the north london derby in association with coca cola or the san miguel el classico?

everything in sport has a price


----------



## GunnerJacket

Sadly, this is becoming the case. Live sports are now a premium commodity, one of the few things to which we're all addicted. So even as these commercial sponsorships add money to the event producers the fans themselves are still paying more and more. Not sure where it will stop or if/when that bubble will burst. For many it's such a large and confusing issue to face they simply ignore it.


----------



## bd popeye

So true..^^ The average Joe Fan is being priced out gradually from attending major and even regular season sporting events..

Check out ticket prices for this years Super Bowl..



Premium VIP tickets



A NFL fan in New Jersey is suing the NFL..

http://www.nj.com/super-bowl/index....t_get_super_bowl_tickets_lawsuit_alleges.html



> On Dec. 30, Josh Finkelman, a football fan from New Brunswick, shelled out $4,000 to a ticket reseller for two seats to the Super Bowl at MetLife Stadium, an event expected to haul in hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for the National Football League.
> 
> But Finkelman — and his lawyer — believe that Finkelman was forced to spend far too much money for his tickets, because they claim the NFL has made just 1 percent of Super Bowl seats available to the general public at face value.
> 
> That move, they say, was a greedy and clear violation of a provision found in New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act entitled "Withholding tickets from sale, prohibited amount." Yesterday, they sued the NFL in federal court in Newark, levying a class action lawsuit with potentially far-reaching implications that attempts to fold in a giant cross-section of aggrieved fans.


----------



## k5villan

him suing the NFL is a pretty large part of everything i hate about western culture, we've ruined it for ourselves

if he thinks he's overpaid for tickets he should try being an aston villa season ticket holder...


----------



## bd popeye

k5villan said:


> him suing the NFL is a pretty large part of everything i hate about western culture, we've ruined it for ourselves
> 
> if he thinks he's overpaid for tickets he should try being an aston villa season ticket holder...


You certainly are entitled to your opinion.

The man suing the NFL made a choice now he has to live with it.


----------



## k5villan

bd popeye said:


> The man suing the NFL made a choice now he has to live with it.


i would argue that the man made his choice when he bought the tickets, and by suing the NFL he's obviously decided not to live with it

its like those who try and sue mcdonalds for their kids being fat on the basis that they have to collect all the happy meal toys...

if you don't like / cant afford the ticket prices then you don't buy the tickets

sounds like a proper 1st world problem to me


----------



## GunnerJacket

Caveat emptor. Buyer beware.

The simple free market response is to not buy and see if that impacts the NFL. Obviously any/all pro sports would react quite strongly if we all stopped going and stopped watching, but as we all know the odds of that happening are akin to Ball State winning the Rose Bowl. (Or Dagenham & Redbridge winning the FA Cup, K5's sake!)

But this will be a constant debate. The teams will always charge so as to make the most return, and fan support will constantly waver based upon the perceived value of those tickets, based on cost and performance. The teams will never charge too much for fear of completely losing their grip. Thus it will always be.




Until we can devise the proper way to play this all out in virtual reality...


----------



## weava

poguemahone said:


> ^^ Interesting that in the top 5, 3 are Canadian teams.


I think part of the reason is that those towns are under-served by the major north american sports, and Canada doesn't have colleges sports like the US.

LA is the only city in the top 9 in attendance that actually has teams from all of the big 4 leagues, and I guess you could count Toronto too since they have a CFL team but that's not really comparable to an NFL team.


----------



## Calvin W

weava said:


> I think part of the reason is that those towns are under-served by the major north american sports, and Canada doesn't have colleges sports like the US.
> 
> LA is the only city in the top 9 in attendance that actually has teams from all of the big 4 leagues, and I guess you could count Toronto too since they have a CFL team but that's not really comparable to an NFL team.


Under served? WTF? The three cities have the big ones by Canadian standards. Football and Hockey. Ever hear of the CFL and NHL? Also Toronto does have MLB and NBA, so can get much more service than that....

As for University sports, check your facts. Canada does have University sports in all the big sports, Basketball, Hockey and Football.........

As for Comparing CFL and NFL, when did Los Angeles get an NFL team? Nope Only Toronto has the top 4 BIG LEAGUE TEAMS in the top 9.


----------



## GarfieldPark

Sorry, but CFL is not one of the four major leagues.


----------



## Calvin W

GarfieldPark said:


> Sorry, but CFL is not one of the four major leagues.


A professional football league around for a hell of a lot longer than the NFL, is a major league in any Canadians eyes.

You yanks think football begins and ends with the NFL, guess what it doesn't.


----------



## GunnerJacket

weava said:


> LA is the only city in the top 9 in attendance that actually has teams from all of the big 4 leagues...


NFL?


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

GunnerJacket said:


> NFL?


I think he was considering USC and UCLA as professional as both teams draw over 70,000 a game. Pretty much pro


----------



## Calvin W

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> I think he was considering USC and UCLA as professional as both teams draw over 70,000 a game. Pretty much pro


When did UCLA and USC join the NFL?


----------



## GunnerJacket

Calvin W said:


> When did UCLA and USC join the NFL?


Well, there were those allegations of payments around Reggie Bush...






:cheers:


----------



## bd popeye

*MLS Attendance 2014*


----------



## _X_

^^The rise and rise of football in America


----------



## eMKay

Calvin W said:


> You yanks think football begins and ends with the NFL, guess what it doesn't.


The CFL IS NOT one of the four major leagues. Sorry dude, it's not.


----------



## Calvin W

eMKay said:


> The CFL IS NOT one of the four major leagues. Sorry dude, it's not.


Sorry DUDE but the 30+ million people in Canada say it is.

I tend to side with them over some DUDE from Buffalo, who would kill for a Pro football team.


----------



## GunnerJacket

eMKay said:


> The CFL IS NOT one of the four major leagues. Sorry dude, it's not.





Calvin W said:


> Sorry DUDE but the 30+ million people in Canada say it is.


Semantics, gentlemen. 

When folks from the States refer to the big four sports its NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL, and given the attendance averages, TV ratings and revenues it's a pretty clear division and 99% of sports fans know this. But the CFL is a major league for Canada and it's safe to say that it should be recognized as such for the purposes of this comparison.

So, is the CFL one of The Big Four? No. Is it a major sport warranting inclusion in this assessment? Yes.


----------



## isaidso

poguemahone said:


> ^^ Interesting that in the top 5, 3 are Canadian teams.


Soccer has a higher profile in Canada than in many parts of the US. If you put an MLS team in a Canadian city, it's going to get high billing right off the bat.


----------



## isaidso

eMKay said:


> The CFL IS NOT one of the four major leagues.


Every league on the planet looks minor league next to the NFL; that doesn't mean it is. When the US contested its first Superbowl in 1967, Canada had already contested 54 Grey Cups dating back to 1909. The CFL is a professional league that was attracting 50,000 people to regular season games back in the 1970s. 

In terms of revenue the CFL does falls short, but in terms of cultural significance its a very solid #2 in this country.... only behind the NHL. The CFL maybe rebuilding off a historic low, but it is a major league just like MLS and the NHL.


----------



## GunnerJacket

isaidso said:


> The CFL is a major league just like MLS.


Wise MLS fans know MLS is still not close to the mainstream as the big four, however. It's not minor league but it's a cut or two (or five) below the NHL, which is a step behind MLB, NBA and the NFL.

Perhaps we simply need to list things differently for US markets and for Canadian markets?


----------



## isaidso

^^ In Canada, MLS IS considered major league.



GunnerJacket said:


> Wise MLS fans know MLS is still not close to the mainstream as the big four, however. It's not minor league but it's a cut or two (or five) below the NHL, which is a step behind MLB, NBA and the NFL.
> 
> Perhaps we simply need to list things differently for US markets and for Canadian markets?


Naturally, Americans and Canadians view these things differently. The CFL is a league with teams that pre-date everything else on this continent. They even pre-date Canadian NHL teams/US MLB teams. The CFL still holds down the #2 spot in this country. It's hard for many Canadians to square that with American definitions of 'major league' which invariably come down to dollars and cents.... and little consideration for the intangibles or context.


----------



## eMKay

Calvin W said:


> Sorry DUDE but the 30+ million people in Canada say it is.
> 
> I tend to side with them over some DUDE from Buffalo, who would kill for a Pro football team.


No, it isn't. The 4 major leagues are an American thing, not a Canadian thing. They are MLB, NFL, NHL, and NBA. And since no Canadian city has a team in each of the 4 leagues, you cannot claim to be a member of that group of cities.


----------



## eMKay

isaidso said:


> Every league on the planet looks minor league next to the NFL; that doesn't mean it is. When the US contested its first Superbowl in 1967, Canada had already contested 54 Grey Cups dating back to 1909. The CFL is a professional league that was attracting 50,000 people to regular season games back in the 1970s.
> 
> In terms of revenue the CFL does falls short, but in terms of cultural significance its a very solid #2 in this country.... only behind the NHL. The CFL maybe rebuilding off a historic low, but it is a major league just like MLS and the NHL.


None of that matters, and I would definitely put the NFL ahead of the CFL even in YOUR OWN COUNTRY. The many Canadian friends and relatives I have and YOU have, would agree with me. I know you like the CFL and all, but it's a second rate football league in it's own country. Kinda like MLS is here, it still plays second fiddle to the EPL. I'm sorry you won't agree with any of this, but you are kinda biased and blind. I mean, you believe the first baseball game was played in Canada! LOL! And some 50 years AFTER it was invented?


----------



## Chimaera

Belgian Jupiler Pro League attendance numbers after Monday. 5 more matchdays to go in Play-off 1, 2 in Play-off 2, plus knock-out games between the winners of play-off 2A and 2B, plus KO games between the winner of those games and the club that finished 4th in PO1 (winner goes to Europa League), plus a mini promotion/relegation competition between the club that has won PO3 (Leuven beat Mons after 3 games in a best-of-5 and with a 3 points bonus) and 3 clubs from the second division (based on 3 "periods" and/or the final ranking). 

Source: http://www.worldfootball.net/attendance/bel-eerste-klasse-2013-2014/1/

Club - total attendance - games - average attendance - stadium capacity - attendance/capacity (%)

1	Club Brugge KV 468,024	18	*26,001** - 29,062 - 89.5% PO1
2	Standard Liège 411,641	17	*24,214* - 29,388 - 82.5% PO1
3	KRC Genk 386,216	18	*21,456* - 24,601 - 87% PO1
4	RSC Anderlecht 359,123	17	*21,124* - 21,500 - 98.5% PO1
5	KAA Gent 300,974 17	*17,704* - 19,999 (new stadium opened 2013) - 88.5% PO2
6	KV Mechelen 162,333	17	*9,549* - 14,145 - 67.5% PO2
7	Oud-Heverlee Leuven 142,481	17	*8,381* - 9,319 - 90% PO3
8	SV Zulte-Waregem	140,995	17	*8,294* - 8,500 - 97.5% PO1
9	Cercle Brugge 132,283	17	*7,781* (same stadium as Club Brugge KV) - 29,062 - 27% PO2
10	KV Kortrijk 122,426	17	*7,202* - 9,399 - 76.5% PO2
11	Sporting Lokeren 128,233	18	*7,124* - 8,952 - 79.5% PO1
12	Lierse SK 118,334	17	*6,961* - 14,538 - 48% PO2
13	Sporting Charleroi 106,345	17	*6,256* - 14,000 (approx.) - 44.5% PO2
14	Waasland-Beveren 98,246	17	*5,779* - 8,190 - 70.5% PO2
15	KV Oostende 85,551	17	*5,032* - 8,125 - 62% PO2
16	RAEC Mons 61,233	16	*3,827* - 9,504 - 40,5% PO3

* Changed to number(s) communicated by the Club.

green = positive evolution
red = negative evolution
PO1/2/3 = which play-off they are currently competing in (or in case of PO3: have been competing in)

This is the previous ranking I made: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=112630809&postcount=2571


----------



## bd popeye

*North American Soccer League 2014*


----------



## Kerrybai

As a European the thing I like most about US sports is the importance of attendances. US teams go to the greatest lengths in expanding stadiums and making them more attractive to the population. 

A team who's attendance drops is quickly scorned and pressured to address the issue, for that I give them props.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Doesn't mean it always works out, however. A few NFL franchises are struggling and there are plenty of MLB teams in similar straits.


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> North American Soccer League 2014
> 
> http://imgur.com/BB1bvTe


That's pretty good for our second tier. I know Atlanta's Silverback Park only seats 5k.


----------



## rebbel13

Nikom said:


> Portuguese League
> 
> Ranking - Team - Competition - Attendance in the last round - Home games - Average attendance - % - Season Total


Terrible average attendance numbers in the Portuguese league. I knew it was not that good, but I didn't know it was that bad hno:


----------



## CharlieP

lwa said:


> Aviva Premiership Rugby (England):
> 
> Team Capacity Average Attendance
> London Irish 24,161 11,249***
> London Wasps 10,516 11,125****
> 
> ***Includes half the crowd from the London Double Header at Twickenham
> ****Includes half the crowd for the London Double Header at Twickenham, plus another game at Twickenham
> 
> 
> RaboDirect Pro12 (Ireland, Scotland, Wales & Italy)
> 
> Cardiff Blues 12,500 8,070***
> Newport-Gwent Dragons 9,097 6,358***
> 
> ***Includes half the crowd from "Judgement Day" at the Millennium Stadium


Why "half the crowd"? You haven't divided the attendance at the London Double Header and Judgement Day by 2, have you?


----------



## GunnerJacket

rebbel13 said:


> Terrible average attendance numbers in the Portuguese league. I knew it was not that good, but I didn't know it was that bad hno:


It would seem so given the popularity and success of the top few clubs, but in looking at the league in full context that's not unexpected. Portugal is a nation on only about 11M people and compared with other nations their average is better than Greece or Czech republic but lagging behind Belgium. Thus, it only looks bad because of top teams imply more potential. 

It's a similar story in many smaller/poorer leagues. Scotland, Ukraine, Poland, Turkey... They'll have a few or several teams with high averages reflecting their perrenial European competition presence, but beyond that the averages drop off below 10k or further because the local economy isn't capable of supporting that many big clubs.


----------



## www.sercan.de

Süper Lig 2013-2014

1. Fenerbahçe SK 42.270 
2. Galatasaray SK 40.067 
3. Beşiktaş	JK 29.119 
4. Bursa SK 21.783 
5. Trabzon	SK 13.535 
6. Konya SK 13.135 
7. Eskişehir SK 11.886 
8. Kayseri Erciyes SK 11.397 
9. Kayseri SK 10.160 
10. Gaziantep SK 9.844 
11. Gençlerbirliği SK 9.202 
12. Elazığ SK 8.755 
13. Sivas SK 8.685 
14. Rize SK 8.638 
15. Akhisar GSK 6.903 
16. Kasımpaşa SK 6.497 
17. Antalya SK 5.050 
18. Karabük SK 4.428 

League: 14.520


----------



## rebbel13

GunnerJacket said:


> It would seem so given the popularity and success of the top few clubs, but in looking at the league in full context that's not unexpected. Portugal is a nation on only about 11M people and compared with other nations their average is better than Greece or Czech republic but lagging behind Belgium. Thus, it only looks bad because of top teams imply more potential.
> 
> It's a similar story in many smaller/poorer leagues. Scotland, Ukraine, Poland, Turkey... They'll have a few or several teams with high averages reflecting their perrenial European competition presence, but beyond that the averages drop off below 10k or further because the local economy isn't capable of supporting that many big clubs.


True, it's the problem for most of the small leagues. A pity to see that the averages are so low, beyond the few big clubs.

Luckily in Holland the average attendance is quite good for a small league, the average attendance for the Eredivisie over the 2013/2014 season was: 19.447


----------



## GunnerJacket

Yeah, the Eredivisie is at a unique point. Crowd-wise the local support is there for a top-flight worthy of competing among the biggest leagues. If their sides did as well in Europe as the Portuguese powers I imagine the Dutch league as a whole would be doing very well financially. But they really lack in international exposure and as such will arguably never be able to close the gap in terms of revenues. Thus, they're just like the smaller nations in the need for a system that doesn't continue to tilt the balance in favor of the bigger leagues. At the least, their straits are far less dire than the likes of Portugal, Scotland or elsewhere.


----------



## isaidso

GunnerJacket said:


> That's pretty good for our second tier. I know Atlanta's Silverback Park only seats 5k.


That's what I was thinking. I wonder if Ottawa will get a big bump with Lansdowne Park opening in July. NASL is one tier down from MLS, right? I imagine Calgary, Winnipeg, and Quebec City will eventually join NASL.

*Women's Soccer in Winnipeg*








https://www.flickr.com/photos/canadasoccer/


----------



## bongo-anders

The numbers for the Danish Superligaen is rather okay I think.

Name - Average - Highest - Lowest

Brøndby IF - 15.931 - 21.798 - 11.651
FC København - 15.720 - 32.846 - 11.008
AAB - 8.475 - 13.139 - 5.289
AGF - 8.131 - 14.488 - 5.932
FC Midtjylland - 8.061 - 11.535 - 5.145
OB - 7.819 - 11.524 - 5.618
Esbjerg FB - 7.667 - 11.417 - 4.165
Viborg FF - 5.616 - 9.047 - 3.478
FC Nordsjælland - 5.172 - 9.726 - 3.112
Randers FC - 5.171 - 7.025 - 3.824
FC Vestsjælland - 3.735 - 5.285 - 2.197
Sønderjyske - 3.481 - 8.357 - 1.656


http://www.superstats.dk/


----------



## GunnerJacket

That's pretty good, IMO, for a nation as small as Denmark without any brands as big as Porto or Celtic.

Inspired by that I looked at the stats here and, _for pure whimsy_, wanted to see what a joint Scandanavian top flight might yield. 

Swe	18.9	AIK
Swe	16.1	Malmö FF
Den	15.9	FC København
Nor	14.8	Rosenborg 1917 BK
Swe	12.5	Djurgårdens IF
Swe	11.6	IFK Göteborg
Nor	11.3	SK Brann
Swe	10.3	Helsingborgs IF
Nor	10.3	Viking FK Stavanger
Nor	_9.9	Vålerenga IF Fotball
Den	_9.2	Brøndby IF
Swe	_9.1	IF Elfsborg
Nor	_8.8	Molde FK
Nor	_8.2	Ålesunds FK
Den	_8.0	AGF Aarhus
Den	_7.3	OB Odense
Den	_6.9	Aalborg BK
Den	_6.6	Esbjerg fB

Individually Denmark, Sweden and Norway feature league averages around 6-8k, each with a few clubs making very respectable numbers. Here I pulled the top 6 in attendance from each nation into a division of 18 teams (bottom from each nation to get relegated?). This yields an overall average of just under 11,000, which in itself isn't bad but that figure might be higher if the idea is supported by the fans. After all, you're talking about a league with roughly 20M residents among the three countries and several major metropolitan cities. 

I'm not thinking through the UEFA ramifications or anything else with this, merely having a little fun with the concept.


----------



## isaidso

Not one from Finland made the cut?


----------



## mamangvilla

The Finns prefer their game to be played on ice a.k.a Bandy and Hockey


----------



## bd popeye

*MLS attendance for 2014*


----------



## GunnerJacket

isaidso said:


> Not one from Finland made the cut?


Finland isn't a Scandanavian country, just Sweden Denmark and Norway. The larger region combining those countries with Iceland and others are collectively called the Nordic Nations.

Moreover, the bulk of the teams within my Scandanavian model would be pretty close geographically and have more common language bonds, as Finland has a strong Russian influence. 

But as I said, that's just one man's novelty of an idea.


----------



## isaidso

GunnerJacket said:


> Finland isn't a Scandanavian country, just Sweden Denmark and Norway. The larger region combining those countries with Iceland and others are collectively called the Nordic Nations.


It's splitting hairs and in lots of circles Finland and Iceland are included. I'm Finnish on one side and most Scandinavian societies include Finns rather than go with the more exclusive definition. Finland was part of Sweden for 7 centuries and Swedish remains an official language there. The Finnish language is the only thing that separates Finland from the others. This is typical:


----------



## Chimaera

Final attendance statistics for the Belgian Jupiler Pro League:

Main source: http://www.worldfootball.net/attendance/bel-eerste-klasse-2013-2014/1/

Club - total attendance - games - average attendance - stadium capacity - attendance/capacity (%)

1	Club Brugge KV 526,041*	20	*26,301* - 29,062 - 90.5%
2	Standard Liège 493,507	20	*24,675* - 29,388 - 84%
3	KRC Genk 428,906	20	*21,445* - 24,601 - 87%
4	RSC Anderlecht 425,123	20	*21,256* - 21,500 - 99%
5	KAA Gent 314,299 18	*17,461* - 19,999 (new stadium opened 2013) - 87.5%
6	KV Mechelen 170,813	18	*9,490* - 14,145 - 67%
7	SV Zulte-Waregem 167,265	20	*8,363* - 8,500 - 98.5%
8	Oud-Heverlee Leuven 165,817	20	*8,291* - 9,319 - 89%
9	Cercle Brugge 136,283	18	*7,571* - 29,062 (same stadium as Club Brugge KV) - 26%
10	KV Kortrijk 136,314	19	*7,174* - 9,399 - 76.5%
11	Sporting Lokeren 143,221	20	*7,161* - 8,952 - 80%
12	Lierse SK 122,451	18	*6,802* - 14,538 - 47%
13	Sporting Charleroi 112,386	18	*6,244* - 14,000 (approx.) - 44.5%
14	Waasland-Beveren 101,667	18	*5,548* - 8,190 - 68%
15	KV Oostende 96,051	19	*5,055* - 8,125 - 62%
16	RAEC Mons 61,233	16	*3,827* - 9,504 - 40.5%

* Changed to number(s) communicated by the Club.

Previous rankings I made:
April 23: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=113423866&postcount=2600
March 27: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=112630809&postcount=2571


----------



## GunnerJacket

isaidso said:


> It's splitting hairs and in lots of circles Finland and Iceland are included.


Oh I agree, and locally there are plenty of of Scandanavian festivals here in the states that include the 5 nation lineup you presented. (My in-laws with their Swedish heritage love going to those things)

Bottom line I was simply playing around and that 3 nation model was an easy option. If Finland was included they could simply try 5 teams per national league. 



Chimaera said:


> Final attendance statistics for the Belgian Jupiler Pro League:


So a little over 10k per match as a league average. Very solid given the league's size and pedigree. I'd be curious to see how their financial numbers compare with the Eredivisie and Portuguese SuperLiga. Belgian clubs are typically less successful in UEFA competitions and I'm not sure about their media contracts, but those crowds suggests strong enough local support that a few of those clubs could grow more competitive.


----------



## GunnerJacket

5portsF4n said:


> *North American Pro/College/Amateur Attendance Most Recent Season, 10,000 minimum*
> *Basketball*
> 68.	Nebraska – 10,352*


Saw this and grew curious, so I went and checked. The stats from NCAA.com are from the academic year ending in 2013, ie: two seasons ago. This past year Nebraska opened a new arena and pretty much sold out every game at just under 16k. Not sure if that's something you need to note.



> *Canadian Football Coming Up*


Curious. Why aren't these to be lumped in with the NFL and CFB figures? I'd assume the sports are comparable enough that given how you're grouping the rest of the continent they should be together.


----------



## Kerrybai

kerouac1848 said:


> Surprised more clubs/leagues haven't copied the PL in counting tickets sold rather than actual attendance.
> 
> If Spanish clubs want to keep their current pricing model I wonder if they should allow some kind of sell-back option for those with season tickets - i.e. ST holders can 'sell' back individual matches if they chose not to attend for half the price of what they paid, up to a certain period. I'm certain they could be resold at a higher individual price, certainly for the bigger clubs. They could trial it first.


Some systems like that exist http://udobu.com/2011/02/12/the-challenge-of-fc-barcelona-2/?lang=en

'According to the Seient Lliure system (Free Seat in catalan), season ticket holders that do not go to the stadium can release their tickets back to the club for re-sale. If those tickets are sold, the season ticket holder is compensated with a discount for next season’s season ticket, and the club generates more revenue on a ticket that was already sold. Brilliant. This is common practice in many clubs, mostly known as a “Ticket Exchange” program.'

Well they don't receive money but instead a discount on their next season ticket.


----------



## Guest

GunnerJacket said:


> Saw this and grew curious, so I went and checked. The stats from NCAA.com are from the academic year ending in 2013, ie: two seasons ago. This past year Nebraska opened a new arena and pretty much sold out every game at just under 16k. Not sure if that's something you need to note.
> 
> Curious. Why aren't these to be lumped in with the NFL and CFB figures? I'd assume the sports are comparable enough that given how you're grouping the rest of the continent they should be together.


Have you got a new source for the latest figures? I'd appreciate it. 

Yeah you're right I will do that, I guess I was doing the whole rugby union/rugby league thing, even though they are more apart than Am/Can football.


----------



## kerouac1848

Kerrybai said:


> Some systems like that exist http://udobu.com/2011/02/12/the-challenge-of-fc-barcelona-2/?lang=en
> 
> 'According to the Seient Lliure system (Free Seat in catalan), season ticket holders that do not go to the stadium can release their tickets back to the club for re-sale. If those tickets are sold, the season ticket holder is compensated with a discount for next season’s season ticket, and the club generates more revenue on a ticket that was already sold. Brilliant. This is common practice in many clubs, mostly known as a “Ticket Exchange” program.'
> 
> Well they don't receive money but instead a discount on their next season ticket.


Yeah, was actually surprised they didn't have something like that!


----------



## GunnerJacket

5portsF4n said:


> Have you got a new source for the latest figures? I'd appreciate it.
> 
> Yeah you're right I will do that, I guess I was doing the whole rugby union/rugby league thing, even though they are more apart than Am/Can football.


 Not compiled unfortunately. You'd have thought ncaa.com would already have that. I simply checked several Nebraska box scores on espn.com after seeing that figure you posted to confirm my suspicion.

I say wait til the new figures come out then you can amens the post. Too much work otherwise.


----------



## www.sercan.de

I think (some) german teams use also the Ajax / PL system aka sold tickets and not fans inside the stadium


----------



## Guest

Update the North American attendances on the previous page. I'll repost the football attendances here as well, as I kind of left that blank for a while. 

*Football* 
Football
1.	Michigan – 111,592
2.	Ohio State – 104,933
3.	Alabama – 101,505
4.	Texas – 98,976
5.	Penn State – 96,587
6.	Tennessee – 95,584
7.	Georgia – 92,746
8.	LSU – 91,418
9.	Nebraska – 90,933
10.	Dallas Cowboys – 88,043
11.	Florida – 87,440
12.	Texas A&M – 87,125
13.	Auburn – 85,657
14.	Oklahoma – 84,722
15.	South Carolina – 82,401
16.	Clemson – 82,048
17.	Notre Dame – 80,795
18.	NY Giants – 80,148
19.	Wisconsin – 78,911
20.	Green Bay Pakcers – 77,947
21.	Washington Redskins – 77,220
22.	NY Jets – 76,957
23.	Denver Broncos – 76,872
24.	Florida State – 75,421
25.	Kansas City Chiefs – 75,359
26.	Carolina Panthers – 73,443
27.	Southern California – 73,126
28.	New Orleans Saints – 72,901
29.	Michigan State – 72,328
30.	Houston Texans - 71,658
31.	Cleveland Browns – 71,242
32.	Baltimore Ravens – 71,135
33.	UCLA – 70,285
34.	Atlanta Falcons – 70,224
35.	San Francisco 49ers – 69,732
36.	Philadelphia Eagles – 69,144
37.	Tennessee Titans – 69,143
38.	Washington – 68,769
39.	New England Patriots – 68,756
40.	Seattle Seahawks – 68,197
41.	Iowa – 67,125
42.	Buffalo Bills – 66,267
43.	Indianapolis Colts – 65,950
44.	Miami Dolphins – 64,319
45.	San Diego Chargers – 64,205
46.	Minnesota Vikings – 64,019
47.	Virginia Tech – 63,999
48.	Detroit Lions – 63,796
49.	Missouri – 63,505
50.	Cincinnati Bengals – 63,297
51.	Arizona State – 62,689
52.	Chicago Bears – 62,358
53.	Arkansas – 61,596
54.	BYU – 61,225
55.	Arizona Cardinals – 61,033
56.	Jacksonville Jaguars – 59,940
57.	Kentucky – 59,472
58.	Ole Miss – 59,393
59.	Oklahoma State – 59,126
60.	Tampa Bay Bucs – 58,818
61.	Texas Tech – 57,933
62.	Oregon – 57,660
63.	Pittsburgh Steelers – 57,311
64.	St Louis Rams – 56,957
65.	Mississippi State – 55,695
66.	Iowa State – 55,361
67.	Miami – 53,837
68.	North Carolina State – 53,178
69.	Louisville – 52,914
70.	West Virginia – 52,910
71.	Kansas State – 52,887
72.	North Carolina – 51,500
73.	Stanford – 50,726
74.	Oakland Raiders – 50,444
75.	California – 49,329
76.	Georgia Tech – 49,077
77.	Pittsburgh – 48,953
78.	Purdue – 48,953
79.	Minnesota – 47,797
80.	Arizona – 47,619
81.	Rutgers – 46,549
82.	Virginia – 46,279
83.	Baylor – 45,948
84.	Utah – 45,194
85.	Indiana – 44,353
86.	East Carolina – 43,985
87.	Illinois – 43,787
88.	TCU – 43,598
89.	Oregon State – 42,964
90.	UCF – 42,084
91.	Maryland – 41,278
92.	Northwestern – 39,307
93.	Colorado – 38,463
94.	Kansas – 37,884
95.	Saskatchewan – 37,503
96.	Fresno State – 36,917
97.	Vanderbilt – 35,675
98.	Navy – 35,588
99.	South Florida – 34,702
100.	Boise State – 34,366
101.	Army – 33,956
102.	San Diego State – 33,224
103.	Boston College – 33,006
104.	Air Force – 32,652
105.	Edmonton – 32,096
106.	Cincinnati – 31,771
107.	Hawaii – 30,989
108.	UConn – 30,932
109.	Winnipeg – 30,637
110.	Washington State – 29,738
111.	Calgary – 29,263
112.	UTSA – 29,214
113.	Memphis – 28,837
114.	Wake Forest – 28,414
115.	UTEP – 28,375
116.	British Columbia – 28,311
117.	Duke – 26,062
118.	Louisiana Lafayette – 25,976
119.	Marshall – 25,023
120.	Nevada – 24,939
121.	Arkansas State – 24,913
122.	Appalachian State – 24,894
123.	Montana – 24,380
124.	Houston – 24,256
125.	New Mexico – 23,537
126.	Utah State – 23,263
127.	Montreal – 23,005
128.	Southern Miss – 22,752
129.	Buffalo – 22,736
130.	Temple – 22,473
131.	Toronto – 21,926
132.	North Texas – 21,030
133.	James Madison – 21,011
134.	Ohio – 20,672
135.	Northern Illinois – 20,669
136.	Old Dominion – 20,118
137.	Southern U. – 20,107
138.	Tulsa – 19,893
139.	Yale – 19,809
140.	Tulane – 19,747
141.	Montana State – 19,704
142.	Wyoming – 19,476
143.	Troy – 18,906
144.	SMU – 18,725
145.	Middle Tennessee – 18,715
146.	Louisiana Tech – 18,666
147.	North Dakota State – 18,622
148.	Colorado State – 18,600
149.	Rice – 18,587
150.	Toledo – 18,467
151.	Western Kentucky – 18,334
152.	Delaware – 18,108
153.	Texas State – 18,062
154.	Akron – 17,850
155.	Western Michigan – 17,347
156.	Jackson State – 17,286
157.	UNLV – 17,212
158.	Louisiana Monroe – 17,035
159.	Kent State – 17,018
160.	San Jose State – 16,362
161.	New Mexico State – 16,050
162.	Miami (Ohio) – 15,935
163.	South Alabama – 15,926
164.	Massachusetts – 15,830
165.	Jacksonville State – 15,814
166.	Georgia State – 15,577
167.	Charlotte – 15,541
168.	FIU – 15,453
169.	Bowling Green – 15,258
170.	Ball State – 15,131
171.	Liberty – 15,031
172.	Georgia Southern – 14,828
173.	Idaho – 14,744
174.	Tuskegee – 14,594
175.	Florida Atlantic – 14,552
176.	Alabama State – 14,387
177.	N.C A&T – 13,574
178.	Youngstown State – 13,506
179.	Hamilton – 13,298
180.	Central Michigan – 13,224
181.	Citadel – 13,155
182.	UNI – 12,572
183.	McNeese State – 12,072
184.	Harvard – 12,067
185.	Penn – 11,936
186.	South Carolina State – 11,880
187.	Tennessee State – 11,462
188.	Florida A&M – 11,170
189.	South Dakota State – 10,694
190.	UAB – 10,548
191.	Illinois State – 10,139
192.	Grand Valley State – 10,116
193.	Pittsburgh State – 10,030



Bolded denotes NFL teams and CFL teams, all else are college football teams (can't be bothered looking at high school teams)


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Kerrybai said:


> Edit: Also a quick comment on the Dutch league, I estimate that about 2% of the population attends games in the Netherlands, that's surely one of the highest in the world? Maybe even the best attended league the world when we take population size into consideration.


Best in the world is Scotland with 4% of the population attending pro football matches (there's a graph somewhere, I'll look it up). It's a bit misleading though, football isn't thriving in Scotland, on the contrary several big clubs are underachieving in terms of attendances because of the lack of competitiveness. The reason for the high national attendance rate is that because of short distances, fans of the bigger clubs travel away easily and in impressive numbers.


----------



## Guest

alexandru.mircea said:


> Best in the world is Scotland with 4% of the population attending pro football matches (there's a graph somewhere, I'll look it up). It's a bit misleading though, football isn't thriving in Scotland, on the contrary several big clubs are underachieving in terms of attendances because of the lack of competitiveness. The reason for the high national attendance rate is that because of short distances, fans of the bigger clubs travel away easily and in impressive numbers.


I think it'd be great to see more regional leagues in Europe. There are alot of big teams playing in small leagues. I find it really strange how resistant everyone is to change.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^ true, but not for Scotland - when a country of 5.3M people sustains a top flight of 10k in average attendance (even 13-14k before Rangers dropped), the reflex should be to cherish it, not think of how to destroy it. 
Scotland's fine and has a great footballing culture and tradition that we should not kill, the problem is rather with other countries such as Romania for example - I've been thinking about this and in my projections that envisage a healthy football system and society, the average attendance is around 20k. While in reality the averages hand around meagre 3-4k (despite the country being four times more populated and urbanized than Scotland).
Bulgaria is another country I've been thinking of recently: they have a better than average (for the Balkans) distribution of larger urban centres, that should provide a competitive league, but their averages are around the even more mediocre figures like 1-2k. 
I'm in favour of regional leagues in principle but, before that, I would see some regional cups tried to see the effects; cup tournaments take much shorter time and can be easily experimented with.


----------



## GunnerJacket

5portsF4n said:


> I think it'd be great to see more regional leagues in Europe. There are alot of big teams playing in small leagues.


It'd be interesting to see leagues rated for geometric means instead of averages, or have some indication of their standard deviation. Heck, simply listing their median in addition to their average would make for interesting comparison. I'll have to build that sometime.



> I find it really strange how resistant everyone is to change.


I'd imagine a lot of this is rooted in the historical tribalism that has originally made local football so popular in Europe, not to mention how fractious are their city-states. You're talking about many clubs about or older than 100 years, amidst cultures that are fearful of losing their identity amidst Europeanism. (See: Yugoslavia, USSR, Northern Ireland...)



5portsF4n said:


> Update the North American attendances on the previous page. I'll repost the football attendances here as well, as I kind of left that blank for a while.
> 
> 139.	Yale – 19,809
> 183.	Harvard – 12,067
> 184.	Penn – 11,936


Huh. I would've thought Princeton would've made the 10k cut, as well. I tend to think the Ivy League schools are overrated for academics but still enjoy seeing them succeed in sports given their stance on amatuerism. Wish more schools would join them as opposed to leaning toward semi-pro academy models!

Also, nice to see every CFL team above the 24k mark. Hopefully the RedBlacks can do the same and perhaps someday the league will inch toward the 30k mark.



kerouac1848 said:


> Surprised more clubs/leagues haven't copied the PL in counting tickets sold rather than actual attendance.


I could care less which one is used as both are valid, though I do get upset when the same format is used across an entire league. Several conferences in US college sports allow institutions to make their own call. Makes for frustrating comparative assessments.


----------



## GunnerJacket

alexandru.mircea said:


> Scotland's fine and has a great footballing culture and tradition that we should not kill, the problem is rather with other countries such as Romania for example - I've been thinking about this and in my projections that envisage a healthy football system and society, the average attendance is around 20k. While in reality the averages hand around meagre 3-4k (despite the country being four times more populated and urbanized than Scotland).
> Bulgaria is another country I've been thinking of recently: they have a better than average (for the Balkans) distribution of larger urban centres, that should provide a competitive league, but their averages are around the even more mediocre figures like 1-2k.
> I'm in favour of regional leagues in principle but, before that, I would see some regional cups tried to see the effects; cup tournaments take much shorter time and can be easily experimented with.


I think the cup tournament alternative is also more viable in many cases.

The root issue is finding a means to give smaller clubs and leagues greater opportunities for revenue and exposure, acknowledging that households in most countries lack the volume of disposable incomes to spend thousands of dollars/euros on game tickets and merchandise. Outsiders simply see the likes of Celtic and Porto and react to them being big fish in small ponds, but the converse is also true - We need to see the leagues as truly small and accept that only some teams have found a way to outgrow those ponds. But is the answer simply more games, more games against other competition, or creating something that allows more teams a chance at claiming silverware?


----------



## Guest

GunnerJacket said:


> I'd imagine a lot of this is rooted in the historical tribalism that has originally made local football so popular in Europe, not to mention how fractious are their city-states. You're talking about many clubs about or older than 100 years, amidst cultures that are fearful of losing their identity amidst Europeanism. (See: Yugoslavia, USSR, Northern Ireland...)
> 
> Huh. I would've thought Princeton would've made the 10k cut, as well. I tend to think the Ivy League schools are overrated for academics but still enjoy seeing them succeed in sports given their stance on amatuerism. Wish more schools would join them as opposed to leaning toward semi-pro academy models!


Re Ivy's: It is interesting, especially considering they are the ones who gave life to the game in the 19th century. Princeton finished with an average of 8,439 fwiw. 

Fair points about Europe. My only concern is that many of these countries with smaller leagues are losing entire generations of fans to big teams from the big leagues. 

I can't find an infographic I saw recently that showed the most popular team from a selection of European countries. It was quite telling.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

www.sercan.de said:


> I think (some) german teams use also the Ajax / PL system aka sold tickets and not fans inside the stadium


Generally there isn't a massive difference, unless a team has a massive slump that's so bad that season ticket holders stop bothering to go.

A few years ago Burnley published both sold and attended in their match programme. The difference was typically under 1000 on an average of 15000.


It can be more marked when there are freebie and/or bargain tickets given away


----------



## forestforever

alexandru.mircea said:


> Best in the world is Scotland with 4% of the population attending pro football matches (there's a graph somewhere, I'll look it up). It's a bit misleading though, football isn't thriving in Scotland, on the contrary several big clubs are underachieving in terms of attendances because of the lack of competitiveness. The reason for the high national attendance rate is that because of short distances, fans of the bigger clubs travel away easily and in impressive numbers.


Just a side note on this one, the scottish championship 2014/15 (the league below the scottish premiership) will have Rangers, Hearts and Hibs next season, so it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that the this division might have a higher average attendance than the scottish premiership.


----------



## Kerrybai

Rev Stickleback said:


> Generally there isn't a massive difference, unless a team has a massive slump that's so bad that season ticket holders stop bothering to go.
> 
> A few years ago Burnley published both sold and attended in their match programme. The difference was typically under 1000 on an average of 15000.
> 
> 
> It can be more marked when there are freebie and/or bargain tickets given away


I think in the case of Barcelona the difference is quite big as many season ticket holders only attend select games. They have around 85k season ticket holders yet average about 72k attendance. Perhaps this is also the case for the rest of Spain. Counting Paid attendance La Liga would probably clear 30k averages.


----------



## GunnerJacket

forestforever said:


> Just a side note on this one, the scottish championship 2014/15 (the league below the scottish premiership) will have Rangers, Hearts and Hibs next season, so it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that the this division might have a higher average attendance than the scottish premiership.


Based on the 2014 numbers provided here, and using what I believe to be the 2014/15 make up for each division I get this:

*Scottish Premiership*
47,079	Celtic FC
12,918	Aberdeen FC
_7,599	Dundee United FC
_5,175	Motherwell FC
_5,001	Partick Thistle FC 1876
_4,738	Dundee FC
_4,511	St. Mirren FC
_4,250	Kilmarnock FC
_3,806	St. Johnstone FC
_3,787	Ross County FC
_3,558	Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC
_1,436	Hamilton Academical FC
_*_8,655	League Average*_




*Scottish Championship*
42,657	Rangers FC
14,123	Heart of Midlothian FC
11,027	Hibernian 1875 Edinburgh
_3,114	Falkirk FC
_1,724	Queen of the South FC
_1,659	Raith Rovers FC
_1,157	Livingston FC
__938	Dumbarton FC
__876	Alloa Athletic FC
__623	Cowdenbeath FC
*_7,790	League Average*

Assuming the presence of Rangers, Hearts and Hibs in the Championship gives the bottom feeders any significant boost it's a distinct possibility that the Championship could feature the higher average!


----------



## forestforever

GunnerJacket said:


> Based on the 2014 numbers provided here, and using what I believe to be the 2014/15 make up for each division I get this:
> 
> *Scottish Premiership*
> 47,079	Celtic FC
> 12,918	Aberdeen FC
> _7,599	Dundee United FC
> _5,175	Motherwell FC
> _5,001	Partick Thistle FC 1876
> _4,738	Dundee FC
> _4,511	St. Mirren FC
> _4,250	Kilmarnock FC
> _3,806	St. Johnstone FC
> _3,787	Ross County FC
> _3,558	Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC
> _1,436	Hamilton Academical FC
> _*_8,655	League Average*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Scottish Championship*
> 42,657	Rangers FC
> 14,123	Heart of Midlothian FC
> 11,027	Hibernian 1875 Edinburgh
> _3,114	Falkirk FC
> _1,724	Queen of the South FC
> _1,659	Raith Rovers FC
> _1,157	Livingston FC
> __938	Dumbarton FC
> __876	Alloa Athletic FC
> __623	Cowdenbeath FC
> *_7,790	League Average*
> 
> Assuming the presence of Rangers, Hearts and Hibs in the Championship gives the bottom feeders any significant boost it's a distinct possibility that the Championship could feature the higher average!


If this does come to be, would this be a first, where the top division gets lower average than the league below it? I cannot think of any instances when this has occurred before.


----------



## Cjones2451

Here is the Actual CFL 2013 attendances, some of what you have here is capacity. Saskatchewan hosted the Grey Cup and had temporary seating to go over capacity, Hamilton played in a temporaty venue whil their stadium is re-built

Team Home Avg
BC 28,311
Calgary 29,263
Edmonton 32,096
Hamilton 13,298
Montreal 23,005
Saskatchewan 37,503
Toronto 21,926
Winnipeg 30,637


QUOTE=5portsF4n;114548996]Update the North American attendances on the previous page. I'll repost the football attendances here as well, as I kind of left that blank for a while. 

*Football* 
1. Michigan – 111,592
2. Ohio State – 104,933
3. Alabama – 101,505
4. Texas – 98,976
5. Penn State – 96,587
6. Tennessee – 95,584
7. Georgia – 92,746
8. LSU – 91,418
9. Nebraska – 90,933
10. *Dallas Cowboys – 88,043*
11. Florida – 87,440
12. Texas A&M – 87,125
13. Auburn – 85,657
14. Oklahoma – 84,722
15. South Carolina – 82,401
16. Clemson – 82,048
17. Notre Dame – 80,795
18. *NY Giants – 80,148*
19. Wisconsin – 78,911
20. *Green Bay Pakcers – 77,947*
21. *Washington Redskins – 77,220*
22. *NY Jets – 76,957*
23. *Denver Broncos – 76,872*
24. Florida State – 75,421
25. *Kansas City Chiefs – 75,359*
26. *Carolina Panthers – 73,443*
27. Southern California – 73,126
28. *New Orleans Saints – 72,901*
29. Michigan State – 72,328
30. *Houston Texans - 71,658*
31. *Cleveland Browns – 71,242*
32. *Baltimore Ravens – 71,135*
33. UCLA – 70,285
34. *Atlanta Falcons – 70,224*
35. *San Francisco 49ers – 69,732*
36. *Philadelphia Eagles – 69,144*
37. *Tennessee Titans – 69,143*
38. Washington – 68,769
39. *New England Patriots – 68,756*
40. *Seattle Seahawks – 68,197*
41. Iowa – 67,125
42. *Buffalo Bills – 66,267*
43. *Indianapolis Colts – 65,950*
44. *Miami Dolphins – 64,319*
45. *San Diego Chargers – 64,205*
46. *Minnesota Vikings – 64,019*
47. Virginia Tech – 63,999
48. *Detroit Lions – 63,796*
49. Missouri – 63,505
50. *Cincinnati Bengals – 63,297*
51. Arizona State – 62,689
52. *Chicago Bears – 62,358*
53. Arkansas – 61,596
54. BYU – 61,225
55. *Arizona Cardinals – 61,033*
56. *Jacksonville Jaguars – 59,940*
57. Kentucky – 59,472
58. Ole Miss – 59,393
59. Oklahoma State – 59,126
60. *Tampa Bay Bucs – 58,818*
61. Texas Tech – 57,933
62. Oregon – 57,660
63. *Pittsburgh Steelers – 57,311*
64. *St Louis Rams – 56,957*
65. Mississippi State – 55,695
66. Iowa State – 55,361
67. Miami – 53,837
68. North Carolina State – 53,178
69. Louisville – 52,914
70. West Virginia – 52,910
71. Kansas State – 52,887
72. North Carolina – 51,500
73. *Oakland Raiders – 50,444*
74. California – 49,329
75. Georgia Tech – 49,077
76. Pittsburgh – 48,953
77. Purdue – 48,953
78. Minnesota – 47,797
79. Arizona – 47,619
80. Rutgers – 46,549
81. Virginia – 46,279
82. Baylor – 45,948
83. Utah – 45,194
84. Indiana – 44,353
85. East Carolina – 43,985
86. Illinois – 43,787
87. TCU – 43,598
88. Oregon State – 42,964
89. UCF – 42,084
90. Maryland – 41,278
91. Northwestern – 39,307
92. Colorado – 38,463
93. Kansas – 37,884
94. Fresno State – 36,917
95. Vanderbilt – 35,675
96. Navy – 35,588
97. South Florida – 34,702
98. Boise State – 34,366
99. Army – 33,956
100. San Diego State – 33,224
101. Boston College – 33,006
102. Air Force – 32,652
103. Cincinnati – 31,771
104. Hawaii – 30,989
105. UConn – 30,932
106. *Saskatchewan – 30,342*
107. Washington State – 29,738
108. *Hamilton – 29,588*
109. UTSA – 29,214
110. Memphis – 28,837
111. Wake Forest – 28,414
112. UTEP – 28,375
113. *British Columbia – 27,051*
114. *Calgary – 26,907*
115. *Toronto – 26,641*
116. *Edmonton – 26,201*
117. Duke – 26,062
118. Louisiana Lafayette – 25,976
119. *Montreal – 25,196*
120. Marshall – 25,023
121. Nevada – 24,939
122. Arkansas State – 24,913
123. Appalachian State – 24,894
124. Montana – 24,380
125. Houston – 24,256
126. *Winnipeg – 24,138*
127. New Mexico – 23,537
128. Utah State – 23,263
129. Southern Miss – 22,752
130. Buffalo – 22,736
131. Temple – 22,473
132. North Texas – 21,030
133. James Madison – 21,011
134. Ohio – 20,672
135. Northern Illinois – 20,669
136. Old Dominion – 20,118
137. Southern U. – 20,107
138. Tulsa – 19,893
139. Yale – 19,809
140. Tulane – 19,747
141. Montana State – 19,704
142. Wyoming – 19,476
143. Troy – 18,906
144. SMU – 18,725
145. Middle Tennessee – 18,715
146. Louisiana Tech – 18,666
147. North Dakota State – 18,622
148. Colorado State – 18,600
149. Rice – 18,587
150. Toledo – 18,467
151. Western Kentucky – 18,334
152. Delaware – 18,108
153. Texas State – 18,062
154. Akron – 17,850
155. Western Michigan – 17,347
156. Jackson State – 17,286
157. UNLV – 17,212
158. Louisiana Monroe – 17,035
159. Kent State – 17,018
160. San Jose State – 16,362
161. New Mexico State – 16,050
162. Miami (Ohio) – 15,935
163. South Alabama – 15,926
164. Massachusetts – 15,830
165. Jacksonville State – 15,814
166. Georgia State – 15,577
167. Charlotte – 15,541
168. FIU – 15,453
169. Bowling Green – 15,258
170. Ball State – 15,131
171. Liberty – 15,031
172. Georgia Southern – 14,828
173. Idaho – 14,744
174. Tuskegee – 14,594
175. Florida Atlantic – 14,552
176. Alabama State – 14,387
177. N.C A&T – 13,574
178. Youngstown State – 13,506
179. Central Michigan – 13,224
180. Citadel – 13,155
181. UNI – 12,572
182. McNeese State – 12,072
183. Harvard – 12,067
184. Penn – 11,936
185. South Carolina State – 11,880
186. Tennessee State – 11,462
187. Florida A&M – 11,170
188. South Dakota State – 10,694
189. UAB – 10,548
190. Illinois State – 10,139
191. Grand Valley State – 10,116
192. Pittsburgh State – 10,030

Bolded denotes NFL teams and CFL teams, all else are college football teams (can't be bothered looking at high school teams)[/QUOTE]


----------



## flierfy

forestforever said:


> If this does come to be, would this be a first, where the top division gets lower average than the league below it? I cannot think of any instances when this has occurred before.


Neither can I imagine a circumstance in which this could have happened. Not even in war times.

Rangers presence in the 4th and 3rd division over the last two seasons already led to the anomaly that the division they were in had the second biggest average attendance of all four Scottish League divisions and therefore higher attendances than the division above. They haven't beaten the top flight division though.


----------



## Guest

mamangvilla: 

Iran
Esteghal: 19,834
Persepolis: 28,400
Tractor Sazi: 39,553


----------



## flierfy

The final games of all relevant divisions of the German football season have just ended. And these are the key attendance figures for 2013-14 season:


----------



## weava

27,000 in attendance at Ernst-Happel-Stadium to watch Germany beat Austria to win the Football EM 2014 yesterday (American football)


----------



## Guest

flierfy said:


> The final games of all relevant divisions of the German football season have just ended. And these are the key attendance figures for 2013-14 season:


Thanks. Got to say though, I always found it pointless comparing attendances from one season to another in Europe, considering the turnover of teams.


----------



## Kerrybai

I wonder what the maximum Bundesliga attedance would be if you had the 18 highest teams by attendance?

Basically if they switched Freiburg, Hoffenheim and Braunschweig with Kaiserslautern, FC Koln and Dusseldorf they would gain 3 45-50k averages with 22-26k averages.

I imagine they would top 46k.

The premier league could potentially hit 40k with a similar switch of teams.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Yeah, comparing averages for European leagues is interesting exactly because of the turnover in clubs, you look up who's in which division and find interesting explanations (or make predictions).


----------



## bd popeye

MLS attendance thus far this 2014 season.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Kerrybai said:


> The premier league could potentially hit 40k with a similar switch of teams.


A Premier League with the 20 highest existing capacities would give you an average of 41,828, but good luck securing all sell-outs at places like Sunderland, Middlesbrough and Coventry. Especially if those sides know they're the cannon fodder for that season.

75,797	Manchester United
60,361	Arsenal
52,409	Newcastle United
48,707	Sunderland
47,805	Manchester City
45,276	Liverpool
42,789	Aston Villa
41,837	Chelsea
40,157	Everton
39,812	Sheffield Wednesday
39,460	Leeds United
36,230	Tottenham
35,016	West Ham
34,988	Middlesbrough
33,597	Derby
32,702	Sheffield United
32,689	Southampton
32,609	Coventry City
32,262	Leicester City
32,057	Wolverhampton

If we add in the planned expansions for Liverpool (58k), Man City (62k), and West Ham (50k) then you get a league avg. of 43,923. Add in Spurs dream and you're just under 45k.

While I don't think this alignment will all come to pass we do know several other teams are realistic targets for future expansion/rebuilds, including Wolverhampton, Forest, and perhaps someday Everton.

Edit: Above capacities courtesy of StadiumDB.com


----------



## Kerrybai

^ Really nice post. It looks like Germany will remain number 1 for quite some time, of course it does benefit from having 2 less teams. I can't be the only one who spends time thinking about the sort of attendances a European super league would have. I might draw up a list some time.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Kerrybai said:


> ^ Really nice post. It looks like Germany will remain number 1 for quite some time, of course it does benefit from having 2 less teams. I can't be the only one who spends time thinking about the sort of attendances a European super league would have. I might draw up a list some time.


According to European Football Statistics the top 20 attendance averages for the 2012-'13 season would yield a combined 55.7k avg:

80.5	BV 09 Borussia Dortmund
75.5	Manchester United
71.1	FC Barcelona
71.0	FC Bayern München
70.0	Real Madrid CF
61.2	FC Schalke 04
60.1	Arsenal FC
52.9	Hamburger SV
50.5	Newcastle United FC
50.5	Ajax Amsterdam
50.1	VfB Stuttgart
49.7	VfL Borussia Mönchengladbach
48.0	SG Eintracht Frankfurt*
47.0	Manchester City FC
46.9	Celtic FC
46.6	FC Internazionale Milano
46.0	TSV Fortuna 95 Düsseldorf
45.7	Rangers FC
45.3	Feyenoord
44.7	Liverpool FC

As we see this list has a lot of German clubs and is absent some names people might throw into the lot (Milan, Marseille...), names that would most likely draw much higher figures for such a league. Yet some might be included but lack the capacity to host that many, like Juve, Chelsea or PSG depending on how you select the clubs.

But I'm ardently opposed to the idea, anyway, so...


----------



## Guest

The problem with a Super League is that there are so many clubs that miss out. Id like to see a ESL that uses traditional European league structures. It is a small continent, so having divisions wouldnt be an issue. You might have 6-10 divisions. 

The other interesting thing about Europe is that most major cities all have at least two clubs, many of which are equally supported. In the US, a city like Glasgow or Lisbon would never have two teams, because we never started out with "state leagues". In Europe, you'd be hard pressed not to include them in some capacity. But the more a ESL becomes real, the less likely you are to have 2 teams from the same city, at least not from smaller cities like Glasgow. 

Which leads me to my next point: regional leagues. We need to see the acceleration of these. I would personally like to see greater integration in the ex Soviet nations, Belgium/Netherlands, Scandinavia, and Id like to see the big Portuguese and Scottish clubs allowed in Spain/England respectively. Pipe dreams maybe. At least Football Manager allows me to do it!

In reality what I think will happen is that we wil simply get the status quo, but we'll see an increase in the amount of group stage games, where teams might play 8 group games, then 10, until the UCL becomes a season long competition.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

bd popeye said:


> MLS attendance thus far this 2014 season.


Interesting that attendance is pretty much down 5 - 8 percent across the board in a World Cup year. I would assume the opposite effect, but perhaps after the world cup


----------



## Guest

Maybe we should wait to the end of the season. The comparison with this time last season is that the attendance is up 5.9%, or over 1,000 more. 

You are overlooking a few things:

-Chivas have been playing despite being a non entity. They are in stasis, with no identity. Drop is wholly expected. 

- San Jose have a few huge games coming up, that will life their average well above last year. 

- Seattle too has big games remaining, and will top last years. 

Of the 19 clubs, only 4 have dropped attendances that cannot be attributed to something, other than losing.


----------



## Melb_aviator

Interesting to read all about the Chivas USA experiment and its failure.

Overall, it has many parallels to what is happening in Australia.

After 4 unsuccessful seasons in the Hyundai A-League, Melbourne Heart was brought out by CFG (City Football Group, owners of Manchester City and NYC FC) in January 2014. The new team name of the club is Melbourne City FC, which creates the link to its parent organisation, but does include the name of the market it is aiming to appeal to, unlike the Chivas USA example.

The original owners went out and signed a Dutch Coach (John Vant Schip), talking about wanting to be a club for the football purest, but ended up delivering a cheap and underwhelming product to its fan base, mainly due to under-investment.

All this occurred in a market where Melbourne Victory was the most successful club in the comp, with the biggest membership and crowd base in the league. It had 5 years head start on Melbourne Heart, but the failure to gain any success on the park made it next to impossible to gain traction. This was also the case for much of Chivas USA's existence, with the Beckham factor in play. 

Being the 2nd team in a market is hard work, as you need to fight for the scraps really by the time you get your chance. If you can make a significant case to appeal to the broader sporting market for your product, only then will you allow the total footballing market to grow. In both these team's cases they also play in the same stadium as their competitor, which makes the task even harder to make a strong case to support your team.

Both teams were designed to grow the game in their respective markets, but failed to connect to their target audiences. Hopefully with new investors, new name and new vision LA's 2nd team can be a success, as we hope CFG can make this Melbourne venture work over here.


----------



## Guest

Melb_aviator said:


> Interesting to read all about the Chivas USA experiment and its failure........


1. Chivas was created to serve the Hispanic populace in Los Angeles. It started out as a sister club of Chivas Guadalajara from the outset. In other words, its sole purpose was to appeal to people who already followed Mexican soccer, and had no reason to follow MLS. *Note that this is all prior to the lightbulb flashing at MLS HQ/pre Toronto* Further, if you weren't a fan of Chivas Guadalajara, you were implicitly alienating fans of other Mexican teams. There are plenty of Club America, Cruz Azul et fans that would never subscribe to the idea of supporting Chivas USA. 

2. Both Galaxy and Chivas play in Carson, about 15 miles from downtown LA. For one, if you are going to go after Mexican soccer fans, you might just be in the worst place conceivable. This is not where there target audience has amassed. On top of that, while there are plenty of people that live in and around Carson, you're not maximizing the potential for soccer by putting two teams in a place like that. I've just used Google maps to make the comparison easier for you, but it is the equivalent of the two Melbourne teams playing in "Cheltenham" "Glen Waverely" or "St Albans". I hope those areas mean something to you. 

3. Chivas USA never signed any good players. They were all second rate Mexican players, which is doubly disappointing when your neighbor signs Donovan, Keane, or Beckham to name a few. It's part of the reason their attendance has gone downhill over the last 5 years, as they've been crappy and haven't made the playoffs once since 2009. 

4. Myth #712: Chivas attendance was bad. No, it wasn't. And when the the team managed to put out a competitive outfit, attendance was very respectable. In 2006 - their 2nd season - they were 2nd best in the league with almost 20,000 average, second only to LAG who had just above 20,000. First five seasons they averaged over 15,000 in each season, and only dipped below 10,000 last season. 

5. The ineptitude of ownership by Vergara is well documented. I won't expand on this. 

6. AEG owns Galaxy and Stub Hub, and Chivas were always second class citizens. 

I'll finish with this: Chivas USA was created when the league and its execs were still very confused in regards to the direction of the game. The landscape back then, though I wasn't really part of it, seems like another lifetime. If Los Angeles Redux manage to find a home somewhere in central-eastern LA, closer to downtown while edging towards the east, they could easily become bigger than LA Galaxy. 

MLS is still small time in Los Angeles. Soccer might be popular in Los Angeles, but American soccer isn't... yet. Galaxy haven't got the market cornered, and the door is open. With MLS leading the charge on this expansion, and with their strong understanding of what succeeds in the modern US soccer market, Chivas-reborn has the capacity to stomp on LA Galaxy. They won't be making a mistake for a 2nd time. 

The simple fact remains that this new reincarnation must be Anglicized. Galaxy have shown that teams with good ownership will draw both Anglo-Americans and Mexican-Americans to support them. Its counterproductive to align yourself with clubs from other countries. New York City is different because the way it was done creates enough breathing room so as not to alienate sections of the population. For example, they've signed David Villa. If would be like Chivas USA signing Javier Hernandez (not really, but you get my drift). Things like that make a huge difference, and MLS won't allow it to happen again. But the jury is still out on how NY embraces NYCFC.


----------



## GunnerJacket

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> Interesting that attendance is pretty much down 5 - 8 percent across the board in a World Cup year. I would assume the opposite effect, but perhaps after the world cup


If I'm not mistaken MLS has played a couple more games than usual by this time _because_ of the World Cup. Meaning a few more weeknight or Friday night specials so that their better players don't miss too many league matches. Plus you've had more games conflicting with US and Mexico matches as the national teams prepare for the WC, meaning something else to distract the casual fans.

That's the peril with MLS's summer schedule, but IMO still one worth facing for a US based league.


----------



## flierfy

5portsF4n said:


> The problem with a Super League is that there are so many clubs that miss out. Id like to see a ESL that uses traditional European league structures. It is a small continent, so having divisions wouldnt be an issue. You might have 6-10 divisions.


Vertical or horizontal divisions?



5portsF4n said:


> The other interesting thing about Europe is that most major cities all have at least two clubs, many of which are equally supported. In the US, a city like Glasgow or Lisbon would never have two teams, because we never started out with "state leagues". In Europe, you'd be hard pressed not to include them in some capacity. But the more a ESL becomes real, the less likely you are to have 2 teams from the same city, at least not from smaller cities like Glasgow.


Places like Boston, Philadelphia or St Louis used to have two established Baseball teams in the major leagues as well, New York even three. You just allowed their owners to rip these teams out of their traditional places.


----------



## Guest

Baseball was big in the northeast early on. Needing to accomodate nationwide expansion, you were never going to end up with a huge concentration of teams. In saying that, the three biggest markets all have two baseball teams today. I wasnt talking about huge cities like Philly or Boston either, but rather the 1-2 million range. In Europe the 1-2m range has 2 teams at least. 

I meant vertical, yeah. Try to fit 150 or so teams in a Eurowide pyramid.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

5portsF4n said:


> Maybe we should wait to the end of the season. The comparison with this time last season is that the attendance is up 5.9%, or over 1,000 more.
> 
> You are overlooking a few things:
> 
> -Chivas have been playing despite being a non entity. They are in stasis, with no identity. Drop is wholly expected.
> 
> - San Jose have a few huge games coming up, that will life their average well above last year.
> 
> - Seattle too has big games remaining, and will top last years.
> 
> Of the 19 clubs, only 4 have dropped attendances that cannot be attributed to something, other than losing.


ah, i was assuming that the 2013 numbers were year to date... Now it makes more sense


----------



## Kerrybai

http://billsportsmaps.com/wp-conten...ndent-teams_drawing-over-4000-per-game_m_.gif

Great map and list here of minor league baseball in North America.


----------



## isaidso

I can't speak for those US teams, but MLS isn't dependent on super stars to thrive on this side of the border. Soccer has moved well beyond needing that here. People in Canada support MLS because they're soccer fans period.


----------



## SounderBruce

Saturday was a record-breaking day for American soccer. One in every 820 Americans attended a soccer match, with 383,120 total and a 20,164 per-match average.

*International Champion's Cup*

 Inter Milan vs. Roma - 12,169 (Source) at Lincoln Financial Field, Philadelphia, PA
 Manchester City vs. Olympiacos / Minnesota United vs. Ottawa Fury - 34,047 (Source) at TCF Bank Stadium, Minneapolis, MN
 Manchester United vs. Real Madrid - 109,318 (Source) at Michigan Stadium, Ann Arbor, MI
 Liverpool vs. AC Milan - 69,364 (Source) at Bank of America Stadium, Charlotte, NC

*MLS*


 LA Galaxy vs. Portland Timbers - 20,089 (Source) at StubHub Center, Carson, CA
 San Jose Earthquakes vs. Seattle Sounders - 48,765 (Source) at Levi's Stadium, Santa Clara, CA
 New York Red Bulls vs. New England Revolution - 20,862 (Source) at Red Bull Arena, Harrison, NJ
 Chicago Fire vs. Columbus Crew - 14,332 (Source) at Toyota Park, Bridgeview, IL
 Colorado Rapids vs. Real Salt Lake - 17,554 (Source) at Dick's Sporting Goods Park, Commerce City, CO

*NASL*


 New York Cosmos vs. Carolina Railhawks - 4,649 (Source) at James M. Shuart Stadium, Hempstead, NY
 Fort Lauderdale Strikers vs. Tampa Bay Rowdies - 2,648 (Source) at Lockhart Stadium, Fort Lauderdale, FL
 Indy 11 vs. Atlanta Silverbacks - 10,285 (Source) at Michael A. Carroll Stadium, Indianapolis, IN

*USL Pro*

 Pittsburgh Riverhounds vs. LA Galaxy II - 2,243 (Source) at Highmark Stadium, Pittsburgh, PA
 Dayton Dutch Lions vs. Harrisburg - 396 (Source) at Dayton Outpatient Center Stadium, West Carrollton, OH
 Orlando City vs. Charlotte Eagles - 5,029 (Source) at ESPN Wide World of Sports, Kissimmee, FL
 Oklahoma City Energy vs. Orange County Blues - 3,351 (Source) at Pribil Stadium, Oklahoma City, OK
 Arizona United vs. Sacramento Republic - 1,888 (Source) at Peoria Sports Complex, Peoria, AZ

*NWSL*


 Washington Spirit vs. Chicago Red Stars - 3,102 (Source) at Maryland SoccerPlex, Boyds, MD
 Kansas City vs. Seattle Reign - 3,029 (Source) at Durwood Stadium, Kansas City, MO


----------



## isaidso

That's very good.


----------



## bd popeye

*MLS attendance thus far for 2014*

_The MLS is getting close to that 19,000 a game mark...OUTSTANDING._


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> *MLS attendance thus far for 2014*
> 
> _The MLS is getting close to that 19,000 a game mark...OUTSTANDING._


There've been some marked improvements for this season, namely seeing the numbers from Dallas and DC of late, but I'd be patient on the 19k mark. This weekend had the benefit of San Jose's game at Levi's skewing the curve. If the middling clubs can hold out next year, however, that might be the year. Orlando and New Dhabi take a bow plus we get the new Quakes venue and the rebrand of Chivas. Very possible. 

Now we need the stalwarts to develop true staying power. I saw the Toronto-Montreal tilt and was disappointed with the 1,000 or so empty seats amidst the Impact faithful. C'mon guys, that's an earnest rivalry game there!


----------



## bd popeye

Ya' know. I'm not a soccer fan but I am impressed with the MLS attendance.

*Five Major League Soccer Teams Outdrawing Baseball in 2014*

ps..that's average game day attendance by the way.


----------



## weava

Here is my terrible attempt at making an infographic...
edit: just realized I used outdated NBA numbers from the lockout season, it should be 21,411,543


----------



## Kerrybai

Gotta love MLS creeping up on the top European leagues while having very few of the world soccer stars. Well done.


----------



## isaidso

^^ Even if soccer remains 5th in terms of popularity, the fact that MLS will likely never move beyond 32 teams long term bodes well for its future. Europe is divided into national leagues so there's tons more teams per capita. The soccer pie is much bigger in Europe, but it's divided amongst a huge number of teams. At 32, MLS would still only work out to 1 team for every 11 million people in Canada/US. That would be akin to having only 5 pro teams in the whole of England. 

Television revenues/merchandise sales have a huge impact on the wealth of a league. It would only take a small uptick in popularity for MLS to go right to the top of the soccer world. Unless China's national league starts gaining ground. People in Europe want soccer to become more popular in Canada/US, but I don't think they've considered the repercussions of that if it were to happen. If the sport came anywhere close to levels seen in Europe, most European clubs would find themselves increasingly outbid for talent. 

One only need look at the Canadian Football league to see what happens to a league that gets outbid for talent by a league (NFL) who's teams serve a bigger market. There's 1 CFL team for every 4 million Canadians and 1 NFL team for every 9 million Americans. Guess which league is going to end up #1? It may surprise people to know that the CFL and NFL used to be on rather equal footing. Television revenues changed everything (in favour of the NFL) and the CFL has never recovered from it.



GunnerJacket said:


> Now we need the stalwarts to develop true staying power. I saw the Toronto-Montreal tilt and was disappointed with the 1,000 or so empty seats amidst the Impact faithful. C'mon guys, that's an earnest rivalry game there!


I can never figure out the Montreal sports fan. They'll post truly massive numbers for events like Formula One (300,000+), Grey Cup victory parade (400,000+), Blue Jays exhibition (96,350 for 2 games), even swimming (World Championships) and then come out with an attendance figure like you alluded to above.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^ as a euro fan of the main leagues I can't wait for MLS and China to become big and take their natural share of the talent market, because that might bring some more diversity in top level football. Once the current pool of top talent (the same old Argentines, Brazilians, Africans from France/Belgium, ex-Yugos, etc) becomes insufficient for all the buying clubs, resources will be invested in new potential talent pools. Would love it if in 30 years from now there are also, say, Indians, Vietnamese, Ethiopians, Palestinians etc. at the top level of football, each bringing something new. As a Romanian I also have a "vested" interest for this to happen, currently the situation for Romania is so bad (best talent pool so well locked under such bad admin) that a footballing "colonization" such as that with foreign academies in Africa would do a world of good for Romanian football.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Might be a tough row to hoe in some of those circumstances. China, for example, is a more insular sports economy, so even though they have fair crowds and some financial backing the global appeal for their domestic league is pretty low. And as the European powers look to exert greater influence via their tours it becomes tough to climb the ladder.

The J League and A League could prosper further (despite the population limits in Australia), and a myriad of other smaller nations will at least solidify their domestic front. But in terms of global presence for building revenue, raising stars and luring talent I think MLS and Liga MX may be the only ones outside Europe to make great strides in the next decade. I had higher hope for Brazil with their new facilities but it appears greater forces may counter that benefit.

As we've hinted before, I think the big thing for the smaller European nations will be finding ways to redress the revenue imbalances by redirecting more money from UEFA and/or finding ways to develop joint leagues or joint competitions.


----------



## CharlieP

isaidso said:


> ^^ Even if soccer remains 5th in terms of popularity, the fact that MLS will likely never move beyond 32 teams long term bodes well for its future. Europe is divided into national leagues so there's tons more teams per capita.


Is teams per capita really relevant though? If a new team was created in Miami, it's not going to take 1/27 off the fan base of every other team.


----------



## weava

I updated the North American sports league chart I made. (fixed a couple errors, updated a few outdated numbers, and added a few more leagues)


----------



## weava




----------



## isaidso

CharlieP said:


> Is teams per capita really relevant though? If a new team was created in Miami, it's not going to take 1/27 off the fan base of every other team.


Teams per capita is *very* important. Most leagues aren't gate driven any more. It's the number of eye balls watching on television that counts. MLS currently works out to 1 team for every 18 million Canadians/Americans. Say 5% of people tune in to watch. That works out to 900,000 eye balls. The Premiership works out to 1 team for every 2.7 million people in England. A third of the population needs to tune in to get 900,000 people watching. 

Granted people watch teams from other markets, but that's true in England and Canada/US. The one area that keeps English squads way ahead is the number of people watching their league around the world. As places like China, Russia, Iran get wealthier and their domestic leagues get wealthier/stronger, English squads might start seeing that market for them dry up. Domestic leagues will offer them stiffer competition as will upstarts like MLS (eventually).

But consider this. What if soccer continues to gain popularity in Canada/US and now 20% of people tune in to watch? That works out to 3.6 million eye balls. That's a BIG BIG problem for the English league. They're going to start seeing the MLS out bid them for the best players, and then is a one ticket to 2nd tier status. There's no recovery from that.

MLS getting a lot more popular in Canada/US is a ticking time bomb for Europe's big established leagues. If you cherish your own leagues, this is not something you want to happen. Take it from a Canadian who watched the exact same thing happen here. 

The CFL and NFL came were on relatively equal footing till about 1970 when the NFL zoomed out ahead. The CFL suddenly found that it couldn't offer players as much money as the NFL because the NFL television market per team was massively larger. There was nothing wrong with Canadian Football or the CFL except they didn't have as many eye balls to market to. The CFL went from equal to 2nd tier in a decade and has never recovered from that.

You don't want MLS to get super popular here... trust me.


----------



## Kerrybai

isaidso said:


> Teams per capita is *very* important. Most leagues aren't gate driven any more. It's the number of eye balls watching on television that counts. MLS currently works out to 1 team for every 18 million Canadians/Americans. Say 5% of people tune in to watch. That works out to 900,000 eye balls. The Premiership works out to 1 team for every 2.7 million people in England. A third of the population needs to tune in to get 900,000 people watching.
> 
> Granted people watch teams from other markets, but that's true in England and Canada/US. The one area that keeps English squads way ahead is the number of people watching their league around the world. As places like China, Russia, Iran get wealthier and their domestic leagues get wealthier/stronger, English squads might start seeing that market for them dry up. Domestic leagues will offer them stiffer competition as will upstarts like MLS (eventually).
> 
> But consider this. What if soccer continues to gain popularity in Canada/US and now 20% of people tune in to watch? That works out to 3.6 million eye balls. That's a BIG BIG problem for the English league. They're going to start seeing the MLS out bid them for the best players, and then is a one ticket to 2nd tier status. There's no recovery from that.
> 
> MLS getting a lot more popular in Canada/US is a ticking time bomb for Europe's big established leagues. If you cherish your own leagues, this is not something you want to happen. Take it from a Canadian who watched the exact same thing happen here.
> 
> The CFL and NFL came were on relatively equal footing till about 1970 when the NFL zoomed out ahead. The CFL suddenly found that it couldn't offer players as much money as the NFL because the NFL television market per team was massively larger. There was nothing wrong with Canadian Football or the CFL except they didn't have as many eye balls to market to. The CFL went from equal to 2nd tier in a decade and has never recovered from that.


I understand where you are coming from but I don't quite agree. I think domestic leagues growing only strengthens the numbers watching the worlds top teams/premier league. The top players will always be in Europe so MLS fans and fans of other leagues will always tune into watch them.

It's true of most sports. I follow the NFL from time to time ( Patriots fan ) but if I was to follow a new European football league, I wouldn't stop watching the Patriots as the prestige of quality of the NFL will never be surpassed.


----------



## isaidso

*Canadian Football League*
*2014 Week #5*










Calgary Stampeders @ Edmonton Eskimos 40,066
Winnipeg Blue Bombers @ BC Lions 25,321
Ottawa RedBlacks @ Hamilton Tiger-Cats 6,500 *SELL OUT*
Toronto Argonauts @ Saskatchewan Roughriders 32,621


Week #5 attendance: 104,508
Week #5 average attendance: 26,127
Cummulative attendance: 504,113
Average attendance: 25,206


----------



## isaidso

Kerrybai said:


> I understand where you are coming from but I don't quite agree. I think domestic leagues growing only strengthens the numbers watching the worlds top teams/premier league. The top players will always be in Europe so MLS fans and fans of other leagues will always tune into watch them.
> 
> It's true of most sports. I follow the NFL from time to time ( Patriots fan ) but if I was to follow a new European football league, I wouldn't stop watching the Patriots as the prestige of quality of the NFL will never be surpassed.


Domestic leagues growing does strengthen a sport globally, but where one's own domestic league fits into the equation isn't necessarily going to be favorable. 

You mention that top players will always want to play in Europe. Would it surprise you to know that at one point, the best (gridiron) football players in Canada/US used to to play in Canada? The CFL was far more established than the NFL which didn't get started till 1920. The CFL had crowed 54 Grey Cup champions before the first Super Bowl was even contested. The CFL's Argonauts were founded in 1873, the Tiger-Cats in 1869.

Canadians thought the prestige of the CFL would never be surpassed and no one bothered watching NFL. Many actually looked down upon it. Now the reverse is true (although we still watch CFL). 

Nothing stays #1 forever. European leagues may very well remain dominant, but nothing is guaranteed. Canadians learned that the hard way. It was an agonizing thing for us to go through and our domestic league almost didn't survive it. Die hard fans stood by it and the CFL is starting to climb its way back.


----------



## isaidso

*Canadian Football League*
*2014 Week #6*










Winnipeg Blue Bombers @ Hamilton Tiger-Cats 6,500 *SELL OUT*
Toronto Argonauts @ Montreal Alouettes 20,692
BC Lions @ Calgary Stampeders 27,266 
Saskatchewan Roughriders @ Ottawa RedBlacks 24,303 *SELL OUT*


Week #6 attendance: 78,761
Week #6 average attendance: 19,690
Cummulative attendance: 582,874
Average attendance: 24,286


----------



## alexandru.mircea

@isaidso: I think you're massively underestimating football's potential to grow in what TV rights are concerned, both international and domestic. For example, as popular as the Premier League is worldwide, its domestic rights are still tremendous: 3.018 billion pounds for 2013-16 (5.04 billion US dollars), compared to the 2.23 billion pounds from international TV rights for the same period. Of those, the US is nowhere near the top contributor, which are Asia (940M pounds), the rest of Europe (607M), Sub-Saharan Africa (205M), North-Africa & the Middle-East (204M) and only then North America (the whole of it) & the Caribbean (179M) (source). 

There is clearly space for European football to further grow its TV rights domestically, especially France, Germany, Spain, Turkey but especially the Champions League, who are sitting on a TV market consisting of around 700 million viewers, which also represent the largest economy in the world.

The growth of international rights will have IMO a clear enough path so that one league's growth won't mean taking a bite out of another league's market, at least for a generation. For example, the Premier League's explosion in Romania since the turn of the decade, when it has become *the* premium football product on TV and has become the object of bidding wars, hasn't stopped the domestic league getting a surprisingly high deal from a new bidder this summer.


----------



## Lakeland

Bundesliga chief explains why they keep ticket prices cheap
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/aug/13/bundesliga-premier-league-germany-ticket-prices



> Seifert says that allowing as many people as possible – of all ages and social backgrounds – to go to stadiums is a guiding principle of German clubs, describing it as both a social responsibility and a business tactic comparable to that of the budget supermarket Aldi. The average Bundesliga ticket price is 23 euros and the league enjoys a 92% stadium occupancy rate; its average attendance of 43,500 is the highest of any football league in the world, almost 9,000 more than the Premier League’s.
> 
> “Bayern Munich gets each year 30 to 40 million euros less than Manchester United from ticket sales, which means €300m in 10 years. We [the Bundesliga] don’t have influence on ticket prices. All the clubs can decide on their own but some kind of common sense prevails. Every year in magazines you see double pages about the prices of tickets, bratwurst and beer, etc and everyone gets in a huge shitstorm if the price of bratwurst goes up by 10 cents. The concept of Aldi was invented in Germany: very cheap but a lot.”
> 
> In addition to ensuring affordable tickets are available, German clubs elect to restrict the number of season tickets that they sell in order to ensure more fans get to see at least some of their teams’ matches. “Demand is huge but clubs choose to limit season ticket sales to 40 or 50% because they don’t want the same people going every week,” he added. “They want everyone to have a chance. It would be very easy to raise the prices and make more money out of the fans but the clubs tend to choose not to do so. From a pure economic perspective you can say ‘What a mistake’ but, given our holistic approach, I would say it is the right approach.”
> 
> Seifert says that this holistic approach is based on marrying “finances, the game and society: if we do not have success in all three dimensions, we do not consider it success at all.” He hailed the “basic treaty” that has existed between German clubs and the Bundesliga since 2002 enshrining the belief that “clubs are an established part of society, bring people together and cities and regions identify with them”.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Kerrybai said:


> I understand where you are coming from but I don't quite agree. I think domestic leagues growing only strengthens the numbers watching the worlds top teams/premier league. The top players will always be in Europe so MLS fans and fans of other leagues will always tune into watch them.


The caveat with your thinking, which most folks would tend to agree, is that this doesn't preclude domestic leagues and owners from wanting to change the spectrum.

In order for MLS to grow the way its owners desire they want to maximize their local appeal, both for TV and for players. ie: If they could they would love to take chunks of fanhood, star power and merchandise sales away from that which is flowing to teams in England, Italy, etc. I'm not saying they've delusions of grandeur, but the owners are equally bristling over each pre-season tour and friendly. Especially when you get press quotes from the owners of Man City or the head of La Liga talking about how they want to come in and "conquer America." MLS is happy to oblige in growing soccer in general for now but in the end they want fans buying Sounders and Lions jerseys, not Man U or Barca. And no these things are not mutually exclusive. 

The folks in Mexico and much of Latin America feel the same way. They hate seeing stars cross the pond and feeling the poor step sister to UEFA competitions. The hope is that over time renovations to their facilities and eventual economic stability will keep more and more star players home and slowly eat into UEFA's hegemony. This is part of the thinking behind the joined Copa America '16. Meanwhile Liga MX is doing its darndest to be the Premier League of the hemisphere with all the investment flowing that way now, hoping to eventually poach the South American players that might populate the ranks of teams not named Madrid or Munchen. 

Will this happen in our lifetime? No, but it can turn the tide. If there is enough money to be made here and the stadiums and appeal are there then maybe 1 out of 7 stars remains local instead of 1 out of 10. If more and more players realize they can become wealthy, famous and still make their national teams without needing to be in the Premier League then that can turn a few heads. 

I watch many a Premier League match from here in the States, as my moniker suggests, but absolutely would I gladly give a lot of that up if it meant giving MLS greater growth and resources. When the new team starts up in Atlanta I'll be in the stands and supporting that team, above and beyond anything for my far away favorites.


----------



## bd popeye

NFL Pre-Season attendance 2014

Buffalo Bills Vs NY Giants
8:00 PM ET, August 3, 2014
Hall of Fame Field at Fawcett Stadium, Canton, Ohio Attendance: 22,052

Indianapolis Colts Vs NY Jets
7:00 PM ET, August 7, 2014
MetLife Stadium, East Rutherford, New Jersey Attendance: 78,160

San Francisco 49ers Vs Baltimore Ravens
7:30 PM ET, August 7, 2014
M&T Bank Stadium, Baltimore, Maryland Attendance: 70,529

New England Patriots Vs Washington Redskins
7:30 PM ET, August 7, 2014
FedEx Field, Landover, Maryland Attendance: 67,327

Cincinnati Bengals Vs Kansas City Chiefs
8:00 PM ET, August 7, 2014
Arrowhead Stadium, Kansas City, Cloudy Attendance: 70,951

Seattle Seahawks Vs Denver Broncos
9:00 PM ET, August 7, 2014
Sports Authority Field at Mile High, Denver Attendance: 75,593

Dallas Cowboys Vs San Diego Chargers
10:00 PM ET, August 7, 2014
Qualcomm Stadium, San Diego, California Attendance: 57,228

Miami Dolphins Vs Atlanta Falcons
7:00 PM ET, August 8, 2014
Georgia Dome, Atlanta, Georgia Attendance: 68,540

Buffalo Bills Vs Carolina Panthers
7:30 PM ET, August 8, 2014
Bank of America Stadium, Charlotte, North Carolina Attendance: 69,569

Tampa Bay Buccaneers Vs Jacksonville Jaguars
EverBank Field, Jacksonville, Florida Attendance: 59,100

Philadelphia Eagles Vs Chicago Bears
8:00 PM ET, August 8, 2014
Soldier Field, Chicago, Illinois Attendance: 60,639

Oakland Raiders Vs Minnesota Vikings
8:00 PM ET, August 8, 2014
TCF Bank Stadium, Minneapolis, Minnesota Attendance: 51,752

New Orleans Saints Vs St Louis Rams
8:00 PM ET, August 8, 2014
Edward Jones Dome, St. Louis, Missouri Attendance: 54,850

Cleveland Browns Vs Detroit Lions
7:30 PM ET, August 9, 2014
Ford Field, Detroit, Michigan Attendance: 51,384

Pittsburgh Steelers Vs New York Giants
7:30 PM ET, August 9, 2014
MetLife Stadium, East Rutherford, New Jersey Attendance: 74,611

Green Bay Packers Vs Tennessee Titans
8:00 PM ET, August 9, 2014
LP Field, Nashville, Tennessee 69,143

Houston Texans Vs Arizona Cardinals
8:30 PM ET, August 9, 2014
University of Phoenix Stadium, Glendale, Arizona Attendance: 60,540


----------



## flierfy

isaidso said:


> The CFL and NFL came were on relatively equal footing till about 1970 when the NFL zoomed out ahead. The CFL suddenly found that it couldn't offer players as much money as the NFL because the NFL television market per team was massively larger. There was nothing wrong with Canadian Football or the CFL except they didn't have as many eye balls to market to. The CFL went from equal to 2nd tier in a decade and has never recovered from that.


Your CFL/NFL allegory is flawed. The MLS is no where near on equal footing with European football leagues. And despite it's current growth it's highly unlikely that it ever will be never mind overtaking them.
The MLS may grow in some sort of niche. But this growth is limited by the existance of well-established football leagues in Europe and pro-sport and college leagues in North America. None of them will make way for the MLS. It will sooner or later hit a ceiling where further growth in North America requires better players which they can't afford though due to fierce competition from vastly richer football clubs.



isaidso said:


> You don't want MLS to get super popular here... trust me.


I can assure that no football fan in his right mind ever wanted the MLS to gain any popularity.


----------



## GunnerJacket

flierfy said:


> Your CFL/NFL allegory is flawed. The MLS is no where near on equal footing with European football leagues. And despite it's current growth it's highly unlikely that it ever will be never mind overtaking them.
> The MLS may grow in some sort of niche. But this growth is limited by the existance of well-established football leagues in Europe and pro-sport and college leagues in North America. None of them will make way for the MLS. It will sooner or later hit a ceiling where further growth in North America requires better players which they can't afford though due to fierce competition from vastly richer football clubs.


True enough MLS and other domestic leagues around the globe are unlikely to ever match their established European peers in popularity and wealth, but to suggest the situation is static would be equally myopic. MLS has many obstacles in its path but it also has the benefit of being in one of the wealthiest and most populous nations around. Many a wealthy individual is investing in the leagues future, and they're not doing so on the premise of forever being a tiny niche league. So while they're not going to be challenging Premier League clubs for the top talent it's highly likely the league will continue to grow and become strong enough globally that it will become a destination league. They're already acquiring rich talent from poorer Latin American nations and as their resources grow they'll be able to buy up better talent and more talent from richer footballing cultures.

Couple this with similar ambitions in Asia, Latin America and elsewhere and it's not unheard of to think that the hegemony we see today will at the least be diluted. for many of us the allure of the European leagues stemmed from the absence of local options. Now there are thriving leagues in Japan, China, Australia, the Middle East and more. The folks behind the Asian Champions League have openly talked about wanting to supplant the UEFA CL in terms of local popularity, and even as that's unlikely to happen soon they're working toward the goal. 

All these things can chip away at the norm. MLS doesn't need to be the Premier League in order for a couple teams to become global brands, and many pundits have offered that the international appeal of Liga MX and MLS will continue to grow and assume larger and larger market shares of viewership and support. Support that doesn't need to come at the expense of the Madrid's or the Milan's.

Sure, those power clubs can fight the change and will strive to stay on top forever, but I doubt the world wants it to stay that way. La Liga is boring enough as it is, and the UEFA CL will sour if it's a restricted party for the same privileged few over and over. 



> I can assure that no football fan in his right mind ever wanted the MLS to gain any popularity.


You don't like it, that's fine. No need to piss in the Cheerios of those of us who are fans.


----------



## Kerrybai

^I doubt the Champions league will ever sour if just a handful of teams win it. Remember The Premier leagues greatest growth period occurred while Manchester United and Arsenal were the only 2 teams winning the league.

I can see a definite convergence between the MLS and Europe but only up to a certain threshold.


----------



## GunnerJacket

That was a different time, however. Now most every game from around the globe is available and more organizations are wanting a piece of the pie, so even though the president of Madrid would love a closed shop European top flight there are equal forces advocating opposing changes that allow more and different teams to succeed. 

Yes, the Chinese loves them some ManU vs Liverpool, but fans coming into the game these days are equally knowledgeable about Dortmund, Napoli, etc. I can visit sports bars in the States where you'd be looked down upon as a lowly bandwagon-type if you favor any big club instead of some team like Stoke or Bilbao.


----------



## bd popeye

More NFL pre-season attendance 2014

Jacksonville @ Chicago  Thursday, August 14
Soldier Field Chicago IL Attendance: 60,649.

Philadelphia @ New England Friday, August 15 
Gillette Stadium Foxboro MA Attendance: 68,756.

Tennessee @ New Orleans Friday, August 15
Mercedes-Benz Superdome New Orleans LA Attendance: 73,002.

Detroit @ Oakland Friday, August 15
Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Oakland CA Attendance: 50,511.

San Diego @ Seattle Friday, August 15
CenturyLink Field Seattle WA Attendance: 67,615.

Green Bay @ St. Louis Saturday, August 16
Edward Jones Dome St Louis MO Attendance: 55,072.

Baltimore @ Dallas Saturday, August 16
AT&T Stadium Arlington TX Attendance: 77,624.

New York Jets @ Cincinnati Saturday, August 16
Paul Brown Stadium Cincinnati OH Attendance: 45,330.

New York Giants @ Indianapolis Saturday, August 16
Lucas Oil Stadium Indianapolis IN Attendance: 65,350.

Buffalo @ Pittsburgh Saturday, August 16
Heinz Field Pittsburgh PA Attendance: 50,434.

Miami @ Tampa Bay	Saturday, August 16
Raymond James Stadium Tampa FL Attendance: 50,555.

Atlanta @ Houston Saturday, August 16
NRG Stadium Houston TX Attendance: 71,644.

Arizona @ Minnesota	Saturday, August 16
TCF Bank Stadium Minneapolis MN Attendance: 51,763.

Denver @ San Francisco Sunday, August 17
Levi`s Stadium Santa Clara CA Attendance: 68,500.

Kansas City @ Carolina Sunday, August 17
Bank of America Stadium Charlotte CA Attendance: 70,035.

Cleveland @ Washington Monday, August 18
FedEx Field Landover, MD Attendance: 69,127.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Surprised the numbers were "low" in Pittsburgh. Foul weather?

Would love to have a means for counting how many folks remain at these games after the half. I accept the tickets acquired as part of season packages are essentially freebies - bonus tix in exchange for higher prices, really - but I wonder what the threshold is for the gameday revenue to cover operating expenses at these facilities. Makes you wonder if some stadiums might not be better off reducing capacity for such events so as to limit their needs for concession staff, security, etc.


----------



## bd popeye

GunnerJacket said:


> Surprised the numbers were "low" in Pittsburgh. Foul weather?


Well let's face it. The "Stierlers"..we not themselves last season. Missing the playoffs by the skin of their teeth. And those bench seats in Heinz Field cannot be to comfortable..

The weather that night?

Steelers Vs Bills....08.16.2014



> 7:30 PM ET, August 16, 2014
> Heinz Field, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Weather: 76°, Partly Cloudy. Attendance: 50,434


----------



## isaidso

GunnerJacket said:


> True enough MLS and other domestic leagues around the globe are unlikely to ever match their established European peers in popularity and wealth, but to suggest the situation is static would be *equally myopic.* MLS has many obstacles in its path but it also has the benefit of being in one of the wealthiest and most populous nations around. Many a wealthy individual is investing in the leagues future, and they're not doing so on the premise of forever being a tiny niche league. So while they're not going to be challenging Premier League clubs for the top talent it's highly likely the league will continue to grow and become strong enough globally that it will become a destination league. They're already acquiring rich talent from poorer Latin American nations and as their resources grow they'll be able to buy up better talent and more talent from richer footballing cultures.
> 
> Couple this with similar ambitions in Asia, Latin America and elsewhere and it's not unheard of to think that the hegemony we see today will at the least be diluted. for many of us the allure of the European leagues stemmed from the absence of local options. Now there are thriving leagues in Japan, China, Australia, the Middle East and more. The folks behind the Asian Champions League have openly talked about wanting to supplant the UEFA CL in terms of local popularity, and even as that's unlikely to happen soon they're working toward the goal.
> 
> All these things can chip away at the norm. MLS doesn't need to be the Premier League in order for a couple teams to become global brands, and many pundits have offered that the international appeal of Liga MX and MLS will continue to grow and assume larger and larger market shares of viewership and support. Support that doesn't need to come at the expense of the Madrid's or the Milan's.
> 
> Sure, those power clubs can fight the change and will strive to stay on top forever, but I doubt the world wants it to stay that way. La Liga is boring enough as it is, and the UEFA CL will sour if it's a restricted party for the same privileged few over and over.
> 
> You don't like it, that's fine. No need to piss in the Cheerios of those of us who are fans.


So you're basically agreeing with me on every point except one. You argue that a few MLS teams will become global brands, while I took it a step further and argued that MLS could perceivably knock established European leagues off their pedestal (for the same underlying factors you're citing.) 

That makes me myopic (lacking foresight, intellectual insight), but your argument (which is identical to mine) is not myopic? :weird:


----------



## GunnerJacket

isaidso said:


> So you're basically agreeing with me on every point except one. You argue that a few MLS teams will become global brands, while I took it a step further and argued that MLS could perceivably knock established European leagues off their pedestal (for the same underlying factors you're citing.)
> 
> That makes me myopic (lacking foresight, intellectual insight), but your argument (which is identical to mine) is not myopic? :weird:


I may be guilty of assuming his reference to "European leagues" was exclusive to the major leagues of England, Italy, Germany and Spain, since that's usually what people reference when trying to denigrate our domestic league. In which case I don't think MLS can match their revenues, development systems and purchasing power in our lifetime. I took your post to be more like mine - mindful that MLS can at least begin to hang with the middleweights of Europe like the Dutch Eredivisie and perhaps even France's Le Championat (sp?). Point being I read his/her take as an ultimatum, not one that allowed for degrees.


----------



## isaidso

*Canadian Football League*
*2014 Week #7*










Saskatchewan Roughriders @ Winnipeg Blue Bombers 33,234 *SELL OUT*
Edmonton Eskimos @ Montreal Alouettes 20,054
Hamilton Tiger-Cats @ BC Lions 24,236 
Ottawa RedBlacks @ Calgary Stampeders 28,391


Week #7 attendance: 105,915
Week #7 average attendance: 26,479
Cummulative attendance: 688,789
Average attendance: 24,600


----------



## isaidso

*Canadian Football League*
*2014 Week #8*










Winnipeg Blue Bombers @ Toronto Argonauts 18,106
Edmonton Eskimos @ Ottawa RedBlacks 24,291 *SELL OUT*
Calgary Stampeders @ Hamilton Tiger-Cats 6,500 *SELL OUT* 
Montreal Alouettes @ Saskatchewan Roughriders 33,427 *SELL OUT* 
BC Lions @ Toronto Argonauts 18,283


Week #8 attendance: 100,697
Week #8 average attendance: 20,121
Cummulative attendance: 789,396
Average attendance: 23,921


----------



## carnifex2005

*BUNDESLIGA 2 SHATTERS OPENING WEEKEND ATTENDANCE RECORD*

Cologne - Bundesliga 2 set a Matchday 1 attendance record on the opening weekend of the 2014/15 campaign. A total of 228,928 fans turned out to watch the nine scheduled encounters, amounting to a heady average of 25,436 supporters per game and smashing the previous curtain-raising best-mark of 176,327 (2012/13) in the process.

The 30 per cent rise is testament to the division's ever-growing allure, with high-quality, fan-centric football very much the norm in Germany's riveting second tier.


----------



## Colm Flynn

English premier league opening attendances 14/15


Championship


League 1


League 2


----------



## bd popeye

Colm Flynn, when I click on your images all I get is image shack page with links to the image. And when I copy and paste that image in the address bar I get the same thing.

Ok ..I got it fixed.


----------



## carnifex2005

Yeah, they don't show up for me either. Use Imgur. A much better hosting site than Imageshack.


----------



## Colm Flynn

premier league









championship









league 1









league 2









imgur seems to have worked :cheers:


----------



## alexandru.mircea

GunnerJacket said:


> The folks in Mexico and much of Latin America feel the same way. They hate seeing stars cross the pond and feeling the poor step sister to UEFA competitions. The hope is that over time renovations to their facilities and eventual economic stability will keep more and more star players home and slowly eat into UEFA's hegemony. This is part of the thinking behind the joined Copa America '16. Meanwhile Liga MX is doing its darndest to be the Premier League of the hemisphere with all the investment flowing that way now, hoping to eventually poach the South American players that might populate the ranks of teams not named Madrid or Munchen.


Apologies for the late reply... The feelings in these countries (I am from one such country) are not exactly like you describe them. People enjoy having their stars play for the world's biggest clubs, and there is a fine balance to be struck between having a worthy domestic competition on one hand and on the other seeing our players perform on the highest level - never underestimate how important the need for confirmation is. Myself I yearn more and more for the 90s when our domestic league was captivating even if flawed and our best players were getting signed by Real Madrid, AC Milan, Barcelona, PSV, Chelsea, Galatasaray, Ajax, Koln, Stuttgart, Inter etc...

RE Mexico, they actually lie on the other side of this balance: they have no problem retaining their players because a top Mexican player will be better paid in Mexico than in Spain or Italy ( if you look at their WC 2014 roster they had 15 domestic players out of the 23 man squad, compared to only 3 for Brazil). This becomes an issue in that the players do not progress, which holds the national team back - unsurprisingly Mexico keeps getting described as the most underachieving World Cup country (and the logical next World Champions from all the countries that haven't won it yet), at least when you also relate it to how well their youth teams are doing. This whole situation is discussed in this episode of Soccer Morning, a show that I recommend not only for its excellent English-language coverage of Mexican football (and occasionally football from Central America).


----------



## GunnerJacket

Decidedly less than full @ Texas. Are they slated for a down year?


----------



## bd popeye

GunnerJacket said:


> Decidedly less than full @ Texas. Are they slated for a down year?


Yep.. and as rabid as those Longhorn fans are I'm feeling sorry for the coach..Mr. Charlie Strong. It's gonaa be a rough ride.


----------



## isaidso

bd popeye said:


> There were a total of 14,855 players at the FBS level last season.


I'm not sure how that is relevant. 40 players in the NCAA tournament works out to almost 1 for every basketball team that made it. Counting all US college basketball teams, the number would be many many times higher than 40.

And that 8,000 for Canadian college football games would be 95% students: not much lower than what NCAA Division 1 teams are getting. Average in Canada would be around 3,000-4,000. Laval has the highest attendance at around 16,000 and the vast majority would be students.


----------



## isaidso

Calvin W said:


> The assembled throng, at 8,121 the third-largest assembly in Canada West regular-season history, got what it came for — a 44-24 University of Saskatchewan Huskies’ win over the visiting Manitoba Bisons.


It's good to see the growth happening at the U of S. Canada typically only sees about 10 games/year with attendance of 8,000 or more. It would be nice to see a few more Canada West schools follow in the U of S' foot steps.


----------



## bd popeye

isaidso said:


> I'm not sure how that is relevant. 40 players in the NCAA tournament works out to almost 1 for every basketball team that made it. Counting all US college basketball teams, the number would be many many times higher than 40.
> 
> And that 8,000 for Canadian college football games would be 95% students: not much lower than what NCAA Division 1 teams are getting. Average in Canada would be around 3,000-4,000. Laval has the highest attendance at around 16,000 and the vast majority would be students.


I must have mis-read something, I thought you were posting about football.


----------



## bd popeye

1st week of the 2014 NFL season attendance. By the third week all teams will have played at least one home game.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

LMAO if there were 70,000 people at the Dolphins game, ill change my name


----------



## Lakeland

https://twitter.com/AggieFootball/status/511003974875348992/photo/1

You gotta hand it to A&M. Schools are having a hard time getting 15,000 students to show up, they got almost 40,000 for a game against Rice.

The SEC featured five of the eight biggest crowds of the weekend.
1. Ohio State (104,404)
2. Texas A&M (103,867)
3. Michigan (102,824)
4. Alabama (101,821)
5. LSU (101,194)
6. Florida (88,334)
7. Oklahoma (85,622)
8. South Carolina (84,232)
9. Iowa (70,585)
10.Virginia Tech (63,267)


----------



## isaidso

*Canadian Football League*
*2014 Week #11*










BC Lions @ Ottawa RedBlacks 24,287 *SELL OUT*
Calgary Stampeders @ Edmonton Eskimos 40,852
Hamilton Tiger-Cats @ Montreal Alouettes 20,551
Saskatchewan Roughriders @ Winnipeg Blue Bombers 33,234 *SELL OUT*


Week #11 attendance: 118,924
Week #11 average attendance: 29,731
Cummulative attendance: 1,135,893
Average attendance: 25,242


----------



## Colm Flynn

Premier league









Championship









League 1








Coventry were bottom of the attendance table for league 1 last time i posted, up to 5th now after moving back into their stadium with an impressive crowd of over 27,000










London attendance table

Premier League
Arsenal 59,983
Chelsea 41,502
Tottenham 36,120
West Ham 34,942
Crystal Palace 24,036
QPR 17,767

Championship
Fulham 18,374
Charlton 16,093
Watford 15,210
Millwall 12,121
Brentford 9,618

League 1
Leyton Orient 5,010

League 2
AFC Wimbledon 3,843
Dag & Red 1,758


----------



## isaidso

*Canadian College Football*
*2014 Week 1 & 2*










01. Queen's @ Windsor 4,460
02. Carleton @ Waterloo 1,935
03. York @ Ottawa 2,831
04. Guelph @ McMaster 5,427
05. Laurier @ Toronto 4,221
06. St. FX @ SMU 2,152
07. Alberta @ Calgary 5,534
08. Manitoba @ Saskatchewan 8,121
09. UBC @ Regina 2,600
10. Acadia @ Mt. Allison 1,256
11. Toronto @ Guelph 3,144
12. Ottawa @ Queen's 2,250
13. Bishops @ Concordia 2,208
14. McMaster @ Waterloo 2,265
15. Western @ York 3,819
16. Laurier @ Windsor 2,217
17. McGill @ Sherbrooke 3,005
18. Montreal @ Laval 17,123

*Attendance Week 1 & 2:* 74,568
*Average Attendance Week 1 & 2:* 4,143


----------



## isaidso

Canadian college football slowly seems to be getting more organized each passing year. Few schools used to post attendance numbers, but so far every game has seen a number posted. Attendance at college football in Canada is almost entirely a university affair. Almost all in attendance would be students or faculty. 

That said, it's great cheap entertainment so I wish the public would catch on to that and start showing up. It would be nice to see about 10 games with attendance beyond 10,000 this year. The upcoming Homecoming Games might show some good numbers.

This year's most anticipated game by far is the Panda Game. It's a game played between cross town rivals the University of Ottawa and Carleton University. It hasn't been played for years as Carleton's football program was cut in 1997. Carleton's football program was resurrected and a new stadium completed so the game is back on. The Panda Game typically saw big crowds by Canadian standards: 20,000+.


----------



## bd popeye

*NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision *..selected attendance for this week. Home team named first.

Ohio State....Ohio Stadium, Columbus, Ohio Attendance: 104,404

Texas A&M....Kyle Field, College Station, Texas Attendance: 103,867

Michigan....Michigan Stadium, Ann Arbor, Michigan Attendance: 102,824

Alabama....Bryant-Denny Stadium, Tuscaloosa, Alabama Attendance: 101,821

LSU...Tiger Stadium, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attendance: 101,194

Florida...Ben Hill Griffin Stadium at Florida Field, Gainesville, Florida Attendance: 88,334

Oklahoma....Gaylord Family-Oklahoma Memorial Stadium, Norman, Oklahoma Attendance: 85,622

South Carolina....Williams-Brice Stadium, Columbia, South Carolina Attendance: 84,232

Iowa...Kinnick Stadium, Iowa City, Iowa Attendance: 70,585

VA Tech....Lane Stadium/Worsham Field, Blacksburg, Virginia Attendance: 63,267

Washington....Husky Stadium, Seattle, Washington Attendance: 62,325

Oregon....Autzen Stadium, Eugene, Oregon Attendance: 56,533

Georgia Tech...Bobby Dodd Stadium, Atlanta, Georgia Attendance: 53,173


----------



## GunnerJacket

Lakeland said:


> You gotta hand it to A&M. Schools are having a hard time getting 15,000 students to show up, they got almost 40,000 for a game against Rice.


Hot team, new stadium, school with more than 50k undergrads and a town with nothing else much to do in a football crazed state. Yeah, I'd say that's the perfect formula for them. 



> The SEC featured five of the eight biggest crowds of the weekend.


It will be like that until the "preseason" body bag games are done, I'm sure.



Colm Flynn said:


> Premier league


QPR's venue holds about 19k, does it not?



bd popeye said:


> VA Tech....Lane Stadium/Worsham Field, Blacksburg, Virginia Attendance: 63,267
> 
> ...
> 
> Georgia Tech...Bobby Dodd Stadium, Atlanta, Georgia Attendance: 53,173


Surprised the Hokie faithful couldn't fill Lane after their upset of OSU last week. I thought for sure they'd be more of the real deal this season and was excited to think about them looking the part of a title contender, so surely their fans were gonna make some noise, no?

As for the GT game, thanks to the some 10k+ Ga Southern fans who came out and added to the figures. Almost pulled the upset, as well, and certainly looked the better team (by far) in the second half. Look for that school to inch closer and closer to gaining national respect, comparable to an East Carolina or Southern Miss.


----------



## bd popeye

Ok.. as happens sometimes people, lurkers, question these attendance figures by PM.. such as "can you post the lower attendance figures?" Sure

Randomly selected..

LaVell Edwards Stadium, Provo, Utah Attendance: 57,630

Buffalo....UB Stadium, Buffalo, New York Attendance: 24,714

Stanford....Stanford Stadium, Stanford, California Attendance: 49,680

Ole Miss....Vaught-Hemingway Stadium at Hollingsworth Field, Oxford, Mississippi Attendance: 60,937

Boston College....Alumni Stadium, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts Attendance: 41,632

Colorado.....Folsom Field, Boulder, Colorado Attendance: 38,547

Central Michigan....Kelly/Shorts Stadium, Mount Pleasant, Michigan Attendance: 25,531

Duke...Wallace Wade Stadium, Durham, North Carolina Attendance: 25,203

Fresno State...Bulldog Stadium, Fresno, California Attendance: 41,031

Hawaii....Aloha Stadium, Honolulu, Hawaii Attendance: 24,999

Texas State....Jim Wacker Field at Bobcat Stadium, San Marcos, Texas Attendance: 32,007


----------



## GunnerJacket

It's too early for drinking mistakes, Popeye! :colgate:


----------



## Colm Flynn

GunnerJacket said:


> QPR's venue holds about 19k, does it not?


Loftus Road holds 18,439


----------



## bd popeye

GunnerJacket said:


> It's too early for drinking mistakes, Popeye! :colgate:


Actually in all honesty I've refrained from drinking any sort of alcohol since Super Bowl Sunday 2003. That day Oakland Raiders got stomped by the Tampa Bay Bucs in San Diego. I lived in SD at the time.

And This morning I posted some photos of a Russian ship in this thread.. I goofed! That I freely admit. I've corrected my boo boo. Of course no one is prefect!


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Another country has introduced supporter cards in the vain hope of improving the football scene with better crowd control: Turkey. Apparently the attendances have dropped significantly for the two rounds that the supporter cards have been operating. What did they expect?


----------



## weava

alexandru.mircea said:


> Another country has introduced supporter cards in the vain hope of improving the football scene with better crowd control: Turkey. Apparently the attendances have dropped significantly for the two rounds that the supporter cards have been operating. What did they expect?


What's a supporter card?


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> Boone Pickens Stadium is one of my favorite college football venues..


From afar (I've never been) I tend to agree - Nice compact bowl punctuated by a nice structure at the open end. Tightly wrapped around the field, seemingly steep stands... Have no idea what it's like behind the scenes but I care less about that stuff, anyway.



Lakeland said:


> What's going on with Texas?


Let's just say it's a blend of apathy and concern over a team they know to be enduring a transitional year. I've noticed the drop off, too, but it's kind of funny - While we're observing the volume of empty seats the team is still dragging in more than 90k people! That's about 2x what my school averages in a good year! 



Lakeland said:


> What's your opinion on GT joining the Big Ten? Would that help or hurt attendance?


For the record I hate realignment beyond 12 and want desperately to see the ACC succeed because of my appreciation for those schools. I wish they'd simply added Pitt at 12 and then everyone found a way to make it work. College sports are already the most unfair sporting competition, the movement toward possibly just 4 super conferences would be worse and wholly unappealing, IMO. Why is it the likes of Oregon St., Northwestern and Vandy get to be "in" while BYU, UConn and UCF are left "out?" (Rhetorical)

IF the Jackets had to move conferences I'd prefer the B1G over the SEC any day of the week and 3x on Saturday. As academic institutions I loathe the SEC west and would rather Tech go "Ivy" than try to hang with football factories. That being said my preference wouldn't help attendance. OSU has a huge fanbase here and sure the big names might roll out a crowd, but how often would those names come to town? GT is a small school (13k FTU) comprised of geeks and internationals who aren't as fanatic as the average land grant enrollee. So whether or not it's UNC, Duke or Minnesota or Purdue we are what we are. We could do some things to the campus for tailgating and could use a more outgoing and congenial coach, other than that only winning will change the 45-50k average. Which I'm fine with, since I love the school more than the teams.


----------



## isaidso

GunnerJacket said:


> I haven't checked officially and don't know how many of these numbers are tix sold vs butts in seats, but on the surface it sure seems like none of the teams in the league are having any issues this year. Oakland maybe, but *even the Jags and Bills appear to be faring well.*


We get all the Buffalo tv stations here in Toronto and there seems to be more excitement around the Bills than there's been in a very long time.


----------



## isaidso

bd popeye said:


> Boone Pickens Stadium is one of my favorite college football venues..


I really like it too. One giant wall of people in a horseshoe. Looks great. Is the building at the end of the stadium the basketball arena?


----------



## bd popeye

> Is the building at the end of the stadium the basketball arena?


Yes..Believe it or not the original structure was opened in 1938. Awesome TOTAL facility.

*Gallagher-Iba Arena Oklahoma State University*


----------



## bd popeye

Selected NCAA FBS attendance for the seventh week of games 2014.

Michigan...Michigan Stadium, Ann Arbor, Michigan Attendance: 113,085

Texas A&M...Kyle Field, College Station, Texas Attendance: 110,633

Tennessee.....Neyland Stadium, Knoxville, Tennessee Attendance: 93,097

Oklahoma Vs Texas (neutral site)...Cotton Bowl, Dallas, Texas Attendance: 92,100

Florida.....Ben Hill Griffin Stadium at Florida Field, Gainesville, Florida Attendance: 88,014

Notre Dame...Notre Dame Stadium, South Bend, Indiana Attendance: 80,795

Wisconsin....Camp Randall Stadium, Madison, Wisconsin Attendance: 80,341

UCLA....Rose Bowl, Pasadena, California Attendance: 80,139

Missouri....Memorial Stadium at Faurot Field, Columbia, Missouri Attendance: 71,168

Iowa Hawkeyes..Kinnick Stadium, Iowa City, Iowa Attendance: 68,590

Texas Tech...Jones AT&T Stadium, Lubbock, Texas Attendance: 58,502

Baylor...McLane Stadium, Waco, Texas Attendance: 46,803

Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets...Bobby Dodd Stadium, Atlanta, Georgia Attendance: 44,281

Stanford...Stanford Stadium, Stanford, California Attendance: 44,135


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> Selected NCAA FBS attendance for the seventh week of games 2014.
> 
> Missouri....Memorial Stadium at Faurot Field, Columbia, Missouri Attendance: 71,168


Stunned, I was, at how this game turned out. Not only did UGA win but they won big and shut out the Tiggers at home. This, folk, is why I don't bet on cfb.

Speaking of which...


> Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets...Bobby Dodd Stadium, Atlanta, Georgia Attendance: 44,281


Great crowd considering the weather and the relative brand appeal for the opponent*, so of course the Jackets QB pulls the second half to turn completely to _ish_ and leave all the good will the team had built thus far to wither on the vine.

*Duke is actually GT's longest ongoing rival, but needless to say the series doesn't quite carry the cache of, say, Tech-UGA.



> Stanford...Stanford Stadium, Stanford, California Attendance: 44,135


Really sorry the Cardinal aren't selling out regularly. Team's very solid of late.


----------



## isaidso

*Canadian Football League*
*2014 Week #16*










Hamilton Tiger-Cats @ Toronto Argonauts 17,811
Ottawa RedBlacks @ BC Lions 31,217
Saskatchewan Roughriders @ Montreal Alouettes 23,069
Winnipeg Blue Bombers @ Edmonton Eskimos 28,065


Week #16 attendance: 100,162
Week #16 average attendance: 25,041
Cummulative attendance: 1,655,776
Average attendance: 25,473


----------



## bd popeye

I wonder why more of the European Football(soccer) fans are not posting attendance? This thread is in the World Forum. Just curious.



Week six of the 2014 NFL season attendance. Home team listed.

New York Jets...MetLife Stadium, East Rutherford, New Jersey Weather: 61°, Clear Attendance: 78,160

Houston....NRG Stadium, Houston, Texas Attendance: 71,787

Miami...Sun Life Stadium, Miami Gardens, Florida Weather: 86°, Clear Attendance: 70,875

Atlanta....Georgia Dome, Atlanta, Georgia Attendance: 70,712

Buffalo....Ralph Wilson Stadium, Orchard Park, New York Weather: 55°, Clear Attendance: 70,185

Philadelphia....Lincoln Financial Field, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Weather: 57°, Partly Cloudy Attendance: 69,596

Tennessee ......LP Field, Nashville, Tennessee Weather: 67°, Cloudy Attendance: 69,143

Seattle....CenturyLink Field, Seattle, Washington Weather: 60°, Partly Cloudy Attendance: 68,432

Cleveland....FirstEnergy Stadium, Cleveland, Ohio Weather: 58°, Clear Attendance: 67,431

Arizona....University of Phoenix Stadium, Glendale, Arizona Attendance: 61,139

Tampa Bay....Raymond James Stadium, Tampa, Florida Weather: 84°, Cloudy Attendance: 60,041

Cincinnati....Paul Brown Stadium, Cincinnati, Ohio Weather: 60°, Cloudy Attendance: 57,053

St Louis....Edward Jones Dome, St. Louis, Missouri Attendance: 56,851

Oakland....O.co Coliseum, Oakland, California Weather: 77°, Clear Attendance: 53,329

Minnesota....TCF Bank Stadium, Minneapolis, Minnesota Weather: 53°, Clear Attendance: 52,213


----------



## bd popeye

MLS attendance is now averaging 19,028 a game!

*MLS 2014 Attendance blogspot Week 30*


----------



## bd popeye

I just discovered...The Washington Post sports page post actual game attendance & results of the MLS.. week by week...

*MLS Weekly Scoreboard | The Washington Post*

07.10.2014 to 07.13.2014 attendance;

Seattle...CenturyLink Field (Attendance: 55,765).._Wow!_

New York....Red Bull Arena (Attendance: 24,068)

Houston....BBVA Compass Stadium (Attendance: 21,869)

Portland....Providence Park (Attendance: 20,814)

Real Salt Lake...Rio Tinto Stadium (Attendance: 20,701)

Dallas FC...Toyota Stadium (Attendance: 19,039)

Sporting KC...Sporting Park (Attendance: 18,938)

Toronto FC....BMO Field (Attendance: 18,269)

Philadelphia....PPL Park (Attendance: 15,849)

Montreal....Stade Saputo (Attendance: 14,389)

Chivas USA....StubHub Center (Attendance: 5,033)


----------



## Kobo

@Popeye. That Seattle attendance of 55,765 is pretty impressive for the MLS. That's bigger than the vast majority of Premier league attendances (except Man U & Arsenal). Do you think if other MLS teams played in bigger stadiums they could get similar attendances?


----------



## bd popeye

Kobo said:


> @Popeye. That Seattle attendance of 55,765 is pretty impressive for the MLS. That's bigger than the vast majority of Premier league attendances (except Man U & Arsenal). Do you think if other MLS teams played in bigger stadiums they could get similar attendances?


No.. witness the New England Revolution..they play in an NFL stadium. In a major metro area i.e. Boston MA. They average only 15,676 in a stadium sitting 68,000+

This has been discussed in this thread.

And The MLS does not yet have the mass appeal, marketing, Tv ratings and revenue of the NFL, NBA,NHL or MLB. Sorry it just doesn't. Not even close. 

How does one explain the Sounders attendance? Coffee.....& a youthful population. Great video of 21 minutes... and I'm no soccer fan;

*Seattle Sounders: How They Fill Stadium Seats*


----------



## isaidso

bd popeye said:


> I wonder why more of the European Football(soccer) fans are not posting attendance? This thread is in the World Forum. Just curious.


I was wondering the same thing. Maybe their season hasn't started yet? :dunno:


----------



## poguemahone

The attendances from the opening round of the A-League

Week 1
Melbourne Victory v Western Sydney - 30,083
Central Coast v Newcastle - 10,443
Sydney FC v Melbourne City - 25,525
Wellington v Perth - 7,767
Brisbane v Adelaide - 16,195

Week 1 Total: 90,013
Week 1 Average: 18,003

2014/15 Total: 90,013
2014/15 Average: 18,003
2013/14 Average: 13,045

2014/15 Average Attendance by Club
Melbourne Victory - 30,083 (1)
Sydney FC - 25,525 (1)
Brisbane -16,195 (1)
Central Coast - 10,443 (1)
Wellington - 7,767 (1)
Adelaide - N/A 
Melbourne City - N/A
Newcastle - N/A
Perth - N/A
Western Sydney N/A

Oh and David Villa scored on debut for Melbourne City in their 1-1 draw with Sydney FC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64Po6hc8AFE


----------



## Kerrybai

bd popeye said:


> I wonder why more of the European Football(soccer) fans are not posting attendance? This thread is in the World Forum. Just curious.


Europeans don't have the same level of interest in attendances and statistics as their NA counter parts. I am an exception though so I'll post some averages thus far in Europe's top 5 leagues.. I might have a look at each match day of the champions league too... hm I'm actually looking forward to this now :banana:


----------



## GunnerJacket

Kobo said:


> @Popeye. That Seattle attendance of 55,765 is pretty impressive for the MLS. That's bigger than the vast majority of Premier league attendances (except Man U & Arsenal). Do you think if other MLS teams played in bigger stadiums they could get similar attendances?


Echoing Popeye's comments, Seattle is the result of a unique set of circumstances whereby the city was looking for something different to support and the team did everything right in embracing their fans. The fans in their Pacific northwest counterparts of Portland and Vancouver are similar but smaller in numbers. Other cities have done well to evolve but most US/Canadian cities are simply not willing and able to put soccer so high up in value. 

I would guess in the not too distant future we might see 1-3 teams averaging above 25k or 30k, but considering how many teams remain dependent on winning to pack the house I think we're a good generation or two away from another Seattle.

That the league has so many teams averaging above 16-18k for real is a true testament, though, and quite the accomplishment coming from where MLS was in 2000.


----------



## isaidso

^^ Check out that link popeye posted. It was very interesting and does a good job explaining why the Sounders are doing so well in their market. There seem to be a lot of smart people running things out there. 

As well as MLS is doing, there are important lessons for us all in studying what the Sounders are doing. In Toronto, the team has been lousy and the owners greedy. Now they're in damage control trying to woo fans back after many years of neglect. I do think Toronto numbers will start heading back up if they continue on their current path, but they're still gouging people imo. I believe they're still the most expensive tickets in MLS.

I believe BMO Field is expanding to around 28,000 seats so we'll see how it plays out.



Kerrybai said:


> Europeans don't have the same level of interest in attendances and statistics as their NA counter parts. I am an exception though so I'll post some averages thus far in Europe's top 5 leagues.. I might have a look at each match day of the champions league too... hm I'm actually looking forward to this now :banana:


We appreciate your efforts Kerrybai. 

Btw, is their consensus as to what the top 5 leagues are? I'm assuming they're the top leagues in France, Italy, Spain, England, and Germany? I'd be interested in Ireland's too when you get a chance.


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> I wonder why more of the European Football(soccer) fans are not posting attendance? This thread is in the World Forum. Just curious.


My guess - Being an English-based architectural forum the number of die-hards with that info is pretty slim. That plus most European leagues are only 7-or-so games into their season.

Oh, and ESPNFC.com has become cumbersome and such a drag on download speeds that many fans' first option for such stats is no longer very user friendly.


----------



## GunnerJacket

isaidso said:


> We appreciate your efforts Kerrybai.
> 
> Btw, is their consensus as to what the top 5 leagues are? I'm assuming they're the top leagues in France, Italy, Spain, England, and Germany? I'd be interested in Ireland's too when you get a chance.


This site has been a convenient source for most every European league, though some of its figures seem a bit off and some data sets are incomplete. But for our purposes it's fine for comparing general trends.

For the past decade or so the traditional powers have remained the same in popularity, with average attendances roughly about the same as this range:

Ger - 43k
Eng - 36k
Spa - 26k
Ita - 23k
Fra - 21k
Net - 19k

The curiosity fans have been watching for several years is whether or not the Dutch Eredivisie (Netherlands) will surpass 20k and possibly one of the bigger leagues. They've done well in building a second tier of brands behind Ajax and PSV.

In terms of UEFA coefficients, which rank national leagues based on performances in European competitions, England, Spain and Germany are the top three leagues, with Italy and France behind them. (Last I recall)


----------



## Kerrybai

isaidso said:


> We appreciate your efforts Kerrybai.
> 
> Btw, is their consensus as to what the top 5 leagues are? I'm assuming they're the top leagues in France, Italy, Spain, England, and Germany? I'd be interested in Ireland's too when you get a chance.


As Gunner explained top 5 is generally England , Spain, Germany, Italy, France. It's a fairly ambiguous term though, for example teams from Portugal generally do better in Europe that the French teams. The Irish Soccer league is very small, most people here follow English sides and it's also worth noting that soccer is not our umber 1 sport.

Cork City....................3.841
Shamrock Rovers.........2.591	
Sligo Rovers FC............2.341	
Dundalk FC..................2.287	
Bohemians FC Dublin.....1.611	
St. Patrick's Athletic FC..1.378	
Derry City FC................1.289	
Drogheda United FC.......1.122	
Limerick FC	..................813 
Bray Wanderers AFC......783 
Athlone Town FC............654 
UCD Dublin AFC..............445


----------



## Kerrybai

The Website Gunnner provided is great as it displays the increase or decrease from the season before. 

I'll post each match week for the Champions league and perhaps someone else will do the leagues, although a country like England won't see any major changes.

Billsportsmaps offer the best visual for European soccer attendances. The website has all the 2013-2014 attendances which won't differ much to this years, especially 4 games into the season. I highly recommend checking out the links, you can zoom in on each team and examine their attendance plus occupancy rate, the maps list every club every 4k attendance and show the division for each club.

http://billsportsmaps.com/wp-conten...divisions_2013-14_all-drawing-above_4k_d_.gif

Attendances in Spain have steadily dropped over the past number of years dropping from about 28.7 in 2011/2012 - 26,995 in 2013/2014.

Around 125k seats are left empty every week with occupancy rates under 75%... however I do suspect that they report bums on seats vs tickets sold in Spain.

http://billsportsmaps.com/wp-conten...italian-clubs-drawing-over-4k_42-clubs_n_.gif

The Italian map is fascinating as it highlights the stark contrast between the rich north and poorer South. Italian football continues to suffer with occupancy rates below 55%!

http://billsportsmaps.com/wp-conten...desliga_2-bundesliga_3rd-div_4th-level_x_.gif

Germany is another country with its football teams divided by wealth... the old west east divide is still felt.

The Bundesliga boosts an occupancy rate of about 92%

http://billsportsmaps.com/wp-conten...ance-map_74-clubs_all-drawing-above-4k_t_.gif

Like Germany England has very impressive attedances in the lower tiers, keep an eye out for Portsmouth on this map always down in tier 4.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Kerrybai said:


> As Gunner explained top 5 is generally England , Spain, Germany, Italy, France. It's a fairly ambiguous term though, for example teams from Portugal generally do better in Europe that the French teams.


Well, select teams from the smaller nations continue to excel but the economics is taking its toll on the landscape. The bulk of teams in smaller nations, even in their top divisions, only average some 2-5k people, which makes it tough to sustain as a business and to help the players train properly. A few years ago there was an article in 4-4-2 (I believe) that suggested only about 23 teams outside of the top 6 leagues were financially viable enough to compete in Europe. Put another way, outside of those clubs if a team wanted to keep or buy a certain base level of player it would require taking on debt. And regrettably the current set up in UEFA actually contributes to this caste system by rewarding individual clubs instead of leagues.

Bottom line, countries with smaller and/or poorer populations can't support their leagues (through TV and gate money) well enough to sustain clubs or talent capable of competing against the giants. So unless something at UEFA changes then it will take a groundswell effort from places like Russia, Poland and elsewhere to change the tide.


----------



## isaidso

Kerrybai said:


> As Gunner explained top 5 is generally England , Spain, Germany, Italy, France. It's a fairly ambiguous term though, for example teams from Portugal generally do better in Europe that the French teams. The Irish Soccer league is very small, most people here follow English sides and it's also worth noting that soccer is not our umber 1 sport.
> 
> Cork City....................3.841
> Shamrock Rovers.........2.591
> Sligo Rovers FC............2.341
> Dundalk FC..................2.287
> Bohemians FC Dublin.....1.611
> St. Patrick's Athletic FC..1.378
> Derry City FC................1.289
> Drogheda United FC.......1.122
> Limerick FC	..................813
> Bray Wanderers AFC......783
> Athlone Town FC............654
> UCD Dublin AFC..............445


Thanks for digging that up. I thought they'd be a team in Dublin at least that I'd heard of before. What's #1 in Ireland, Gaelic Football?


----------



## Bori427

Gunner, the Russian league has some $$$ thanks to rich owners.

Changing topic, I think the ATL MLS team will average around 25k


----------



## isaidso

GunnerJacket said:


> For the past decade or so the traditional powers have remained the same in popularity, with average attendances roughly about the same as this range:
> 
> Ger - 43k
> Eng - 36k
> Spa - 26k
> Ita - 23k
> Fra - 21k
> Net - 19k
> 
> The curiosity fans have been watching for several years is whether or not the Dutch Eredivisie (Netherlands) will surpass 20k and possibly one of the bigger leagues. They've done well in building a second tier of brands behind Ajax and PSV.


It looks like the football leagues with the highest average attendance are as follows:

01. NFL (USA)
02. NCAA Division 1 (USA)
03. Bundesliga (Germany)
04. Premiership (UK)
05. AFL (Australia)
06. La Liga (Spain)
07. CFL (Canada)
08. Liga MX (Mexico)
09. Serie A (Italy)
10. Ligue 1 (France)


----------



## nicko_viteh

Kerrybai said:


> As Gunner explained top 5 is generally England , Spain, Germany, Italy, France. It's a fairly ambiguous term though, for example teams from Portugal generally do better in Europe that the French teams. The Irish Soccer league is very small, most people here follow English sides and it's also worth noting that soccer is not our umber 1 sport.
> 
> Cork City....................3.841
> Shamrock Rovers.........2.591
> Sligo Rovers FC............2.341
> Dundalk FC..................2.287
> Bohemians FC Dublin.....1.611
> St. Patrick's Athletic FC..1.378
> Derry City FC................1.289
> Drogheda United FC.......1.122
> Limerick FC	..................813
> Bray Wanderers AFC......783
> Athlone Town FC............654
> UCD Dublin AFC..............445


It would be interesting comparing the attendance between Soccer & Gaelic rules tournaments in Eire.


----------



## Kerrybai

isaidso said:


> Thanks for digging that up. I thought they'd be a team in Dublin at least that I'd heard of before. What's #1 in Ireland, Gaelic Football?


Yes the 2 Irish sports take top spot, i.e. Gaelic football ad hurling. The we have soccer ( we also refer to association football as soccer )...then after that would we have rugby. The Irish soccer league struggles to evolve as everyone here would rather watch a premier league or European side.



isaidso said:


> It looks like the football leagues with the highest average attendance are as follows:
> 
> 01. NFL (USA)
> 02. NCAA Division 1 (USA)
> 03. Bundesliga (Germany)
> 04. Premiership (UK)
> 05. AFL (Australia)
> 06. La Liga (Spain)
> 07. CFL (Canada)
> 08. Liga MX (Mexico)
> 09. Ligue 1 (France)
> 10. Serie A (Italy)


The CFL is gaining on La Liga with the economic crisis hitting attendance in Spain. The Premiership really has the potential to surpass Germany too if they would only put more effort into stadium expansion... any league averaging a 95% occupancy should be looking to increase, although I understand the need to keep demand high.

Also Italy (23k) is above France (21k)


----------



## Kerrybai

nicko_viteh said:


> It would be interesting comparing the attendance between Soccer & Gaelic rules tournaments in Eire.


In Gaelic football and Hurling we have both the league tournaments and then the man events: The All Ireland Senior Football Championship and the All Ireland Senior Hurling Championship. I'll post the attendances but I must warn you it will be a long post :cheers:


----------



## isaidso

Kerrybai said:


> Yes the 2 Irish sports take top spot, i.e. Gaelic football ad hurling. The we have soccer ( we also refer to association football as soccer )...then after that would we have rugby. The Irish soccer league struggles to evolve as everyone here would rather watch a premier league or European side.


It's interesting that countries that have they're own football code, all call Association Football, 'soccer'. In Canada/US, people used to watch European teams instead of their own just like the Irish do today. MLS was a game changer. People still follow European teams, but their attention is increasingly on the domestic league. 



Kerrybai said:


> The CFL is gaining on La Liga with the economic crisis hitting attendance in Spain. The Premiership really has the potential to surpass Germany too if they would only put more effort into stadium expansion... any league averaging a 95% occupancy should be looking to increase, although I understand the need to keep demand high.
> 
> Also Italy (23k) is above France (21k)


The CFL was ahead of La Liga in average attendance a few years ago, then slipped behind it. Long term, the CFL will likely move ahead of La Liga despite football being the #2 sport in Canada after hockey. The CFL is on an upward trend and operates in a faster growing country. 

If football ever regains prominence in the big 3 cities, CFL average attendance could easily hit 35,000+. Currently, Toronto and Montreal drag the numbers down while Vancouver numbers are way below what you'd expect for a city its size. With 4 weeks left in the season, below is the average attendance in Canada's 3 biggest markets:

*BC Lions, Vancouver*
Average Attendance: 27,294
Population of Metro Area (2013): 2,443,277
Historic High (1986): 46,526

*Montreal Alouettes, Montreal*
Average Attendance: 20,508
Population of Metro Area (2013): 3,981,802
Historic High (1977): 59,525

*Toronto Argonauts, Toronto*
Average Attendance: 17,389
Population of Metro Area (2013): 5,959,505
Historic High (1976): 47,355

Has average attendance in the Premiership ever been higher than the Bundesliga?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Football_League_attendance
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/140226/t140226b001-eng.htm


----------



## poguemahone

Kerrybai said:


> As Gunner explained top 5 is generally England , Spain, Germany, Italy, France. It's a fairly ambiguous term though, for example teams from Portugal generally do better in Europe that the French teams. The Irish Soccer league is very small, most people here follow English sides and it's also worth noting that soccer is not our umber 1 sport.
> 
> Cork City....................3.841
> Shamrock Rovers.........2.591
> Sligo Rovers FC............2.341
> Dundalk FC..................2.287
> Bohemians FC Dublin.....1.611
> St. Patrick's Athletic FC..1.378
> Derry City FC................1.289
> Drogheda United FC.......1.122
> Limerick FC	..................813
> Bray Wanderers AFC......783
> Athlone Town FC............654
> UCD Dublin AFC..............445


Australia is similar with Football being the third most popular sport.

Average Attendances
AFL (Australian Rules) - 33,693 
NRL (Rugby League) - 16,798
A-League (Football) - 13,041

It's hard to count Rugby Union as there are only 5 teams (40 games) who play in a competition involving both New Zealand and South Africa. The 5 Aussie teams averaged 16,913. There is a new national competition involving just australian teams which only gets crowds around 2000. 

Rugby League is the most popular sport in Brisbane and Sydney (there are 9 NRL sides in Sydney) whereas AFL is most popular in all the other big cities (9 clubs in Melbourne). Football on the other hand has a decent following countrywide and is not as centralised as the other sports


----------



## Kerrybai

isaidso said:


> Has average attendance in the Premiership ever been higher than the Bundesliga?
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Football_League_attendance
> http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/140226/t140226b001-eng.htm


It most certainly was, but just like other leagues around the world the growth in attendances stagnated, hwoever it's not due to a lack of interest.
http://rowzfootball.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/european-football-attendance-chart.jpg?w=490&h=352

The Bundesliga have those standing areas which allow them to expand capacity very cheaply, unfortunatley they are now allowed in the premier league. In order for teams to increase capacity they have to fund expensive expansions which are particularly difficult when your stadium is surrounded by houses or in the middle of London. Spurs, Liverpool, City, West Ham, Everton and Chelsea should all be increased within the decade which should push the league close to Germany.

The NFL's mantle will never be toppled :nuts:

Must say the CFL is impressive when you consider the 'better' product available across the border.

Edit: I really feel for Serie A when looking at that picture in the link, they have fallen a long way.


----------



## isaidso

^^ The CFL benefits tremendously from how deeply entrenched it is. The CFL had already decided 53 Grey Cups before the NFL had their first Super Bowl. 

Would the English abandon the Premiership if MLS one day out bid it for talent? Some would, but many would continue supporting the Premiership. That's largely what's played out in Canada. Support for the league fell, but it still managed to hang in there when another league grew wealthier.



poguemahone said:


> Australia is similar with Football being the third most popular sport.


Soccer would be 5th in Canada.


----------



## Kerrybai

nicko_viteh said:


> It would be interesting comparing the attendance between Soccer & Gaelic rules tournaments in Eire.


I'm not going to bother posting the league attendances but I'll throw up the championship attendances... I'm going to throw up last years attendances as I can only find them in the annual report and this seasons annual report has not been released yet.

Unlike most other sports the teams are decided by boundaries. Ireland is split into 32 counties and county has a team. So Dublin county has over 1.2 million people to choose from while Leitrim only has 31k. It would be like having an NFL made of team from each state and only allowing the states to pick players from their region. The championship is split into 4 divisions, on for each province and the winners go onto the final 8 play-offs while 4 other teams go to the play-offs through a 'back door' route.

For football their are 33 teams, 31 from Irelands 32 counties ( Kilkenny do not filed a football team )... and we also have London and New York.

*All Ireland Football Champinship*

Note: Home team is stated first.

Connacht:
*Last 8*
New York vs Leitrim * 4,763*
Galway - Mayo *16,243*
London vs Sligo *4,850*
*Last 4*
Mayo - Roscommon *19,867*
Leitrim - London *7,698* * Game ended in a draw
*Replay
* London - Leitrim *5,217*
*Final*
London - Mayo *21,274*

Leinster:
*Prelimiary round*
WestMeath vs Carlow*3,092*
Wicklow vs Longford - *3,469*
Laois - Louth *5,472*
*Last 8*
WestMeath - Dublin *33,005** Double header
Offaly vs Kildare - *Above** Double header
Louth - Wexford *4,021*
Wicklow vs Meath - *6,124*
*Last 4 *
Dublin - Kildare - *53,204** Double header
Meath - Wexford *Above** Double header
*Final*
Dublin - Meath *54,485*

Munster:
*Prelim*
Limerick - Cork *4,128*
Kerry - Tipperary *7,350*
*Last 4*
Kerry - Waterford *4,719*
Clare - Cork 3,774
*Final*
Kerry - Cork *36,370*

Ulster:
*Prelim*
Cavan - Armagh *12,556*
*Last 8*
Donegal - Tyrone *17,519*
Derry - Down *10,509*
Antrim - Monaghan *7,713*
Fermanagh - Cavan *9,352*
*Last 4*
Donegal - Down* 21,715*
Monaghan - Cavan *15,644*
*Final*
Donegal - Monaghan *31,812*

All - Ireland Qualifiers:
*Round 1*
Carlow - Laois* 4,606*
Offaly - Tyrone *5,000*
Louth - Antrim* 2,699*
Westmeath - Fermanagh *2,800**Note 1 - Double header with hurling 
Longford - Limerick *1,998*
Galway - Tipperary *3,606*
Armagh - Wicklow *4,252*
Derry - Sligo *7,707*

*Round 2*
Galway - Waterford *2,345*
Clare - Laois *7,192* *Note 2 Double header with hurling game 
Derry - Down *6,018*
Roscommon - Tyrone *3,542*
Longford - Wexford *2,679*
Leitrim - Armagh *4,371*
Kildare - Louth *5,989*
Cavan - Fermanagh *9,340*

*Round 3*
Galway - Armagh *5,628*
Wexford - Laois *5,587*
Kildare - Tyrone *7,369*
Derry - Cavan *5,611*

*Round 4*
Cavan - London *33,761** Triple header
Galway - Cork *Above** Triple header
Meath - Tyrone *Above** Triple header
Laois - Donegal *11,125*

All - Ireland Finals
*Last 8*
Monaghan - Tyrone *70,018** Double header
Dublin - Cork *Above** Double header
Kerry - Cavan *63,466* *Double header
Mayo - Donegal *Above* *Double header
*Last 4*
Mayo - Tyrone* 63,345*
Kerry -Dublin *81,553*

*Final*
Dublin - Mayo *82,274*

--------------------------------------

*All Ireland Hurling Championship*

Note: Their were 15 teams in the 2013 Championship. While Ireland 31/32 have hurling teams only 15 take part in the championship, this is down to the difference in skill level between the top hurling sides and the 'rest.' For example in the old Connacht championship it became very clear that only Galway were a credible side.

Leinster
*Preliminary round*
Antrim - Westmeath - *920*
*First Round*
Carlow - London *505*
Laois - Antrim *2,320*
*Last '6'*
Laois - Carlow *2,568*
Offaly - Kilkenny *8,307*
Wexford - Dublin *7,125** Game ended as a draw
*Replay* 
Dublin - Wexford *6,628*

*Last 4*
Laois - Galway *5,387*
Kilkenny - Dublin *9,674** Game ended as a draw
*Replay*
Dublin - Kilkenny *10,532*
*Final*
Dublin - Galway* 36,657*

Munster
*First Round*
Clare - Waterford *12,103*
*Last 4*
Limerick - Tipperary *19,507*
Cork - Clare *19,049*
*Final*
Limerick - Cork *42,730*

All-Ireland Qualifiers
*Preliminary round*
Offaly - Waterford* 6,500*
Wexford - Antrim *1,534*
London - Westmeath *400*
*Round 1*
Wexford - Carlow *2,800*
Westmeath - Waterford *1,952*
*Round 2*
Kilkenny - Tipperary *23,000*
Clare - Laois *7,192** Note 2 - Double header with football game 
*Round 3*
Waterford - Kilkenny *16,670**Double header
Wexford - Clare *16,670**Double Header

All Ireland Finals:
*First Round*
Cork - Kilkenny *33,283**Double header
Galway - Clare *Above** Double Header
*Last 4* 
Dublin - Cork *62,114*
Limerick - Clare *62,962*

*Final*
Clare - Cork *81,655** Game ended as a draw
*Replay*
Clare - Cork *82,276*


----------



## GunnerJacket

Bori427 said:


> Gunner, the Russian league has some $$$ thanks to rich owners.


There are a few well heeled owners and the new venues built for the WC will certainly help, but lasting progress won't come about until they can draw larger crowds and command more TV money in order to sustain that growth. No sense in blowing oil/gas billions so some 18,000 fans can watch aging Brazilians in the snow.


> Changing topic, I think the ATL MLS team will average around 25k


Would be great and there's potential for that in the first year. I'm part of the supporter's group and first round of fans who've put in for season tickets. Last we've heard some 14,000 season tickets have been pre-ordered. If the enthusiasm holds we can hope for 20-25k average for that first year. Beyond could go either way, but we're trying to build enthusiasm as best we can.


Kerrybai said:


> The Bundesliga have those standing areas which allow them to expand capacity very cheaply, unfortunatley they are now allowed in the premier league.


I assume you meant "not" allowed in the Premier League. Yes that is a factor, as is the cheaper ticket prices in Germany and the ownership structure that fosters stronger bonds with the fans.


----------



## Bori427

isaidso said:


> Soccer would be 5th in Canada.


Which are the Top 4?


----------



## GunnerJacket

Here is the link to the Wikipedia page listing the major outdoor sporting leagues by average attendance. I've listed below all the leagues they have with more than 10,000 average from the latest season listed. (For some reason they have Serie A and Liga MX out of order.)

68,397	National Football League
43,502	Bundesliga
36,657	Premier League
33,461	Australian Football League
30,504	Major League Baseball
26,955	La Liga
27,005	Canadian Football League
25,518	Nippon Professional Baseball
21,323	Liga MX
23,385	Serie A
21,321	Primera División Argentina
21,155	Ligue 1
20,384	Super Rugby (Aus/NZ/SA)
19,557	Eredivisie
19,164	Big Bash League
18,594	Major League Soccer
18,571	Chinese Super League
16,555	Football League Championship
17,888	2. Bundesliga
17,226	J. League 1
15,873	Currie Cup
16,643	National Rugby League (Aus)
14,951	Campeonato Brasileiro Série A
14,326	Top 14 (France Rugby)
10,008	Scottish Premier League
13,451	Korea Professional Baseball
13,041	A-League
11,499	Russian Premier League
12,754	Aviva Premiership
12,088	Algerian Championnat National
11,731	Belgian Pro League
11,566	Indonesia Super League
11,365	Swiss Super League
11,296	Ukrainian Premier League
11,250	Turkish Super League
10,968	Portuguese Liga



24 of the leagues are soccer/ association footie
5 Rugby
3 Baseball
2 American/Canadian football
1 Aussie Rules
1 Cricket


----------



## Walbanger

poguemahone said:


> Australia is similar with Football being the third most popular sport.
> 
> Average Attendances
> *AFL (Australian Rules) - 33,693 *
> NRL (Rugby League) - 16,798
> A-League (Football) - 13,041
> 
> It's hard to count Rugby Union as there are only 5 teams (40 games) who play in a competition involving both New Zealand and South Africa. The 5 Aussie teams averaged 16,913. There is a new national competition involving just australian teams which only gets crowds around 2000.
> 
> Rugby League is the most popular sport in Brisbane and Sydney (there are 9 NRL sides in Sydney) whereas AFL is most popular in all the other big cities (9 clubs in Melbourne). Football on the other hand has a decent following countrywide and is not as centralised as the other sports


The AFL is in a bit of a trough attendance wise of late. I'd put it down to a factor of reasons but mostly related to the AFL HQ decisions that are alienating fans and further compromising a less than fair fixture in pursuit of milking as much money as possible.

Adelaide Oval has been a massive success attendence wise for the 2 Adelaide clubs and has masked some of the attendence fall league wide.

Perth AFL attendence for at least another 3 seasons will limited by the archaic and completely undersized Subiaco Oval where less than 40 000 of either the Eagles or Dockers members can be seated because of Away Fans and General Public ticket allocations.
Perth Fans for over a decade have really been over the cramped over priced contitions of Subi, the 3 teir stand has signs on it stating it does not meet current building code and it his concrete cancer.
Perth Fans are also weary of the fact they pay twice as much as Melbourne fans to attend games in vastly worse conditions.
They are also sick of taking the hit in unattractive fixturing (along with Adelaide) because they are robust enough to absorb it yet limiting their ability to expand their brand, all while the big Melbourne clubs get the cream.

Sydney is in pretty good shape for a team in non AFL territory, the SCG has surely gotten better for Aussie Rules, I guess their only issue is their contracted obligation to play some fixtures at ANZ Stadium which has a poor surface and unless their in 60 000 + at the game, can't match the SCG for atmosphere.

Brisbane could be a bit of a worry but they are AFL controlled, not being particularly competitive since their 3-peat in 01-03 doesn't help. Their crowds don't look that flash for a one team town of 2.3 million, yet they would be considered healthy in Rugby League. They have in the past have averages above the beloved Rugby League Brisbane Broncos yet they have never sold out the 42 000 seat Gabba. Pretty sure their best home crowd was around 37 000. The AFL will never let them colapse.

Geelong has a sweet stadium contract at Kardinia Park, they get more money there with 25 000 people then they would an hour up the road at Etihad Stadium with 45 000.

Melbourne is a problem area for the Vic-centric league in that their is fan burn out from what has from the late 70's really been an over saturated market. The league's current model is hellbent on maintaining 18 teams for the TV revenue yet Australia lacks other large enough local markets to force a team to move for the better, such is the constant question of a Hobart based team (AFL teams being more expensive to run than NRL teams plus the code divide in Australia). 
9 teams in a city of 4 million all trying to milk as much money as they can from the populace via memberships and merchandise, its really hits the hip pockets of thousands of fans that romanticise the old suburban grounds and view live access as a birth right.
Bar Essendon, clubs based at Etihad Stadium are bled dry by their less than favourable stadium contracts. Stadium rather than Club membership packages can see it hard to attract more than 50 000 to Etihad even though it can certainly fit it.
Big and/or competive Melbourne clubs will get the the best fixtures in the league. Poorer Melbourne teams end up selling the odd home game fixture to Tasmainia, Darwin, Cairns etc. 
This is while the AFL has favoured the Melbourne 'big 4' rivalries and artificial 'blockbusters' instead of nuturing real organic ones that have emerged from outside the 'big 4' plus Hawthorn and Geelong.
Examples being North and Essendon, St Kilda and Fremantle, West Coast and Essendon, Collingwood and Adelaide, Sydney and West Coast.

Highest drawing Collingwood are rather average at the moment while Melbournes second biggest club Essendon is currently going through its darkest days in its 143 year history with a doping scandal involving 34 of its players and its coach. This has seriously damaged the league and may damage it more depending on how the consequense play out.

Lastly the two recent expansion clubs in West Sydney and Gold Coast have understandably brought the Attendance averages down but they are given a free pass as they are in Rugby League territory and are a work in progress. Gold Coast is looking positive while long into the future West Sydney has the greater potential if the club can successfully forge a solid niche.


----------



## isaidso

Bori427 said:


> Which are the Top 4?


What order one ranks sports varies quite a bit depending on what area of the country one's in. Nationally I see it this way:

1. Hockey (and solidly #1)
2. Canadian Football (and solidly #2)
3. Basketball (varies vastly but very popular in Ontario and Nova Scotia)
4. Baseball (#4 despite only 1 MLB team)
5. Soccer (could eclipse baseball if baseball continues to tread water)


----------



## poguemahone

Walbanger said:


> Lastly the two recent expansion clubs in West Sydney and Gold Coast have understandably brought the Attendance averages down but they are given a free pass as they are in Rugby League territory and are a work in progress. Gold Coast is looking positive while long into the future West Sydney has the greater potential if the club can successfully forge a solid niche.


The worst thing to happen to GWS is Western Sydney in the A-League being such a success. Football well and truly trumped the AFL in Sydney's west. 

I can't see how AFL and the NRL will massively increase attendances in the coming decades, I can however, see Football reaching 20k average attendances in the next 10-15 years. 

I don't think the AFL will be too worried but the NRL are starting to get nervous. Football definitely has a bigger reach in the country as a whole and with so much of our population immigrants from countries where Football is the #1 sport it's only going to increase. I can't speak for AFL as I don't follow it but Rugby league is a massive armchair sport with little appeal in terms of match day atmosphere compared to football. 

Also as everyone in Australia would know, Rugby Union has been on a downwards spiral for years. The only people who play it are Private schoolboys in Sydney and Brisbane, where participation numbers have dropped dramatically, been replaced by football as the #1 sport in most of those schools now.


----------



## weava

GunnerJacket said:


> ...


I added the missing american football university leagues.

75,674 Southeastern*
70,431 Big Ten*
68,397	National Football League
58,899 Big 12*
53,619 Pac-12*
49,982 Atlantic Coast*
43,502	Bundesliga
36,657	Premier League
33,712 American*
33,461	Australian Football League
30,504	Major League Baseball
26,955	La Liga
27,005	Canadian Football League
26,080 Mountain West*
25,518	Nippon Professional Baseball
21,323	Liga MX
23,385	Serie A
21,510 Conference USA*
21,321	Primera División Argentina
21,155	Ligue 1
20,384	Super Rugby (Aus/NZ/SA)
19,859 Sun Belt*
19,557	Eredivisie
19,164	Big Bash League
18,594	Major League Soccer
18,571	Chinese Super League
16,555	Football League Championship
17,888	2. Bundesliga
17,226	J. League 1
16,739 Mid-American*
15,873	Currie Cup
16,643	National Rugby League (Aus)
14,951	Campeonato Brasileiro Série A
14,326	Top 14 (France Rugby)
10,008	Scottish Premier League
13,451	Korea Professional Baseball
13,041	A-League
11,499	Russian Premier League
12,754	Aviva Premiership
12,415 Southwestern Athletic*
12,088	Algerian Championnat National
11,731	Belgian Pro League
11,623 Southern*
11,566	Indonesia Super League
11,365	Swiss Super League
11,296	Ukrainian Premier League
11,250	Turkish Super League
10,968	Portuguese Liga
10,722 Missouri Valley Football*
10,395 Colonial*


* = University League of American Football


24 of the leagues are soccer/ association footie
16 American/Canadian football
5 Rugby
3 Baseball
1 Aussie Rules
1 Cricket


----------



## bd popeye

GunnerJacket said:


> Cal is among those schools that is a major enigma to me. They, along with Illinois and Maryland have the most underperforming programs and some very underwhelming support considering the sizes of the schools, their states and their supposed ambitions. I realize it's hard to live alongside USC and UCLA, but Cal's a great school with strong political support and huge #'s of alumni. You'd think they'd do more than play second fiddle in popularity to Stanford Prep!


My daughter is a Cal grad class of 2011. That school is very cerebral. They should sell out every game if one considers how many Cal grads live in the SF Bay area.

Oh by the way.. My daughter earned a 4.0 average while at Cal.


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> My daughter is a Cal grad class of 2011. That school is very cerebral. They should sell out every game if one considers how many Cal grads live in the SF Bay area.
> 
> Oh by the way.. My daughter earned a 4.0 average while at Cal.


Holy Toledo, Popeye! That's quite a kid to be proud of, meaning a not so shabby job of parenting yourself. Bravo, sir.

As to the inference of Cal's mindset I definitely get it. GT is very similar in that regard.


----------



## Fabio1976

Kerrybai said:


> First 8 games
> 
> Atletico 65,000 and 55,973
> Northeast 29,500, 25,530 ad 30,870
> Mumbai 28,000
> Goa 16,652
> Dehli 16,500
> 
> Average - *30,036*


Great attendances. I am curious to see tomorrow the attendance in Chennai. And I hope that next year there will be also Bengaluru and Hyderabad.


----------



## weava

GunnerJacket said:


> Cal is among those schools that is a major enigma to me. They, along with Illinois and Maryland have the most underperforming programs and some very underwhelming support considering the sizes of the schools, their states and their supposed ambitions. I realize it's hard to live alongside USC and UCLA, but Cal's a great school with strong political support and huge #'s of alumni. You'd think they'd do more than play second fiddle in popularity to Stanford Prep!


The Bay area is the only metro to have 2 NFL and 2 BCS football teams. Nowhere else in the country has 4 major football teams in a single metro area.

NYC is the only city even somewhat comparable with Uconn and Rutgers not too far away but they don't draw big numbers either.


----------



## poguemahone

The Real Gazmon said:


> *Australia A-League*
> 
> Round 2
> 
> Adelaide United v Melbourne Victory - 33,126
> 
> Central Coast Mariners v Wellington Phoenix - 7,237
> 
> Sydney FC v Western Sydney Wanderers - 41,213 *Record venue regular season game crowd
> 
> Melbourne City FC v Newcastle Jets - 15,717 *Record non-Melbourne derby home crowd
> 
> Perth Glory v Brisbane Roar - 8,789
> 
> 
> Weekly Total - 106,082 *Record
> 
> Weekly Average - 21,216
> 
> Season to date Total - 196,095
> 
> Season Average -19,610


2014/15 Total: 196,095
2014/15 Average: 19,610
2013/14 Average: 13,045

2014/15 Average Attendance by Club
Sydney FC - 33,369 (2)
Adelaide - 33,126 (1)
Melbourne Victory - 30,083 (1)
Brisbane - 16,195 (1)
Melbourne City - 15,717 (1)
Central Coast - 8,840 (2)
Perth - 8,789 (1)
Wellington - 7,767 (1)
Newcastle - N/A 
Western Sydney - N/A


----------



## bd popeye

Off topic



GunnerJacket said:


> Holy Toledo, Popeye! That's quite a kid to be proud of, meaning a not so shabby job of parenting yourself. Bravo, sir.
> 
> As to the inference of Cal's mindset I definitely get it. GT is very similar in that regard.


Off topic proud papa rant..

My daughter earned straight A's since she was in the 5th grade. She did get a B+ in the 9th grade and cried.hno:

She can speak English, Spanish and Tagalog(Filipino)

She is currently a bi-lingual after-school program teacher with a large school district in Southern California.

When she graduated from Cal she had earned special adulation from the Filipino student Union. 

END Off topic.


----------



## Guest

GunnerJacket said:


> Pair of former Arsenal greats (Llundberg and Pires) plying their trade out there. *Surprising to see only 8 teams in the fold.* I realize footie is not their main sport but given the nation's size you'd think they could begin with 12-16 teams.
> 
> Edit: Just saw that this is the second league to start up in 7 years, so India has it's own version of an MLS-NASL-USL political row brewing. Joy!


Just for reference, the Indian Premier League (cricket) has 8 teams and is going into its 8th season in 2015. Some teams in that league have already folded or relocated. If the IPL still only has 8 teams, I don't think soccer has any reason to go higher. The ISL is a veritable carbon copy of the IPL in how it plans to carry out its business. 




Fabio1976 said:


> Great attendances. I am curious to see tomorrow the attendance in Chennai. And I hope that next year there will be also Bengaluru and Hyderabad.


I don't see expansion happening for a long time. As indicated above, I suspect they will follow the trajectory of their cricketing counterparts. Overall though it's been a great start as you say.


----------



## weava

5portsF4n said:


> Just for reference, the Indian Premier League (cricket) has 8 teams and is going into its 8th season in 2015. Some teams in that league have already folded or relocated. If the IPL still only has 8 teams, I don't think soccer has any reason to go higher. The ISL is a veritable carbon copy of the IPL in how it plans to carry out its business.
> 
> 
> I don't see expansion happening for a long time. As indicated above, I suspect they will follow the trajectory of their cricketing counterparts. Overall though it's been a great start as you say.


The Elite Football League of India (American Football) also has 8 teams, that seems to be their number. 2 of those teams aren't in India though (1 in Pakistan, 1 in Sri Lanka)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012–13_Elite_Football_League_of_India_season


----------



## CharlieP

5portsF4n said:


> Not quite.


Ah. OK then, in terms of city size and distance, it's more equivalent to Leicester City hosting Arsenal at Wembley.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

CharlieP said:


> In terms of town population and distance, Lens hosting PSG at the Stade de France is roughly equivalent to Yeovil hosting Arsenal at Wembley. :nuts:


As pointed out by others the urban area Lens is part of is quite large (508k as of 2011), but even so Lens is the most impressive club in terms of support when relating their attendances to the city population, as it is the only major French club coming close to the 10% that some consider the benchmark for a thriving league. 

There is also the phenomenon of small town clubs that draw their attendances (sometimes larger than the town itself) from the region, like it is with Guingamp for example. 

What you describe has happened recently, though, when Red Star Saint-Ouen hosted Marseille at the SdF in the Cup, filling the first two tiers (the attendance was either 50k or 60k, can't remember). Red Star is a one of the three historical parisian clubs (the other two being Racing and Stade Francais). It's the only one that is still going professionally - it plays in the third division in the small suburb of Saint-Ouen in front of attendances of around 2, sometimes 3 thousand people.


----------



## CharlieP

It's more the distance that I can't get my head around. In rugby, Saracens have successfully staged home games at Wembley, as have Harlequins and Wasps at Twickenham, and Stade Francais (and possibly Racing Métro) at SdF and Toulon at Stade Vélodrome. But this is a case of a club moving its home match about 100 km to its larger rival's city. Is this popular with the Lens fans?


----------



## alexandru.mircea

With the exception of the PSG, OM and Lille matches they host at the SdF, Lens are playing their home matches in Amiens, which is about 75 minutes away by car. There's no direct train but you can get there with one change, one hour worth of actual travel. I don't know if the club has tried to reach a deal with Valenciennes instead, who now play in L2 - this city is closer and the stadium is better and larger. I doubt the fans are happy not to play at home in their comeback season, but on the other hand I think they don't reject the refurbishment of their own stadium either.


----------



## GunnerJacket

weava said:


> The Bay area is the only metro to have 2 NFL and 2 BCS football teams. Nowhere else in the country has 4 major football teams in a single metro area.


True. Even though when you add in Sac-Town it's a very large population that is tough to compete with two notable NFL franchises, even if one of them is in the doldrums. As a GT fan I can certainly relate to that phenomena. At least Cal has about 3x the student body and lots of alumni in the metro area, so when they're winning they can be real big. 



poguemahone said:


> 2014/15 Total: 196,095
> 2014/15 Average: 19,610
> 2013/14 Average: 13,045


Strong early showing by the A-League. Let's see if they can join MLS above the 19k threshold for the season.


----------



## poguemahone

GunnerJacket said:


> True. Even though when you add in Sac-Town it's a very large population that is tough to compete with two notable NFL franchises, even if one of them is in the doldrums. As a GT fan I can certainly relate to that phenomena. At least Cal has about 3x the student body and lots of alumni in the metro area, so when they're winning they can be real big.
> 
> Strong early showing by the A-League. Let's see if they can join MLS above the 19k threshold for the season.


It will be on a downwards spiral after this weekend. The Melbourne Derby on Saturday is expected to have a crowd of about 47,000 but in the coming weeks teams like Perth, Wellington, Central Coast and even Newcastle and Adelaide to an extent will bring it right down. I'd say the final season average attendance will be about 14,000 hopefully.


----------



## Kerrybai

*Uefa Champions league Matchday 3:*
Barcelona - Ajax* 79,357*
Roma - Bayern Munich *70,544*
Schalke - Sporting CP *49,943*
Liverpool - Real Madrid* 43,521*
Chelsea - Maribor* 41,126*
Porto -Athletic Bilbao* 38,116*
Galatasary Borussia Dortmund *36,324*
Atletico Madrid - Malmo FF *34,502*
Olympiacos - Juventus* 31,411*
Ludogorets Razgrad - Basel *29,150*
Bayer Leverkusen - Zenit Saint Petersburg *27,254*
Anderlecht - Arsenal *19,881*
Apoel Nicosia - PSG *18,659*
Monaco - Benfica *12,776*
BATE Borisov - Shaktar Donetsk *12,113*
CSKA - Moscow *0 (Match played behind closed doors)*


----------



## bd popeye

Excellent article about the increase in attendance in the Major Soccer League.

*MLS set to break season attendance record*


----------



## Kerrybai

Rugby European Champions Cup Match-day 2: I'll update this poist over the weekend as games are finished.

Munster - Saracens *26,000*
Clermont - Sale* 17,591*
Ulster - Toulon *16,931*
Northampton Saints - Ospreys *13,362*
Bath - Toulouse *13,360*
Montpellier Glasgow* 11,089*
Castres - Leinster *9,387*
Scarlets - Leicester *8,235*
Northampton Saints - Ospreys *13,362*


----------



## isaidso

Kerrybai said:


> Let us never forget that how amazing support for soccer(football) is in Scotland.


That's the best gauge of how well sports are supported by a population. According to that map it's Iceland (3.86%) leading the way followed by Scotland (3.81%), Cyprus (3.67%), the Netherlands (2.87%), England (2.85%), then Norway (2.63%).

Btw, is this based on what % of the population attended at least one pro football game in the calendar year?


----------



## flierfy

After this weekend's games one can already conclude that even in this peculiar season Scotland's First Division will remain the best attended of all divisions in Scottish football.
Attendances at Rangers and Hibernian are persistently disappointing. While they are still the 2nd and 5th best supported clubs in Scotland, their crowds of 34'457 and 10'334 respectively aren't enough to fully compensate the tiny attendances at the likes of Dumbarton and Cowdenbeath.

The average attendances so far:
Division 1 - 8'280
Division 2 - 7'488
Division 3 - 1'036
Division 4 - 519

The mean attendances:
Division 1 - 4'245
Division 2 - 3'029
Division 3 - 709
Division 4 - 516

All numbers were calculated on basis of the official attendance figures published by the Scottish Football League on www.spfl.co.uk.


----------



## isaidso

GunnerJacket said:


> Indeed. If anything it's both amazing and a bit of gluttony. Our economy spends about $8B on professional and collegiate sports entertainment every year!


US attendance at pro/collegiate sports is very impressive. It would be interesting to see how various countries stack up on a per capita basis. I imagine the US would still come out on top. I suspect Canada would fall in the middle of the pack somewhere. 

Just off the top of my head Canadian attendance is roughly like this (~ attendance of 20,100,000; national population is 35,600,000):

NHL: 5,000,000 (7 teams)
MLB: 2,400,000 (1 team)
CFL: 2,000,000 (9 teams)
MLS: 1,000,000 (3 teams)
NBA: 750,000 (1 team)
AHL: 700,000 (3 teams)
NLL: 250,000 (3 teams)

CHL: 7,500,000 (52 teams)
CIS Football: 500,000 (27 teams)


----------



## isaidso

^^ So would I. In Canada, high school football is biggest in southern New Brunswick: often a few thousand show up.



GunnerJacket said:


> I am confused. I thought Rush University was in Chicago. So one week Canada is part of the US and the next You guys are annexing the Windy City?!! Is this some sort of SCTV conspiracy?!!
> 
> :cheers:


'University Rush' is a university football television show on a sports network here. They do a summary of the weeks games and thought it a fitting logo/name to use as a header.



GunnerJacket said:


> It hit me while looking at your numbers (thanks, btw), assuming these schools are on schedules comparable to those in the US it's got to be harsh on these programs playing late into the fall. I doubt their blessed with the caliber of facilities, for games and practices, that the CFL has. (Montreal excepted) So does the weather seem more of a factor on the college support vs. CFL?


College football in Canada suffers from a triple whammy compared to the US. 1st is the cultural difference where university sports is considered very secondary to the academic pursuits of the school. It's kept as amateur as possible and not marketed as a business. This is something I touched on a few months ago.

Secondly, our best football players go to the NCAA where budgets, facilities, and hype are things our schools have no way of competing against. Third is definitely the weather. The season starts the beginning of September and wraps up by mid November by necessity. It's far too cold to play in November, but we'd have no season at all if we didn't. 

So September games are fine, but October games start becoming difficult. November it's not uncommon to be playing during a blizzard. I've sat on a bleacher in -20C for 3 hours before. When I sat up I had 8 inches of snow built up on my head. CIS vs. CFL there's not much difference climate wise. Most CFL games are outside. November football in Canada is often brutal in terms of weather.



GunnerJacket said:


> Also, how large are these schools? Many of the powerful collegiate programs in the US stem from schools with upwards of 30,000 to even 50,000 undergrads. Nothing helps filling a stadium like volumes of enrolled students who turn into large volumes of alumni!


These schools run the gamut from enrollment under 2,000 all the way up to 50,000+. A large student enrollment doesn't seem to help most of these schools though. Mt. Allison with 2,700 students gets almost the same attendance as York with 43,000 students. As you can see, football matters a great deal more at many of these small schools than it does at our big institutions. Laval is the big outlier. It's a big school with big (by CIS standards) attendance. 

These CIS schools are comparable in size to NCAA schools. It should be noted that attendance at university sports in Canada is almost entirely a school affair. The crowd is usually 95% students or higher. At US schools the vast majority in attendance are NOT students.

Btw, I believe someone posted NCAA football attendance by actual students and they were only 2-3 times higher than what you see in Canada. Most NCAA schools get below 15,000 from their student body. The bulk comes from the general population.


----------



## isaidso

Canada's 4 collegiate football leagues and the approximate school enrollment at each school. Canada has about another 50 universities with no football at all. Some of them are fairly big institutions too. The 3 biggest universities in Atlantic Canada do not have CIS football, for example.

*Canada West*

University of British Columbia 43,579
University of Calgary 28,196
University of Alberta 36,435
University of Saskatchewan 19,082
University of Regina 12,800
University of Manitoba 27,599


*Ontario University Athletics*

University of Windsor 13,496
University of Western Ontario 30,000
University of Waterloo 27,978
Wilfrid Laurier University 12,394	
University of Guelph 19,408
McMaster University 25,688
University of Toronto 73,185
York University	42,400	
Queen's University 20,566
University of Ottawa 35,548	
Carleton University 25,890


*Réseau du sport étudiant du Québec*

Concordia University	38,809
Université de Montréal	55,540
McGill University	32,514
Université Laval 37,591	
Université de Sherbrooke 35,000
Bishop's University 1,817	


*Atlantic University Sport*

Acadia University 3,770	
Mount Allison University 2,614
Saint Francis Xavier University 4,871
Saint Mary's University	7,433


----------



## GunnerJacket

isaidso said:


> 'University Rush' is a university football television show on a sports network here. They do a summary of the weeks games and thought it a fitting logo/name to use as a header.


Rats. I was kinda hoping it might be a place for us fans of Geddy, Alex and Neil to go and learn more about our rock deities! :dj: :rock:



> College football in Canada suffers from a triple whammy compared to the US.


A lot of common sense that this Yank simply hadn't thought through. The perils of proximity, in this case. Thanks for the insight.



> Btw, I believe someone posted NCAA football attendance by actual students and they were only 2-3 times higher than what you see in Canada. Most NCAA schools get below 15,000 from their student body. The bulk comes from the general population.


Yeah, I think the average among your giant schools is between 6-10,000 students per game, down a bit from years past. My alma mater, with full-time undergrad enrollment of 13k, allots about 5k seats for students. Almost always used, albeit often on a come-late, leave early policy. 

Still, I recall the roll-over effect of such enrollments is almost directly proportional to attendance. The giants among attendance leaders all had above 19k FTUE last I checked, with the likes of Texas, PSU, OSU, Michigan, etc all at 28k-40k. Lots of students = lots of alumni = larger natural fanbase.

I'll dig up those numbers and update that comparison of enrollment vs. attendance.


----------



## isaidso

I guess Laval stacks up pretty favourably with big US schools in this regard then. They average about 15,000 fans/game and it's almost all students. They didn't even have football at this school 20 years ago so time will tell if alumni start showing up in large numbers. I guess if it's to happen it will start happening now, but their stadium only holds 12,750 so they're always at over flow. Overflow simply stand around the athletics track.

Laval purposely built their stadium too small for CFL because they didn't want to share the football market with a future CFL franchise. Laval is in Quebec City.

One surprising tidbit I dug up a few months ago was that the University of Toronto football team posted average attendance of 25,593 in 1950. The NFL average for 1950 was slightly lower at 25,356. I was quite stunned by that. Needless to say, support for Varsity has tumbled over the last 65 years to a shadow of what it once was. It used to be viewed as the most storied football team around. Today's generation of Torontonians are completely oblivious to that.

The largest college football crowd in Canadian history was the 2012 Vanier Cup in Toronto. Université Laval defeated MAC in front of 37,098 fans. I was at the 45 yard line in the lower bowl. :colgate:

*Laval vs. McMaster, Skydome*








Courtesy of Robin Leworthy Wilson


----------



## isaidso

*Canadian Football League*
*2014 Week #19*










Hamilton Tiger-Cats @ Ottawa RedBlacks 24,101 *SELL OUT*
Winnipeg Blue Bombers @ Calgary Stampeders 27,076
BC Lions @ Edmonton Eskimos 26,388
Toronto Argonauts @ Montreal Alouettes 22,013


Week #19 attendance: 99,578
Week #19 average attendance: 24,895
Cummulative attendance: 1,950,393
Average attendance: 25,330


----------



## Zack Fair

isaidso said:


> *Canadian Football League*
> *2014 Week #19*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hamilton Tiger-Cats @ Ottawa RedBlacks 24,101 *SELL OUT*
> Winnipeg Blue Bombers @ Calgary Stampeders 27,076
> BC Lions @ Edmonton Eskimos 26,388
> Toronto Argonauts @ Montreal Alouettes 22,013
> 
> 
> Week #19 attendance: 99,578
> Week #19 average attendance: 24,895
> Cummulative attendance: 1,950,393
> Average attendance: 25,330


I guess the low attendance in the Prairies is due to the frigid weather.


----------



## isaidso

Zack Fair said:


> I guess the low attendance in the Prairies is due to the frigid weather.


That and those 2 games were largely meaningless. Calgary was finishing 1st in the West regardless of what happened while Winnipeg's season was already over. In the other game all that was to be decided was whether BC would meet Edmonton or Montreal in a Division Semi.

Tomorrow's Western Semi in Edmonton will be severely affected by the weather. It's Saskatchewan @ Edmonton, but with -17C expected at kick off time I'd be surprised if they pulled in more than 30,000 for it. Those are hardy folks out there on the Prairie, but even they have their limits.


----------



## bd popeye

Georgia Tech defeated Clemson in 28 to 6 at Bobby Dodd Stadium in Atlanta GA. Another great showing by that GT defense.

12:00 PM ET, Nov. 15, 2014
Bobby Dodd Stadium, Atlanta, Georgia Attendance: 49,378


----------



## Zack Fair

I was reading that the South Alabama vs Texas State game suffered of low attendance ( 10,289). It's seems that the main problem could be the stadium location and the parking being too expensive for non season ticket holders. So I was wondering, could the Argonauts in Toronto suffering the same problem? Worst stadium for football, expensive parking and other possible issues, then it could explain the low attendance, maybe people just prefer to watch the game at home..


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> Georgia Tech defeated Clemson in 28 to 6 at Bobby Dodd Stadium in Atlanta GA. Another great showing by that GT defense.
> 
> 12:00 PM ET, Nov. 15, 2014
> Bobby Dodd Stadium, Atlanta, Georgia Attendance: 49,378


They have been on a tear. I mean, the defense outscored Clemson 12-6! But it obviously helped that the Tigers phenom QB left hurt in the 1st quarter. Hope he comes back healthy and they win their last 3 games.

Actually disappointed with the turnout. I know it was cold (~ 45') but still, it's our main conference rival and both teams were ranked. Usually Clemson games are @/near sell outs. Oh well.

Watched your OSU-Minn game in between. I've a soft spot for the Gophers as my ex is from there. Plus I love seeing games played in the snow! Looks like OSU is headed for the B1G CG vs. Wisconsin. Hopefully that will prove entertaining.


----------



## bd popeye

GunnerJacket said:


> They have been on a tear. I mean, the defense outscored Clemson 12-6! But it obviously helped that the Tigers phenom QB left hurt in the 1st quarter. Hope he comes back healthy and they win their last 3 games.
> 
> Actually disappointed with the turnout. I know it was cold (~ 45') but still, it's our main conference rival and both teams were ranked. Usually Clemson games are @/near sell outs. Oh well.
> 
> Watched your OSU-Minn game in between. I've a soft spot for the Gophers as my ex is from there. Plus I love seeing games played in the snow! Looks like OSU is headed for the B1G CG vs. Wisconsin. Hopefully that will prove entertaining.


Thank you..Didn't know 45F was cold.hno: It's 24F here in Cedar Rapids this morning. The low temp tonight will be about 12F.. the high tomorrow will be about 19F. Balmy! 

I watched much of the Buckeye game. The weather was bad in Minneapolis and it really affected the attendance. Lots of empty seats in the closed end of the upper deck.










Selected NCAA FBS attendance for yesterday.

Texas A&M....Kyle Field, College Station, Texas Attendance: 104,756

Tennessee....Neyland Stadium, Knoxville, Tennessee Attendance: 102,455

Alabama....Bryant-Denny Stadium, Tuscaloosa, Alabama Attendance: 101,821

Penn State...Beaver Stadium, University Park, Pennsylvania Attendance: 100,173

Georgia...Sanford Stadium, Athens, Georgia Attendance: 92,746

Florida....Ben Hill Griffin Stadium at Florida Field, Gainesville, Florida Attendance: 85,088

Notre Dame....Notre Dame Stadium, Notre Dame, Indiana Attendance: 80,795

Wisconsin...Camp Randall Stadium, Madison, Wisconsin Attendance: 80,539

Miami....Sun Life Stadium, Miami Gardens, Florida Attendance: 76,530

USC....Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles, California Attendance: 64,615

NC State....Carter-Finley Stadium, Raleigh, North Carolina Attendance: 55,353

Oklahoma State...Boone Pickens Stadium, Stillwater, Oklahoma Attendance: 52,495

Maryland...Capital One Field at Byrd Stadium, College Park, Maryland Attendance: 51,802

Illinois....Memorial Stadium, Champaign, Illinois Attendance: 50,373	

Airzona...Arizona Stadium, Tucson, Arizona Attendance: 47,757

Minnesota.....TCF Bank Stadium, Minneapolis, Minnesota Attendance: 45,778


----------



## SteveAWOL

@*sportingintel*  Crowded house? More from the study of 34 leagues around the world: attendances. Germany wins. http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/sport/football/article-2835752/Bundesliga-pips-Premier-League-attendance-table-recording-second-biggest-average-global-professional-sport-NFL.html …











@*sportingintel*  A football tickets costs HOW MUCH of your wages? http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/sport/football/article-2836132/Premier-League-best-world-Sportsmail-s-exclusive-survey-shows-costly-fans-watch-club-football-England.html …


----------



## Walbanger

SteveAWOL said:


> @*sportingintel*  Crowded house? More from the study of 34 leagues around the world: attendances. Germany wins. http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/sport/football/article-2835752/Bundesliga-pips-Premier-League-attendance-table-recording-second-biggest-average-global-professional-sport-NFL.html …


The USA's MLS and Australia's A-League are clearly doing pretty well against the bulk of global national leagues considering how much flack both nations get for not having Soccer as their most dominant Football code.


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> Thank you..Didn't know 45F was cold.hno:


For those of us born above the Mason-Dixon it isn't. Heck I even went for a nice jog after the game. But for the bulk of folks down here waking up to sub-freezing temperatures is a chore. Especially this early in the year, as typically Atlanta doesn't hit that temp range until late December. 

But I digress. I'll have to check but I think Tech will end up with about 47-48k average for the year. Not bad but it would be nice to get above 50k again. 



Wallbanger said:


> The USA's MLS and Australia's A-League are clearly doing pretty well against the bulk of global national leagues considering how much flack both nations get for not having Soccer as their most dominant Football code.


Indeed. The power of their respective economies is shining through, here. A shame Brazil can't foster a higher number. Maybe someday.


Meanwhile, that table regarding ticket prices - How the dickens can the average price be so high in China? Most articles I've read about their efforts the past few years paint the successful crowds due to low ticket prices and/or lots of giveaways. The league certainly isn't portrayed as being in robust economic health, which would suggest they're not luring 18k per game by having such comparably (for their economy) high priced tickets. Am I missing something?


----------



## bd popeye

GunnerJacket said:


> For those of us born above the Mason-Dixon it isn't. Heck I even went for a nice jog after the game. But for the bulk of folks down here waking up to sub-freezing temperatures is a chore. Especially this early in the year, as typically Atlanta doesn't hit that temp range until late December.


I grew-up in Cincinnati. And lived in San Diego for 26 years. Adapting to the frigid temps of Iowa when I moved here 10 years ago was an easy transformation.



GunnerJacket said:


> But I digress. I'll have to check but I think Tech will end up with about 47-48k average for the year. Not bad but it would be nice to get above 50k again.


That's very good attendance. But I agree with you. It should be on average much higher.



GunnerJacket said:


> Indeed. The power of their respective economies is shining through, here. A shame Brazil can't foster a higher number. Maybe someday.


In Brazil isn't it the Brazilian economy that keeps the futebol(Portuguese) fans away from the games? Quite a gap there between the haves and have-nots.



GunnerJacket said:


> Meanwhile, that table regarding ticket prices - How the dickens can the average price be so high in China? Most articles I've read about their efforts the past few years paint the successful crowds due to low ticket prices and/or lots of giveaways. The league certainly isn't portrayed as being in robust economic health, which would suggest they're not luring 18k per game by having such comparably (for their economy) high priced tickets. Am I missing something?


As a 10 year China watcher I can tell you that the sports league in China totally cater to the 300,000,000 people in China that lead a upper middle class and higher lifestyle and completely ignoring the 1 billion other Chinese..


----------



## KingmanIII

Zack Fair said:


> I was reading that the South Alabama vs Texas State game suffered of low attendance ( 10,289). It's seems that the main problem could be the stadium location and the parking being too expensive for non season ticket holders. So I was wondering, could the Argonauts in Toronto suffering the same problem? Worst stadium for football, expensive parking and other possible issues, then it could explain the low attendance, maybe people just prefer to watch the game at home..


Two Sun Belt teams who would likely go winless in a Power 5 conference, kicking off at the same time as Auburn-Georgia...yeah, just doesn't add up. :dunno:


----------



## Zack Fair

KingmanIII said:


> Two Sun Belt teams who would likely go winless in a Power 5 conference, kicking off at the same time as Auburn-Georgia...yeah, just doesn't add up. :dunno:


Yeah, and there was Mississippi State-Alabama game before that, still... attendance at Ladd Peebles Stadium have been low for years now. Oh, and spare me your sarcasm.


----------



## KingmanIII

Zack Fair said:


> Yeah, and there was Mississippi State-Alabama game before that, still... attendance at Ladd Peebles Stadium have been low for years now.


Attendance has virtually always been a problem for the lower-level FBS leagues. 

Nearly half of the Sun Belt and MAC would be forced to drop to FCS if the NCAA actually enforced their minimum attendance requirement of 15,000 per game.

Now with the increased autonomy being granted to the P5, I'm afraid it's only going to get worse.



> Oh, and spare me your sarcasm.


----------



## isaidso

Zack Fair said:


> I was reading that the South Alabama vs Texas State game suffered of low attendance ( 10,289). It's seems that the main problem could be the stadium location and the parking being too expensive for non season ticket holders. So I was wondering, could the Argonauts in Toronto suffering the same problem? Worst stadium for football, expensive parking and other possible issues, then it could explain the low attendance, maybe people just prefer to watch the game at home..


I'm a huge CFL fan, but don't enjoy watching football at Skydome. It just sucks the life out of you. I go to a few games to support the league, but prefer traveling to Hamilton for games or attend university football. What astonishes me is that the Argonauts and CFL have taken 20 years to figure out that the stadium is a problem. Are they blind?


----------



## isaidso

SteveAWOL said:


> @*sportingintel*  Crowded house? More from the study of 34 leagues around the world: attendances. Germany wins. http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/sport/football/article-2835752/Bundesliga-pips-Premier-League-attendance-table-recording-second-biggest-average-global-professional-sport-NFL.html …


If this site is listing by league and country, they should at least do it properly. MLS is a US based league with US and Canadian teams; just like the NBA, NHL, and MLB. It's lazy and a slight even if it was unintentional. 

Canada would come 7th ahead of the Dutch Eredivisie and behind France's Ligue 1. Canadian MLS average attendance was 19,972 in 2014. With Toronto's BMO Field set to expand to 30,000 and Montreal encountering what I consider abnormally low attendance figures last year, the Canadian MLS average attendance could jump to about 24,000 within 2 years. Conceivably, Canada could rise to 4th on that list. Pretty good for a non-soccer country.

US MLS average attendance was 18,992 in 2014, good enough for 9th spot.


http://www.empireofsoccer.com/record-breaking-attendance-29742/


----------



## bd popeye

flashman said:


> What a willy-waving contest.
> 
> Except for the Canadian university attendance post.
> 
> Cold weather shrinkage?


LOL!!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

More willy wavin'!

And No... I don't know why the 49ers attendance is not posted nor do I know where the games in London is counted or the Bills game in Detroit is posted....

As near as I can figure the 49ers average attendance is about 68,000+ a game.


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> And No... I don't know why the 49ers attendance is not posted nor do I know where the games in London is counted or the Bills game in Detroit is posted....
> 
> As near as I can figure the 49ers average attendance is about 68,000+ a game.


It's okay to admit the problem, Popeye - You're just a slacker! Pppfffffftttttt! :|



Meanwhile, let's have a little fun with it, shall we? Assuming 68k for San Fran, your divisional comparison shakes down like this:

79,281	NFC East
71,194	AFC East
68,984	NFC South
67,577	AFC West
67,502	AFC South
64,886	AFC North
63,924	NFC North
63,849	NFC West

Multiple divisions suffer from hosting a currently struggling team (Oakland, STL...). Essentially a wash that will rotate across divisions over time. 

NFC East gets the big boost from giant venues and brands in the Cowboys, Giants and Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons. The NFC South, meanwhile, is holding very well considering no team in that group is better than 5-7!!!

The North divisions have a lot of historic brands and popular NFL cities, so why are they so low by comparison? Lower modern stadium capacities in the case of Chicago and Detroit. The NFC North will obviously see a boost once Minnesota's new dome is complete, likely ending up near the 67k range. As to the AFC North, perennially-slated-for-relocation Jacksonville is showing a higher avg. than historical power Pittsburgh and divisional leader Cincinnati, which are both averaging below capacity.


----------



## bd popeye

GunnerJacket said:


> It's okay to admit the problem, Popeye - You're just a slacker! Pppfffffftttttt! :|


Another LOL!!



GunnerJacket said:


> The North divisions have a lot of historic brands and popular NFL cities, so why are they so low by comparison? Lower modern stadium capacities in the case of Chicago and Detroit.


I've stated this previously but I feel the Bears deliberately had the capacity to Soldier Field kept low as to keep ticket prices high. With the low capacity(61,500) of Soldier Field this keeps the tickets at a premium.

In my opinion da' Bears should be playing in a 75-80,000 seat stadium.


----------



## isaidso

BC Place was full by kick off. The Calgary Stampeders warm up:









Courtesy of the Calgary Herald



GunnerJacket said:


> Just over 52,000 at the Grey Cup yesterday in Vancouver, as Calgary held on to beat Hamilton.


That last minute punt return for the go ahead Hamilton touchdown called back on a penalty? Good grief, this is going to sting for a long time. It's reminiscent of Saskatchewan losing the Grey Cup a few years back for having too many men on the field.

*Utter dejection*








Courtesy of the Calgary Herald


----------



## GunnerJacket

Attendances from the past week's round of conference championship games in college football (USA)

73,526 SEC - Atlanta - (Bama vs. Mizzou)
64,808 ACC - Charlotte - (FSU vs GT)
60,229 B1G - Indianapolis - (OSU vs no show)
45,618 PAC12 - Santa Clara - (Nike vs 'Zona) (Fri)
26,101 MWC - Fresno @ Boise
23,711 CUSA - La Tech @ Marshall
15,110 MAC - Detroit - (NIU vs BGSU) (Fri)


SEC was the only sell out, a consistent feature of the game since most schools and many alumni are within easy driving distance and in fair weather this time of year. Missouri is among the more remote schools but being an up-and-coming program they're all sorts of excited to represent, and they have a lot of alumni given the school's large size. Plus the SEC is making a point of bombarding Atlanta during their events here now that the College Football Hall of Fame resides 2 blocks from the stadium.

ACC game drew 88% capacity but still a large raucous crowd, aided by the most competitive of the major conference championship games. Some dreary weather leading up may have deterred some folks, as well as FSU fans saving money for some expensive bowl traveling if they felt confident. Tallahassee to Charlotte is about 7 hours drive, and this was the Noles third straight trip to the game.

B1G match-up in Indy didn't sell out, to my surprise. Two huge schools with some important post-season ramifications and little love for one another. Figured Buckeye fans alone could've packed the house, though maybe they, like most of us, felt their 3rd string QB wouldn't play like their Heisman candidate starter!

Meanwhile I've no answer for why the PAC12 game continues to struggle. True, Friday night is not the best option but that's part of their TV deal with Fox, but even the games played at on-campus venues have struggled to draw. Eugene to San Fran is closer than Mizzou campus to Atlanta, and both schools have a lot of alumni in the area. 45k isn't bad, but you'd think the up-and-coming football of the PAC would garner a little more love from locals and neutrals.


----------



## isaidso

Is it me or is attendance dropping significantly in NCAA football? I never thought I'd see this happen. Crowds are still huge by world standards, but what's going on?


----------



## bd popeye

isaidso said:


> Is it me or is attendance dropping significantly in NCAA football? I never thought I'd see this happen. Crowds are still huge by world standards, but what's going on?


As for the championship games...The only figure I was surprised by was the B1G. I thought for sure it would be sold out. Wisconsin and Ohio state fans are know to travel with their teams.

Plus the time of year may have something to do with the figures.

In JAN or FEB the total NCAA attendance figures will be published. I'll post them then or when I do see them.



> 60,229 B1G - Indianapolis - (OSU vs no show)


Yeish.. total embarrassment for Wisconsin. 

Fifty-nine to nuthin'.. yikes and gadzooks! The Badgers did not even get off the bus......


----------



## weava

isaidso said:


> Is it me or is attendance dropping significantly in NCAA football? I never thought I'd see this happen. Crowds are still huge by world standards, but what's going on?


Overall attendance numbers are still very strong. While a few teams with massive stadiums aren't filling them to the brim, having 96k in 102k seat stadium in Tennesee is still a huge ass crowd considering how mediocre they have been. Teams like Mizzou, LSU, and Texas A&M all expanded and filled their bigger stadiums this year. 

FBS(I-A) total attendance
2003: 35.1 million (117 teams)
2013: 38.1 million (123)

http://www.ncaa.org/championships/statistics/ncaa-football-attendance


----------



## isaidso

So attendance is where it always is for the most part? Wisconsin forfeited a game by not showing up? That's just bizarre. :nuts:


----------



## Lakeland

isaidso said:


> Wisconsin forfeited a game by not showing up? That's just bizarre. :nuts:


They showed up and laid a an egg. 

BTW-I think the Pac-12 had the best championship game format by playing at on-campus stadiums(with the team who had the better record hosting it). The atmosphere is just not the same when they play these games in NFL stadiums.


----------



## isaidso

On campus stadia is always preferable imo. Up here, the only time that doesn't occur is the occasional Vanier Cup game.


----------



## bd popeye

weava said:


> Overall attendance numbers are still very strong. While a few teams with massive stadiums aren't filling them to the brim, having 96k in 102k seat stadium in Tennesee is still a huge ass crowd considering how mediocre they have been. Teams like Mizzou, LSU, and Texas A&M all expanded and filled their bigger stadiums this year.


Very true.

The 123 schools of the NCAA FBS (1-A) division averaged...45,192 a game in 2013. A total of 782 games were played.

The new attendance stats should come out in February 2015.


----------



## will101

Lakeland said:


> BTW-I think the Pac-12 had the best championship game format by playing at on-campus stadiums(with the team who had the better record hosting it). The atmosphere is just not the same when they play these games in NFL stadiums.


No, the whole problem is with the networks making them play the game on Friday night, and having it start during the commute time. They had the same issue two years ago, even though it was played on the Stanford campus. That game only drew 31,622. Levi's did have an almost 50% increase over that figure this year.


----------



## will101

isaidso said:


> Wisconsin forfeited a game by not showing up? That's just bizarre. :nuts:


No, Wisconsin showed up. They just played a very bad game, and lost 59-0. Metaphorically they forfeited.


----------



## Lakeland

will101 said:


> No, the whole problem is with the networks making them play the game on Friday night, and having it start during the commute time. They had the same issue two years ago, even though it was played on the Stanford campus. That game only drew 31,622. Levi's did have an almost 50% increase over that figure this year.


The start time is a big problem, but Stanford is an anomaly when it comes to attendance. The games played at Autzen and Sun Devil Stadium both had great crowds. I think it's more convenient for fans(especially students) to attend on-campus games and I'm sure you would agree that the atmosphere is much better. You can't match a championship celebration with the home crowd.

If the Big Ten Championship game had been played at The Horseshoe or Camp Randall, there's no doubt it would have been sold out. In the Big 10 we pride our self on playing the game in the elements(hard-nosed football) and instead they have ended up holding the game in a closed/retractable roof stadium. They could at least play the game outside at Soldier Field.


----------



## Lakeland

Big Ten sets conference mark for total attendance


> The 14 conference members drew a combined 6,359,218 for home games this season, eclipsing the previous mark of 6,061,514 set last season when there were only 12 teams. It was also the third time in league history — and the third time in four seasons — that the Big Ten surpassed the six million mark.
> 
> The conference says the average attendance actually decreased with the addition of Maryland and Rutgers and their 50,000-seat stadiums. But those schools combined to fill their stadiums to 95 percent capacity for Big Ten home games and combined to sell out five league games.


Here's a look at the school-by-school attendance averages and how they changed from 2013...

2013:
Illinois - Memorial Stadium = 43,787 (72.2%)
Indiana - Memorial Stadium = 44,353 (83.8%)
Iowa - Kinnick Stadium = 67,125 (95.1%)
Michigan - Michigan Stadium = 111,592 (101.5%)
Michigan State - Spartan Stadium = 72,328 (96.4%)
Minnesota - TCF Bank Stadium = 47,797	(94.1%)
Nebraska - Memorial Stadium = 90,933 (104.4%)
Northwestern - Ryan Field = 39,307 (83.4%)
Ohio State - Ohio Stadium = 104,933 (102.5%)
Penn State	- Beaver Stadium = 96,587 (90.6%)
Purdue - Ross-Ade Stadium = 48,953 (78.3%)
Wisconsin - Camp Randall Stadium = 78,911 (98.2%)
In the ACC:
Maryland - Byrd Stadium = 41,278 
In the AAC:
Rutgers - High Point Solutions Stadium = 46,549 

2014:
Illinois - Memorial Stadium = 41,549 (68.5%) 
Indiana - Memorial Stadium = 41,657 (78.7%) 
Iowa - Kinnick Stadium = 67,512 (95.6%) 
Maryland - Byrd Stadium = 46,981	(90.7%) 
Michigan - Michigan Stadium = 104,909 (95.5%) 
Michigan State - Spartan Stadium = 74,681 (99.6%) 
Minnesota - TCF Bank Stadium = 47,865 (94.2%) 
Nebraska - Memorial Stadium = 91,249 (104.8%)
Northwestern - Ryan Field = 38,613 (81.9%)
Ohio State - Ohio Stadium = 106,296 (103.9%)
Penn State	- Beaver Stadium = 101,623 (95.4%)
Purdue - Ross-Ade Stadium = 35,269 (62.5%)
Rutgers - High Point Solutions Stadium = 50,632 (96.5%)
Wisconsin - Camp Randall Stadium = 79,520 (99.0%)

With the addition of more seats, Ohio State led the league in attendance and got some record crowds at The Shoe. Purdue had the biggest drop and it's probably because their team has been bad a for a while now. Indiana and Illinois are in the same category. Michigan also saw a big drop for their standards, it was a combination of a bad home schedule(Penn State was the only marquee home game) and a hugely disappointing team on the field. Penn State saw a five percent rise while they are trying to come back from the Sandusky scandal, a new big name coach also helped. Maryland and Rutgers both got a significant rise for their standards and should continue to do well. Everyone else was about the same as last year.


----------



## GunnerJacket

I'll be curious to see if UMd and Rutgers can sustain their marks when the newness wears off. Obviously major on-field success will only come at the expense of 1 of the giant programs, which is unlikely the way cfb is structured. So, will being a middling-to-lesser program in B1G be appealing enough to draw crowds?


----------



## alex_lg

*Chilean league average attendance*

*Chile First Division*
Campeonato de Apertura 2014
















*Club_____________Total attendance___Games___Average*
Universidad de Chile_______220.528_________9_______24.503
Colo Colo________________188.395_________8_______23.549
Santiago Wanderers________78.968_________9_______8.774
Universidad Católica________62.995_________9_______6.999
O'Higgins_________________54.662_________8_______6.833
Ñublense_________________35.170_________8_______4.396
San Marcos de Arica _______34.407_________9_______3.823
Dep. Iquique______________26.938_________8_______3.367
Huachipato_______________27.443_________9_______3.049
Unión Española____________21.191_________8_______2.649
Audax Italiano_____________22.605_________9_______2.512
Dep. Antofagasta__________21.961_________9_______2.440
Unión La Calera____________19.449_________8_______2.431
Cobreloa_________________18.778	_________8_______2.347
Palestino_________________20.901_________9_______2.322
Barnechea________________13.438_________8_______1.680
U. de Concepción__________12.184_________8_______1.523
Cobresal __________________7.013_________9_______779

*Total_________________887.024_______153_____5.798*


----------



## bd popeye

*MLS attendance blogspot* dated 11 NOV 2014. Interesting.


----------



## GunnerJacket

alex_lg said:


> *Chile First Division*
> Campeonato de Apertura 2014


Given the nation's size and geography that's quite good. Obviously you're only going to get a handful of large metropolitan areas in Chile, like many smaller nations, so at least they have an abundance of clubs with comparable support throughout the league.


----------



## will101

alex_lg said:


> *Chile First Division*
> Campeonato de Apertura 2014
> 
> *Club_____________Total attendance___Games___Average*
> Universidad de Chile_______220.528_________9_______24.503
> Colo Colo________________188.395_________8_______23.549
> Santiago Wanderers________78.968_________9_______8.774
> Universidad Católica________62.995_________9_______6.999
> O'Higgins_________________54.662_________8_______6.833
> Ñublense_________________35.170_________8_______4.396
> San Marcos de Arica _______34.407_________9_______3.823
> Dep. Iquique______________26.938_________8_______3.367
> Huachipato_______________27.443_________9_______3.049
> Unión Española____________21.191_________8_______2.649
> Audax Italiano_____________22.605_________9_______2.512
> Dep. Antofagasta__________21.961_________9_______2.440
> Unión La Calera____________19.449_________8_______2.431
> Cobreloa_________________18.778	_________8_______2.347
> Palestino_________________20.901_________9_______2.322
> Barnechea________________13.438_________8_______1.680
> U. de Concepción__________12.184_________8_______1.523
> Cobresal __________________7.013_________9_______779
> 
> *Total_________________887.024_______153_____5.798*


I got curious about Cobresal, so I looked them up here. They play in a 20,000 seat stadium, which is strange, because the town they play in (El Salvador, in the Atacama desert) only has 7,000 people. Green Bay and Saskatchewan have nothing on these guys.


----------



## alex_lg

^^ Indeed, it is. This stadium was built in 1980 by the Chilean state copper company Codelco; then in 1985 the stadium was expanded to 20,000 because Cobresal qualified for the Copa Libertadores 1986 (this is the minimum capacity required for Stadiums in this tournament). The stadium is located in the town of El Salvador, a mining camp built by Codelco in the Atacama Desert. Currently has about 5,000 inhabitants.









Aerial view of El Salvador and the Estadio El Cobre, home of Cobresal, in the Atacama Desert, Chile.​
Because the stadium capacity quadruples the population of the village of El Salvador is popularly known as "the world's largest stadium "








Estadio El Cobre (source)

The Stadium under snow desert:


----------



## bd popeye

_Time to blow the dust off this thread._

I'm going to post attendance for selected FBS bowl games played in December..

January will be posted next.

Poinsettia Bowl...Navy 17 Vs San Diego State 16
Qualcomm Stadium, San Diego, California Attendance: 33,077

Military Bowl Cincinnati 17 Vs Virginia Tech 33
Jack Stephens Field at Navy-Marine Corps Memorial Stadium, Annapolis, Maryland Attendance: 34,277

Sun Bowl Arizona State 36 Vs Duke 31
Sun Bowl, El Paso, Texas Attendance: 47,809

Pinstripe Bowl Boston College 30 Vs Penn State 31
Yankee Stadium, Bronx, New York Attendance: 49,012

Liberty Bowl Texas A&M 45 Vs West Virginia 37
Liberty Bowl Memorial, Memphis, Tennessee Attendance: 51,282

Holiday Bowl Nebraska 42 Vs Southern California 45
Qualcomm Stadium, San Diego, California Attendance: 55,789

Orange Bowl Mississippi St. 34 Vs Georgia Tech 49
Sun Life Stadium, Miami Gardens, Florida Attendance: 58,211

Music City Bowl Notre Dame 31 Vs LSU 28
LP Field, Nashville, Tennessee Attendance: 60,419

Peach Bowl Ole Miss 3 Vs TCU 42
Georgia Dome, Atlanta, Georgia Attendance: 65,706

Fiesta Bowl Boise State 38 Vs Arizona 30
University of Phoenix Stadium, Glendale, Arizona Attendance: 66,896

Texas Bowl Arkansas 31 Vs Texas 7
NRG Stadium, Houston, Texas Attendance: 71,115


----------



## bd popeye

Selected FBS bowl games for January..

Outback Bowl Auburn 31 Vs Wisconsin 34
Raymond James Stadium, Tampa, Florida Attendance: 44,023

Florida Citrus Bowl Missouri 33 Vs Minnesota 17
Florida Citrus Bowl, Orlando, Florida Attendance: 48,624

Cotton Bowl Michigan State 42 Vs Baylor 41
AT&T Stadium, Arlington, Texas Attendance: 71,464

Sugar Bowl Ohio State 42 Vs Alabama 35
Mercedes-Benz Superdome, New Orleans, Louisiana Attendance: 74,682

Rose Bowl Florida State 20 Vs Oregon 59
Rose Bowl, Pasadena, California Attendance: 91,322

And now the Championship game..:banana::cheers:

CFB Championship *THE* Ohio State University 42 Vs Oregon 20
AT&T Stadium, Arlington, Texas Attendance: 85,689

:dance:


----------



## GunnerJacket

I imagine someone is a happy camper. Did you get to attend either of the post-season biggies, popeye?


----------



## weava

January 10, 2015
FCS Championship: North Dakota St 29 vs Illinois State 27
Toyota Stadium, Frisco, TX: ATTENDANCE: 20,918


----------



## bd popeye

GunnerJacket said:


> I imagine someone is a happy camper. Did you get to attend either of the post-season biggies, popeye?


Oh no.. I'm not  a party person. I'm just happy they won..real happy.


----------



## BoulderGrad

weava said:


> January 10, 2015
> FCS Championship: North Dakota St 29 vs Illinois State 27
> Toyota Stadium, Frisco, TX: ATTENDANCE: 20,918


Impressive considering neither of those schools is anywhere near Dallas. That's a sellout for Toyota Stadium, yes?


----------



## vadin

BoulderGrad said:


> Impressive considering neither of those schools is anywhere near Dallas. That's a sellout for Toyota Stadium, yes?


North Dakota State fans bought 15,000 of those tickets. They have better fan following than many FBS schools. It also helps that they've been so dominant(4th straight national championship). Their fan support is a big reason why North Dakota State has hosted an ESPN College GameDay in each of the last two seasons.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Given that the 6 Nations is starting tonight, it's maybe a good time to reflect on this season's rugby union attendances. Here are all the TOP 14 attendances so far:










http://www.lnr.fr/statistiques-generales.html#top14

On the vertical colums you have each club in alphabetical order and their attendance each matchday.

They didn't calculate the averages per club so here they are, rounded down (in the same order):

Bayonne: 13543

Bordeaux: 21354

Brive: 11498

Castres: 8503

Clermont: 16921

Grenoble: 13846

La Rochelle: 14509

Lyon: 9273

Montpellier: 12110

Oyonnax: 8763

Stade Francais (Paris): 12270

Racing Metro (Colombes, Paris): 7026

Toulon: 14657

Toulouse: 16269


----------



## alexandru.mircea

ProD2 (second division)










http://www.lnr.fr/statistiques-generales.html#prod2

Agen: 6114

Albi 4496

Aurillac: 3207

Béziers: 5937

Biarritz: 6100

Bourgoin: 5446

Carcassonne: 3320

Colomiers: 3597

Dax: 3166

Massy: 1764

Mont-de-Marsan: 4614

Montauban: 6177

Narbonne: 4746

Pau: 8506

Perpignan: 10687

Tarbes: 3238


----------



## bd popeye

_Part one_

_NCAA FBS football attendance for 2014. Attendance was down overall by 4% _

*NCAA FBS attendance drops by 4%*



> Football Bowl Subdivision crowds for home games averaged 43,483 fans per game, down 4 percent from 2013 and the lowest since 42,631 in 2000, according to a CBSSports.com analysis of NCAA attendance data. This marked the sixth straight season crowds were below 46,000 since they peaked at 46,456 in 2008.


However..



> The good news: 72 percent of the top 25 attendance leaders experienced increases or remained the same (all of the top 25 were from Power Five conferences or Notre Dame). The bad news: Only 48 percent of the remaining Power Five schools maintained or increased their crowd average, and many schools in smaller conferences continued to decline.
> 
> Ohio State, which averaged 106,296 fans, ended Michigan's 16-year run atop the attendance leaders. Michigan dropped to third at 104,909 behind No. 2 Texas A&M (105,123).
> 
> The biggest increases among Power Five schools: Texas A&M (21 percent), Maryland (14 percent), LSU (11 percent), Mississippi State (10 percent), Rutgers (9 percent), Florida State (9 percent) and UCLA (nine percent). Texas A&M, LSU and Mississippi State expanded their stadiums this season. Maryland and Rutgers were new Big Ten members.


and more not so good news..



> The biggest decreases in the Power Five: Purdue (28 percent), Pittsburgh (17 percent), Virginia (15 percent), Kansas (10 percent), Arizona State (9 percent) and Oklahoma State (8 percent).


----------



## bd popeye

_Part 2.

Teams with an over 50,000 a game average_


----------



## bd popeye

_Part 3.

Teams with an average from 49,999 to 25,000_


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> _Part 3.
> 
> Teams with an average from 49,999 to 25,000_


You did this one just for me, didn't ya?! C'mon, admit it you softy! 




:cheers:



> Part one
> 
> NCAA FBS football attendance for 2014. Attendance was down overall by 4%
> 
> NCAA FBS attendance drops by 4%


It's to be expected. For now there's the novelty for several schools as the latest realignments kick in, but in time that will wear off and we'll be back to the norm: The upper caste of programs will prosper and draw and the rest will settle in knowing the system is quite rigged. Sure, there will be a few anomalies now and again but it's tougher and tougher to break into the top tier without some undue major investment.


----------



## bd popeye

GunnerJacket said:


> You did this one just for me, didn't ya?! C'mon, admit it you softy! :cheers:


Yep! And I was just gong to post attendance above 50,000 a game but when I saw GT just missed the cut.. well..you know!



GunnerJacket said:


> It's to be expected. For now there's the novelty for several schools as the latest realignments kick in, but in time that will wear off and we'll be back to the norm: The upper caste of programs will prosper and draw and the rest will settle in knowing the system is quite rigged. Sure, there will be a few anomalies now and again but it's tougher and tougher to break into the top tier without some undue major investment.


Truth^^ 

Texas will be above 100,000 a game next season..


----------



## Lakeland

bd popeye said:


> _Part 2.
> 
> Teams with an over 50,000 a game average_


-6% :bash:

Thankfully, people who were responsible for this mess are all gone, from athletic director to head coach. Now that we got Harbaugh, Michigan will be back on top next year.


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> _Part one_
> 
> _NCAA FBS football attendance for 2014. Attendance was down overall by 4% _
> 
> *NCAA FBS attendance drops by 4%*


CBS sports lists the overall average for FBS as 42,631, but that includes neutral site games and is weighted by the number of home games are played, meaning it's boosted by the fact larger programs usually host more home games. If you did a straight average of the average attendance for home games played the figure is 42,256. Not much difference but still interesting.

Here's how that breaks down per conference. 

*Conf._Avg.___Median*
SEC__78,704__83,608
B1G__66,311__59,072
BXII__58,006__53,734
PAC__52,705__49,286
ACC__49,748__50,519

So basically half of the PAC, BXII and ACC have averages under the 51,000-ish mark, illustrating that the difference makers in those averages lie at the extremes. The BXII has no real drags (only KU below 44k) at the bottom versus the ACC with 6 and PAC at 3 all below that mark. The PAC also has no giants, with only UCLA surpassing the 76k mark.

Interesting to compare the B1G and SEC, as well, this way. B1G having a significantly lower median than average indicates the comparably lagging appeal of the bottom half of the conference. (Shocker, I know)

Later I'll have to examine the relationships between attendance figures and avg. # of home games.


----------



## isaidso

Good job popeye!

So 43 (NCAA) + 32 (NFL) = 75 football teams in the US averaging more than 50,000/game.


----------



## Guest

MLS average after 1 round (10 games): *25,837*.


----------



## Guest

GunnerJacket said:


> Dear. God. No. The absolute last thing European soccer needs is something that entrenches in place the caste system we have now. Madrid and company should be getting less money, not more.
> 
> 
> 
> A thousand times no.
> 
> 
> 
> H### naw.


I just lost a very long response to your comment because I was writing it on a darned tablet which decided to freak out at an inopportune time. It's filled with conspiracy theories involving the big clubs, UEFA and the European Club Association (ECA). 

I'ma hit the sack now, so I'll redo it when I get up. It'll be a hoot, and I'm interested in what your thoughts are.


----------



## GunnerJacket

He he! I hate it when that happens!

Why don't you PM me so we don't derail the thread. Looking forward to it.


----------



## Gavrosh

5portsF4n said:


> I agree with you, I don't think the idea is dying at all. There doesn't seem to be any suggestion that promotion and relegation is going away in the countries it's used in now.
> 
> At the same time, I'm hopeful that it does change. I don't think it will in the next 20 years, but beyond that I'd like to see it happen. Why am I hopeful?
> 
> I'm hopeful because I like the idea, even if it's realistically not possible, that every club can build a team to compete for a championship. I like following Euro leagues, though there is a hierarchical order to things. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, or that people dislike the way it is, but it's just what I prefer .


I assume you are unaware that there is currently a movement away from the top tiers of football, certainly in the UK, for the very reason that the game has become too commercial for many people. Those of us that can remember what it was like before the Premier League came along with all its money will know that it was so much better then. Of course it was so much more violent too, and that taps into another relevant point concerning having a number of leagues versus a closed shop system. A football club is not a franchise, it is essentially the embodiment of the area its in. Therefore the tribalism the surrounds football clubs is significantly greater than you'll find for any NFL team, for example. It would be absolutely abhorrent for the vast majority of people here in the UK if teams from lower leagues, which are supported just as if not more passionately than the bigger clubs, had their right of doing better for themselves taken away. It would be the end of football as far as many would be concerned.


----------



## Boss607

flierfy said:


> Quite the contrary. Closed shop leagues form a cartel which needs to be explicitly excluded from anti-trust legislation. Such legislation actually contradicts the nature of competitive economies and it will certainly not be introduced in Europe. And I can even imagine that the USA and other countries will change its legislation to open up competition.


Promotion and relegation has many fallacies. 

How many clubs could, in theory, have won the Spanish first division since there's been a first division? Hundreds? Thousands? 

How many have actually won the Spanish first division? 9. Only 6 have won it more than once. 

I can't post pictures yet or I'd show you the laughable state of La Liga's TV distribution and wage bills. 

Oh boy, I bet anyone can win la liga this year! Promotion and relegation makes an absolute mockery, at least in the top divisions, out of the term "competition". 

It financially destabilizes the smaller clubs that actually experience it. Meanwhile, the big boys at the top hoard all the cash and are better able to financially plan because let's face it, to them, promotion and relegation does not exist. That's a huge advantage. 

You see this across all the promotion/relegation first division leagues. You have 2, 3, 4, maybe even 5 clubs that are really in the first division and everyone else is just there to round out the numbers. 

No thanks.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^the realities that you are describing have nothing to do with pro/rel. Pro/rel has been in place forever and haven't generated these recent dynamics because there's no direct connection to them. The sources of this situation lie in completely other places.


----------



## Boss607

alexandru.mircea said:


> ^the realities that you are describing have nothing to do with pro/rel. Pro/rel has been in place forever and haven't generated these recent dynamics because there's no direct connection to them. The sources of this situation lie in completely other places.


 I'm sure you're thinking "Oh they can just put a salary cap on if they want to be more competitive" but with promotion and relegation that's not really realistic. The big clubs won't agree with it. 

Furthermore, the big clubs are essentially the meal tickets for the small clubs as the big clubs drive TV deals. Therefore, its not really even beneficial to the little clubs for the big clubs to be relegated. 

So every season is mostly like the last unless an oil sheikh comes in and backs a club with all of its nation's oil reserves....


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Well if there's one recommendation I can make you, it's to stop presuming you know what others think. Salary cap would be the last thing in my mind, as non-Americans just don't necessarily think in the American set of mind (surprise surprise). Even the general idea (to which American sports set-ups strive to) of perfect equality between participants is very alien to nature of European football (and not only) and to the fans' mentalities. Try process the idea that some like it more that the club sizes DO reflect the size and nature of the cities within a certain country, to a good extent. Sure, we'd rather this doesn't get inbalaced beyond any notion of competitiveness, but on the other side if you took away the disparity between my town's size to that of the capital city (1 to 24 or so) and their clubs, you would take all the good memories my team has given me (of which there have been quite a few), and you'd instantly make me fall out of ove with the game.
As a sidenote, here's some homework for you: why has the Premier League, with its most equitable TV money share, had historically the least permeable top in the top 5 major European leagues? Things are not as simple and straightforward as they may seem to you.


----------



## Boss607

alexandru.mircea said:


> Well if there's one recommendation I can make you, it's to stop presuming you know what others think. Salary cap would be the last thing in my mind, as non-Americans just don't necessarily think in the American set of mind (surprise surprise). *Even the general idea (to which American sports set-ups strive to) of perfect equality between participants is very alien to nature of European football* (and not only) and to the fans' mentalities. Try process the idea that some like it more that the club sizes DO reflect the size and nature of the cities within a certain country, to a good extent. Sure, we'd rather this doesn't get inbalaced beyond any notion of competitiveness, but on the other side if you took away the disparity between my town's size to that of the capital city (1 to 24 or so) and their clubs, you would take all the good memories my team has given me (of which there have been quite a few), and you'd instantly make me fall out of ove with the game.
> As a sidenote, here's some homework for you: why has the Premier League, with its most equitable TV money share, had historically the least permeable top in the top 5 major European leagues? Things are not as simple and straightforward as they may seem to you.


I already told you why England's top 5 is so dominant, most of the other clubs have been financially destabilized by relegation or even the threat of relegation. 

That's not true. We don't strive for perfect equality. We strive to make it worthwhile to have the clubs in the league have a purpose in the league, to be truly competitive in the league. Meaning they can actually win the league -- at some point. Our leagues basically have a spectrum of your biggest teams, your Man Uniteds, Arsenals, ect (or for us LA Lakers, NY Yankees, Dallas Cowboys) to maybe Tottenham, Southampton or Newcastle (KC Royals, Cleveland Browns, OKC Thunder) Though, I don't know if that's even a fair comparison because our Tottenhams, Southamptons, and Newcastle's equivalents can actually win the title with smart management. So even though those clubs are all at the top end, there's enough separation there that you definitely feel like there's upsets. 

I come from a smaller city and I have no problem that my local teams can never play in the top leagues. We don't belong there. I've had many smaller club fans, in Europe, say they don't like being in the top league. They find it pointless because they know damn well they're not competitive there.

The only thing I'd change in American sports is I'd add an FA Cup-style tournament to basketball and baseball. Small clubs playing large clubs in a tournament makes sense. In a league, not really.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Note to mods: I don't mind the aside discussion but if you feel the need I suggest creating a new thread simply for "Soccer/Football Economics and Pro/Rel talk."



Boss607 said:


> Promotion and relegation has many fallacies.


There's nary a perfect model that will work, let alone one that will work for every continent and/or nation. The US doesn't have pro/rel but then again other nations have generations of history in the game, tons of clubs and don't have the scale of competition from other sports. I say that for now at least there's no need to presume one size can fit all. 



> It financially destabilizes the smaller clubs that actually experience it.


That's not a feature of pro/rel as much as it is one of shared revenue distribution. There's nothing stopping the national associations from distributing revenues more deeply across their memberships other than placating to the greed of the top clubs. To wit:


> Meanwhile, the big boys at the top hoard all the cash and are better able to financially plan because let's face it, to them, promotion and relegation does not exist. That's a huge advantage.


The wealthier a person, household or business, the more disposable revenue that entity has which can be used to generate more wealth. As the likes of Madrid and Munich become established entities with more and larger sources of income, they can use those funds to further promote their brand and buy better talent to keep them on top, creating a near closed loop in their favor. In the Premiership it took more than $2 Billion in outside investment to displace one such entity and (try) to enable that loop for 2 new brands.

Biggest way to at least turn the tide, without necessitating a salary cap? Cut the payouts from UEFA and make all league distributions perfectly even. Pay the UEFA participants a stipend of about $1M per match to cover expenses and insurance then give the rest to the leagues for distribution. Teams will still have their incentives to win because of the gate receipts and sponsorship deals that come with fame and glory, but at least the biggest teams will no longer be receiving bonus stipends. 

In my opinion all matches are part of competitions, and as such the organizer of the competition should receive the revenues (not the teams directly) and then those media monies should be paid out evenly. After all, the likes of ManU and Milan suddenly lose their luster without trophies to win or opponents to play. 



alexandru.mircea said:


> As a sidenote, here's some homework for you: why has the Premier League, with its most equitable TV money share, had historically the least permeable top in the top 5 major European leagues? Things are not as simple and straightforward as they may seem to you.


That ManU commanded the Premiership for so long came due to the start of globalization (enabling very few clubs to command foreign dollars) and a very select crop of talents on and off the pitch. It also came at the start of this caste-enabling structure when people were ill-informed to know what was happening. Circumstances decidedly different from what we see in, say, Spain or Scotland. 

. . . .

The biggest issue in trying to establish a closed league in Europe (or in any European nation) today, is determining fairly who's in and who's out. Do Man City and Chelsea get to be "In" because they're now wealthy while teams like Tottenham and Newcastle, with arguably comparable fan bases and stronger pedigrees, are left "out?" Would teams like Villareal and Fiorentina, which have made noise in UEFA in the past, be included or would they be left behind? Would Middlesbrough and Leeds be in the English top flight due to their size or would Stoke remain?

I would hate to think a Euro Super League could arbitrarily deign which teams get to represent England, Italy, etc. Let alone suggesting that a set of 16-20 teams are THE permanent elite of the continent, forever and ever, amen! Would long-time Lazio fans have to watch Roma as their only connection to this league, or does Italy get 5+ teams in the mix? What if there's a team in the wings poised to make the next big leap (Napoli? Spurs? Feyenoord?), only to be left behind because of the time of the decision?

Much like college sports in the US, where there are so many established teams and communities, UEFA needs a system that allows wider representation and at least an opportunity for teams to participate and win. And there are ways within the existing system to improve competitiveness without needing a nuclear solution. 

My thoughts, anyway.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

Boss607 said:


> I already told you why England's top 5 is so dominant, most of the other clubs have been financially destabilized by relegation or even the threat of relegation.


You told us _why you think_ the top five are so dominant, which isn't the same as why they are.

Why is it that before the premier league, there was no such thing as a big 4 or big 5? 

Why is it that you can predict the top 4 of the premier league each year with a very high degree of confidence, but couldn't in the past?

Why is it that Arsenal are in this big 5, but spurs aren't, even though they were equal before the premier league started? Spurs haven't been relegated, nor been threatened with relegation, since then. When did Everton go down?



You also make the mistake of thinking the object of pro/rel was to create a league where many teams had a chance of winning. That was never the objective. It's always been about regulating a large number of teams into one interlocking competition.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Boss607 said:


> I already told you why England's top 5 is so dominant, most of the other clubs have been financially destabilized by relegation or even the threat of relegation.


This is not true, strong hyrarchies in English football were already in place since long before money mattered in football like they do today. What happened was that certain clubs that were on the up in the early 90s (when the money started pouring in and the system was reworked in a pro-business way)vtook advantage of the context and consolidated themselves in a position so strong that it was then reachable only by financial doping. BTW English football is the one where relegation is the least de-stabilyzing, because of the massive "parachute" payments. If anything, the question marks are exactly on this rewarding of relegation.



Boss607 said:


> That's not true. We don't strive for perfect equality. We strive to make it worthwhile to have the clubs in the league have a purpose in the league, to be truly competitive in the league. Meaning they can actually win the league -- at some point.


So we're in agreement.



Boss607 said:


> Our leagues basically have a spectrum of your biggest teams, your Man Uniteds, Arsenals, ect (or for us LA Lakers, NY Yankees, Dallas Cowboys) to maybe Tottenham, Southampton or Newcastle (KC Royals, Cleveland Browns, OKC Thunder) Though, I don't know if that's even a fair comparison because our Tottenhams, Southamptons, and Newcastle's equivalents can actually win the title with smart management. So even though those clubs are all at the top end, there's enough separation there that you definitely feel like there's upsets.


But that's because in the US you have enough large cities so that the disparities never get as large as in European leagues. In Europe, you can't stop the likes of Wigan, Bastia, Villareal etc joining the top divisions because there aren't enough major cities (except Germany) to keep the top division places occupied. Even if you stop pro/rel and slash the top division size to 16 teams, you'll still get small cities in them - club size disparity is to a large extent inherent due to our urban landscape. We need to keep those disparities in a meaningful competitive balance like it was before, say, the turn of the century, not to strive to eradicate it as that would be unrealistic and untrue to the spirit of European club sports.



Boss607 said:


> I come from a smaller city and I have no problem that my local teams can never play in the top leagues. We don't belong there.


I'm perfectly fine with that as long as you also accept that the opposite is also valid around here. The vast majority of local fans in Europe are motivated to be fans and love the game exactly because they are a part of it. (Overseas "fans" are a different kettle of fish.) 



Boss607 said:


> I've had many smaller club fans, in Europe, say they don't like being in the top league. They find it pointless because they know damn well they're not competitive there.


There are a number of such misguided fans (who's really ONLY into it with the purpose of winning competitions? I like to go to the stadium to see my team win matches on a match by match basis, what that means at the end of the season is a bonus), especially in England, but as long as we fairly acknowledge their existence we also need not ignore the new life that has been breathen in the lower levels of English football by cup competitions (just ask fans of Swansea, Wigan, Birmingham, Bradford, Hull, Sunderland, Cardiff etc.)

This all is not to say that there aren't growing disparities in European football and that they don't need urgently addressed, the problem is just that you need to stop shoving dismissively the American model down our throats like it would be anything we'd ever warm up to, in what football is concerned. Just like I feel for our American posters whenever obnoxious eurosnobs post in their threads (oh, you still don't have relegation, why? why don't your stadium have roofs etc), but the opposite needs respected too. 

BTW if you want to know what European football fans think about the idea of same clubs playing each other over and over again like in a closed league, follow Champions League draw hashtags for ties such as Barcelona - PSG, Atletico - Real, Bayern - Arsenal, Barcelona - Man City etc. get announced. That's also a reason why the Euro Superleague, talked about since the mid '90s, hasn't yet happened and will probably not happen in the foreseeable future either. It's ******* boring!


----------



## alexandru.mircea

GunnerJacket said:


> My thoughts, anyway.


Great post, that.


----------



## GunnerJacket

I realize these weren't directed at me, but I have possible answers!


Rev Stickleback said:


> Why is it that before the premier league, there was no such thing as a big 4 or big 5?
> 
> Why is it that you can predict the top 4 of the premier league each year with a very high degree of confidence, but couldn't in the past?


Because the concept of a Big 4 didn't exist until the Champions League evolved to feature high payouts and up to 4 spots for major leagues. Just as it's easier to stay in the top flight once you've been there for a year or two and can begin really using the monies received from that, the same can be said for continual CL experience. CL presence = Big UEFA payments + International exposure = Huge sponsorship deals.



> Why is it that Arsenal are in this big 5, but spurs aren't, even though they were equal before the premier league started? Spurs haven't been relegated, nor been threatened with relegation, since then.


Because after Liverpool and ManU Arsenal have the next most expansive and celebrated pedigree in terms of English championships and FA cups?! By far. Tottenham has a comparable domestic fan base and are certainly among England's biggest clubs, fully capable of making that next step, but saying they were/are equal is disingenuous. I feel, anyway.



> You also make the mistake of thinking the object of pro/rel was to create a league where many teams had a chance of winning. That was never the objective. It's always been about regulating a large number of teams into one interlocking competition.


Maybe not to win it all but pro/rel certainly resolves the nature of having to assign teams to Division 1, Division 2, and so on. It's a non-stop fight amongst the clubs themselves to showcase who deserves to be where.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

GunnerJacket said:


> Because after Liverpool and ManU Arsenal have the next most expansive and celebrated pedigree in terms of English championships and FA cups?! By far. Tottenham has a comparable domestic fan base and are certainly among England's biggest clubs, fully capable of making that next step, *but saying they were/are equal is disingenuous.* I feel, anyway..


That's true. For much of the 80s they were actually a richer club than Arsenal. 

Arsenal and Man Utd just came good at exactly the right time, while Liverpool (with 0 PL titles) and Spurs chose exactly the wrong time to dip.

The game is ridiculous here, with everything set up to give the rich clubs even more money, keeping them successful, which gives them more exposure and creates more fans for them.

We used to laugh at leagues where the same teams were up at the top every year. Before the premier league Liverpool, Man Utd and Arsenal had only all finished in the top four once ever. It's happened, I believe, thirteen times since.

People who have only got into the game in the premier league era just assume it's always been like now, and it's not remotely true.

This season will probably see Arsenal's 20th top 4 finish since the premier league began.

Before then they only had 21 top 4 finishes since joining the league in 1894.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

Boss607 said:


> You see this across all the promotion/relegation first division leagues. You have 2, 3, 4, maybe even 5 clubs that are really in the first division and everyone else is just there to round out the numbers.


Image a league (any sport) based in California which had 20 clubs from different cities - maybe two or three in the bigger cities.

Do you really think that if there were no parity measures, the teams from San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego etc, who'd have larger fan bases, wouldn't do better (in terms of winning games and attracting fans/sponsorship etc) than teams from smaller cities?


----------



## Guest

Gavrosh said:


> I assume you are unaware that there is currently a movement away from the top tiers of football, certainly in the UK, for the very reason that the game has become too commercial for many people...... It would be the end of football as far as many would be concerned.


I've read and heard about such disillusionment for many years, but as yet I'm not seeing it reflected in the popularity of the sport. Contrarily it appears more popular than ever. 



GunnerJacket said:


> Why don't you PM me so we don't derail the thread.


I'll post below, interested to see what the Europeans think of it too. 



GunnerJacket said:


> Note to mods: I don't mind the aside discussion but if you feel the need I suggest creating a new thread simply for "Soccer/Football Economics and Pro/Rel talk."


That's a very good idea. Even a general Sports Economics thread. Would that fly on the stadiums sub-forum?

On to rewriting my post:

I'm of the belief that European soccer has undergone a furtive "corporate" takeover in the last ten years, and they have taken some cues from the political world in achieving this to ensure complicity among the rest of Europe. 

I believe that UEFA, in its present form, is nothing more than a vehicle for the interests of the elite clubs, and I believe this has been solidified in the past 7 years, ever since the creation of the European Club Association (ECA). 

The European Club Association, for those that may not know, is a body that now represents something like 300 of the top European clubs. What's key to remember here is that prior to the ECA, the only such body that people heard of was the G14 - the group of 14 elite clubs which always seemed to be agitating closer towards a closed European Super League. 

The elite clubs have always used the threat of a breakaway league - NOT sanctioned by UEFA - as a key tool in shaping European soccer, and fulfilling their interests. UEFA, with every right to be concerned, couldn't contemplate any kind of future without competitions that included the best in Europe. If ever such a league was created, UEFA's relevance would plummet. 

On the one hand, you have a group of clubs that have self-interests, and on the other you have an organization that seeks survival. Between the two, you have the Champions League - UEFA's flagship competition, and also a competition with an establish global brand that the clubs are keen to continue on with. Neither the clubs nor UEFA wish to depart from this status quo. It works for both of them. 

So here are those conspiracy theories I promised: I posit that deep in the underground of UEFA's lair, the elite clubs gave them an ultimatum. That ultimatum was the same as all the previous ones: grant the elite clubs more power and influence over the game, and we will continue to sign the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with UEFA. 

The clubs came up with a brilliant plan, that effectively amounted to a corporate takeover of UEFA. They laid out their plans:

- Gone is the much maligned G14. In their place (founded in 2008) was the euphemistically named European Club Association. Unlike the G14, it's whole shtick was to be a body representing all of Europe's clubs; an inclusive entity that supposedly eschewed everything the G14 was about. 

- On the contrary, the ECA would cleverly keep most of Europe's club under its control, which now amounts to 300 clubs, WHILE working towards bettering the fortunes of the elite clubs. This would enforce their dominance of not only UEFA, but of any other clubs outside the cabal of the richest ones. 

What evidence do we have this took place? We have, for now, one major piece of evidence, and it is called Financial Fair Play. To be sure, FFP is a set of rules drawn up in the boardrooms of the richest clubs. This is not a UEFA-led initiative, but they are acting as the intermediaries. 

The first clue is how FFP was presented to the public in the years it was being rolled out, beginning early this decade. It was proposed a set of laws to ensure the health of the clubs and the game. It was worded in a way as to suggest that clubs should live within their means so that they don't make losses and go bust. 

All sounds fair, and few objected to such a noble exercise; except it presented a warped reality of European soccer. 

Most of the debt accumulated in Europe is done at the highest level. Those large debts they keep bringing up are mostly the result of a handful of extremely rich clubs. It was the equivalent of big business telling small households they should emit fewer carbons into the atmosphere. 

These clubs are in no danger of bankruptcy, and never have been. There have been no clubs of any note that have gone into liquidation. 

FFP, for all intents and purposes, was a STRICTLY ANTI-COMPETITION measure, designed to prevent entrants into the elite of European soccer. Before it was fully enacted, Manchester City and Paris St Germain scraped through to become part of the elite. It could be argued that they were the catalysts for such a proposal by the top clubs. 

Once the elite clubs had formulated their plans for control the marketplace, they got UEFA to start working on spinning the plan to make it look like something that benefited the whole sport. What it is doing, and going to do, instead is to entrench the already entrenched elite clubs, and prevent competition through heavy investment, often at great losses. 

A club with $100 million in revenues will never compete with a club with $500 million in revenues. The only way to do is to heavily subsidize the club through severe loss making. What they have now is an environment where this isn't possible. 

There are people here saying that Europe would never enact a closed competition. What we are seeing now is the very first steps of such a thing. 

But the clubs know that it is much better practice to make incremental changes, often through plans made to look like they benefit everyone. They may never seek to create a fully closed European league, but by the time they finish, it will be difficult to distinguish between a closed league and a illusory open system. Any criticism of existing policy is directed at UEFA, and not the ECA or its elite clubs. It's a perfect marriage, and evokes similar relationships in other industries that have front organizations to take the brunt of public criticism. 

The second development that indicates there has been a takeover is the new European Nation's League. Gone are most of the international friendly dates - a bane of clubs' existence - and there is also a reduction in the number of international dates overall. International dates are now grouped over the space of a week, instead of being dispersed across the entire year. All these developments in the international scene seem solely designed for the benefit of the clubs. 

Yet we still hear some club presidents call for European Super Leagues, so why is that? This is just more public posturing to ensure that every MoU signed in 4-5 year intervals tilts the favor further into the ECA's (elite clubs') favor. What's more rogue clubs can be kept in check because most of the big clubs are now part of the ECA. 

UEFA has no choice but to go along with this. They are tethered to the ECA, and are dependent on its approval - it's essentially a corporatocracy.

What I think will happen in the next ten years, that would confirm my suspicions:

- A move to expand the number of games being played in the Champions League

- An eventual push to have permanent members in the Champions League, regardless of league position (this one is probably 10+ years away)

- More Champions League spots given to the bigger nations 

- More money being distributed to clubs by both UEFA and FIFA (such as injury compensation in FIFA sanctioned tournaments)

Let me make it perfectly clear that I don't feel the clubs actually want a Super League. They also don't want to cut themselves off from national leagues. Why would Manchester United relinquish its advantage from playing in the BPL, and the hundreds of millions it derives from that competition every season, to jeopardize it and go into some Super League? They wouldn't. 

What they would do is work to ensure that the European competition serves their interests to its best ability. The other elite clubs are in agreement here.


----------



## Gavrosh

No elite clubs went into liquidation eh? What about Leeds? Or was that before your time? 

There are good elements within FFP, not just in terms of debt but also in terms of trying to stop billionaire owners pumping up their clubs, but as the Man City Sponsorship deals with Emirates show, there are plenty of ways around it.

Were it not for these owners using football clubs as their vehicles for self promotion, and were it not for European competitions warping the game by creating domestic leagues within leagues, then the premier league would be pretty fairly balanced. The share of revenues makes it a sort of hybrid of NFL and something like La Liga, which is horribly skewed toward Barcelona and Real Madrid.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

If you look at the elite of European football at the time where the ideas of sustainable spending emerged (around the turn of the decade), you'll have to think that certain major club bosses were extraordinarily dumb to promote a policy that will disable their own clubs too. I'm thinking in particular of clubs such as Milan, Inter or Lyon. Silvio is a bit mad, but Aulas or Morratti are very smart men, in particular the former. If I were to build up a conspiracy theory I'd rather look for a personal connection rather than a systemic based scenario.


----------



## lwa

Boss607 said:


> Promotion and relegation has many fallacies.
> 
> How many clubs could, in theory, have won the Spanish first division since there's been a first division? Hundreds? Thousands?
> 
> How many have actually won the Spanish first division? 9. Only 6 have won it more than once.
> 
> I can't post pictures yet or I'd show you the laughable state of La Liga's TV distribution and wage bills.
> 
> Oh boy, I bet anyone can win la liga this year! Promotion and relegation makes an absolute mockery, at least in the top divisions, out of the term "competition".
> 
> It financially destabilizes the smaller clubs that actually experience it. Meanwhile, the big boys at the top hoard all the cash and are better able to financially plan because let's face it, to them, promotion and relegation does not exist. That's a huge advantage.
> 
> *You see this across all the promotion/relegation first division leagues. You have 2, 3, 4, maybe even 5 clubs that are really in the first division and everyone else is just there to round out the numbers. *
> 
> No thanks.


So how come when Montpellier won their first Ligue 1 title a couple of years ago, they became the 10th team to win it in 19 years? And that despite Lyon winning 7 in a row in that period.

But then the example of France doesn't suit your agenda; and Spain does...




Anyway, back on topic, final figures for the 2015 6 Nations:

Average per team

England - 82,127
France - 78,502
Wales - 73,882
Scotland - 65,492
Italy - 63,560
Ireland - 51,200

Total attendance - 1,040,705
Tournament average - 69,380


----------



## GunnerJacket

Gavrosh said:


> There are good elements within FFP, not just in terms of debt but also in terms of trying to stop billionaire owners pumping up their clubs, but as the Man City Sponsorship deals with Emirates show, there are plenty of ways around it.


a) Man City is sponsored by Etihad, though it's easy to confuse the two airlines given their competitive nature and both sponsoring multiple clubs across the globe.
b) FFP is rooted in good intentions but is only a half measure toward competitive balance. Unless the league and UEFA revenues are also distributed evenly, or at least more so, then it's just as likely to harm smaller clubs by forever dooming them to second or third tier status. Because while any club can organically grow its domestic fan base and academy talent, the revenues from global exposure and sponsorship that flows to the big clubs is THE difference maker today.



alexandru.mircea said:


> If you look at the elite of European football at the time where the ideas of sustainable spending emerged (around the turn of the decade), you'll have to think that certain major club bosses were extraordinarily dumb to promote a policy that will disable their own clubs too.


Those policies, however, will also protect them by similarly handcuffing their competition, especially cutting back on the potential of up-and-coming clubs. True enough, prohibiting another PSG or Chelsea scenario is one thing, but these policies also inhibit the potential for teams like Napoli, Valencia and Southampton (if their talent is continually bought up by wealthier teams).



lwa said:


> So how come when Montpellier won their first Ligue 1 title a couple of years ago, they became the 10th team to win it in 19 years? And that despite Lyon winning 7 in a row in that period.
> 
> But then the example of France doesn't suit your agenda; and Spain does...


Well, to be fair Le Championnat is different compared to the other major European leagues. It gets the least amount of global exposure and revenues, none of its teams have the global brand appeal comparable to a Milan or Liverpool, and its teams have consistently been on the fringes of UEFA's competitions. So while the Premiership, Bundesliga, La Liga and Serie A have been able to truly reap the benefits of 3-4 spaces within the Champions League and shown successes within the Europa League, Ligue 1 has not parlayed that into comparable riches for building 1-2 world powers. 

Not yet, anyway.

Italy will be interesting to watch now that their revenues are more evenly distributed, so perhaps in a few years as more teams build their own stadia the economics will liven the competition further. For now, much like the Bundesliga, it's almost more appealing having just one true power (Munich, Juve) because then the competition for the remaining CL spots becomes a real battle.


----------



## Boss607

Its very hard for my American mind to accept that in European soccer, the race for the title is often the least interesting aspect of your leagues. :lol:

There's often more focus, at the end of the season, on the worst teams rather than the best.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Boss607 said:


> Its very hard for my American mind to accept that in European soccer, the race for the title is often the least interesting aspect of your leagues. :lol:
> 
> There's often more focus, at the end of the season, on the worst teams rather than the best.


At least it's the most fair way to go about it, scheduling-wise. Play everyone home and away, team with the best record wins. Beats the notion of winning off of fluke plays in a one-off game, being hot at the right time in a playoff scenario or simply being voted most popular like in college football.

Plus the attention on the teams at the bottom sure beats outright apathy. It's tough being the fan of a US-based team knowing its fate is sealed halfway through the season, wondering what draft pick you'll earn.


----------



## Boss607

GunnerJacket said:


> At least it's the most fair way to go about it, scheduling-wise. Play everyone home and away, team with the best record wins. Beats the notion of winning off of fluke plays in a one-off game, being hot at the right time in a playoff scenario or simply being voted most popular like in college football.
> 
> Plus the attention on the teams at the bottom sure beats outright apathy. It's tough being the fan of a US-based team knowing its fate is sealed halfway through the season, wondering what draft pick you'll earn.


There's plenty of apathy for mid-table teams. Anyone getting hot and bothered about Crystal Palace or Everton right now? No. 

The apathy should be reserved for the lowest teams because they don't deserve attention, they suck. 

Playoffs let you settle it on the field that season. Pro/Rel is based off of last year's results but every athlete will tell you what last year's team accomplished or didn't accomplish doesn't matter this year. So why does it in Pro/Rel or Champions League? You see things like Liverpool in CL. Last year with Suarez, yeah, they were deserving of a CL spot but without Suarez like they are THIS year? No, they're not.

I'd rather Man City and Chelsea settle the title face to face than Man City settling it against Swansea.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

GunnerJacket said:


> Those policies, however, will also protect them by similarly handcuffing their competition, especially cutting back on the potential of up-and-coming clubs. True enough, prohibiting another PSG or Chelsea scenario is one thing, but these policies also inhibit the potential for teams like Napoli, Valencia and Southampton (if their talent is continually bought up by wealthier teams).


It has "handcuffed" indeed the likes of Monaco, Malaga, Anzhi, Zenit, Man City, PSG, Chelsea etc, which is a great side-effect of these sustainable spending policies, and they do NOT prevent middle sized clubs to join the utmost top and compete there, like Atletico Madrid and Borussia Dortmund have proved, but _actual_ competitive balance measures (your proposals would be a good start) now need to come in place so that they empower other similar medium sized clubs like those that you mentioned to thrive too in a _systemic_ way. The bad part is that for this to happen domestic leagues need to act and they are even slower and more conservative bodies than UEFA; the good part is that there are positive signs, for example in La Liga there has finally been an agreement, very recently, for a collective bargaining deal with much improved wealth spread, starting with the next TV deal contract - so who knows, maybe in 5-8 years we'll see Athletic Bilbao in the Champions League final or Zaragoza in the semis? Oh, and national / local governments are also needed to act, in what infrastructure is concerned, and in this regard there are positive signs from Italy, where several cities have finally started collaborating with clubs for club-owned, SSS projects (Rome, Florence, to a lesser extent Milan and Naples).



GunnerJacket said:


> At least it's the most fair way to go about it, scheduling-wise. Play everyone home and away, team with the best record wins. Beats the notion of winning off of fluke plays in a one-off game, being hot at the right time in a playoff scenario or simply being voted most popular like in college football.
> 
> Plus the attention on the teams at the bottom sure beats outright apathy. It's tough being the fan of a US-based team knowing its fate is sealed halfway through the season, wondering what draft pick you'll earn.


Play-offs do generate a fair bit of great fun so as long as not too much is handed for them to decide I'm a fan, I think the English have it right with the Football League promotion play-offs.



Boss607 said:


> There's plenty of apathy for mid-table teams. Anyone getting hot and bothered about Crystal Palace or Everton right now? No.


This only goes to show how, err, far away you are from the actual meaning the PL has in its own market. Feel free to join a couple of England-based footbal boards, then come back.



Boss607 said:


> I'd rather Man City and Chelsea settle the title face to face than Man City settling it against Swansea.


This contradicts your previous posts though, the more top heavy a league is (wich you claim European leagues are because of pro/rel), the more the titles are decided by the direct encounters (think of the Primera Division in the era from 2008-09 to 2012-13, the perfect example). It was very similar in England too, during the classic Top Four era. So make up your mind on what you actually want. What the local Premier League fans want is definitely a competition where the small clubs can beat the big clubs, as for them this is the most exciting aspect. Let me quote you thess posts bellow from an England-based forum I frequent:



> The point is the difference in strength between top and bottom internally while also having top teams which can compete with the very best in Europe. This is where the Premier League wins hands down. In Spain and Germany the top teams regularly pan the bottom clubs but that doesn't happen so much here and that's what makes the Premier League worth tuning in for; a greater sense that anyone can beat anyone on their day.





> Stuff like Leicester putting 5 past Man Utd, Burnley taking 4 points from Man City, Hull being seconds away from winning at the Etihad, Burnley getting a draw at Stamford Bridge, that kind of thing happens here, it never happens in Spain.


Can provide links if you think I'm making them up. Anyway, you can see from the exagerated (down to mythmaking, in reality there isn't that gap between the PL and the other top European leagues in terms of domestic competitiveness, maybe quite the opposite) way they put it how important it is to them. What they want is a system that empowers small clubs as such to compete with the big clubs, more so than a balanced league with equally sized clubs and especially more so than a competition that would be closed to the small ones altogether. So yes to an open league with competitive balaced regulations, no to closed leagues.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Boss607 said:


> The apathy should be reserved for the lowest teams because they don't deserve attention, they suck.


Well, then I guess we should disband every club but two and we'll all be fans of either Barca or Madrid! 



> Playoffs let you settle it on the field that season. Pro/Rel is based off of last year's results but every athlete will tell you what last year's team accomplished or didn't accomplish doesn't matter this year. So why does it in Pro/Rel or Champions League? You see things like Liverpool in CL. Last year with Suarez, yeah, they were deserving of a CL spot but without Suarez like they are THIS year? No, they're not.


If you truly feel the lower teams deserve no attention because "they suck," then relegation should be appealing to you because it means teams near the bottom either play well or they get dismissed and replaced by someone else that might prove more deserving. No team is going to tank a season or rest on their laurels looking for a high draft pick here. 



> I'd rather Man City and Chelsea settle the title face to face than Man City settling it against Swansea.


They are settling it on the field! They met on the field twice and the play the exact same schedule otherwise, something no US league can say. What could be more fair than that?

If I'm reading you correctly what you're wanting is for the bigger teams to play each other at the season's end to give the games extra meaning, correct? Would you prefer the league seasons ended earlier and then all the cup tournaments, domestic and UEFA, took place immediately after that?


----------



## GunnerJacket

alexandru.mircea said:


> ... and they do NOT prevent middle sized clubs to join the utmost top and compete there, like Atletico Madrid and Borussia Dortmund have proved...


I hardly consider Dortmund and Atletico middle sized clubs. That they may be a tier below the powers in their respective national leagues is only because those powers are among the handful of global super clubs, meaning those are more outliers than proper measuring sticks. Middling clubs are those without routine UEFA experience, far less global exposure and limited past success. 

Most folks I know regard Dortmund as the 2nd biggest club in Germany and Atletico in the top 3-5 in Spain. I'm thinking more about FFP's impacts on the likes of Southamption, Fiorentina, Betis, Stuttgart...


----------



## alexandru.mircea

You are perfectly right that Atletico and Borussia are truly major clubs domestically (in most aspects except the most important one, econmics), but they are undoubtedly middle sized clubs at best on the European scene. Remember, in terms of wage bills, Real Madrid being eliminated by Borussia in the CL semis meant that the club with the largest revenues in the world was defeated by a club with Stoke's wage bill.

In what even smaller clubs are concerned, some might take advantage from the positive side effects of FFP, some might not, there will not be any clear systemic pattern until proper competitive balance regulations are implemented, especially domestically. In France for example the positive aspects since PSG and especially Monaco were "handcuffed" were quite outstanding (hence the extraordinary title race containing austerity patients Lyon and Marseille and up to a moment Bordeaux, plus some wonderful cup competition outcomes), while in England it is less clear - while Southampton, since you mentioned them, have dramatically improved, but it is less clear why; it could also be from the "dumbing down" that cash influx can do to the market leaders. In terms of losing talent I fail to see any difference for them between during FFP and pre-FFP, they lost talent just the same pre-FFP (think Gareth Bale or Alex Oxlade Chamberlain). Although maybe it they did it in a controlled and clever fashion in 2014, basing on it a strategy that actually got them improving.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Meanwhile, according to Total-MLS.com, week three for the US league featured a total average of 19,744 per game. That's not bad considering there was no Seattle match, but it is slightly inflated by Orlando's 31k. The low for the week came from New England at just under 14,200, but that's still above the lowest overall MLS season average so I won't complain.

I'm thinking 17k will become the new threshold for quality settings and average team economics. Most of the clubs will have venues in the 18-21k range, and allowing for a less-than-capacity crowd that's a fine day to suggest you're averaging over 17k in facilities of that size. Especially since not every team will be competing for honors. Meaning it's the teams that continue to dwell below that mark that will be of concern.

I think, anyway.


----------



## Kerrybai

Boss607 said:


> There's plenty of apathy for mid-table teams. Anyone getting hot and bothered about Crystal Palace or Everton right now? No.
> 
> The apathy should be reserved for the lowest teams because they don't deserve attention, they suck.
> 
> Playoffs let you settle it on the field that season. Pro/Rel is based off of last year's results but every athlete will tell you what last year's team accomplished or didn't accomplish doesn't matter this year. So why does it in Pro/Rel or Champions League? You see things like Liverpool in CL. Last year with Suarez, yeah, they were deserving of a CL spot but without Suarez like they are THIS year? No, they're not.
> 
> I'd rather Man City and Chelsea settle the title face to face than Man City settling it against Swansea.


Well that's your opinion and its the American way but here in Europe we prefer a fair system where everyone plays each other and in the end the best team lifts the trophy. The Patriots went 18-0 and lost in a freak one off game, that to us just isn't fair. We prefer giving them best team the awards.

The American way and the European way are fine , both have their merits, in fact in Rugby we use playoffs too.


----------



## Lupin III

Boss607 said:


> There's plenty of apathy for mid-table teams. Anyone getting hot and bothered about Crystal Palace or Everton right now? No.
> 
> The apathy should be reserved for the lowest teams because they don't deserve attention, they suck.
> 
> Playoffs let you settle it on the field that season. Pro/Rel is based off of last year's results but every athlete will tell you what last year's team accomplished or didn't accomplish doesn't matter this year. So why does it in Pro/Rel or Champions League? You see things like Liverpool in CL. Last year with Suarez, yeah, they were deserving of a CL spot but without Suarez like they are THIS year? No, they're not.
> 
> I'd rather Man City and Chelsea settle the title face to face than Man City settling it against Swansea.


Boss I think your view reflects a person watching sports on the tele and just want to see the best, you could as far as I see it have chosen to watch the olympics where theres plenty of gold medals given.

I know its difficult to understand when your leagues doesnt feel any obligation towards those supporting an team and just moves or contracts a team when its needed.

First of all here in Europe a choice of team is for life and not for how good they are. If you live in Milan and you chooses Inter or AC its because you chooses the basic foundation of the club, Inter having hardwork as motto while AC for more stardom.

Also I dont forget our league system in europe are reflecting our basic view of society and politics, said in other word the basic idea that everyone has a right to win and to be there.

May I also point out what Don Garber the MLS comissioner has said people watching MLS games? They are supporters not fans.

So please understand most people in europe doesnt watch football because its the most popular sport in the world but because the clubs means something to us and that is reflecting how we go and watch games with Tifos, singing etc. and not just clapping and enjoying watching cheerleaders.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

Boss607 said:


> Its very hard for my American mind to accept that in European soccer, the race for the title is often the least interesting .


One the last day of the season, it's often not that interesting as it's been decided by then, but the difference is that the league system creates a nine-month battle for that top spot. 

Not having a final day showdown doesn't stop the previous 37 weeks being compelling.

And if a team does run away with the title, they are worthy champions.

That's probably the inherent difference. Leagues here are purely run to find the best team(s). Leagues there a run to create a showpiece final.

We have many leagues run along similar lines here - some have been doing it for well over 100 years - but normally it's because the sport needs a high-profile event to get noticed.

While it doesn't really have that status any more, sadly, for years the FA Cup Final was English football's showpiece event. It didn't need another one.


----------



## Boss607

Rev Stickleback said:


> One the last day of the season, it's often not that interesting as it's been decided by then, but the difference is that the league system creates a nine-month battle for that top spot.
> 
> Not having a final day showdown doesn't stop the previous 37 weeks being compelling.
> 
> And if a team does run away with the title, they are worthy champions.
> 
> That's probably the inherent difference. Leagues here are purely run to find the best team(s). Leagues there a run to create a showpiece final.
> 
> We have many leagues run along similar lines here - some have been doing it for well over 100 years - but normally it's because the sport needs a high-profile event to get noticed.
> 
> While it doesn't really have that status any more, sadly, for years the FA Cup Final was English football's showpiece event. It didn't need another one.


Actually, playoffs are a tradition born out of necessity. 

Major League Baseball had/has two separate leagues. The American League and the National League, that's still what they're called today, and up until the 90's they never played each other in the regular season at all. Now they play a couple of "inter-league games." In fact, the two leagues, even today, actually play with different rules. Depending on whose stadium they're in is the set of rules they'll play with. Anyway, from the 1880s to the 1960s, the two leagues played the regular season then the two teams from each league with the best record would meet in the World Series. Its also why they call it the "World Series" because they can't be called "National" or "American" champions without creating a lot of confusion. 

In the NFL, which is a merger of the NFL and AFL, again National Football League and American Football League, there's too many teams to play in a single season in such a violent sport. So playoffs are an absolute necessity to create as much competitive balance as possible.

Basketball and Hockey are the sports that seem to do playoffs just because they're more fun and everyone else is doing them but in a best of 7 format, the better team will usually advance.

Playoffs are just awesome. That's why the World Cup and Champions League are so exciting. Playoffs. Every game is like the final day of your league because for some team, it is!


----------



## bd popeye

Back to attendance;


----------



## GunnerJacket

Boss607 said:


> Playoffs are just awesome. That's why the World Cup and Champions League are so exciting. Playoffs. Every game is like the final day of your league because for some team, it is!


But they can also be imbalanced and sometimes render regular season contests meaningless. I hate seeing a team lose a game or series because of a late season injury, and there's the endless debate about home field advantages for teams with inflated records due to weaker schedules. Or simply look at the NCAA tourney going on now - The event is fantastic but the NCAA regular season is dreadful and the resulting tourney is fraught with contention over who deserves what seed.

I'm not discounting them because they're needed, especially here in the States where we have so many teams in each competition. But there's little doubt that they're not a perfect solution to determining who's the best team and their impact on regular season play and strategy. How often has the winning team been lackluster during the season but then hot at just the right time?



bd popeye said:


> Back to attendance;


Hey, Popeye. Was getting worried that maybe you took the Iowa and/or OSU losses in the tourney too hard! Welcome back.


----------



## Boss607

GunnerJacket said:


> But they can also be imbalanced and sometimes render regular season contests meaningless. I hate seeing a team lose a game or series because of a late season injury, and there's the endless debate about home field advantages for teams with inflated records due to weaker schedules. Or simply look at the NCAA tourney going on now - The event is fantastic but the NCAA regular season is dreadful and the resulting tourney is fraught with contention over who deserves what seed.


Yeah but what happens if a big star like Messi or Aguero goes down for a few months? That's going to effect their title race as well. Don't forget they also have a ton of distractions running concurrent to their season that affect performances: FA Cup, League Cup, Europa Leauge, Champions League, Club World Cup. Clubs competing in those competitions usually show a little more weakness in the league than those that aren't in them/knocked out early. I've never noticed anything wrong with NCAA Basketball regular season. Seems to draw plenty of emotion and fans. 

As for MLS attendance, I expect it to take a hit this week. Its going to be COLD in the Northeast and there's a lot of games in the Northeast this week. Montreal, New England, New York City, DC United, Columbus -- all schedule for Saturday which is almost cruelly forecasted to be noticeably colder than Friday or Sunday. We're talking low 30's, possibly even 20's at kick-off.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

Boss607 said:


> Yeah but what happens if a big star like Messi or Aguero goes down for a few months? That's going to effect their title race as well.


It will, but not as much as it would if it happened during the play-offs.

Also, in low-scoring sports, shock results are more frequent.


No method is perfect, but statistically, the more samples you take, the nearer you get to the truth.


----------



## bd popeye

GunnerJacket said:


> Hey, Popeye. Was getting worried that maybe you took the Iowa and/or OSU losses in the tourney too hard! Welcome back.


Not an Iowa fan.... I'll root for them..because I live in Iowa.. but Ohio State..ouch! That hurts..oh well...football season will be here before we know it!


----------



## Eaglesss

Two countries divided by a common language - the understanding of league based sport


----------



## thomasKing

alexandru.mircea said:


> ^the realities that you are describing have nothing to do with pro/rel. Pro/rel has been in place forever and haven't generated these recent dynamics because there's no direct connection to them. The sources of this situation lie in completely other places.


This is actually just a myth. The importance of pro/rel in the history of English sport is just a fantasy. Cricket has never really had it, neither at Club or county level. In rugby its heavily restricted and has from time to time been done away with in both union and League. 

and football too used to be a closed shop. The Football League began with a closed-shop League of 12 teams and grow to a four-level 92-team League with internal pro/rel but still a closed shop to everyone else. Lower teams couldnt get promoted into it. The only way to get in was to be elected to replace someone else. 

It wasnt until the 1970s this changed.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^ I'm not English - from a continental European perspective, which is the one I talk from, the fact that cricket doesn't have pro/rel is as relevant to pro/rel in general in European sport as... I don't know, I can't find an analogy - cricket is almost like it doesn't exist, over the Channel. It's big in India and Pakistan, that's for sure. Same for English rugby's lack of pro/rel, domestic rugby is a minor thing in Europe as a whole. In my country we have domestic rugby but it has pro/rel. We watch the 6 Nations and the tests, and we get a bit of info about the French Top 14 because that's where our best players play - and they have pro/rel in French rugby. In what my country is concerned, I can't even think of one sport without pro/rel. Overall in Europe, including the said isles, it's hard to think of a more defining element to league sport as it is than pro/rel, even if there are exceptions. 
Sure history is very interesting, they did things very differently in the 19th century though I find it hard to see why this should had any impact to a discussion happening at the present tense. It's quirky to learn how several such details still resisted until my grandpa's football viewing days, also in the '60 they still didn't have the red card and in the '50s they were yet to have substitutions. It's somewhat interesting to learn that up to the 60s included the professional pyramid was not open to the amateur / semi-pro sport in England but I can't see how this drastically changes anything that has been discussed. Your intervention was like me informing you that up until the '70s Brazil didn't have a national, country-wide division in football - then claiming that therefore the importance of a national scene in Brazilian football is just a myth. It's the Paulista and the Carioca where it's all at, everybody knows it!


----------



## Fabio1976

Mls average attendance : 20.443
Chinese Super League average attendance : 23.373
Not bad for these 2 leagues............


----------



## bd popeye

Fabio1976 said:


> Mls average attendance : 20.443
> Chinese Super League average attendance : 23.373
> Not bad for these 2 leagues............


Agreed!^^..The Chinese Super League is really cracking down on gambling and crooked officials.

President Xi of China is really pushing China to become a "Football Nation".

China sends thousands of soccer TEXTBOOKS to schools to teach children how to play the game


----------



## bd popeye

MLS attendance table for the 2015 season..MLS regular season runs from March to October.


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> Agreed!^^..The Chinese Super League is really cracking down on gambling and crooked officials.
> 
> President Xi of China is really pushing China to become a "Football Nation".
> 
> China sends thousands of soccer TEXTBOOKS to schools to teach children how to play the game


It's interesting comparing the different means by which MLS and China are approaching this. The latter is viewing it as an overt cultural investment to entrench their mark on the global sports scene utilizing large, multi-purpose municipal stadia. Conversely, here in the States it remains an understated, mostly behind-the-scenes maneuvering to acquire business partners and slowly seep into the local mainstream, relying on intimate, purpose-built stadia. Results are working for both, it appears.

I'll be curious to see how/when Chinese teams begin to make their mark in Asian competitions.


----------



## kichigai

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...competition-in-the-world-20150520-gh5oya.html

AFL still fourth-best attended sporting competition in the world

The AFL has retained its standing as the fourth-best attended sporting competition in the world, despite the addition in recent years of two expansion teams in states which historically favour the rugby codes.

The average attendance for AFL home and away matches in 2014 was 32,436 - a figure bolstered by the huge crowds drawn to the refurbished Adelaide Oval to watch the Power and the Crows.

The two Adelaide sides and three of Melbourne's most popular clubs - Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond - all attracted an average of more than 43,000 fans to their home games in 2014.

Ten of the 18 AFL clubs pulled bigger home crowds than NRL pacesetters Brisbane, whose average attendance at Suncorp Stadium was 33,354 last year.

In a global sense, the National Football League in the US remained far and away the pacesetter for crowds, with an average of 68,776 supporters on hand for every match of the home and away season, according to figures published by ICYMI Sports.

Soccer claimed the next two spots on the table.

The Bundesliga was second with 43,500 and the English Premier League was third with 36,695.

The NFL and the Bundesliga operate predominantly on the one-team, one-town model.

In contrast, six of the 20 EPL teams in the 2013-14 were based in London, while half of the AFL's 18 clubs are in Melbourne, with Geelong also just an hour away down the Princes Highway.

Expansion clubs Gold Coast and Greater Western Sydney drew the smallest home crowds in the AFL last year.

WHO ATTENDS WHAT SPORTING COMPETITION

1. NFL
Average crowd of 68,776 in 2014-15
68,401 in 2013-14

2. Bundesliga
43,500 in 2103-14
41,914 in 2012-13

3. English Premier League
36,695 in 2013-14
35,931 in 2012-13

4. AFL
32,436 in 2014
32,163 in 2013

5. Major League Baseball
30,436 in 2014
30,514 in 2013


----------



## weava

kichigai said:


> http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...competition-in-the-world-20150520-gh5oya.html
> 
> AFL still fourth-best attended sporting competition in the world
> 
> WHO ATTENDS WHAT SPORTING COMPETITION
> 
> 1. NFL
> Average crowd of 68,776 in 2014-15
> 68,401 in 2013-14
> 
> 2. Bundesliga
> 43,500 in 2103-14
> 41,914 in 2012-13
> 
> 3. English Premier League
> 36,695 in 2013-14
> 35,931 in 2012-13
> 
> 4. AFL
> 32,436 in 2014
> 32,163 in 2013
> 
> 5. Major League Baseball
> 30,436 in 2014
> 30,514 in 2013


This list completely ignores college football...

All NCAA-FBS football conferences combined averages 44,603 including 5 leagues that average over 50,000. (125 teams)

Southeastern Conference: 77,694 (14 teams)
Big Ten: 66,869 (14)
Big 12: 58,102 (10)
Pac-12: 52,702 (12)
Atlantic Coast: 50,291 (14)


----------



## GunnerJacket

kichigai said:


> http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...competition-in-the-world-20150520-gh5oya.html
> 
> AFL still fourth-best attended sporting competition in the world


You gotta admit that for a country of Australia's size and given how many teams the AFL has this is a huge number. Quite the sporting fans down there.

:applause:



> The NFL and the Bundesliga operate predominantly on the one-team, one-town model.
> 
> In contrast, six of the 20 EPL teams in the 2013-14 were based in London, while half of the AFL's 18 clubs are in Melbourne, with Geelong also just an hour away down the Princes Highway.


File this under stuff I knew but never really considered. More specifically, I hadn't reflected on the distribution of teams in Germany as impacting their attendance figures. I just assumed their larger cities were comparably besieged with teams like other European leagues, and that their attendances were due to cheap tickets, the ownership model and great support. 

Which provides some positive perspective for English teams to suggest they can still feature such good crowds despite the crowded club landscape.


----------



## GunnerJacket

weava said:


> This list completely ignores college football...
> 
> All NCAA-FBS football conferences combined averages 44,603 including 5 leagues that average over 50,000


We've been over this before and it's a non-issue. There are enough differences to warrant pulling US collegiate sports out or at least providing them with a huge asterisk, so I move to let the issue lie.


----------



## flierfy

kichigai said:


> The NFL and the Bundesliga operate predominantly on the one-team, one-town model.


It is an impertinence to set the Bundesliga on one step with a corporate cartel, that the NFL is. The Bundesliga, just as any other respectable league, doesn't operate a model. It is simply the top division of a league pyramid of hundreds of divisions that is open for every football club associated with the German FA and allows every club in which qualifies by promotion.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

flierfy said:


> It is an impertinence to set the Bundesliga on one step with a corporate cartel, that the NFL is. The Bundesliga, just as any other respectable league, doesn't operate a model. It is simply the top division of a league pyramid of hundreds of divisions that is open for every football club associated with the German FA and allows every club in which qualifies by promotion.


Also, a fair number of German cities have more than one team. It's just that the 2nd team is usually considerably weaker.

In the top 3 national divisions, there are additional clubs in several cities, such as Union Berlin, TSV 1860 in Munich, FSV Frankfurt, Fortuna Koln, Unterhaching (Munich), as well as a plethora of clubs in Westfalia.


----------



## flierfy

The final matches of the German league season have been played in the 2014-15 season. Which gives me the opportunity the present you the key numbers.
Attendances have increased slightly in almost every division. Just the 2nd division lost a few fans despite a significantly rising median.
Only the attendances in the Womens Bundesliga took a dent. It's difficult the explain why. It did certainly not help that a rather unpopular team, Bayern München, won the league.



Outlook:
Despite the two sides with the lowest attendance, Paderborn and Freiburg, being relegated the Bundesliga can't expect an increase next season as they are replaced by Ingolstadt and Darmstadt which will contributed even less. If Karlsruhe beats Hamburg in the play-offs one must even expect a decline over the next 12 month.

The 2nd division, however, will probably get larger crowds next season.The stadium redevelopment at St Pauli will be finished by the start of the new season and unpopular sides Aalen and Aue are going to be replaced by two bigger clubs, Bielefeld and Meiderich, from the 3rd division.

Whether the 3rd division can repeat its record crowds of the just concluded season depends a bit on the outcome of play-offs. As mentioned, two big-drawing clubs have will leave the division to the top. This might be compensated with 1860 München relegating and Magdeburg promoting into this division. The latter does not only draw big crowds at home. They would also raise attendances away especially with a large number of east German sides assembled in this division. Additionally, stadium developments in Chemnitz and Erfurt will be finished and progressing respectively. This could boost attendances as well as Dresden if they could avoid a game behind closed doors for once.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Nice summary. Thanks for all the background behind the stats.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Not sure if this site is accurate but it's the first site I've seen with final figures for the just-completed Premier League season. Translates into an average of 36,083.

75,334	Manchester Utd
58,142	Arsenal
50,359	Newcastle Utd
45,365	Manchester City
44,658	Liverpool
43,157	Sunderland
41,546	Chelsea
38,405	Everton
35,727	Tottenham
34,871	West Ham Utd
34,132	Aston Villa
31,692	Leicester City
30,652	Southampton
27,081	Stoke City
25,063	West Bromwich
24,426	Crystal Palace
23,557	Hull City
20,554	Swansea City
19,130	Burnley
17,808	QP Rangers


----------



## jdh919

GunnerJacket said:


> Not sure if this is accurate but it's the first site I've seen with final figures for the just-completed Premier League season. Translates into an average of 36,083.
> 
> 75,334	Manchester Utd
> 58,142	Arsenal
> 50,359	Newcastle Utd
> 45,365	Manchester City
> 44,658	Liverpool
> 43,157	Sunderland
> 41,546	Chelsea
> 38,405	Everton
> 35,727	Tottenham
> 34,871	West Ham Utd
> 34,132	Aston Villa
> 31,692	Leicester City
> 30,652	Southampton
> 27,081	Stoke City
> 25,063	West Bromwich
> 24,426	Crystal Palace
> 23,557	Hull City
> 20,554	Swansea City
> 19,130	Burnley
> 17,808	QP Rangers


Now the Premier League and Football League has finished we can see that we'll be losing 3 of the 4 lowest attended sides (Hull, Burnley & QPR) but the three sides coming up have a smaller number of seats.

Bournemouth will have the smallest ground by far with a capacity of 11,700. The club will not be expanding Dean Court for 2015/16 - if they stay up it will become a priority, particularly the South Stand.

Watford have an effective capacity of 20,400 (once segregation and unused restricted view seats are taken into account). They have the option to extend their new stand but won't be doing so at the moment.

Norwich managed to up Carrow Road to around 27,000 when they were last promoted - the club commissioned a study three years ago which reported back that they could look at increasing this by 7,000. However this would only be if they became established in the league.

Having said all that Manchester City's current works will see their ground hit 55,000 seats by the start of next season which will negate the slight fall in seats from the promoted clubs.


----------



## Patrick

flierfy said:


> Whether the 3rd division can repeat its record crowds of the just concluded season depends a bit on the outcome of play-offs. As mentioned, two big-drawing clubs have will leave the division to the top. This might be compensated with 1860 München relegating and Magdeburg promoting into this division. The latter does not only draw big crowds at home. They would also raise attendances away especially with a large number of east German sides assembled in this division. Additionally, stadium developments in Chemnitz and Erfurt will be finished and progressing respectively. This could boost attendances as well as Dresden if they could avoid a game behind closed doors for once.


it's so annoying that either Magdeburg or Offenbach will remain in the 4th tier while either Bremen's B-team or Mönchengladbach's B-team will definately promote to the 3rd tier :rant:


----------



## bd popeye

MLS attendance for the 2015 season as of 05.24.2015;



Good to see the league average still above 20,000 per game.


----------



## GunnerJacket

- If it stays close to that mark throughout the season hopefully the fans will turn out to bust the barrier. The pessimist in me, however, wonders if that might be a bad thing if they can't sustain the mark next season. After all Orlando will be moving into their new, smaller stadium, the new-car smell will come off of NYCFC... 

My thinking is to sustain 19k+ as they go through this round of expansion and stadium movement (ORL, DC, LAFC). If they can swing that even as the volume of teams goes up then that would be solid. It would mean the crowds are strong overall even when teams suffer doldrums while their on-field performances are down. 

Gotta get DC above that 14k mark, though. Still want to see every team over 14k, if not 15k.

- Toronto pulled in a "meager" 23k last week, a decided drop from the opening day sell-out. I didn't expect them to retain a 30k average but I thought for sure it would be above 25k, especially for the 2nd home game of the year. Will have to monitor this one.

- San Jose had one of their two home games away from Avaya Stadium, pulling in about 30k for the match with Orlando at the 49ers Levi's Stadium. A good move on their part and should be enough to swing a humble profit if they managed the expenses properly. 

- Montreal showing some wavering in their figures with the team having such a bizarre season on the pitch. Again, I don't expect anyone to sustain sell-outs all the time but I was hoping for a bit more from them given the nice venue and the pomp and circumstance that preceded their arrival in the league.

Still, great to be complaining about someone drawing "only" 15k!


----------



## nickname778

5portsF4n said:


> You wouldn't have to have a closed shop for national leagues. They can remain as it.
> 
> But you could have a Champions League that is more exclusive, and gives the big clubs guarantee of participation, while also reducing the number of small teams from nations that don't add much value commercially.


It's a competition not a TV show and the name of the tournament is Champions League, so having a little bit more teams that actually won their domestic leagues is not that bad of a thing. In the end since the last change that UEFA made a couple of smaller teams per year can compete in the tournament which kinda helps smaller leagues build up in confidence and quality. Even though football in our days is so much about the money you should never forget that they are smaller and poorer nations in Europe that would also like the chance to participate even if they don't have as strong teams and even if they are not the most commercially appealing. You have to keep in mind that some of the best players historically and currently come from small European nations, some Eastern European teams have won the tournament in the past, so we shouldn't be excluded for a chance to have the entire EPL playing in it.

If we are speaking about Ludogoretz that you've mentioned before ( I'm not a fan of them ) this year they won against Basel, they drew against Liverpool at home and gave hard time to Real Madrid at home and Liverpool at Anfield and had decent 35 000 average attendance. All in all it's the second time in Bulgaria history since the creation of Champions League in it's current form that a team from our league made it to the group stage, so it's not like we are polluting the league with bad teams every year, but now we have some small chance to be included in this club of the rich


----------



## nickname778

jdh919 said:


> Having said all that Manchester City's current works will see their ground hit 55,000 seats by the start of next season which will negate the slight fall in seats from the promoted clubs.


Also they are some construction works on Anfield which will add around 10 000 seats there ( it's scheduled for 2016, so it's not for next season ) and they are some ground works on the New White Hart Lane which will add some 20 000 seats. If the stadiums are full every game the expansions will increase the average attendance by around 2000 when it's done. Also they are some plans ( even though no real work ) for expansion of Stamford Bridge to 60 000, and at some moment Old Trafford can be expanded to 95 000. I don't think we are going to see the later in the near future, but I hope that Abramovic will make the move for Stamford Bridge since there is obviously more demand than the current ~41 000 they are averaging every year since 2003.


----------



## jdh919

nickname778 said:


> Also they are some construction works on Anfield which will add around 10 000 seats there ( it's scheduled for 2016, so it's not for next season ) and they are some ground works on the New White Hart Lane which will add some 20 000 seats, if they can fill it every game the expansions will increase the average attendace by around 2000 when it's done. Also they are some plans ( even though no real work ) for expansion of Stamford Bridge to 60 000, and at some moment Old Trafford can be expanded to 95 000, but I don't think we are going to see that in the near future.


Yes, was just speaking about the impact on 2015/16. In terms of the changes that are happening at the moment:

Start of 2015/16 Man City - 46,000 to 55,000
Start of 2016/17 Liverpool - 45,000 to 54,000 
Start of 2016/17 West Ham - 39,000 to 54,000 (new stadium)

We've then got potential further expansions for Man City and Liverpool if they complete the final phase of works and Tottenham's new ground around 2018. Several other clubs like Crystal Palace and Swansea with plans in the pipeline too though I think a lot of 'smaller' clubs are maybe more wary than previously given the experience Wolves had.


----------



## GunnerJacket

nickname778 said:


> Also they are some construction works on Anfield which will add around 10 000 seats there ( it's scheduled for 2016, so it's not for next season ) and they are some ground works on the New White Hart Lane which will add some 20 000 seats. If the stadiums are full every game the expansions will increase the average attendance by around 2000 when it's done. Also they are some plans ( even though no real work ) for expansion of Stamford Bridge to 60 000, and at some moment Old Trafford can be expanded to 95 000. I don't think we are going to see the later in the near future, but I hope that Abramovic will make the move for Stamford Bridge since there is obviously more demand than the current ~41 000 they are averaging every year since 2003.


The new WHL is slated for 2017 or later, Stamford Bridge will be much later if ever and Old Trafford will likely remain as is for some time. (And construction there will confront the railroad tracks and be very pricey.) Your point remains but I want to make sure perspective is retained. After all only one of those projects is happening and only one other is certain.


----------



## isaidso

GunnerJacket said:


> - If it stays close to that mark throughout the season hopefully the fans will turn out to bust the barrier. The pessimist in me, however, wonders if that might be a bad thing if they can't sustain the mark next season. After all Orlando will be moving into their new, smaller stadium, the new-car smell will come off of NYCFC...
> 
> My thinking is to sustain 19k+ as they go through this round of expansion and stadium movement (ORL, DC, LAFC). If they can swing that even as the volume of teams goes up then that would be solid. It would mean the crowds are strong overall even when teams suffer doldrums while their on-field performances are down.
> 
> Gotta get DC above that 14k mark, though. Still want to see every team over 14k, if not 15k.
> 
> - Toronto pulled in a "meager" 23k last week, a decided drop from the opening day sell-out. I didn't expect them to retain a 30k average but I thought for sure it would be above 25k, especially for the 2nd home game of the year. Will have to monitor this one.
> 
> - San Jose had one of their two home games away from Avaya Stadium, pulling in about 30k for the match with Orlando at the 49ers Levi's Stadium. A good move on their part and should be enough to swing a humble profit if they managed the expenses properly.
> 
> - Montreal showing some wavering in their figures with the team having such a bizarre season on the pitch. Again, I don't expect anyone to sustain sell-outs all the time but I was hoping for a bit more from them given the nice venue and the pomp and circumstance that preceded their arrival in the league.
> 
> Still, great to be complaining about someone drawing "only" 15k!


It's going to be close as to whether MLS can breach the 20,000 average attendance figure. I'm also surprised that Toronto's 2nd game at BMO was below 25,000. If they start losing Toronto attendance will likely hover around 22,000. If they stay competitive that number will edge up as the season progresses. If they get hot, it will zoom back up to 30,000 sell outs. The Women's WC starts in Canada June 8th so that should drum up support for all 3 Canadian teams as general interest in the sport spikes. If the national team can match their finish at the London Olympics (bronze medal) it could equate to a permanent boost to the sport here. 

Montreal? Aren't their numbers skewed down by that home game when the weather was awful? That said, Montreal sports fans are notoriously fickle. They will not support a team that's uncompetitive but getting 60,000 for soccer isn't out of the question either. It's just one of those erratic markets.


----------



## flierfy

Patrick said:


> it's so annoying that either Magdeburg or Offenbach will remain in the 4th tier while either Bremen's B-team or Mönchengladbach's B-team will definately promote to the 3rd tier :rant:


Add to this the fate of Aachen and Essen. Both were in the title race of their division for most parts of the season. They played each other in front of a staggering 30'000. Yet, it is Gladbach's reverse side with a mean attendance of 370 which clinched the division title. One can only despair at the state of German football.


----------



## Colm Flynn

Top two divisions in Scotland, Championship attendance nearly equal to that of the SPL


----------



## Colm Flynn

Top 4 English divisions end of season average attendances.


----------



## Red85

Attendance eredivisie season 2014-15 according to wiki
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eredivisie_2014/15

Club	Total	Average
Ajax	850.979	50.058
Feyenoord	770.627	45.331
PSV	553.000	32.529
FC Twente	484.400	28.494
Heerenveen	413.334	24.314
Groningen	343.283	20.193
NAC Breda	306.600	18.035
Vitesse	291.532	17.149
FC Utrecht	284.035	16.708
AZ	263.701	15.512
Willem II	208.097	12.241
PEC Zwolle	207.614	12.213
ADO	203.682	11.981
Cambuur	165.064	9.710
Heracles	141.181	8.305
GA Eagles	133.963	7.880
Dordrecht	65.821	3.872
Excelsior	3.872	3.516

Total	5.746.693	*18.780*

Highest attended all season:
Ajax - Feyenoord 52.472


----------



## tbeest

*Belgium*

Regular Competition

*#	Team	sum	Matches	average*
1	Club Brugge KV	390.084	15	26.006
2	Standard Liège	369.511	15	24.634
3	RSC Anderlecht	315.478	15	21.032
4	KRC Genk	271.994	15	18.133
5	KAA Gent	271.952	15	18.130
6	KV Mechelen	144.323	15	9.622
7	SV Zulte Waregem	134.019	15	8.935
8	Sporting Lokeren	123.870	15	8.258
9	Sporting Charleroi	122.999	15	8.200
10	Cercle Brugge	117.060	15	7.804
11	KV Kortrijk	113.902	15	7.593
12	KVC Westerlo	95.250	15	6.350
13	Lierse SK	91.293	15	6.086
14	KV Oostende	91.243	15	6.083
15	Waasland-Beveren	83.342	15	5.556
16	Royal Mouscron-Péruwelz	66.196	15	4.413

Play Off 1

*#	Team	sum	Matches	average*
1	Club Brugge KV	141.042	5	28.208
2	Standard Liège	121.610	5	24.322
3	RSC Anderlecht	110.300	5	22.060
4	KAA Gent	98.231	5	19.646
5	Sporting Charleroi	60.617	5	12.123
6	KV Kortrijk	42.976	5	8.595


Source: worldfootball.net


----------



## GunnerJacket

Colm Flynn said:


> Top two divisions in Scotland, Championship attendance nearly equal to that of the SPL


Saw that coming given the teams within the Championship this season. Obviously Hearts promotion will widen the gap next season but Rangers have their backs against the wall in overcoming a 3-1 home defeat to Motherwell in their efforts to return to the Premiership. They might well join Hibs with at least one more year at the 2nd tier!  Who'd have seen that coming?



Red85 said:


> Attendance eredivisie season 2014-15 according to wiki
> https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eredivisie_2014/15


 (Reformatted for cleaner presentation)
50.058 Ajax	
45.331 Feyenoord	
32.529 PSV 
28.494 FC Twente 
24.314 Heerenveen 
20.193 Groningen 
18.035 NAC Breda	
17.149 Vitesse 
16.708 FC Utrecht 
15.512 AZ 
12.241 Willem II 
12.213 PEC Zwolle 
11.981 ADO 
_9.710 Cambuur 
_8.305 Heracles 
_7.880 GA Eagles 
_3.872 Dordrecht 
_3.516 Excelsior 

18.780

I really admire how well the Dutch support their clubs for such a comparably small nation. Especially pleased to see Twente, Heerenveen and Groningen making progress in chipping away at the oligopoly of the big three. (Nothing against the Dutch powers, I just appreciate that other clubs are making progress)


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^and to think there are still a few underachieving football cities left in the Netherlands! If Utrecht and especially The Hague would have clubs that honour the city size and potential, the Dutch top flight would be truly amazing.


----------



## Patrick

GunnerJacket said:


> (Reformatted for cleaner presentation)
> 50.058 Ajax
> 45.331 Feyenoord
> 32.529 PSV
> 28.494 FC Twente
> 24.314 Heerenveen
> 20.193 Groningen
> 18.035 NAC Breda
> 17.149 Vitesse
> 16.708 FC Utrecht
> 15.512 AZ
> 12.241 Willem II
> 12.213 PEC Zwolle
> 11.981 ADO
> _9.710 Cambuur
> _8.305 Heracles
> _7.880 GA Eagles
> _3.872 Dordrecht
> _3.516 Excelsior
> 
> 18.780
> 
> I really admire how well the Dutch support their clubs for such a comparably small nation. Especially pleased to see Twente, Heerenveen and Groningen making progress in chipping away at the oligopoly of the big three. (Nothing against the Dutch powers, I just appreciate that other clubs are making progress)


just for fun-comparison to the 18 best supported clubs in northrhine-westfalia except for B-teams as they'd not play in the same league as its A-team (nl: 17mio. people on 42k sqkm, nrw: 17mio. people on 34k sqkm) 

Tier | Avg | Team

1 | 80463 | Borussia Dortmund
1 | 61578 | Schalke 04
1 | 50660 | Borussia Mönchengladbach
1 | 48329 | 1. FC Köln
2 | 29945 | Fortuna Düsseldorf
1 | 29311 | Bayer Leverkusen
2 | 16850 | VfL Bochum
1 | 14859 | SC Paderborn
3 | 14552 | Arminia Bielefeld
3 | 13474 | MSV Duisburg
4 | 10724 | Alemannia Aachen
3 | _9143 | Preußen Münster
4 | _8208 | Rot-Weiss Essen
4 | _2533 | Rot-Weiß Oberhausen
5 | _2204 | Wuppertaler SV
3 | _2197 | Fortuna Köln
4 | _2180 | KFC Uerdingen
4 | _1445 | SF Siegen

AVG 22148

(other comparable areas could be northern england (14mio. people on 37k sqkm), or english midlands (10mio. people on 29k sqkm), or east / south east england + greater london (20mio. people on 38k sqkm). does someones has stats for that? well of course, i guess greater london alone is a class of its own.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

How about Northern Italy? Milano x 2, Torino x 2, Genova x 2, Verona x 2, Udine, Bergamo, Brescia, Vicenza, Venezia, Parma, Piacenza, Reggio Emilia, Novara etc. They could make up a decent league with a credible average attendance. I'm sure they thought about this when considering the split of "Padania" from the rest of Italy - Italians can't live without football, even if nowadays they mainly prefer it on TV.


----------



## HB07

jdh919 said:


> Yes, was just speaking about the impact on 2015/16. In terms of the changes that are happening at the moment:
> 
> Start of 2015/16 Man City - 46,000 to 55,000
> Start of 2016/17 Liverpool - 45,000 to 54,000
> Start of 2016/17 West Ham - 39,000 to 54,000 (new stadium)
> 
> We've then got potential further expansions for Man City and Liverpool if they complete the final phase of works and Tottenham's new ground around 2018. Several other clubs like Crystal Palace and Swansea with plans in the pipeline too though I think a lot of 'smaller' clubs are maybe more wary than previously given the experience Wolves had.


PL attendance will suffer next year by the promotion of Bournemouth, a club with a 12k stadium capacity ^^ i hope that there is some expansion projects for this stadium.


----------



## GunnerJacket

HB07 said:


> PL attendance will suffer next year by the promotion of Bournemouth, a club with a 12k stadium capacity ^^ i hope that there is some expansion projects for this stadium.


I've asked about this on two other boards and have been told that there isn't anything in the works for next season. Only aspiration for change would be if they stay up.


----------



## DanMB

Attendance of the Russian premier league this season:

*1 Spartak Moskva	23.813
2	FK Rubin Kazan'	20.129
3	FK Terek Grozny	16.796
4	FK Zenit Sankt-Peterburg 12.112	
5	PFK Arsenal Tula	12.110
6	FK Kuban' Krasnodar 11.202
7	FK Krasnodar 10.699
8	PFK CSKA Moskva 9.590
9	FK Ural Sverdlovskay Oblast 9.484	
10	FK Lokomotiv Moskva 8.953	
11	FK Rostov-na-Donu 8.815
12	FK Amkar Perm' 8.092	
13	FK Dynamo Moskva 7.780	
14	FK Mordoviya Saransk 5.306
15	FK Ufa 3.275	
16	FK Torpedo Moskva 3.063	
.	Total	average: 10.901*

The clubs with new stadiums have the biggest average attendance in Russia so i think in the coming years the attendance of the league will increase, Zenit will get a new stadium, CSKA will get a new stadium and several others in the league as well.


----------



## jdh919

HB07 said:


> PL attendance will suffer next year by the promotion of Bournemouth, a club with a 12k stadium capacity ^^ i hope that there is some expansion projects for this stadium.


Nothing for next season...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32785670

Though if they stayed up they would look to expand then. The club have previously said they should be able to up Dean Court to 18,000:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30169243


----------



## bd popeye

_*MLS attendance thus far for the 2015 MLS season*_


----------



## alexandru.mircea

French Ligue 1 figures for 2014-15: *22368*. 

Best attended round: *30151* (10th round), when the home teams were Marseille (almost 62k to see Toulouse), Lyon (35k for Montpellier), Lille (almost 34k for Guingamp) and especially Lens receiving PSG at the Stade de France (almost 71k).
Worst attended round: *17948* (7th round), when all of Marseille, PSG, Lille, Nantes, Bordeaux and Lens were away and only Lyon and Saint-Etienne from the bigger clubs were at home. 

Previous seasons: 21155 (2013-14), then 19261 and respectively 18869 for the last 3 ones. The recovery is obvious but at a slower pace than I expected. 

Ligue 2: *6159*, a decline compared to last seasons (7915, 7032 and 8454 respectively for the previous three).


----------



## GunnerJacket

That's quite good for France considering recent years. Would be nice to see their league grow in appeal and European pedigree. Above and beyond PSG, that is.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

The club figures too:










http://www.lfp.fr/ligue1/affluences/club

The figures in the column to the left are attendances and the ones to the right are capacities.


----------



## Lumbergo

bd popeye said:


> _*MLS attendance thus far for the 2015 MLS season*_




Ouch! Toronto is really hurting after such a costly expansion. I haven't caught any of their games this season - are they just really awful or something? (in reference to the two low attendance home games out of three)


----------



## mamangvilla

I just can't understand why a club as good as monaco are struggling to get people to the stadium, i've read somewhere that they even sold ticket for 1€ (sometimes given away for free) and still people didn't come. 
I suspect there must be some other factors at play here, perhaps someone with better knowledge could explain...


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^it's just an extremely tiny conurbation


----------



## Rev Stickleback

alexandru.mircea said:


> ^it's just an extremely tiny conurbation


just 36000 people, and a lot of them only moved there as it's a tax haven.

And most there probably don't really fit the football-supporting demographic.


----------



## DanMB

mamangvilla said:


> I just can't understand why a club as good as monaco are struggling to get people to the stadium, i've read somewhere that they even sold ticket for 1€ (sometimes given away for free) and still people didn't come.
> I suspect there must be some other factors at play here, perhaps someone with better knowledge could explain...


Simply because the population of Monaco is small and Monaco does not have many fans living near Monaco as well because they support clubs such as Nice instead of Monaco.


----------



## tehlazerviking

nt


----------



## CharlieP

Aviva Premiership Rugby 2014/15 (England):

Leicester 22,421 (-432)
Saracens 20,902 (+5,475)
Harlequins 20,223 (+1,381)
Wasps 14,960 (+988)
Northampton 14,650 (+1,558)
Gloucester 13,948 (-67)
London Irish 13,236 (-860)
Bath 13,211 (+1,311)
Exeter 10,174 (+1,188)
Sale 6,660 (+310)
Newcastle 6,596 (+1,461)
London Welsh 3,319 (N/A)

Average 13,358 (+992)


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Rev Stickleback said:


> just 36000 people, and a lot of them only moved there as it's a tax haven.
> 
> And most there probably don't really fit the football-supporting demographic.



Quite. 

In was interesting to learn that off the country's citizens, only around 7K are actual ethnic monegasques.


----------



## Rascar

CharlieP said:


> Aviva Premiership Rugby 2014/15 (England):
> 
> Leicester 22,421 (-432)
> Saracens 20,902 (+5,475)
> Harlequins 20,223 (+1,381)
> Wasps 14,960 (+988)
> Northampton 14,650 (+1,558)
> Gloucester 13,948 (-67)
> London Irish 13,236 (-860)
> Bath 13,211 (+1,311)
> Exeter 10,174 (+1,188)
> Sale 6,660 (+310)
> Newcastle 6,596 (+1,461)
> London Welsh 3,319 (N/A)
> 
> Average 13,358 (+992)


Fortunately London Welsh are relegated, with Worcester promoted, who should average at least 8000. 

What with the extra exposure given by the rugby world cup, Wasps first full season at their new home, and capacities nudging up over the last few seasons, we will hopefully see a decent increase next season.

It should be noted that the above figures are slightly distorted by some clubs playing one off "big games" at twickenham and wembly with cheap tickets. In reality teams like Bath and Gloucester are much better supported than Saracens and London Irish.


----------



## Patrick




----------



## Guest

^God I wish Europe would just create a mega-pyramid with 300 clubs. 

I've literally fantasized about it taking place.


----------



## CharlieP

Rascar said:


> Fortunately London Welsh are relegated, with Worcester promoted, who should average at least 8000.


Bristol would have brought in more - they averaged five figures at the Memorial Ground before they were relegated.



> What with the extra exposure given by the rugby world cup, Wasps first full season at their new home, and capacities nudging up over the last few seasons, we will hopefully see a decent increase next season.


I agree. Early attendances might be affected by the overlap with the Rugby World Cup, and I'm not sure if Leicester and Northampton's work will be completed in time for the start of the season, but these should be more than offset by larger crowds later in the season.



> It should be noted that the above figures are slightly distorted by some clubs playing one off "big games" at twickenham and wembly with cheap tickets. In reality teams like Bath and Gloucester are much better supported than Saracens and London Irish.


Indeed. I was at Twickenham on Saturday, and I'm not joking when I say that Bath fans outnumbered Sarries fans at least 20 to 1.


----------



## GunnerJacket

5portsF4n said:


> ^God I wish Europe would just create a mega-pyramid with 300 clubs.
> 
> I've literally fantasized about it taking place.


I think that would wear thin very quickly. Fewer trophies to go around means basically introducing those teams to new depths of losing. But that's just me.

I do think there's room and cause for special leagues or cup for those clubs in smaller nations. You look at the teams within those tables listed as "Europa" and it's clear many of them have potential beyond their small-pond leagues. They need enhanced media revenues if their remain big in the same sense as those from the power leagues. Just have to find a way to do it that doesn't adversely impact all the other domestic clubs.


----------



## isaidso

Lumbergo said:


> Ouch! Toronto is really hurting after such a costly expansion. I haven't caught any of their games this season - are they just really awful or something? (in reference to the two low attendance home games out of three)


It's a bit early to draw any conclusions about Toronto attendance. That game with 17,711 in attendance was hampered by weather: thunder, lighting, and rain. They're still in 4th place in average attendance with only Seattle and 2 expansion teams ahead of them. 

I wouldn't be surprised to see the Toronto Reds finish the season with 3rd highest average attendance in the league. 2nd isn't out of the question either if Orlando attendance starts to wane after the initial buzz wears off. 

Expanding BMO to 30,000 seems like the right amount imo. Long term, 20,000 wasn't going to cut it for either the Reds or the Argonauts who move in for the 2016 season. The Argonauts only averaged around 18,000 last year but they should get a nice bounce moving out of Skydome which has never been great for football. The Argonauts were drawing 30,000 only a few seasons back.


----------



## GunnerJacket

isaidso said:


> That game with 17,711 in attendance was hampered by weather: thunder, lighting, and rain.


Man, if only they could build a roof over that place!


----------



## isaidso

GunnerJacket said:


> Man, if only they could build a roof over that place!


I'm always puzzled as to why football fans will sit in a snowy blizzard but soccer fans bail with the slightest bit of 'bad' weather. I suppose we won't be having this discussion in a few years. I just hope the proposed roof is suitable. It can get nasty down by the lake in the spring or fall.


----------



## GunnerJacket

isaidso said:


> I'm always puzzled as to why football fans will sit in a snowy blizzard but soccer fans bail with the slightest bit of 'bad' weather. I suppose we won't be having this discussion in a few years. I just hope the proposed roof is suitable. It can get nasty down by the lake in the spring or fall.


My poll of one person says the reason is that (American) football fans are more used to that experience, seeing as it's a fall/winter sport, and because they have so few home games it's expected you need to stick it out. 

That or the footie fans you guys have in Toronto are a bunch of sissies! :cheers:

Seriously, if it's lightning involved I'd perhaps be tucked away, as well, and if I had my kids with me I need to see to their interests. Daddy can stick it out but daddy can also drink away his woes and is more of a nutter at sporting events!


----------



## lwa

CharlieP said:


> Bristol would have brought in more - they averaged five figures at the Memorial Ground before they were relegated.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. *Early attendances might be affected by the overlap with the Rugby World Cup, and I'm not sure if Leicester and Northampton's work will be completed in time for the start of the season, but these should be more than offset by larger crowds later in the season.*
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. I was at Twickenham on Saturday, and I'm not joking when I say that Bath fans outnumbered Sarries fans at least 20 to 1.


Unless I have missed something to the contrary, the Premiership will not overlap with the RWC. No other major rugby is allowed to be played in the RWC host country for the duration of the tournament.

Last European RWC, the French league season began in late October and finished at the end of June.

Anyway, full average league attendances for the 38 teams in the 3 main European rugby leagues, from the rugby paper:











Newport and Cardiff are boosted significantly by their double header at the Millennium Stadium, whilst Bordeaux are hampered by playing 5 games at their own, much smaller ground (They move permanently to the Stade Chaban Delmas next season, albeit are reducing capacity).

Saracens actually got more people through the gates of Wembley for one match than all their games at their actual home ground put together.


----------



## CharlieP

lwa said:


> Unless I have missed something to the contrary, the Premiership will not overlap with the RWC. No other major rugby is allowed to be played in the RWC host country for the duration of the tournament.
> 
> Last European RWC, the French league season began in late October and finished at the end of June.


The Premiership season is going to start after the group phase (so presumably the weekend of Sat 17 October). To delay it until November would mean it finishing in July!

www.premiershiprugby.com/news/33157.php

NB The World Cup is starting a week later than it did in 2007, thanks to the insistence of the SANZAR nations. I really hope that having the Final on Halloween doesn't backfire. hno:


----------



## Kerrybai

weava said:


> This list completely ignores college football...
> 
> All NCAA-FBS football conferences combined averages 44,603 including 5 leagues that average over 50,000. (125 teams)
> 
> Southeastern Conference: 77,694 (14 teams)
> Big Ten: 66,869 (14)
> Big 12: 58,102 (10)
> Pac-12: 52,702 (12)
> Atlantic Coast: 50,291 (14)


Why does someone always bring this up? For starters college teams play very few home games, what is it 6 in a season? Secondly there are enough differences to make it a separate list.


----------



## Lakeland

Kerrybai said:


> Why does someone always bring this up? For starters college teams play very few home games, what is it 6 in a season? Secondly there are enough differences to make it a separate list.


7 or 8 games depending on the team's schedule. College teams have a very strong fan base. Student sections are kind of like the Ultras in Europe. You won't find that type of support in NFL stadiums.


----------



## lwa

CharlieP said:


> The Premiership season is going to start after the group phase (so presumably the weekend of Sat 17 October). To delay it until November would mean it finishing in July!
> 
> www.premiershiprugby.com/news/33157.php
> 
> NB The World Cup is starting a week later than it did in 2007, thanks to the insistence of the SANZAR nations. I really hope that having the Final on Halloween doesn't backfire. hno:


Ah, come to think of it, I did know that.. Have they announced actual fixture dates yet? Can still see there being a few midweek rounds (I'm assuming the LV Cup is being played as usual as well?) to get all the games played.


----------



## isaidso

GunnerJacket said:


> My poll of one person says the reason is that (American) football fans are more used to that experience, seeing as it's a fall/winter sport, and because they have so few home games it's expected you need to stick it out.
> 
> That or the footie fans you guys have in Toronto are a bunch of sissies! :cheers:
> 
> Seriously, if it's lightning involved I'd perhaps be tucked away, as well, and if I had my kids with me I need to see to their interests. Daddy can stick it out but daddy can also drink away his woes and is more of a nutter at sporting events!


(Canadian) football fans are the same. We'll sit there in -20C and a blizzard. Toronto? This is the city that once called in the army when it got a snow storm. Toronto does have a reputation within Canada for being a bunch of wimps. 

Lightning? That's cause for cancelling a game as it's not safe.


----------



## Red85

GunnerJacket said:


> (...)
> 
> (Reformatted for cleaner presentation)
> 50.058 Ajax
> 45.331 Feyenoord
> 32.529 PSV
> 28.494 FC Twente
> 24.314 Heerenveen
> 20.193 Groningen
> 18.035 NAC Breda
> 17.149 Vitesse
> 16.708 FC Utrecht
> 15.512 AZ
> 12.241 Willem II
> 12.213 PEC Zwolle
> 11.981 ADO
> _9.710 Cambuur
> _8.305 Heracles
> _7.880 GA Eagles
> _3.872 Dordrecht
> _3.516 Excelsior
> 
> 18.780
> 
> I really admire how well the Dutch support their clubs for such a comparably small nation. Especially pleased to see Twente, Heerenveen and Groningen making progress in chipping away at the oligopoly of the big three. (Nothing against the Dutch powers, I just appreciate that other clubs are making progress)


Than to think that The Eredivisie clubs lost their quality over the years. Not a European final in 10 years, all the best players abroad, bad weather and sometimes even worse football than you can imagine. 
And still we come to see our clubs play. 
Because it's fun. 

Next year: Dordrecht (4.000), Go Ahead (8.500) and NAC (19.000) will be swapped with NEC, De Graafschap (both 12.500) and Roda (19.500). And Heracles is expanding from 8.500 to 13.500 at the moment. So I guess averages will be higher. In fact, only Excelsior has a stadium under 10.000. 



alexandru.mircea said:


> ^and to think there are still a few underachieving football cities left in the Netherlands! If Utrecht and especially The Hague would have clubs that honour the city size and potential, the Dutch top flight would be truly amazing.


Or Arnhem with Vitesse. Support comes with succes they say, Arnhem is the exeption on that rule. 

As for ADO and FC Utrecht? Utrecht sells out only once a season, when Ajax visits. Big mouths, no results. 

ADO has potential, massive. In the 70's and 80's it managed to receive 25.000+ crowds, but then the riots, hooligans, drugs and white trash came in. The others went to hockey. 
If you go futher down in history, the Hague has four clubs and 16 national titles. Also others managed to gain crowds which are way higher than ADO manages at the moment. It's all history where football thrives on in that city.


----------



## Kerrybai




----------



## CharlieP

lwa said:


> Ah, come to think of it, I did know that.. Have they announced actual fixture dates yet? Can still see there being a few midweek rounds (I'm assuming the LV Cup is being played as usual as well?) to get all the games played.


I haven't seen an official start date, but you can infer it from the dates of the various friendly series. The Kings of the North and West Country Challenge Cup both finish on 10 or 11 October (I don't know if others have been set up yet), so it would be a pretty good bet that the weekend of 17 October will see the start of the Premiership.

I was wondering the same about the LV Cup, but if they scrapped it next season it would mean that all five rounds of the Six Nations would clash with Premiership matches, and I'm sure the clubs would have something to say about that! Maybe a reduced version with three pool games per club (play the others in your pool) rather than four (play everybody in a parallel pool)?

EDIT: I've just checked, and there's no LV Cup next season.

http://www.runningrugby.com/law-and-governance/lv-cup-shelved-for-2015-16-season/


----------



## bd popeye

_*MLS attendance thus far for the 2015 MLS season*_


----------



## GunnerJacket

Oh my. Montreal's latest home game came painfully close to falling below that 10k threshold! If that's our low for the season then that's passable, but c'mon fans let's not get any lower!

Still holding above 20k by more than a shout, which is good considering most teams improve as we move into the summer weather. All in all still looking good.


----------



## isaidso

That Montreal figure is troubling. Maybe someone from Montreal can rhyme in on what's happening. I'm guessing this is just an aberration.


----------



## bd popeye

*U.S. reaches Women's World Cup semifinals with 1-0 win over China*

Lansdowne Stadium, Ottawa
Attendance: 24,141
Referee: Carina Vitulano (Italy)

I believe this game was sold out.

=========================================

MLS attendance for 2015 thru June 21st 2015.


----------



## bd popeye

MLS average game attendance stands at...20,979..I believe these totals were posted 5 July 2015.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Borrowing from a one time cigarette campaign, US soccer has "come a long way, baby!"

As a comparison to those MLS stats here is a snapshot from the old NASL heyday I used on another board, starting with the league average and median during their most successful years.

Year__Avg.__Median
1976__10,295__7,061
1977__13,558__9,942
1978__13,084__9,110
1979__14,201__10,772
1980__14,440__11,113
1981__14,084__11,465
1982__13,155__11,071
1983__13,258__10,310

MLS has only had three seasons ('98-'00) average below the NASL _high_ of 14,440. Meanwhile the lowest MLS median has been 11,871, a full 400+ better than the NASL high. Basically imparting the value of MLS' parity and that the bulk of teams in NASL had really low averages.

To wit, here are the top averages per team during that run, preceded by how many seasons each team played in that stretch:

8__35,065 New York Cosmos
6__24,369 Minnesota Strikers/Kicks
8__20,474 Tampa Bay Rowdies
8__19,591 Vancouver Whitecaps
8__19,103 Seattle Sounders
3__17,654 Montreal Manic
6__15,271 Tulsa Roughnecks
8__14,348 SJ/Golden Bay Earthquakes
1__13,002 Team America
3__12,483 Detroit Express
7__12,266 Portland Timbers
6__12,178 Washington Diplomats
1__11,929 Oakland Stompers
7__11,872 Ft.Lauderdale Strikers
1__10,501 Calgary Boomers

1980 was arguably the best year, with 8 of 24 teams averaging over 15k. That's still only 1/3 of the league and it included Vancouver, Seattle, Tulsa and Toronto, markets that at the time weren't winning US viewers.

Montreal was a late comer that had dropped to <8k in their 3rd season, so you're basically looking at 7 teams that had "success." Portland averaged more than 13k only once during that stretch, while major cities like Chicago, Boston, Philly, Dallas, Houston and LA aren't in the picture. Some of them may have had singular years but otherwise the bulk of the league averaged less than 10k.

Which means for all the hand wringing about the "dire" situations in places like Chicago and Columbus we've made HUGE strides since the days of Pele and Beckenbauer.


----------



## HB07

bd popeye said:


> MLS average game attendance stands at...20,979..I believe these totals were posted 5 July 2015. http://imgur.com/X0uZXfq


After July 18th games, the average attendance just reached 21,150


----------



## Guest

A 2k jump in one season might set up some lofty expectations. The average will be below 21,000 next season, so I kind of hope it doesnt break 21k this season.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Average of the season opening matchday in Ligue 1: 26469. Can be explained by the likes Marseille, Lille, Bordeaux, Nantes and Lyon being at home and the likes of Gazelec, Monaco, Guingamp, Lorient etc being all away. 

A nice touch from the league website is that they now show the figures for away fans, when you click on the details of the matchday ("Visiteurs" column):










http://www.lfp.fr/ligue1/affluences/journee#


----------



## GunnerJacket

Why such low numbers of traveling fans? I realize some of those trips are long and this isn't the Premiership, but I would've thought 2 or 3 teams might bring more than 1,000 fans.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Well as you know there isn't that much of a British type fan culture in France and what there is, is really targeted by government authorities and club managements, they would really like it to go away. The measures against hardcore fans and against travelling fans are really harsh, quite Thatcher-inspired, and some of them have been deemed even illegal. 

IMO it would be better if away contingents in Ligue 1 were handled like in Spain, by direct negotiation between clubs, but I guess it's cheaper to set as "away section" a fixed section of the stadium (usually the one with the worst views), fence it really tough and rely on public policing forces in case of big trouble. Having the stadium completely open and using lots of stewards to "draw" the away section according to the size of the away support and keep it sepparated (like in the Premier League) would be just too expensive for French clubs, whose resources are just too small. Although the likes of PSG could do that so that they have 99% sellouts.


----------



## Guest

France has poor utilization rates from home fans, so you cant expect too much from travelling fans. 

From bigsoccer: 

MLS (231 games): 21,258


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^ home crowds and away crowds aren't correlated. There are whole football cultures where loving football and loving to go to the stadium to see a match isn't conducive of travelling habits. Personally I come from such a culture too and I also don't really get the point of going to away matches, I'd never do it.


----------



## GunnerJacket

From my perspective in the States... Our pro sports don't have as much in the way of dedicated traveling fans, but much of that has to do with distance and the costs of travel. What constitutes away fans at pro sports in the US is most often fans of the visiting team that happen to live in the host city. Transplants, if you will.

The outlier in that regard is college sports, where traveling fans are more common and host programs have requirements to offer a minimum amount of tickets to away fans. In this sense I loved that because it was a great excuse for me to see other parts of the country while traveling to see Georgia Tech. 

But in all those regards the US doesn't have the same issue with the more violent or incendiary ultras the way some older/European nations see. It's also why I feel disappointed when I read and see stories about those groups ruining the experience for the other fans. In this sense it's a shame that you can't celebrate traveling with a team because certain other individuals or groups have spoiled the experience. Hopefully things get better in France, Italy and elsewhere.


----------



## GunnerJacket

5portsF4n said:


> France has poor utilization rates from home fans, so you cant expect too much from travelling fans.
> 
> From bigsoccer:
> 
> MLS (231 games): 21,258


Some excellent crowds the past couple weeks. Even the teams struggling on the pitch have done well. As a fan of footie in the States I'm thrilled. (Big win for your SKC, btw!)

Still a slim shot at 22k for the year but I'm not crying over that one. Jumping to near/over 21k this year after 19k last year, and especially from 14k years ago, is still phenomenal. 

Also, as someone who understood but was skeptical about MLS pushing the whole NY#2 angle I have to admit that's turned out to be a winner. Having a bona fide local derby, especially in NY, has made for a ratings success and done well to drive support for both NY teams. I'm not sure how much of it stems from the polarizing nature of CFG or the name players they've brought in but it's been a firecracker of a series this season. Hopefully LAFC will provide the same with the Galaxy.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^well, I won't argue about it, I'm happy to have found another of these _very_ few leagues that actually put official attendance figures on their website.


----------



## miguelon

*Liga MX*

Week 4

Weekly total attendance 231,015

Weekly average 25,668
Season average 23,100

Highest Attendance
Monterrey VS Pachuca (46,803)

Lowest Attendance
Puebla VS Toluca (18,015)

On its way to the mid 20's historical average, still most derby's (Classico) games to be played

More Info
http://www.ligamx.net/cancha/asistencia/1#asistpromedio


----------



## Colm Flynn

English premier league


----------



## GunnerJacket

_"One of these things is not like the others..."_


----------



## Colm Flynn

Yeah Man Yahnighted stands out :troll:


----------



## HB07

Colm Flynn said:


> English premier league


I guess all games are almost sold out


----------



## jts1882

HB07 said:


> I guess all games are almost sold out


Probably. Most games are sold out as in tickets are sold, but quite often there are no shows for lesser opposition or during midweek. Most clubs report "attrendance" on tickets sold.

That said the weekend games do tend to be at full capacity, with some exceptions. Rumour had it that tickets were available on the day for the Manchester City (title favourites) hosting Chelsea (title holders).


----------



## HB07

jts1882 said:


> Probably. Most games are sold out as in tickets are sold, but quite often there are no shows for lesser opposition or during midweek. Most clubs report "attrendance" on tickets sold. That said the weekend games do tend to be at full capacity, with some exceptions. Rumour had it that tickets were available on the day for the Manchester City (title favourites) hosting Chelsea (title holders).


Ok thanks for this clarification!


----------



## HB07

Good news for UCL 2015/16 attendance, Monaco (which have a low average attendance of 10k) may not qualify to groups stage, Valencia won the away game 3-1


----------



## Guest

Valencia was at home. A 2-0 Monaco isnt beyond possibility at home.


----------



## HB07

5portsF4n said:


> Valencia was at home. A 2-0 Monaco isnt beyond possibility at home.


Yes for sure, but Valencia has a good team this year, i hope they will make it to group stage, to boost their new stadium construction


----------



## hittentot

Great figures...


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^link?


----------



## weava

Way too long of a post... it's also missing 25 NCAA FCS American football teams that average over 10k


----------



## hittentot

Please tell me which ones are missing.

Notice that Al-Ahli from Saudi Arabia drew an average home attendance of 7,959 one football season earlier. Huge increase.


----------



## weava

hittentot said:


> Please tell me which ones are missing.
> 
> Notice that Al-Ahli from Saudi Arabia drew an average home attendance of 7,959 one football season earlier. Huge increase.


1. Montana 23,777
2. James Madison 19,816
3. North Dakota St. 18,571
4. Montana St. 17,056
5. Liberty 17,016
6. Delaware 15,682
7. Jacksonville St. 15,573
8. Southern U. 15,416
9. Yale 15,193
10. Harvard 15,018
11. N.C. A&T 5 14,524
12. Jackson St. 14,276
13. Alabama St. 12,697
14. UNI 12,490
15. Alcorn 12,268
16. McNeese St. 12,096
17. Youngstown St. 12,096
18. Missouri St. 11,665
19. Florida A&M 11,173
20. Tennessee St. 11,104
21. South Dakota St. 10,936
22. South Carolina St. 10,698
23. Chattanooga10,147
24. Sam Houston St. 10,004
25. Mercer 10,000


----------



## bd popeye

A few selected NCAA Football FBS attendance from the last couple of days..Home team listed..

Minnesota...TCF Bank Stadium, Minneapolis, Minnesota Attendance: 54,147

Arizona....Arizona Stadium, Tucson, Arizona Attendance: 51,111

Georgia Tech...Bobby Dodd Stadium at Historic Grant Field, Atlanta, Georgia Attendance: 49,196

Utah....Rice-Eccles Stadium, Salt Lake City, Utah Attendance: 47,825

Boise State....Albertsons Stadium, Boise, Idaho Attendance: 36,836

Oregon State...Reser Stadium, Corvallis, Oregon Attendance: 35,160

Fresno State...Bulldog Stadium, Fresno, California Attendance: 32,547

Plenty of big attendance games will be played today. I'll post those figures tomorrow.


----------



## bongo-anders

The numbers for the danish superliga are either wrong or not from this season.



The home attendance for this seasons Alka Superligaen is like this.

There are played 7 games so far but Randers FC is missing one homegame against very popular FC København so that will affect their numbers in a positive way.

FC Nordsjælland had one lucrative homegame against Brøndby IF but because of safety issues Brøndby IF wouldn´t send any fans to Farum Park, so a normal attendance of around 10.000 (total cap is 10.300) they instead had 6.455

The issue is that Brøndby only will sell tickets for the away section if there is a net infront of the section but FC Nordsjælland refused to do so because Brøndby won´t pay for it.
They have been fined a few times (+ games with closed doors) because their "fans" throws lighters, coins and flares onto the pitch. 


FC København: 15.280 -1,1%.
AGF: 11.351 N/A
Brøndby IF: 10.784 -28;8%
OB: 8.865 +33%
FC Midtjylland: 7.635 -10,9%
Esbjerg FB: 7.337 +4,8%
AaB: 7.268 +5,6%
Viborg FF: 5.874 N/A
Randers FC: 5.383 +0,2%
SønderjyskE: 5.009 +30,7%
FC Nordsjælland: 3.909 -4,9%
Hobro IK: 3.333 -13,4%

http://www.superstats.dk/tilskuere/?aar=2015/2016&vis=hjemme


----------



## bd popeye

bd popeye said:


> Plenty of big attendance games will be played today. I'll post those figures tomorrow.


Here ya' go..Selected NCAA FBS Football attendance for yesterday 09.05.2015..Home team listed.

Georgia...Sanford Stadium, Athens, Georgia Attendance: 92,746

Florida...Ben Hill Griffin Stadium at Florida Field, Gainesville, Florida Attendance: 90,227

Nebraska...Tom Osborne Field at Memorial Stadium, Lincoln, Nebraska Attendance: 89,959

Oklahoma...Gaylord Family-Oklahoma Memorial Stadium, Norman, Oklahoma Attendance: 85,370

Clemson....Memorial Stadium, Clemson, South Carolina Attendance: 81,345

Notre Dame...Notre Dame Stadium, Notre Dame, Indiana Attendance: 80,795

USC...Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles, California Attendance: 79,809

Auburn(Neutral site)Georgia Dome, Atlanta, Georgia Attendance: 73,927

Alabama(Neutral site)AT&T Stadium, Arlington, Texas Attendance: 64,279

UCLA....Rose Bowl, Pasadena, California Attendance: 68,615

Tennessee(Neutral site)Nissan Stadium, Nashville, Tennessee Attendance: 61,323

Cal....Kabam Field at Memorial Stadium, Berkeley, California Attendance: 60,606

Ole Miss....Vaught-Hemingway Stadium at Hollingsworth Field, Oxford, Mississippi Attendance: 60,186

Iowa...Kinnick Stadium, Iowa City, Iowa Attendance: 59,450

Oregon....Autzen Stadium, Eugene, Oregon Attendance: 58,128


----------



## bd popeye

2015 MLS attendance as of 30 August 2015


----------



## HB07

Fabio1976 said:


> Very interesting, but if Barça has 85,000 season tickets, why at Barça - Malaga were there 80,812 spectators ?


 simply because not every season ticket holder attend to the game.

Normally, they should inform the club before the game, thus they can put it place in the market and sell it


----------



## miguelon

Liga MX

http://www.ligamx.net/cancha/asistencia/1#asistpromedio

Attendance from week 8

Week largest attendance
Monterrey VS Cruz Azul (44,785)

Week lowest attendance
Jaguares VS León (9,775)

League Week 8 Average
25,314

Season average until week 8.
23,931

Individual team attendance average until week 8
1	Monterrey	46372
2	Tigres	41299
3	America	35659
4	Chivas	27426
5	Tijuana	27083
6	Morelia	26472
7	Queretaro	26282
8	Leon	25896
9	Pumas	23885
10	Atlas	23609
11	Santos	23000
12	Pachuca	22806
13	Veracruz	19681
14	Toluca	19093
15	Cruz Azul	17934
16	Dorados	17583
17	Jaguares	16220
18	Puebla	13047


Still several "clasico" games to be played at Azteca stadium, America vs Chivas and America vs Pumas should be both above 80,000 each.

Also Puebla is usually a mid table team attendance wise, but its stadium is under extensive renovations, and it should normalize once it moves back to its expanded and renovated stadium.

Chivas, arguably the most popular team, its fighting relegation, with many of its fan base under represented.

There are 4 teams with attendance averages above 90% (Tigres, Tijuana, Monterrey and Leon) Not surprised that are by far the most expensive tickets in the league.


----------



## Kerrybai

Is La Liga the only major sports league that reports 'bums on seats' instead of tickets sold?

If they reported tickets sold would they get close the the average of the Premier league?


----------



## GunnerJacket

Kerrybai said:


> Is La Liga the only major sports league that reports 'bums on seats' instead of tickets sold?


I'm not sure, but even so...



> If they reported tickets sold would they get close the the average of the Premier league?


This I doubt simply because of some of the capacity issues at their smaller venues. Like the Premiership their problem is the lack of middling clubs capable of routinely bringing in 30-40K+, a la the Bundesliga. It's too top heavy.



miguelon said:


> Liga MX...


Monterrey's new stadium is beautiful and the kind of facility that can really help a club's fortunes. Especially in Liga MX.

I'll be anxious to see how the league is drawing in another 5 years, after some stadium developments are completed, the prospects of the Copa America '16 and the growing rivalry with MLS. All could serve to drive the interest in Liga MX and see that league take another step up in class.


----------



## krkseg1ops

Average frequency per Ekstraklasa League club(over 10k) 

1.	Legia Warszawa	17 623
2.	Lech Poznań	14 288
3.	Jagiellonia Białystok	14 159
4.	Lechia Gdańsk	11 919
5.	Wisła Kraków	11 636


----------



## bd popeye

Week one attendance for the 2015 National Football League season.



Home team listed.

Dallas...AT&T Stadium, Arlington, Texas Attendance: 93,579

New York Jets...MetLife Stadium, East Rutherford, New Jersey Weather: 77F°, Cloudy Attendance: 78,160

Denver...Sports Authority Field at Mile High, Denver, Colorado Weather: 88F°, Clear Attendance: 76,798

Washington...FedEx Field, Landover, Maryland Weather: 69°, Partly Cloudy Attendance: 76,512

Houston...NRG Stadium, Houston, Texas Attendance: 71,776

Atlanta...Georgia Dome, Atlanta, Georgia Attendance: 70,516

San Francisco...Levi's Stadium, Santa Clara, California Weather: 70F°, Partly Cloudy Attendance: 70,499

Buffalo....Ralph Wilson Stadium, Orchard Park, New York Weather: 56F°, Cloudy Attendance: 70,319

New England Cheaters..oooppps!...Gillette Stadium, Foxborough, Massachusetts Weather: 65F°, Rain Attendance: 66,829

San Diego....Qualcomm Stadium, San Diego, California Weather: 84F°, Clear Attendance: 66,093

Tampa Bay....Raymond James Stadium, Tampa, Florida Weather: 84F°, Cloudy Attendance: 63,945

Arizona....University of Phoenix Stadium, Glendale, Arizona Attendance: 62,903

Chicago....Soldier Field, Chicago, Illinois Weather: 68F°, Clear Attendance: 62,442

Jacksonville...EverBank Field, Jacksonville, Florida Weather: 77F°, Clear Attendance: 60,733

Oakland...O.co Coliseum, Oakland, California Weather: 73F°, Cloudy Attendance: 54,500

St Louis...Edward Jones Dome, St. Louis, Missouri Attendance: 51,792


----------



## GunnerJacket

What you did there... I see it!










And I approve.


----------



## bd popeye

NCAA College FBS selected attendance for this week.

Seven teams with attendance over 100,000.

Michigan....Michigan Stadium, Ann Arbor, Michigan Attendance: 108,683

Ohio State...Ohio Stadium, Columbus, Ohio Attendance: 104,095

Penn State...Beaver Stadium, University Park, Pennsylvania Attendance: 103,323

Texas A&M....Kyle Field, College Station, Texas Attendance: 102,591

LSU...Tiger Stadium, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attendance: 102,321

Tennessee...Neyland Stadium, Knoxville, Tennessee Attendance: 102,136

Alabama...Bryant-Denny Stadium, Tuscaloosa, Alabama Attendance: 101,821

Georgia...Sanford Stadium, Athens, Georgia Attendance: 92,746

Texas...Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium/Jamail Field, Austin, Texas Attendance: 91,568

Oklahoma....Gaylord Family-Oklahoma Memorial Stadium, Norman, Oklahoma Attendance: 85,657

Nortre Dame...Notre Dame Stadium, Notre Dame, Indiana Attendance: 80,795

USC...Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles, California Attendance: 78,306

Wisconsin...Camp Randall Stadium, Madison, Wisconsin Attendance: 77,157....

Michigan State...Spartan Stadium, East Lansing, Michigan Attendance: 74,211

Missouri...Memorial Stadium at Faurot Field, Columbia, Missouri Attendance: 70,079

UCLA....Rose Bowl, Pasadena, California Attendance: 67,612

Iowa....Kinnick Stadium, Iowa City, Iowa Attendance: 63,636

Washington...Alaska Airlines Field at Husky Stadium, Seattle, Washington Attendance: 59,464

Oregon....Autzen Stadium, Eugene, Oregon Attendance: 56,859


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> NCAA College FBS selected attendance for this week.
> 
> ...
> 
> Nortre Dame...Notre Dame Stadium, Notre Dame, Indiana Attendance: 80,795


Just... Ugh. First time I've seen a Paul Johnson team play as if intimidated. Looked like they all got ditched by their girlfriends before the game. Felt sorry for everyone tuning in to see a good game.

And this after the Arsenal/Costa affairs of the morning. Just shoot me.


----------



## bd popeye

MLS attendance 2015


----------



## Cjones2451

Even though there have been some huge declines in attendance in BC and Toronto, the CFL though week #13 is averaging 25,905 per game
Ottawa and Hamilton continue to sell out every game at about 24K per game, and Montreal had its biggest crowd of the year for a Sunday game up against the NFL.

Toronto is moving to BMO Field next year so that should help their average by hopefully 6-7K per game, and BC does have the potential to bounce back to over 30,000 per game (they were there 2 years ago)

Puts it on par with Serie A, Ligue 1 and La Liga for average attendance.


----------



## bd popeye

Week 2 of the 2015 NFL season attendance.. home team listed.



Green Bay...Lambeau Field, Green Bay, Wisconsin Weather: 62°, Clear Attendance: 78,433 (record attendance for Green Bay)

New York Giants....MetLife Stadium, East Rutherford, New Jersey Weather: 73°, Cloudy Attendance: 77,678

Kansas City...Arrowhead Stadium, Kansas City, Missouri Weather: 87°, Cloudy Attendance: 76,404

Carolina....Bank of America Stadium, Charlotte, North Carolina Weather: 88°, Clear Attendance: 73,254

New Orleans....Mercedes-Benz Superdome, New Orleans, Louisiana Attendance: 73,006

Washington...FedEx Field, Landover, Maryland Weather: 72°, Cloudy Attendance: 72,460

Buffalo...Ralph Wilson Stadium, Orchard Park, New York Weather: 62°, Clear Attendance: 70,858

Philadelphia....Lincoln Financial Field, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Weather: 77°, Partly Cloudy Attendance: 69,296

Cleveland...FirstEnergy Stadium, Cleveland, Ohio Weather: 64°, Clear Attendance: 67,431

Pittsburgh....Heinz Field, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Weather: 66°, Partly Cloudy Attendance: 66,472

Jacksonville...EverBank Field, Jacksonville, Florida Weather: 87°, Clear Attendance: 65,443

Indianapolis...Lucas Oil Stadium, Indianapolis, Indiana Attendance: 65,220

Chicago...Soldier Field, Chicago, Illinois Weather: 70°, Clear Attendance: 62,351

Cincinnati...Paul Brown Stadium, Cincinnati, Ohio Weather: 69°, Partly Cloudy Attendance: 57,579

Oakland...O.co Coliseum, Oakland, California Weather: 80°, Clear Attendance: 53,500(???)

Minnesota...TCF Bank Stadium, Minneapolis, Minnesota Weather: 67°, Partly Cloudy Attendance: 52,319


----------



## bd popeye

da' Raiders reduced the capacity of the O.co Coliseum starting with the 2014 season..ahh the magic of tarps!

Raiders Will Reduce Seating Capacity To The NFL's Smallest In Attempt To Avoid TV Blackouts



> The Coliseum's new capacity will be 53,250, by far the smallest in the NFL. (Chicago's Soldier Field is second, at 61,500.) Season ticket prices are also being lowered across the board. The Raiders shouldn't have any problems avoiding blackouts, but the surest cure for attendance issues is winning. Covering up Mount Davis is easier, though.


----------



## HB07

Can someone explain this issue of blackout please ?

If an NFL team does not sell out it stadium its games will not be broadcasted ?


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

HB07 said:


> Can someone explain this issue of blackout please ?
> 
> If an NFL team does not sell out it stadium its games will not be broadcasted ?


It used to be (up until last year i think) that the team was required to sell out the game out at leatst 72 hours before kickoff to avoid a local blackout. if im not mistaken, that rule was abandoned but i could be wrong


----------



## bd popeye

HB07 said:


> Can someone explain this issue of blackout please ?
> 
> If an NFL team does not sell out it stadium its games will not be broadcasted ?


the NFL has dropped it's black out rule as of this season.. the rule only affected a teams home TV market.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/23/media/nfl-blackout-rule/index.html



> The National Football League is dropping its blackout rule for the 2015 season.
> 
> The rule prevents games from being broadcast in a team's home market if the tickets aren't sold out. It's been around since the 1950s, when NFL games were first televised.
> 
> Roughly one game out of ten was blacked out under the rule as recently as 2004, and in 1996 it was one out of three games.
> 
> *But there were no games blacked out last season, according to the NFL, and only two games were blacked out during the 2013 season.*
> 
> The league said that the clubs voted to suspend the rule, and that it will evaluate the impact of that after this upcoming season.


----------



## bd popeye

First this bit of news for the man in the Atlanta metro area...That would be GunnerJacket. just in case he missed this..

Duke...Brooks Field at Wallace Wade Stadium, Durham, North Carolina Attendance: 20,101

Final score Duke Thirty Four..Georgia Tech Twenty.....GT got "wrecked"...

Typical poor attendance at Duke for football.


----------



## bd popeye

More NCAA FBS Football scores for the four week of play. Home team listed.

Michigan...Michigan Stadium, Ann Arbor, Michigan Attendance: 108,940

Ohio State....Ohio Stadium, Columbus, Ohio Attendance: 106,123

Alabama...Bryant-Denny Stadium, Tuscaloosa, Alabama Attendance: 101,323

Penn State....Beaver Stadium, University Park, Pennsylvania Attendance: 95,107

Georgia....Sanford Stadium, Athens, Georgia Attendance: 92,746

Florida...Ben Hill Griffin Stadium at Florida Field, Gainesville, Florida Attendance: 90,527

Nebraska...Tom Osborne Field at Memorial Stadium, Lincoln, Nebraska Attendance: 89,899

Auburn....Jordan-Hare Stadium, Auburn, Alabama Attendance: 87,451

Texas...Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium/Jamail Field, Austin, Texas Attendance: 87,073..WTH???

Wisconsin...Camp Randall Stadium, Madison, Wisconsin Attendance: 80,829

Notre Dame...Notre Dame Stadium, Notre Dame, Indiana Attendance: 80,795

South Carolina...Williams-Brice Stadium, Columbia, South Carolina Attendance: 78,411

Michigan State...Spartan Stadium, East Lansing, Michigan Attendance: 75,218

Arizona...Arizona Stadium, Tucson, Arizona Attendance: 56,004

Kinnick Stadium, Iowa City, Iowa Attendance: 56,041..<<lowest attendance since I lived in Iowa..that would be 11 years. No mention of low attendance by the talking heads on TV or radio...that's because Iowa is 4-0.

Baylor....McLane Stadium, Waco, Texas Attendance: 43,619

Virginia .....David A. Harrison III Field at Scott Stadium, Charlottesville, Virginia Attendance: 42,427


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> First this bit of news for the man in the Atlanta metro area...That would be GunnerJacket. just in case he missed this..
> 
> Duke...Brooks Field at Wallace Wade Stadium, Durham, North Carolina Attendance: 20,101
> 
> Final score Duke Thirty Four..Georgia Tech Twenty.....GT got "wrecked"...
> 
> Typical poor attendance at Duke for football.


Oh, I didn't miss it but I sure wish I had! hno: Two weeks ago my beloved Jackets were the talk of the town and the AJC, lover of all things UGa, was touting how Tech would be the better team this season. 2 miserable performances later and it's back to the usual "The state is red!" chatter. *sigh*

From an attendance stand point it's a shame, too, since Tech has 2 sell-outs waiting in the wings this season. Now fans might give up on those before FSU and UGa roll into town.

On the flip side I'd give Duke a little pass here. The weather was pretty poor (which is one reason I and some 30+ Tech fans passed on the trip after last weeks loss to ND) but they're still making headway from the days when a) only 15k might show up and b) whoever did make the trip wouldn't really be into the game anyway. Once they finish renovations to the stadium, which look beautiful, by the way, I hope they'll be more close to the 30k mark than 20k on a routine basis. Plus it's hard when you're the #3 school, and the smallest one, within a metro area. 

Anyway, blech. But I appreciate the nod. Cheers! :cheers:


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> Florida...Ben Hill Griffin Stadium at Florida Field, Gainesville, Florida Attendance: 90,527


UF went 5 for 5 on 4th down attempts Saturday! They're 10 for 10 on the season!



> Texas...Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium/Jamail Field, Austin, Texas Attendance: 87,073..WTH???


It's become VERY political down there, made all the more serious when TCU, Baylor and TAMU are winning, are higher in the rankings, etc. New AD is going to inherit a boiling pot of Longhorn dung.



> Kinnick Stadium, Iowa City, Iowa Attendance: 56,041..<<lowest attendance since I lived in Iowa..that would be 11 years. No mention of low attendance by the talking heads on TV or radio...that's because Iowa is 4-0.


Hadn't realized they were enduring the low crowds despite going 4-0! Daring to be different I suppose. A shame. I enjoyed the Hawkeye faithful I met at the Orange Bowl years ago.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Lakeland said:


> I feel bad for Charlie Strong. He's getting a lot of heat even though the former coach and AD had mismanaged the program.


I think it doesn't help that Coach Strong is a bit displaced. He knows Florida and the southeast for recruiting, but not so much Texas and the southwest. So it will take him time to learn the ropes there. Time which he may not be granted. 



> The fact that Texas vs. A&M and Oklahoma vs. Nebraska are no longer being played is a crime for college football.


Agreed. Conferences should've been capped at 10 or 12, IMO. In the race to capture the national market conferences have lost the regional flavor that made them so popular to begin with. The more college sports becomes its own huge business, the more it ruins college sports.


----------



## isaidso

Cjones2451 said:


> Even though there have been some huge declines in attendance in BC and Toronto, the CFL though week #13 is averaging 25,905 per game
> Ottawa and Hamilton continue to sell out every game at about 24K per game, and Montreal had its biggest crowd of the year for a Sunday game up against the NFL.
> 
> Toronto is moving to BMO Field next year so that should help their average by hopefully 6-7K per game, and BC does have the potential to bounce back to over 30,000 per game (they were there 2 years ago)
> 
> Puts it on par with Serie A, Ligue 1 and La Liga for average attendance.


Ottawa and Hamilton have been a pleasant surprise. It's been the West carrying the league for a long time but they're developing into solid eastern franchises. Hype in Ottawa doesn't seem to be fading and football interest in Hamilton doesn't show any signs of letting up either. 

BC is a big disappointment.


----------



## bd popeye

MLS attendance thru September 27th 2015.....


----------



## GunnerJacket

isaidso said:


> Ottawa and Hamilton have been a pleasant surprise. It's been the West carrying the league for a long time but they're developing into solid eastern franchises. Hype in Ottawa doesn't seem to be fading and football interest in Hamilton doesn't show any signs of letting up either.
> 
> BC is a big disappointment.


How has the viewership been this season? Is the overall local energy and interest growing?


----------



## bd popeye

NCAA FBS Football attendance for selected games this weekend..

Penn State...Beaver Stadium, University Park, Pennsylvania Attendance: 107,387

Texas A&M...Kyle Field, College Station, Texas Attendance: 104,455

LSU...Tiger Stadium, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attendance: 102,321

Tennessee....Neyland Stadium, Knoxville, Tennessee Attendance: 101,265

Georgia...Sanford Stadium, Athens, Georgia Attendance: 92,746

Florida...Ben Hill Griffin Stadium at Florida Field, Gainesville, Florida Attendance: 90,585

Auburn....Jordan-Hare Stadium, Auburn, Alabama Attendance: 87,451

Oklahoma...Gaylord Family-Oklahoma Memorial Stadium, Norman, Oklahoma Attendance: 84,384

Clemson...Memorial Stadium, Clemson, South Carolina Attendance: 82,415

Wisconsin...Camp Randall Stadium, Madison, Wisconsin Attendance: 80,933

UCLA....Rose Bowl, Pasadena, California Attendance: 80,113

Michigan State...Spartan Stadium, East Lansing, Michigan Attendance: 74,418

BYU....LaVell Edwards Stadium, Provo, Utah Attendance: 56,393

Georgia Tech...Bobby Dodd Stadium at Historic Grant Field, Atlanta, Georgia Attendance: 50,585

TCU...Amon G. Carter Stadium, Fort Worth, Texas Attendance: 48,694

Cincinnati...Nippert Stadium, Cincinnati, Ohio Attendance: 40,101

California....Kabam Field at Memorial Stadium, Berkeley, California Attendance: 42,042

Northwestern....Ryan Field, Evanston, Illinois Attendance: 30,044


----------



## campineiro1

Campeonato Brasileiro - Brazil









src


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> NCAA FBS Football attendance for selected games this weekend..
> 
> Penn State...Beaver Stadium, University Park, Pennsylvania Attendance: 107,387


First sell-out since the 1st year after the scandal, no?



> Georgia Tech...Bobby Dodd Stadium at Historic Grant Field, Atlanta, Georgia Attendance: 50,585


Season over, for all intents and purposes, yet it might still be the best attendance-wise in several years. Such a shame. Curious to see how that impacts next season. 



> Cincinnati...Nippert Stadium, Cincinnati, Ohio Attendance: 40,101


Largest crowd ever for Cincy, I believe, edging out the season opener in the newly expanded venue. Glad they're supporting the team but I really wish their stadium wasn't so hemmed in by other buildings. Could've been a magnificent beauty.



> California....Kabam Field at Memorial Stadium, Berkeley, California Attendance: 42,042


Ranked team, great stadium, large school, yet still drawing sub-par crowds. I just don't get it with Cal. (Among other major State schools)

Then again, their historic venue did have to be subject to the additional name Kabam Field.


----------



## bd popeye

GunnerJacket said:


> First sell-out since the 1st year after the scandal, no?


I think so. They have had a few crowds over 100,000 as you stated this was the first sellout since the scandal.



GunnerJacket said:


> Season over, for all intents and purposes, yet it might still be the best attendance-wise in several years. Such a shame. Curious to see how that impacts next season.


They are a wreck..pun intended..



GunnerJacket said:


> Largest crowd ever for Cincy, I believe, edging out the season opener in the newly expanded venue. Glad they're supporting the team but I really wish their stadium wasn't so hemmed in by other buildings. Could've been a magnificent beauty.


Maybe.. but being originally from Cincinnati I have to wonder where those 40,000 fans parked their autos. There must be parkades on campus....or shuttle busses from off campus parking sites. Even if you figure two or three fans per auto.. that's still a lot of cars.



GunnerJacket said:


> Ranked team, great stadium, large school, yet still drawing sub-par crowds. I just don't get it with Cal. (Among other major State schools)
> 
> Then again, their historic venue did have to be subject to the additional name Kabam Field.


My daughter is a grad student at Cal Berkeley. I'll ask her about the apathy. She did not attend the game ..she went to Sacramento to visit a friend.


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> Maybe.. but being originally from Cincinnati I have to wonder where those 40,000 fans parked their autos. There must be parkades on campus....or shuttle busses from off campus parking sites. Even if you figure two or three fans per auto.. that's still a lot of cars.


I think the lower bowl and the second tier along one side make the core of a great stadium in a historic, picturesque urban setting. regrettably as they've built things around it , including the student rec center and athletes housing/classroom space they pretty much neglected any thought toward eventual stadium expansion. Now they've all but maxed out with something that functions but, IMO, lacks cohesive beauty. Still nice, but a lot of potential has been lost. C'est la vie.


----------



## bd popeye

Well I know this does not belong here. But as long as we are posting about Nippert Stadium...what the heck..


----------



## bongo-anders

The numbers of the Danish Superligaen after 11 rounds (1/3 of the season)


FC København - 13.177 -14,7%
Brøndby IF - 12.922 -14,7% (yes its the same percentage as FCK)
AGF - 10.428 n/a
OB - 8.253 +23,8%
FC Midtjylland - 7.358 -14,1%
AaB - 7.311 +6,2%
Esbjerg FB - 6.583 -6,0%
Randers FC - 5.535 +3,0%
Viborg FF - 5.203 n/a
SønderjyskE - 5.018 +30,9%
FC Nordsjælland - 4.387 +7,4%
Hobro IK - 3.096 -19,5%


----------



## bd popeye

MLS attendance through October 4th 2015;


----------



## bd popeye

Week four attendance for the 2015 National Football League season.



Home team listed.

neutral site Miami Vs New York Jets.....Wembley Stadium, London, Weather: 59°, Clear Attendance: 83,986

Denver...Sports Authority Field at Mile High, Denver, Colorado Weather: 60°, Cloudy Attendance: 77,029

Washington...FedEx Field, Landover, Maryland Weather: 58°, Cloudy Attendance: 74,767

New Orleans...Mercedes-Benz Superdome, New Orleans, Louisiana Attendance: 73,009

San Francisco...Levi's Stadium, Santa Clara, California Weather: 74°, Clear Attendance: 70,799

Buffalo...Ralph Wilson Stadium, Orchard Park, New York Weather: 60°, Cloudy Attendance: 70,677

Atlanta....Georgia Dome, Atlanta, Georgia Attendance: 69,904

Seattle....CenturyLink Field, Seattle, Washington Weather: 74°, Clear Attendance: 69,005

Indianapolis...Lucas Oil Stadium, Indianapolis, Indiana Weather: 62°, Cloudy Attendance: 65,609

Pittsburgh....Heinz Field, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Weather: 63°, Cloudy Attendance: 63,929

San Diego...Qualcomm Stadium, San Diego, California Weather: 68°, Cloudy Attendance: 63,710

Arizona....University of Phoenix Stadium, Glendale, Arizona Attendance: 63,146

Chicago...Soldier Field, Chicago, Illinois Weather: 55°, Cloudy Attendance: 62,409

Cincinnati...Paul Brown Stadium, Cincinnati, Ohio Weather: 68°, Clear Attendance: 57,498

Tampa Bay...Raymond James Stadium, Tampa, Florida Weather: 74°, Cloudy Attendance: 57,468


----------



## isaidso

GunnerJacket said:


> How has the viewership been this season? Is the overall local energy and interest growing?


It's generally been holding steady with no significant changes in viewership or interest level. The problem market continues to be Toronto and to a lesser extent Montreal and Vancouver. All other markets show strong or very strong interest.


----------



## GunnerJacket

isaidso said:


> It's generally been holding steady with no significant changes in viewership or interest level. The problem market continues to be Toronto and to a lesser extent Montreal and Vancouver. All other markets show strong or very strong interest.


Which happen to be MLS markets. Coincidence?


----------



## bd popeye

Selected NCAA FBS attendance for this week. Home team listed.

Michigan...Michigan Stadium, Ann Arbor, Michigan Attendance: 110,452

Ohio State...Ohio Stadium, Columbus, Ohio Attendance: 107,869

Tennessee...Neyland Stadium, Knoxville, Tennessee Attendance: 102,455

Alabama...Bryant-Denny Stadium, Tuscaloosa, Alabama Attendance: 101,821

Penn State...Beaver Stadium, University Park, Pennsylvania Attendance: 97,873

Neutral site.. Oklahoma Vs Texas(home)...Cotton Bowl, Dallas, Texas Attendance: 91,546

Nebraska....Tom Osborne Field at Memorial Stadium, Lincoln, Nebraska Attendance: 89,886

Florida State....Bobby Bowden Field at Doak Campbell Stadium, Tallahassee, Florida Attendance: 82,329

Clemson....Memorial Stadium, Clemson, South Carolina Attendance: 80,983

Notre Dame...Notre Dame Stadium, Notre Dame, Indiana Attendance: 80,795

Mizzo...Memorial Stadium at Faurot Field, Columbia, Missouri Attendance: 70,767

Iowa...Kinnick Stadium, Iowa City, Iowa Attendance: 66,693

USC...Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles, California Attendance: 63,623

Oregon....Autzen Stadium, Eugene, Oregon Attendance: 57,775

Texas Tech...Jones AT&T Stadium, Lubbock, Texas Attendance: 53,891

Utah.....Rice-Eccles Stadium, Salt Lake City, Utah Attendance: 47,798


----------



## Lakeland

bd popeye said:


> Michigan...Michigan Stadium, Ann Arbor, Michigan Attendance: 110,452


What a difference a year makes. We went from a complete tire fire and empty seats to the loudest crowds I've ever seen at Michigan Stadium.






The "defense" chant (team was going for it's third straight shutout) with :29 seconds to go in a 38-0 game.


----------



## eMKay

Tire Fire, lol. FIRE ERRRREBODY!!! Worked though, Harbaugh seems to feel right at home?


----------



## bd popeye

NCAA FBS attendance with games over 75,000 in attendance posted this week. Home team listed.

Michigan...Michigan Stadium, Ann Arbor, Michigan Attendance: 111,740

Othi State...Ohio Stadium, Columbus, Ohio Attendance: 108,423

Texas A&M....Kyle Field, College Station, Texas Attendance: 105,733

LSU...Tiger Stadium, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attendance: 102,321

Georgia...Sanford Stadium, Athens, Georgia Attendance: 92,746

Clemson....Memorial Stadium, Clemson, South Carolina Attendance: 81,416

Notre Dame...Notre Dame Stadium, Notre Dame, Indiana Attendance: 80,795

Wisconsin....Camp Randall Stadium, Madison, Wisconsin Attendance: 80,794

South Carolina...Williams-Brice Stadium, Columbia, South Carolina Attendance: 75,159


----------



## GunnerJacket

Oh, so now that we suck GT is no longer good enough for you to track, eh?! I see how it is.

But, yeah, seeing something up there about 50k would look out of place. Like our O-line.

In completely unrelated news I'm out of rum.


----------



## bd popeye

GunnerJacket said:


> Oh, so now that we suck GT is no longer good enough for you to track, eh?! I see how it is.
> 
> But, yeah, seeing something up there about 50k would look out of place. Like our O-line.
> 
> In completely unrelated news I'm out of rum.


..but you are still a Helluva an engineer!:lol:

Man oh man they looked real bad the last three weeks..how do you stand it?icard:

Pitt 31 GT 28..Bobby Dodd Stadium at Historic Grant Field, Atlanta, Georgia Attendance: 46,208

Now on the other hand The Ohio State University Buckeyes continue to WIN..

Ohio State 38 Penn State 10.

And so do our Iowa Hawkeyes..:banana:

Iowa 40 Northwestern 10...Ryan Field, Evanston, Illinois Attendance: 44,135
lots of Hawkeye fans attended this game..tons in fact. The Hawkeyes are now 7 wins and ZERO losses..just sayin'!

' Nuff said.


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> And so do our Iowa Hawkeyes..:banana:
> 
> Iowa 40 Northwestern 10...Ryan Field, Evanston, Illinois Attendance: 44,135
> lots of Hawkeye fans attended this game..tons in fact. The Hawkeyes are now 7 wins and ZERO losses..just sayin'!
> 
> ' Nuff said.


Nope. No fair! You already get to claim fanhood for OSU, you don't get to add on another undefeated team, as well! :tongue:

I'm taking this case to the Football Gods. I'm claiming Iowa stole some of Tech's karma. And W's!

- - - -

In other news, the weekend MLS crowds assured the league will finish with a 20k+ season average. Strong chance they'll close the season next week and end up over the 21k mark.


----------



## irani8

The disgrace and decline of Persian Gulf Pro League (Iran) continues  , after 8 weeks another record low in attendance, avg attendance is now just over 6,000 down from the record low of 7,700 last year.

_1. Esteghlal - Tehran - 23,750
2. Persepolis - Tehran - 22,750
3. Tractor Sazi - Tabriz - 12,500
4. Siah Jamegan - Mashhad - 7,625
5. Sepahan - Isfahan - 6,625
6. Malavan - Anzali - 5,500
7. Foolad - Ahvaz - 5,125
8. Zob Ahan - Isfahan - 3,000
9. Esteghlal Ahvaz - Ahvaz - 2,833
10. Padideh - Mashhad - 2,500
11. Esteghlal Khuzestan - Ahvaz - 1,950
11. Gostaresh Foolad - Tabriz - 1,950
13. Saba Qom - Qom - 1,675
14. Naft Tehran - Tehran - 750
15. Rah Ahan - Qods - 475
15. Saipa - Tehran - 475_


----------



## michał_

irani8 said:


> The disgrace and decline of Persian Gulf Pro League (Iran) continues  , after 8 weeks another record low in attendance, avg attendance is now just over 6,000 down from the record low of 7,700 last year.
> 
> _1. Esteghlal - Tehran - 23,750
> 2. Persepolis - Tehran - 22,750
> 3. Tractor Sazi - Tabriz - 12,500
> 4. Siah Jamegan - Mashhad - 7,625
> 5. Sepahan - Isfahan - 6,625
> 6. Malavan - Anzali - 5,500
> 7. Foolad - Ahvaz - 5,125
> 8. Zob Ahan - Isfahan - 3,000
> 9. Esteghlal Ahvaz - Ahvaz - 2,833
> 10. Padideh - Mashhad - 2,500
> 11. Esteghlal Khuzestan - Ahvaz - 1,950
> 11. Gostaresh Foolad - Tabriz - 1,950
> 13. Saba Qom - Qom - 1,675
> 14. Naft Tehran - Tehran - 750
> 15. Rah Ahan - Qods - 475
> 15. Saipa - Tehran - 475_


Is there any specific reason for the downfall? Also, are there any reliable resources for Iranian football attendances on a weekly basis?


----------



## Roxven

*European Qualifiers EURO 2016 - Average match attendances 30.000+:*

*1. England - 74.600
2. Poland - 50.800
3. Germany - 49.400*
4. Netherlands - 48.500
5. Austria - 47.400
6. Scotland - 45.600
7. Belgium - 43.000
8. Ireland - 42.500
9. Ukraine - 37.500
10. Romania - 36.100
11. Sweden - 35.400
12. Turkey - 33.500
13. Portugal - 33.100
14. Italy - 32.000
15. Russia - 30.800
16. Denmark - 30.800
17. Wales - 30.200

Fun fact: 4 teams from top 10 were all in same group. Group D (Germany, Poland, Scotland, Ireland) and bcoz of that group D had highest average attendances.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^no France


----------



## CharlieP

alexandru.mircea said:


> ^no France


That's because they didn't have to play any qualifiers! :lol:


----------



## alexandru.mircea

D'uh!


----------



## irani8

michał_;127959539 said:


> Is there any specific reason for the downfall? Also, are there any reliable resources for Iranian football attendances on a weekly basis?


iplstats.com is pretty reliable, but not the official website. iranleague.ir is the official website and very accurate but not updated regularly.

main reasons for downfall are:

1. mismanegment and financial troubles of the clubs - Iran and Asia's 2 biggest club Persepolis and Esteghlal were averaging 50-60k just a decade ago! now they are under severe financial problems and persepolis is in 11th place! a big problem is that both clubs are owned by the government and cannot get financial support from a owner.

2. stadiums outside of the city - most of the stadiums of iranian teams are outside of the city and other than azadi (tehran), sahand (tabriz) there are no public transportation to get to them. for example tractor sazi from tabriz, in their first season back in the league in 2009 averaged over 50k fans! now they average just over 12k, when the team does not do well, and the stadium is so far, there is no reason to go! another example is sepahan, which is irans most successful club post 2001 and one of the most popular, but they only average just over 5k because their stadium is 40km outside Isfahan. They are building their own stadium(Naghshe Jahan) which has been under construction for 20 years.

3. new clubs with no history- fans will not support clubs who were formed 2 years ago in iran, their is a history of football and many people support historical teams who have dropped to the 2, 3rd or 4th division. but, new clubs such as padideh and esteghlal khuzestan have been allowed to buy their way into the league!

4. poor quality of play- the quality of the league is going down every year, except this year which it has once again increased. only good news from this year, fans do not want to see poor, passion less football for such expensive prices ($10-15), they may not seem expensive but remember many football lovers are hard working people who do not earn a lot.

5. poor quality of stadiums- the quality of iranian stadiums for a country part of asias "big 4" football powers is disgraceful. we have one real stadium (azadi), thankfully 3 new good ones are being made, foolad (ahvaz) , imam reza (mashhad), nagshe jahan (isfahan). 

lastly i think with the relief of sanctions and improvng image of iran, things can only improve, hopefully foreigners will invest in our clubs and facilities.


----------



## bd popeye

I've not posted NFL attendance recently..so without further adue..



Games played the sixth week of the 2015 NFL season. Home team listed.

Green Bay...Lambeau Field, Green Bay, Wisconsin Weather: 54°F, Clear Attendance: 78,434

New York Jets...MetLife Stadium, East Rutherford, New Jersey Weather: 49°F, Clear Attendance: 78,160

New Orleans...Mercedes-Benz Superdome, New Orleans, Louisiana Attendance: 73,018

San Francisco...Levi's Stadium, Santa Clara, California Weather: 69°F, Clear Attendance: 70,799

Buffalo...Ralph Wilson Stadium, Orchard Park, New York Weather: 40°F, Cloudy Attendance: 69,593

Philadelphia...Lincoln Financial Field, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Weather: 44°F, Clear Attendance: 69,296

Seattle....CenturyLink Field, Seattle, Washington Weather: 61°F, Cloudy Attendance: 69,020

Cleveland....FirstEnergy Stadium, Cleveland, Ohio Weather: 47°F, Clear Attendance: 67,431

Indianapolis...Lucas Oil Stadium, Indianapolis, Indiana Attendance: 66,726

Pittsburgh...Heinz Field, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Weather: 45°F, Partly Cloudy Attendance: 63,846

Tennessee....Nissan Stadium, Nashville, Tennessee Weather: 56°F, Clear Attendance: 62,342

Jacksonville....EverBank Field, Jacksonville, Florida Weather: 73°F, Clear Attendance: 58,085

Detroit....Ford Field, Detroit, Michigan Attendance: 57,648

Minnesota....TCF Bank Stadium, Minneapolis, Minnesota Weather: 54°F, Clear Attendance: 52,480


----------



## GunnerJacket

From ESPN.com, here are the averages. For some reason they don't have the tallies for San Fran. Safe to say they're averaging 70k+

Games played/Average/Team

3	92,326	Dallas
4	78,378	Green Bay
3	78,160	NY Jets
3	77,424	NY Giants
2	76,913	Denver
2	76,101	Kansas City
3	74,579	Washington
2	73,328	Carolina
3	73,011	New Orleans
3	71,742	Houston
2	71,008	Baltimore
4	70,361	Buffalo
3	70,199	Atlanta
3	69,296	Philadelphia
3	69,009	Seattle
3	67,431	Cleveland
2	66,829	New England
3	65,851	Indianapolis
3	65,820	San Diego
1	64,869	Miami
3	64,749	Pittsburgh
3	64,644	Tennessee
3	63,237	Arizona
3	62,400	Chicago
3	61,420	Jacksonville
3	60,461	Detroit
3	60,027	Cincinnati
3	59,967	Tampa Bay
3	54,337	Oakland
3	52,399	Minnesota
2	52,112	St. Louis
-	-	San Fran


----------



## pozinhossc

alexandru.mircea said:


> ^no France


Neither Spain.

Unlike other federations, the spanish one does not have its own "national" stadium, and the national team plays usually each game in different cities. And against weak (or not "crowd-bringing" teams e.g. last group was agaist Ukraine, Macedonia, Belarus, Slovakia and Luxembourg) games are playes in stadiums in medium cities, usually smaller than 20000. Biggest used stadum in this qualification was Sevilla FC's, with capacity of 42000, and didn't fill (33000).


----------



## will101

GunnerJacket said:


> From ESPN.com, here are the averages. For some reason they don't have the tallies for San Fran. Safe to say they're averaging 70k+
> 
> Games played/Average/Team
> 
> 3	92,326	Dallas
> 4	78,378	Green Bay
> 3	78,160	NY Jets
> 3	77,424	NY Giants
> 2	76,913	Denver
> 2	76,101	Kansas City
> 3	74,579	Washington
> 2	73,328	Carolina
> 3	73,011	New Orleans
> 3	71,742	Houston
> 2	71,008	Baltimore
> *3 70,799 San Francisco*
> 4	70,361	Buffalo
> 3	70,199	Atlanta
> 3	69,296	Philadelphia
> 3	69,009	Seattle
> 3	67,431	Cleveland
> 2	66,829	New England
> 3	65,851	Indianapolis
> 3	65,820	San Diego
> 1	64,869	Miami
> 3	64,749	Pittsburgh
> 3	64,644	Tennessee
> 3	63,237	Arizona
> 3	62,400	Chicago
> 3	61,420	Jacksonville
> 3	60,461	Detroit
> 3	60,027	Cincinnati
> 3	59,967	Tampa Bay
> 3	54,337	Oakland
> 3	52,399	Minnesota
> 2	52,112	St. Louis


Same attendance number of tickets distributed for all three games.


----------



## will101

bd popeye said:


> I've not posted NFL attendance recently..so without further adue..
> 
> San Francisco...Levi's Stadium, Santa Clara, California Weather: 69°F, Clear Attendance: 70,799


I was tempted to write a snarky comment about hundreds of people from the north bay passing out from the heat, but someone might take it seriously.


----------



## bd popeye

will101 said:


> Same attendance number of tickets distributed for all three games.


The NFL only post tickets sold. The 49ers have sold out all games ever played at Levi Stadium.


----------



## bd popeye

MLS attendance for 2015


----------



## bd popeye

I'm taking a little vacation. I'll be back around the 5th or 6th of November..


----------



## will101

bd popeye said:


> I'm taking a little vacation. I'll be back around the 5th or 6th of November..


Have fun. Hope you're going someplace warm and relaxing.
:cheers:


----------



## bd popeye

will101 said:


> Have fun. Hope you're going someplace warm and relaxing.
> :cheers:


Thanks...

San Diego is where I'll be...My home town for 26 years. '77-'04...I'm busy..gotta go..


----------



## GunnerJacket

Still awaiting some confirmations from last night's games but it appears MLS will end the season with about 21,600 as the league average attendance*. Some other pending stats:

- Median over 20k, and 10 teams with 20k+ average
- All teams averaging over 15k
- No games below 10k 

*= Tickets distributed. We get it.


----------



## jts1882

Also Wembley probably has the most expensive tickets (my guess is by a big margin). It's impressive that they get close to sell outs for all but the minnows.

I find this surprising as many supporters of Premier League clubs find the internationals to be an annoying break. It might be interesting to know the breakdown of club support for those attending England games. Perhaps it is non-PL supporters who still hold the faith.


----------



## Good Karma

English fans for some reason tend to be the most loyal. Whether thats for their own club teams or the national team. Their attendances tend to be stable even if their teams arent doing well, unlike most other countries.


----------



## bd popeye

Selected FBS Football attendance for 19-21 NOV 2015. Home team is listed.

Ohio State....Ohio Stadium, Columbus, Ohio Attendance: 108,975

Penn State....Beaver Stadium, University Park, Pennsylvania Attendance: 107,418

Alabama....Bryant-Denny Stadium, Tuscaloosa, Alabama Attendance: 100,611

Georgia....Sanford Stadium, Athens, Georgia Attendance: 92,746

Florida.....Ben Hill Griffin Stadium at Florida Field, Gainesville, Florida Attendance: 90,107

Auburn....Jordan-Hare Stadium, Auburn, Alabama Attendance: 87,451

Oklahoma....Gaylord Family-Oklahoma Memorial Stadium, Norman, Oklahoma Attendance: 85,821

Clemson.....Memorial Stadium, Clemson, South Carolina Attendance: 81,577

South Carolina....Williams-Brice Stadium, Columbia, South Carolina Attendance: 77,241

Wisconsin....Camp Randall Stadium, Madison, Wisconsin Attendance: 75,276

Florida State....Bobby Bowden Field at Doak Campbell Stadium, Tallahassee, Florida Attendance: 66,412

VA Tech....Lane Stadium/Worsham Field, Blacksburg, Virginia Attendance: 65,632

Airzona State....Sun Devil Stadium, Frank Kush Field, Tempe, Arizona Attendance: 64,885

Iowa....Kinnick Stadium, Iowa City, Iowa Attendance: 62,920

Oregon.....Autzen Stadium, Eugene, Oregon Attendance: 59,094

Oklahoma State...Boone Pickens Stadium, Stillwater, Oklahoma Attendance: 58,669

North Carolina State...Carter-Finley Stadium, Raleigh, North Carolina Attendance: 55,260

Utah....Rice-Eccles Stadium, Salt Lake City, Utah Attendance: 46,230

Notre Dame Vs Boston College...(neutral site) Fenway Park, Boston, Massachusetts Attendance: 38,686


----------



## Kerrybai

alexandru.mircea said:


> ^If I remember well the FAI has the habit (like others too) of selling "packages", so the Gibraltar match tickets may have been sold together with one of the more important qualifiers.
> 
> The guys on the Second Captains show have said too that the Irish do "events" really well, which in a way was sarcastic because the discussion was initially about the low attendances in the League of Ireland.


You could be right about that.

The league of Ireland will always struggle, not because we support English and other foreign teams, but because it is competing with GAA. The MLS is proof that fans will still attend games while also supporting foreign teams. A United Irish league might make things a bit more interesting.


----------



## miguelon

Regular season for Liga MX has finished its winter tournament (we have 2 tournaments per year "Apertura" and "Clausura")

Next week will be the playoffs, which are usually played in front of pretty good attendances. Most fans consider these game part of the regular schedule. 

Average attendance after 17 weeks
24,525

Total attendance 
3,752,471

Top 3 teams average
Monterrey 45135
America 43497
Tigres UANL (Monterrey) 40607


----------



## miguelon

Regular season for Liga MX has finished its winter tournament (we have 2 tournaments per year "Apertura" and "Clausura")

Next week will be the playoffs, which are usually played in front of pretty good attendances. Most fans consider these game part of the regular schedule. 

Average attendance after 17 weeks
24,525

Total attendance 
3,752,471



Pos	Team	Total	High	Low	Average
1	Monterrey	361,075	48,527	41,128	45,134
2	América	347,975	79,858	19,077	43,497
3	UANL	365,463	40,607	40,607	40,607
4	UNAM	219,450	45,786	19,245	27,431
5	Guadalajara	211,348	39,710	19,956	26,419
6	Querétaro	203,606	29,857	20,053	25,451
7	Morelia	198,014	30,995	16,197	24,752
8	León	194,986	27,637	18,330	24,373
9	Tijuana	191,432	23,986	23,872	23,929
10	Atlas	194,596	35,975	0	21,622
11	Pachuca	193,308	24,357	14,559	21,479
12	Veracruz	182,377	28,703	15,908	20,264
13	Santos Laguna	181,727	27,574	14,906	20,192
14	Chiapas	151,479	24,290	9,775	18,935
15	Sinaloa	156,257	17,898	16,333	17,362
16	Toluca	149,817	20,834	10,917	16,646
17	Cruz Azul	137,204	27,720	10,627	15,245
18	Puebla	112,357	18,015	8,584	12,484

By next season, Puebla should help boost the average above the 25k mark, because they will be back to their redeveloped stadium with a capacity of 52,000. average should be at least twice the one they had in their temporary venue.


----------



## irani8

The downfall continues, officials are too blind to realize what's going on.

PGPL average attendances after week 12:

1. Esteghlal (Tehran) - 35,000
2. Persepolis (Tehran) - 17,833
3. Tractor Sazi (Tabriz) - 13,440
4. Siah Jamegan (Mashhad) - 8,075
5. Foolad (Ahvaz) - 6,283
6. Padideh (Mashhad) - 5,625
7. Sepahan (Isfahan) - 4,843
8. Malavan (Anzali) - 2,798
9. Gostaresh Foolad (Tabriz) - 1,859 
10. Zob Ahan (Isfahan) - 1,844
11. Esteghlal Ahvaz (Ahvaz) - 1,634
12. Saba (Qom) - 1,323
13. Esteghlal Khuzestan (Ahvaz) - 1,252
14. Naft Tehran (Tehran) - 473
15. Rah Ahan (Tehran) - 381
16. Saipa (Tehran) - 357

source: iranleague.ir


----------



## irani8

Average Attendance 2015/16 Football League Championship:

*1. Derby County (Derby) - 29,206
2. Brighton & Hove Albion (Brighton) - 23,291
3. Leeds United (Leeds) - 23,047
4. Middlesbrough (Middlesbrough) - 22,193
5. Sheffield Wednesday (Sheffield) - 21,258
6. Nottingham Forest (Nottingham) - 20,110
7. Wolverhampton Wanderers (Wolverhampton) - 20,010
8. Ipswich Town (Ipswich) - 18,904
9. Birmingham City (Birmingham) - 17,817
10. Reading (Reading) - 17,756
11. Fulham (London) - 17,473
12. Hull City (Hull) - 17,470
13. Burnley (Burnley) - 15,643
14. Charlton Athletic (London) - 15,313
15. Bolton Wanderers (Bolton) - 15,279
16. Queens Park Rangers (London) - 15,203
17. Bristol City (Bristol) - 15,008
18. Cardiff City (Cardiff) - 14,472
19. Blackburn Rovers (Blackburn) - 14,096
20. Preston North End (Preston) - 13,506
21. MK Dons (Milton Keynes) - 13,362
22. Huddersfield Town (Huddersfield) - 12,465
23. Brentford (London) - 10,300
24. Rotherham United (Rotherham) - 9,546 *

http://ca.soccerway.com/national/england/championship/20152016/regular-season/r31555/


----------



## irani8

Average Attendance 2015/16 Football League One:

*1. Sheffield United (Sheffield) - 19,775
2. Bradford City (Bradford) - 18,039
3. Coventry City (Coventry) - 12,285
4. Millwall (London) - 8,934
5. Barnsley (Barnsley) - 8,729
6. Wigan Athletic (Wigan) - 8,422
7. Swindon Town (Swindon) - 7,349
8. Blackpool (Blackpool) - 6,751
9. Chesterfield (Chesterfield) - 6,416
10. Doncaster Rovers (Doncaster) - 6,189
11. Gillingham (Gillingham) - 6,042
12. Southend United (Southend) - 6,019
13. Peterborough United (Peterborough) - 5,526
14. Walsall (Walsall) - 5,488
15. Shrewsbury Town (Shrewsbury) - 5,217
16. Port Vale (Stoke) - 5,036
17. Bury (Bury) - 4,715
18. Oldham Athletic (Oldham) - 4,512
19. Crewe Alexandra (Crewe) - 4,475
20. Colchester United (Colchester) - 3,792
21. Burton Albion (Burton) - 3,701
22. Scunthorpe United (Scunthorpe) - 3,543
23. Rochdale (Rochdale) - 3,447
24. Fleetwood Town (Fleetwood) - 3,331*

http://ca.soccerway.com/national/england/league-one/20152016/regular-season/r31471/


----------



## irani8

Average Attendance 2015/16 Austrian Football Bundesliga:

*1.Rapid Wien (Vienna) - 17,937
2. Sturm Graz (Graz) - 9,672
3. Red Bull Salzburg (Salzburg) - 8,798
4. Austria Wien (Vienna) - 7,492
5. SV Mattersburg (Mattersburg) - 5,679
6. Rheindorf Altach (Altach) - 5,370
7. SV Ried (Ried) - 4,251
8. Wolfsbereger AC (Wolfsberg) - 3,517
9. Admira Wacker (Maria Enzersdorf) - 2,657
10. Grodig (Grodig) - 1,584 *

http://ca.soccerway.com/national/austria/bundesliga/20152016/regular-season/r31588/


----------



## irani8

Average Attendance 2015 Chinese Super League: 

*1. Guangzhou Evergrande (Guangzhou) - 45,229
2. Beijing Guoan (Beijing) - 40,996
3. Chongqing Lifan (Chongqing) - 37,595
4. Jiangsu Guoxin-Sainty (Nanjing) - 26,858
5. Shanghai SIPG (Shanghai) - 26,387
6. Shandong Luneng (Ji'nan) - 25,070
7. Henan Jianye (Zhenghzou) - 20,207
8. Tianjin Teda (Tianjin) - 19,661
9. Shanghai Shenhua (Shanghai) - 19,506
10. Guizhou Renhe (Guizhou) - 15,139
11. Changchun Yatai (Changchun) - 14,855
12. Liaoning Whowin (Liaoning) - 12,787
13. Hangzhou (Hangzhou) - 12,566
14. Guangzhou R&F (Guangzhou) - 7,989
15. Shanghai Shenxin (Shanghai) - 7,031 *

_League Average: 22,193_

http://ca.soccerway.com/national/china-pr/csl/2015/regular-season/r30625/


----------



## GunnerJacket

miguelon said:


> Regular season for Liga MX has finished its winter tournament (we have 2 tournaments per year "Apertura" and "Clausura")
> 
> Pos	Team	Total	High	Low	Average
> ...
> 5	Guadalajara	211,348	39,710	19,956	26,419


This is the one that sticks out to me. Prominent, popular club, nice stadium... Wonder why they haven't been able to stay within the mid-30's?


irani8 said:


> The downfall continues, officials are too blind to realize what's going on.
> 
> PGPL average attendances after week 12:


Frankly I'm often surprised many of these leagues can sustain operations. Even taking the sometimes turmoil of the region it's got to be tough to run a club with such small numbers in the crowds. To wit:



irani8 said:


> Average Attendance 2015/16 Austrian Football Bundesliga:
> 
> *1.Rapid Wien (Vienna) - 17,937
> 2. Sturm Graz (Graz) - 9,672
> 3. Red Bull Salzburg (Salzburg) - 8,798
> 4. Austria Wien (Vienna) - 7,492
> 5. SV Mattersburg (Mattersburg) - 5,679
> 6. Rheindorf Altach (Altach) - 5,370
> 7. SV Ried (Ried) - 4,251
> 8. Wolfsbereger AC (Wolfsberg) - 3,517
> 9. Admira Wacker (Maria Enzersdorf) - 2,657
> 10. Grodig (Grodig) - 1,584 *
> 
> http://ca.soccerway.com/national/austria/bundesliga/20152016/regular-season/r31588/


a) I would've expected a couple more of these teams to break the 10k mark.
b) This is why I feel there needs to be a measure allowing smaller nations to have merged top-flights. Simply too few major markets on hand to make it truly successful, I think.

Thanks for sharing all these, by the way, Irani8. It's easy for the bulk of us to get hung up on just the major leagues and brand names.


----------



## irani8

GunnerJacket said:


> Frankly I'm often surprised many of these leagues can sustain operations. Even taking the sometimes turmoil of the region it's got to be tough to run a club with such small numbers in the crowds. To wit:


Hi GunnerJacket, it is completely understandable to confuse the war of the Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan...etc and confuse it with Iran. But, Iran is 100% safe with no wars or ISIS inside borders, I would say even more safe than Belgium or France at the moment. So the turmoil does not affect the league. You are also right about small crowds, thats why many clubs are in millions of dollars of debts. Even big clubs like Persepolis and Esteghlal who usually finish with average attendance of over 25k are also in millions of dollars in debt. Another reason is because they are government owned and don't get the funding they need. In my opinion the 2 biggest reasons for this downfall of attendance from when it average at 15,000+ a decade ago is, the ban of women from stadium (which would increase fan attendance by at least 25-50% at each club and also poor facilities, there is only 1 "semi-modern" stadium in Iran right now the Azadi, fortunately there are 3 very modern stadiums UC right now in Iran which will boost attendance for next season. For example Sepahan who play in Isfahan (a city of 3 million) are Iran's most successful ever club in the PGPL (from 2001), but they only average around 5k because they play in a stadium 40km outside the city, when there stadium Nagshe Jahan finishes they are capable of averaging 15-20k.


----------



## GunnerJacket

I wasn't implying Iran had the exact same issues as Iraq (and sorry if that offended), merely that as an internal economy Iran is still such that it's tough to support a sports league knowing that your neighboring nations are experiencing so many other issues. Let's face it, if for no other reasons than how it can impact trade economics it's never a great thing to have war just across the way, no matter how secure things may seem in your own state. Plus oil has been a sporadic commodity the past few years because of it, influencing much of the Middle East's overall economic health. Stands to reason that fully vesting in sports can be a trying enterprise, then. 

But I'm pleased to learn the other issues behind Iran's attendance. Hopefully in time this will be turned around.

Cheers. :cheers:


----------



## flierfy

jts1882 said:


> I find this surprising as many supporters of Premier League clubs find the internationals to be an annoying break. It might be interesting to know the breakdown of club support for those attending England games. Perhaps it is non-PL supporters who still hold the faith.


About 700'000 people attend football matches in England on a usual weekend of club football. For arithmetic reason alone an international weekend will always mean a break from their habit for the vast majority of stadium-goers.


----------



## irani8

GunnerJacket said:


> I wasn't implying Iran had the exact same issues as Iraq (and sorry if that offended), merely that as an internal economy Iran is still such that it's tough to support a sports league knowing that your neighboring nations are experiencing so many other issues. Let's face it, if for no other reasons than how it can impact trade economics it's never a great thing to have war just across the way, no matter how secure things may seem in your own state. Plus oil has been a sporadic commodity the past few years because of it, influencing much of the Middle East's overall economic health. Stands to reason that fully vesting in sports can be a trying enterprise, then.
> 
> But I'm pleased to learn the other issues behind Iran's attendance. Hopefully in time this will be turned around.
> 
> Cheers. :cheers:


No offense taken


----------



## miguelon

GunnerJacket said:


> This is the one that sticks out to me. Prominent, popular club, nice stadium... Wonder why they haven't been able to stay within the mid-30's?


Because in recent years Guadalajara has seen arguably its worst team in recent history. They are even fighting relegation. Also it has a similar situation to Juventus, were a lot of its fan base is outside the city of Guadalajara, its not strange that they have more support that the home team while playing away.

And even before moving to their new stadium, most fans only care showing up, on derbys or playoff games.


----------



## Fabio1976

What is the attendance of the Botola Morocco ?


----------



## alexandru.mircea

This video got shared a lot for the novelty factor, but what struck me is that it came from a highschool football match: https://twitter.com/archiert1/status/688049911204573184 What attendances does highschool football get in Japan? Looks impressive - ws it maybe a competition final?


----------



## nicko_viteh

alexandru.mircea said:


> This video got shared a lot for the novelty factor, but what struck me is that it came from a highschool football match: https://twitter.com/archiert1/status/688049911204573184 What attendances does highschool football get in Japan? Looks impressive - ws it maybe a competition final?


It was the "All Japan High School Soccer Tournament" final in Saitama. The official report says that the attendance was 54 090 people.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^thanks!


----------



## iranii

Persian Gulf Pro League (Iran) average attendance after 21 weeks:
*
1. Persepolis (Tehran) - 30,850
2. Esteghlal (Tehran) - 26,091
3. Tractor Sazi (Tabriz) - 8,232
4. Saipa (Tehran) - 7,279
5. Padideh (Mashhad) - 5,675
6. Foolad (Ahvaz) - 5,488
7. Siah Jamegan (Mashhad) - 4,895
8. Sepahan (Isfahan) - 4,170
9. Malavan (Anzali) - 2,953
10. Zob Ahan (Isfahan) - 2,497
11. Naft Tehran (Tehran) - 2,334
12. Esteghlal Khuzestan (Ahvaz) - 1,976
13. Rah Ahan (Tehran) - 1,783
14. Saba Qom (Qom) - 1,372
15. Esteghlal Ahvaz (Ahvaz) - 1,120
16. Gostaresh Foolad (Tabriz) - 1,098

League: 6,839*

http://iranleague.ir/MatchSchedule/1


----------



## Fabio1976

iranii said:


> Persian Gulf Pro League (Iran) average attendance after 21 weeks:
> *
> 1. Persepolis (Tehran) - 30,850
> 2. Esteghlal (Tehran) - 26,091
> 3. Tractor Sazi (Tabriz) - 8,232
> 4. Saipa (Tehran) - 7,279
> 5. Padideh (Mashhad) - 5,675
> 6. Foolad (Ahvaz) - 5,488
> 7. Siah Jamegan (Mashhad) - 4,895
> 8. Sepahan (Isfahan) - 4,170
> 9. Malavan (Anzali) - 2,953
> 10. Zob Ahan (Isfahan) - 2,497
> 11. Naft Tehran (Tehran) - 2,334
> 12. Esteghlal Khuzestan (Ahvaz) - 1,976
> 13. Rah Ahan (Tehran) - 1,783
> 14. Saba Qom (Qom) - 1,372
> 15. Esteghlal Ahvaz (Ahvaz) - 1,120
> 16. Gostaresh Foolad (Tabriz) - 1,098
> 
> League: 6,839*
> 
> http://iranleague.ir/MatchSchedule/1


Very disappointed about the Tractor Sazi's attendance.


----------



## GunnerJacket

MLSsoccer.com doesn't have the attendances for the CONCACAF CL games with the exception of the 42,836 in Seattle. LA looked like the usual capacity @ half-full for midweek games.


----------



## miguelon

LIGA MX

Average attendances until week 9:

week 1	28,684
week 2	29,050
week 3	27,919
week 4	25,563
week 5	28,782
week 6	22,660 1 game missing
week 7	34,777
week 8	22,730
week 9	35,630

Total 2,302,203
*League Average 28,422*

...................................HOME GAMES	...TOTAL.....AVERAGE
1	MONTERREY.......................5.....250095.....50019
2	AMERICA (MEXICO CITY)....5.....239324.....47865
3	TIGRES (MONTERREY)........4.....165521.....41380
4	PUEBLA.............................4.....156823.....39206
5	ATLAS (GUADALAJARA)......4.....152529.....38132
6	CHIVAS (GUADALAJARA)....5.....184531.....36906
7	TIJUANA............................5.....136065......27213
8	QUERETARO......................5.....129080......25816
9	MORELIA...........................4.......98638......24660
10	VERACRUZ.........................4......92839......23210
11	PACHUCA...........................4......92338......23085
12	PUMAS (MEXICO CITY)........5.....115088.....23018
13	SANTOS TORREON..............4......91076......22769
14	CRUZ AZUL (MEXICO CITY).4......84998.......21250
15	LEON..................................5......98681......19736
16	JAGUARES CHIAPAS............5......88923......17785
17	DORADOS (CULIACAN)........4......68497......17124
18	TOLUCA..............................4......57157......14289 *

* Toluca's stadium is currently under renovation, and even if its usual attendances aren't that great, there must a significant improvement for next season.


----------



## Roxven

Polish Ekstraklasa as for February 2016:


----------



## Fabio1976

After the first 2 games the average attendance of the Chinese Super League is already over 30,000 !!!!


----------



## bd popeye

Fabio1976 said:


> After the first 2 games the average attendance of the Chinese Super League is already over 30,000 !!!!


Indeed it is..

Chinese Super League


----------



## bd popeye

Let me check MLS attendance thus far this season only two games played so far.;

Major League Soccer 2016


----------



## isaidso

With the expansion of BMO Field, the home opener in Toronto should be around 30,000. It will be interesting to see what kind of attendance they can maintain and whether they outdraw the Argonauts.


----------



## gincan

flierfy said:


> International matches happen in irregular intervals and that makes them almost solitary events. The crowds they attract reflects this circumstance. Pretty much every national team gets the same sort of entertainment-seeking support these days.
> Yet, England attracts 56'000 for the match with San Marino, the 13th largest crowd of the entire qualifying round. There seems to be something in some countries, in England in particular, which is completely missing in southern Europe.


I can't speak for Italy but in the case of Spain, the national team is very popular and qualifying matches are usually sold out. The low attendance is because of the Spanish FA policy of playing in different parts of the country every other match, some games are played in stadiums with less than 20k capacity in cities like Cartagena, Merida or Almeria. Also, the national team never play in Catalunya or the Basque country for purely political reasons. So Camp Nou or San Mames are never used.


----------



## bongo-anders

The Danish Superliga is 2/3 into the season (22 out of 33 games) so its the perfect time for an update.


FC København - 13.467 
Brøndby IF - 13.298 
AGF - 8.435
FC Midtjylland - 7.340
AaB - 7.153
OB - 7.134
Esbjerg fB - 5.868
SønderjyskE - 5.324
Randers FC - 5.251
Viborg FF - 4.418
FC Nordsjælland - 4.353
Hobro IK - 2.560


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

bd popeye said:


> Let me check MLS attendance thus far this season only two games played so far.;
> 
> Major League Soccer 2016


It seems as though the capacity at stubhub has been reduced from 27,000 to 25,667 unless it's been a remarkable coincidence that both games had the same attendance


----------



## GunnerJacket

isaidso said:


> With the expansion of BMO Field, the home opener in Toronto should be around 30,000. It will be interesting to see what kind of attendance they can maintain and whether they outdraw the Argonauts.


I thought the changes to accommodate the Argos meant a slight reduction in capacity to about 28k?


----------



## GunnerJacket

Fabio1976 said:


> After the first 2 games the average attendance of the Chinese Super League is already over 30,000 !!!!


Yes, but it appears that some of the smaller teams have yet to host a match. Will have to wait and see if this holds. Even if it doesn't, it's still impressive.


----------



## isaidso

GunnerJacket said:


> I thought the changes to accommodate the Argos meant a slight reduction in capacity to about 28k?


I believe capacity for soccer will be 30,991 and for football 27,600. There will be practically no end zone seating in the football configuration due to the length of the field. I haven't been following things all that closely but that was the plan when MLSE bought the Argonauts and announced that they'd play at BMO.


----------



## Fabio1976

GunnerJacket said:


> Yes, but it appears that some of the smaller teams have yet to host a match. Will have to wait and see if this holds. Even if it doesn't, it's still impressive.


Beijing Guoan is a great club with a very great attendance........


----------



## GunnerJacket

Fabio1976 said:


> Beijing Guoan is a great club with a very great attendance........


Hence my use of the term "some" clubs.


----------



## iranii

PGPL (Iran) Average Attendance after Week 23:

*1. Persepolis (Tehran) - 35,318
2. Esteghlal (Tehran) - 26,250
3. Tractor Sazi (Tabriz) - 9,055
4. Saipa (Tehran) - 7,279
5. Foolad (Ahvaz) - 5,322
6. Padide (Mashhad) - 5,191
7. Rah Ahan (Qods) - 4,802
8. Siah Jamegan (Mashhad) - 4,537
9. Sepahan (Isfahan) - 3,845
10. Malavan (Anzali) - 3,244
11. Saba Qom (Qom) - 2,508
12. Zob Ahan (Isfahan) - 2,306
13. Naft Tehran (Tehran) - 1,962
14. Esteghlal Khuzestan (Ahvaz) - 1,896
15. Gostaresh Foolad (Tabriz) - 1,055
16. Esteghlal Ahvaz (Ahvaz) - 1,043*

League Average: 7,210


----------



## alexandru.mircea

The first season of PRO Rugby is getting nearer and nearer to its debut, which is happening in mid April. This will be the first professional competition in rugby union, at club level, ever held in the USA. Hopefuly there are some US based rugby fans that will keep us posted on the development of this league. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_PRO_Rugby_season


----------



## isaidso

There seems to be a huge difference in average attendance between the top clubs and bottom in many of these national leagues.


----------



## bongo-anders

Actually number 1 and 12 in the Danish superliga is the same as in the list I posten.


----------



## GunnerJacket

isaidso said:


> There seems to be a huge difference in average attendance between the top clubs and bottom in many of these national leagues.


Quite the norm, especially in smaller nations with fewer major cities and more restrictive economies.


----------



## iranii

isaidso said:


> There seems to be a huge difference in average attendance between the top clubs and bottom in many of these national leagues.


Iran is a really odd one, it has all the ingredients to have large and loyal fan bases for many teams but unfortunately only 2 teams have a large scale fan base (esteghlal + persepolis), funnily enough they play in the same stadium. these two clubs have a monopoly over supporters in iran, afghanistan, tajikistan. persepolis is the slightly bigger club with 25-30 million supporters in iran (not joking this is accurate) and esteghlal is a little bit smaller with nearly 20 million. everywhere you go in small cities far away from tehran, when you ask kids who their favourite team is they won't say their local teams, they will say either esteghlal or persepolis. they are a bit comparative to real madrid and barcelona (not the playing quality, the fans ) in a way which they have complete control over the majority of football fans. this is good in the sense that iran has the two most popular clubs in asia, but also bad because we see many empty stadiums in smaller cities and they suddenly fill up when these two teams play in them. for example in mashhad a city that is a 8/9 drive away from tehran and has a population of 3 million, the two teams siah jamegan and padideh average around 4k each, but when persepolis played against padideh in january in mashhad the stadium was filled at max capacity (30k). the important note for mashhad is that their historical team, aboomoslem, plays in the 3rd division now so many of the supporters do not come to the stadium anymore. my hope in iran is also big clubs like tractor sazi and sepahan do some marketing so they break the marketing of the the big 2 and also historical teams like aboomoslem, sanat naft, shahin, bargh shiraz all get promoted back to the top flight. if all of these happens and iranian facilities improve and clubs start to actually do some marketing, there is no reason why the average attendance in iran cannot be atleast 15k. but then again, this is iran, and i am probably dreaming with these ideas


----------



## Colm Flynn

English Premier League


----------



## bd popeye

MLS attendance thus far for the 2016 season. Toronto FC has not played any home games.


----------



## Kerrybai

isaidso said:


> There seems to be a huge difference in average attendance between the top clubs and bottom in many of these national leagues.


That's the case across the world with the major exception being the US. 

The difference being the US uses franchises and has a population of over 300 million with a large middle class.


----------



## Guest

alexandru.mircea said:


> The first season of PRO Rugby is getting nearer and nearer to its debut, which is happening in mid April. This will be the first professional competition in rugby union, at club level, ever held in the USA. Hopefuly there are some US based rugby fans that will keep us posted on the development of this league.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_PRO_Rugby_season


I'm sure the figures will be closely watched. It will be quite an achievement if this draws 5-8,000 on average.


----------



## isaidso

Kerrybai said:


> That's the case across the world with the major exception being the US.
> 
> The difference being the US uses franchises and has a population of over 300 million with a large middle class.


There aren't huge discrepancies in attendance in Canada and we only have 36 million people. Not only that, but the lowest attendances are usually posted in our 3 biggest cities.

I suspect it's the north American system of franchises and greater revenue sharing league wide that creates parity. In the Canadian Football League, the Saskatchewan Roughriders post the 2nd highest attendance in the league but exist in, by far, the smallest market. Only 230,000 people live in metro Regina yet they outdraw Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver; markets many many times larger.

This is Regina's new football stadium, about 80% finished. I don't think it would have been possible without the franchise model and team parity. The astonishing part is that they'll fill this thing too:

*New Stadium for the Saskatchewan Roughriders*








Courtesy of the CBC


----------



## Patrick

The upper tiers in german association football, 2015/16 season so far

*1. BUNDESLIGA*
81,139 | BORUSSIA DORTMUND
75,000 | BAYERN MÜNCHEN
61,239 | FC SCHALKE
52,993 | HAMBURGER SV
51,467 | BORUSSIA MÖNCHENGLADBACH
50,265 | VFB STUTTGART
48,393 | 1. FC KÖLN
47,373 | HERTHA BSC
45,764 | EINTRACHT FRANKFURT
40,865 | WERDER BREMEN
40,714 | HANNOVER 96
30,488 | 1. FSV MAINZ
29,069 | VFL WOLFSBURG
28,915 | BAYER LEVERKUSEN
28,702 | FC AUGSBURG
27,500 | TSG HOFFENHEIM
16,829 | SV DARMSTADT
14,755 | FC INGOLSTADT
*42,901 | TOTAL AVERAGE

2. BUNDESLIGA*
29,313 | FC ST. PAULI
28,696 | 1. FC NÜRNBERG
28,040 | RASENBALL LEIPZIG
25,330 | 1. FC KAISERSLAUTERN
25,120 | FORTUNA DÜSSELDORF
23,207 | SC FREIBURG
21,707 | 1860 MÜNCHEN
21,164 | EINTRACHT BRAUNSCHWEIG
19,618 | UNION BERLIN
18,588 | VFL BOCHUM
17,502 | ARMINIA BIELEFELD
16,066 | MSV DUISBURG
15,859 | KARLSRUHER SC
12,960 | 1. FC HEIDENHEIM
10,803 | SC PADERBORN
10,414 | GREUTHER FÜRTH
_6,333 | SV SANDHAUSEN
_6,110 | FSV FRANKFURT
*18,713 | TOTAL AVERAGE

3. LIGA*
26,925 | DYNAMO DRESDEN
17,807 | 1. FC MAGDEBURG
12,434 | HANSA ROSTOCK
_8,652 | VFL OSNABRÜCK
_8,156 | ERZGEBIRGE AUE
_7,639 | ENERGIE COTTBUS
_7,434 | CHEMNITZER FC
_7,199 | HALLESCHER FC
_7,047 | PREUSSEN MÜNSTER
_5,258 | ROT-WEISS ERFURT
_5,257 | HOLSTEIN KIEL
_5,021 | VFR AALEN
_4,863 | WÜRZBURGER KICKERS
_4,570 | STUTTGARTER KICKERS
_2,548 | WEHEN WIESBADEN
_2,498 | SONNENHOF GROSSASPACH
_1,955 | FORTUNA KÖLN
_1,354 | WERDER BREMEN II
_1,162 | 1. FSV MAINZ II
__,994 | VFB STUTTGART II
*_6,874 | TOTAL AVERAGE

REGIONALLIGA* (teams with average > 1,000)
North Division (0,727) | Northeast Division (1,001) | West Division (1,582) | Southwest Division (1,771) | South Division (1,255)
8,215 | ALEMANNIA AACHEN
7,277 | ROT-WEISS ESSEN
7,059 | JAHN REGENSBURG
6,705 | WALDHOF MANNHEIM
5,617 | KICKERS OFFENBACH
3,963 | CARL ZEISS JENA
3,673 | 1. FC SAARBRÜCKEN
2,531 | EINTRACHT TRIER
2,261 | HESSEN KASSEL
2,213 | ROT-WEISS OBERHAUSEN
2,110 | SV BABELSBERG
2,099 | VFB OLDENBURG
1,702 | FSV ZWICKAU
1,616 | SV ELVERSBERG
1,575 | ROT-WEISS AHLEN
1,512 | 1860 MÜNCHEN II
1,511 | BAYERN MÜNCHEN II
1,472 | FC HOMBURG
1,465 | WACKER BURGHAUSEN
1,450 | SPVGG UNTERHACHING
1,404 | BORUSSIA DORTMUND II
1,378 | TSV STEINBACH
1,351 | BAHLINGER SC
1,349 | SV MEPPEN
1,330 | VFV HILDESHEIM
1,322 | OBERFRANKEN BAYREUTH
1,269 | VFB LÜBECK
1,260 | SV RÖDINGHAUSEN
1,240 | BFC DYNAMO
1,205 | WACKER NORDHAUSEN
1,128 | 1. FC SCHWEINFURT
1,123 | VIKTORIA ASCHAFFENBURG
1,096 | SV SCHALDING-HEINING
1,085 | FC MEMMINGEN
1,076 | SV DROCHTERSEN/ASSEL
1,074 | WORMATIA WORMS
1,071 | SG WATTENSCHEID
1,014 | FK PIRMASENS

*5TH TIER*
top team(s) average | TOP TEAM | LEAGUE/DIVISION (division average)
2,698 | LOKOMOTIVE LEIPZIG | South Northeast (0,389)
2,649 | WUPPERTALER SV | Lower Rhine (0,476)
1,686 | KFC UERDINGEN | Lower Rhine (0,476)
1,317 | TUS KOBLENZ | Rhineland-Palatinate/Saar (0,290)
1,096 | BORUSSIA FULDA | Hesse (0,323)
1,072 | SF SIEGEN | Westphalia (0,320)
_,937 | SSV REUTLINGEN | Baden-Württemberg (0,431)
_,790 | BAYERN HOF | North Bavaria (0,326)
_,699 | ALTONA 93 | Hamburg (0,241)
_,613 | SV KIRCHANSCHÖRING | South Bavaria (0,293)
_,577 | HEIDER SV | Sleswick-Holsatia (0,232)
_,476 | TEBE BERLIN | North Northeast (0,225)
_,406 | BONNER SC | Middle Rhine (0,207)
_,355 | SVG GÖTTINGEN | Lower Saxony (0,225)
_,355 | ARMINIA HANNOVER | Lower Saxony (0,225)
no data available for Bremen division


----------



## Guest

A shame that Dresden cant get out of the third division.


----------



## pozinhossc

5portsF4n said:


> A shame that Dresden cant get out of the third division.


It's your lucky year! hehe

They are 9 points ahead the 2nd and 14 from 3rd. 
If they don't mess up things in the last six games, Dresde will play in 2.Liga next year.


----------



## GunnerJacket

isaidso said:


> There aren't huge discrepancies in attendance in Canada and we only have 36 million people. Not only that, but the lowest attendances are usually posted in our 3 biggest cities.
> 
> I suspect it's the north American system of franchises and greater revenue sharing league wide that creates parity.


I would suspect American and Canadian gridiron is more the anomaly because of the limited number of franchises/teams involved but a strong history from which to draw. (Versus, say, China) Compare the 40 or so teams spread across these two nations with the allotment of soccer teams across many individual European countries and you see why they have more room for truly small teams. 

If anything the more comparable measure would be including the collegiate programs, as well, which then give you giants like Michigan in the 108k range and minnows like Villanova at 1-2,000 per game.


----------



## Kerrybai

isaidso said:


> There aren't huge discrepancies in attendance in Canada and we only have 36 million people. Not only that, but the lowest attendances are usually posted in our 3 biggest cities.
> 
> I suspect it's the north American system of franchises and greater revenue sharing league wide that creates parity. In the Canadian Football League, the Saskatchewan Roughriders post the 2nd highest attendance in the league but exist in, by far, the smallest market. Only 230,000 people live in metro Regina yet they outdraw Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver; markets many many times larger.
> 
> This is Regina's new football stadium, about 80% finished. I don't think it would have been possible without the franchise model and team parity. The astonishing part is that they'll fill this thing too:
> 
> *New Stadium for the Saskatchewan Roughriders*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Courtesy of the CBC


The franchises must the be the key reason then. Inn Europe the marets are saturated with far too many teams and some of those near the bottom lack resources to compete with those at the top.


----------



## isaidso

Kerrybai said:


> The franchises must the be the key reason then. Inn Europe the marets are saturated with far too many teams and some of those near the bottom lack resources to compete with those at the top.


There are lots of factors for sure, but the franchise model does seem to be a key component as it creates stability, parity, and a monopoly. One can't just set up a team in the same market and try to steal fans, sports dollars, attention away from it. Who would they play against even if they did found a new team? They'd be no one to play unless you set up an entire rival league playing the same sport. Not even the US has had success with that in their most popular sport.

One could argue that US collegiate football/basketball is competition but isn't a franchise model. It's interesting that it also features powerhouse programs vs. minnows..... much like European soccer.


----------



## bd popeye

*MLS attendance thus far for the 2016 season. Toronto FC has not played any home games.*


----------



## panfas

Average crowds for the National Rugby League (NRL) in Australia and New Zealand. 6 rounds completed in 2016 (of 26 rounds)

*36,855 | Brisbane Broncos* _Suncorp Stadium, Brisbane (52,500)_
*23,239 | South Sydney Rabbitohs* _ANZ Stadium, Sydney (83,500)_
*21,741 | Canterbury Bankstown Bulldogs* _ANZ Stadium, Sydney (83,500)_
*17,782 | Wests Tigers* _ANZ Stadium, Sydney (83,500)_
*17,699 | Newcastle Knights* _Hunter Stadium, Newcastle (33,000)_
*15,836 | Sydney Roosters* _Allianz Stadium, Sydney (45,500)_
*15,407 | Warriors* _Mt Smart Stadium, Auckland (30,000)_
*15,404 | St George Illawarra Dragons* _WIN Stadium, Wollongong (23,000)_
*14,516 | Parramatta Eels* _Pirtek Stadium, Parramatta (20,700)_
*13,687 | North Queensland Cowboys* _1300SMILES Stadium, Townsville (26,500)_
*13,123 | Gold Coast Titans* _CBUS Super Stadium, Gold Coast (27,400)_
*12,951 | Cronulla Sutherland Sharks* _Southern Cross Stadium, Cronulla (22,000)_
*12,312 | Penrith Panthers* _Pepper Stadium, Penrith (22,500)_
*11,816 | Melbourne Storm* _AAMI Park, Melbourne (30,050)_
*11,586 | Canberra Raiders* _GIO Stadium, Canberra (25,011)_
*10,412 | Manly Warringah Sea Eagles* _Brookvale Oval, Manly (20,000)_


----------



## Andy-i

5portsF4n said:


> I'm sure the figures will be closely watched. It will be quite an achievement if this draws 5-8,000 on average.


First 2 games drew 3,400 and 2,312.

It's also only a 5 team league. Can't see it making much of an impact TBH.


----------



## bongo-anders

The 4 semifinals in the danish DBU Pokalen is probaby the most watched in recent history.


FC København - Brøndby IF 20.611
AaB - AGF 7.196

Brøndby - FC København 18.005
AGF - AaB 14.094


Average for the semifinals is 14.976,5.


I´m expecting over 30.000 for the final between AGF and FC København, perhaps a soldout crowd of 38.000 but more likely 32-35.000.


----------



## bongo-anders

I was checking up on the attendance figures for the previous semifinals and if we go 10 years back it looks like this.

I will post the average for the 4 semifinals and for the final.

05/06 

Randers FC - AaB and Esbjerg FB - Brøndby IF
8266,25

Esbjerg FC - Randers FC 
23.825


06/07

Lyngby BK - FC København and OB - Viborg FF
8037

FC København - OB
30.013



07/08

Brøndby IF - FC Midtjylland and FC København - Esbjerg FB
8706,25

Brøndby IF - Esbjerg FB
33.154


08/09

Brøndby IF - AaB and Holbæk - FC København 
8302,5

AaB - FC København
29.249


09/10

FC Midtjylland - OB and FC Nordsjælland - Vejle BK
4150,25

FC Nordsjælland - FC Midtjylland
18.856


10/11

FC Midtjylland - Esbjerg FB and FC Nordsjælland - Randers FC
4428,75

FC Nordsjælland - FC Midtjylland
8.863


11/12

FC København -SønderjyskE and HB Køge - AC Horsens
3472,75

AC Horsens - FC København
21.963


12/13

Brøndby IF- Esbjerg FB and AC Horsens - Randers FC
6886,75

Randers FC - Esbjerg FB
26.194


13/14

FC København - FC Nordsjælland and AC Horsens - AaB
5226,5

AaB - FC København
27.380


14/15

FC Vestsjælland - SønderjyskE and FC København - Esbjerg FB
5538,5

FC Vestsjælland - FC København 
24.095


15/16

FC København - Brøndby IF and AaB - AGF
14.976,5

AGF - FC København
?????


----------



## DanMB

It will be interesting to follow the Russian premier league next season from an average attendance point of view. Many clubs will have new stadiums with bigger capacity (CSKA, Zenit, Krasnodar, Dinamo etc) which should lead to a few thousand more in average attendance.


----------



## GunnerJacket

There will surely be a nice bump, though many of the venues don't come online for another year so the most telling change may not come til 2-3 seasons down the line. Zenit will be an interesting case, especially, since they're doing comparably well in Europe and their venue will help protect against the elements during the colder months. 

I think a lot will also depend on the performance of the Russian side, as well. If they really struggle it might dampen some enthusiasm.


----------



## isaidso

The Toronto Reds play their first game at expanded BMO Field and post attendance of 30,025. It's just one game but enough to move them into 3rd spot in MLS for average attendance.


----------



## CharlieP

Aviva Premiership Rugby regular-season averages 2015/16:

21,770 - Leicester Tigers
19,307 - Harlequins[1]
18,640 - Saracens[2]
15,451 - Northampton Saints[3]
15,051 - Wasps
13,885 - Gloucester Rugby
13,226 - Bath Rugby
11,833 - London Irish[4] (relegated)
11,032 - Exeter Chiefs
9,042 - Worcester Warriors
6,472 - Newcastle Falcons
6,152 - Sale Sharks

13,488 - average

[1] Harlequins played one home game at Twickenham (70,718)
[2] Saracens played one home game at Twickenham (42,680) and one at Wembley (80,650)
[3] Northampton played one home game at stadium:mk (20,034)
[4] London Irish played one home game at Twickenham (42,680) and one at Red Bull Arena (14,811)


----------



## bd popeye

MLS attendance thus far for the 2016 season..


----------



## pozinhossc

bd popeye said:


> MLS attendance thus far for the 2016 season..


^^

MLS surpassed France's Ligue 1 and not far from Italy's Serie A

Maybe next year France will get better average as Lyon will play the whole season in the new stadium and the relegation of Ajaccio (3K average)
On the other hand I just read about 29,000 season ticket's requests in Atlanta for next season.

But the trend is impressive.


----------



## GunnerJacket

MLS now needs to address the ongoing issues in places like Chicago and Colorado, where the average is still modest and the threat of sub-10k games still lingers. Much of this has to do with on-field performance but the league will need address that all the same, because let's face it not everyone can be a dynasty. I'm not sure how much of this is weather related versus fan rapport vs. competition from other sports in those communities, but I hope they find a way to get folks involved and vested before they feel the product is worn and unworthy.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

CharlieP said:


> Aviva Premiership Rugby regular-season averages 2015/16:
> 
> 21,770 - Leicester Tigers
> 19,307 - Harlequins[1]
> 18,640 - Saracens[2]
> 15,451 - Northampton Saints[3]
> 15,051 - Wasps
> 13,885 - Gloucester Rugby
> 13,226 - Bath Rugby
> 11,833 - London Irish[4] (relegated)
> 11,032 - Exeter Chiefs
> 9,042 - Worcester Warriors
> 6,472 - Newcastle Falcons
> 6,152 - Sale Sharks
> 
> [1] Harlequins played one home game at Twickenham (70,718)
> [2] Saracens played *one home game at Twickenham (42,680)* and one at Wembley (80,650)
> [3] Northampton played one home game at stadium:mk (20,034)
> [4] London Irish played *one home game at Twickenham (42,680)* and one at Red Bull Arena (14,811)


I always feel that's somewhat dodgy, counting the total crowd for the double header as a home attendance for both clubs.


----------



## CharlieP

Rev Stickleback said:


> I always feel that's somewhat dodgy, counting the total crowd for the double header as a home attendance for both clubs.


I know what you mean, but how else can you physically do it?

On the subject of the London Double Header, I'm not sure what's going to happen next year when there are only two London clubs left in the Premiership (and Harlequins refuse to be a home team at the Double Header since they have The Big Game)...


----------



## CharlieP

Updated figures, only counting games played at own stadium:

21,770 - Leicester Tigers
15,051 - Wasps
14,993 - Northampton Saints
14,166 - Harlequins
13,885 - Gloucester Rugby
13,226 - Bath Rugby
11,536 - London Irish
11,032 - Exeter Chiefs
9,079 - Saracens
9,042 - Worcester Warriors
6,472 - Newcastle Falcons
6,152 - Sale Sharks

11,975 - average


----------



## isaidso

pozinhossc said:


> MLS surpassed France's Ligue 1 and not far from Italy's Serie A.
> 
> But the trend is impressive.


Considering how MLS use the north American franchise system and 1 team per city (NYC and LA are exceptions) I wouldn't be surprised to see this league one day post the highest average attendance. Leagues in Europe often feature multiple teams in metros of 2-3 million+. In Canada/US, it's 1 team/metro for the most part.

MLS could remain a few rungs below other leagues in popularity and still post big attendance figures due to the populations its serving. In the NY MSA there are 2 teams for 20.2 million people. In the LA MSA there are 2 teams for 13.4 million people with another 4.5 million in the Riverside MSA right next door. All the rest of the franchises have a monopoly in their respective metro and they range in size from 1.2 million (Salt Lake City) to 9.6 million (Chicago) in size.


----------



## lwa

CharlieP said:


> Aviva Premiership Rugby regular-season averages 2015/16:
> 
> 21,770 - Leicester Tigers
> 19,307 - Harlequins[1]
> 18,640 - Saracens[2]
> 15,451 - Northampton Saints[3]
> 15,051 - Wasps
> 13,885 - Gloucester Rugby
> 13,226 - Bath Rugby
> 11,833 - London Irish[4] (relegated)
> 11,032 - Exeter Chiefs
> 9,042 - Worcester Warriors
> 6,472 - Newcastle Falcons
> 6,152 - Sale Sharks
> 
> 13,488 - average
> 
> [1] Harlequins played one home game at Twickenham (70,718)
> [2] Saracens played one home game at Twickenham (42,680) and one at Wembley (80,650)
> [3] Northampton played one home game at stadium:mk (20,034)
> [4] London Irish played one home game at Twickenham (42,680) and one at Red Bull Arena (14,811)


Here is the Guinness Pro12 too:

15,601 - Ulster
14,756 - Leinster [1]
12,598 - Munster 
11,846 - Cardiff [2]
11,034 - Newport [2]
8,606 - Ospreys
7,361 - Scarlets
6,805 - Glasgow [3]
5,480 - Edinburgh [4]
5,226 - Connacht
3,164 - Treviso
2,376 - Zebre

8,738 - Average

[1] Includes 43,108 for a game at the Aviva Stadium
[2] Includes 68,262 for the Judgement Day double header at the Principality Stadium
[3] Includes a crowd of 8,000 at Murrayfield, and a crowd of 7,212 at Rugby Park - both whilst their own ground was unplayable
[4] Includes a crowd of 2,479 at Meggetland, due to a Foo Fighters concert at Murrayfield



Including only games played at home grounds:

15,601 - Ulster
12,598 - Munster 
11,921 - Leinster
8,606 - Ospreys
7,361 - Scarlets
6,627 - Glasgow 
6,204 - Cardiff
5,780 - Edinburgh [1]
5,311 - Newport
5,226 - Connacht
3,164 - Treviso
2,376 - Zebre

[1] Should be noted Edinburgh's average is also heavily boosted by getting 23,000 for the derby against Glasgow, in much the same way as Leinster. I've left it in though as it is, for now at least, held at the same venue as all other games.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

CharlieP said:


> I know what you mean, but how else can you physically do it?


Give them half each?



> On the subject of the London Double Header, I'm not sure what's going to happen next year when there are only two London clubs left in the Premiership (and Harlequins refuse to be a home team at the Double Header since they have The Big Game)...


I think counting the big game crowd is reasonable is the average attendance, as it is just one game. Same for Saracens' game at Wembley.

As for the double-header, I think Wasps will still be keen, so it would just be a double header in as far is it's a London club, and another club with a substantial London fan base.

Unless you have Harlequins as an away team though, crowds might not be so great.


----------



## CharlieP

Rev Stickleback said:


> Give them half each?


That seems an even worse solution, as the majority of people will have watched both games.



> As for the double-header, I think Wasps will still be keen, so it would just be a double header in as far is it's a London club, and another club with a substantial London fan base.
> 
> Unless you have Harlequins as an away team though, crowds might not be so great.


Quins have been the away team in their match for several years and their fans have turned up in good numbers. My point is that having them as the away team is that a non-London team would have to be "invited" to give up one home game to play at Twickenham instead, which could be a rather hard sell. Maybe Wasps might agree to it though.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

CharlieP said:


> That seems an even worse solution, as the majority of people will have watched both games.


It's a bit more honest though, as it is the crowd for two games, not one.



> Quins have been the away team in their match for several years and their fans have turned up in good numbers. My point is that having them as the away team is that a non-London team would have to be "invited" to give up one home game to play at Twickenham instead, which could be a rather hard sell. Maybe Wasps might agree to it though.


They could in theory have a London Irish v London Scottish game there as the 2nd game. OK, it's not a premier league game, but it still might get fans of both clubs in, plus potentially be a boost to London Scottish in attracting new fans.


----------



## CharlieP

Rev Stickleback said:


> It's a bit more honest though, as it is the crowd for two games, not one.


But the majority of the crowd will have attended two games not one.



> They could in theory have a London Irish v London Scottish game there as the 2nd game. OK, it's not a premier league game, but it still might get fans of both clubs in, plus potentially be a boost to London Scottish in attracting new fans.


Richmond might feel a bit put out if London Scottish were picked and not them. Anyway, it's very unlikely as it's the Aviva Premiership Double Header - the Championship has a different sponsor (Greene King IPA unless that's now ended).


----------



## iranii

Great bounce back season for the Persian Gulf Pro League (Iran). Average attendance: *9,639*

I will post team by team breakdowns later.


----------



## bd popeye

_Ahem...

FC Cincinnati of the third tier USL in the US has so far this season Cincinnati has drawn 14,000, 20,000, 11,000 & 23,000 to it's four home matches. Not bad for a lower tier league. Not bad at all._

*Record FC Cincinnati crowd nearly bests all of MLS*



> Futbol Club Cincinnati nearly overshadowed all of Major League Soccer attendance-wise with its latest box-office feat this weekend.
> 
> Playing just the fourth home game of its inaugural United Soccer League season, FC Cincinnati saw a league-record 23,375 attend its 1-0 victory against Pittsburgh Riverhounds at the University of Cincinnati's Nippert Stadium. In the process, FC Cincinnati broke its own single-game USL attendance record of 20,497, which it set April 16 when it hosted Louisville City FC.
> 
> Of the nine MLS games that took place this weekend, only one team — Toronto FC — had a better turnout. Toronto had 24,748 attend its Saturday game against Vancouver Whitecaps FC at newly-renovated BMO Field.
> 
> Here's how FC Cincinnati stacked up against the MLS games that took place this weekend:
> 
> 1. 24,748 - Toronto FC v. Vancouver Whitecaps (BMO Field in Toronto, Ontario).
> 
> 2. 23,375 - FC Cincinnati v. Pittsburgh Riverhounds (Nippert Stadium in Cincinnati).
> 
> 3. 20,801 - Montreal Impact v. Philadelphia Union (Saputo Stadium in Montreal, Quebec).
> 
> 4.19,632 - D.C. United v. New York Red Bulls (RFK Stadium in Washington, D.C.).
> 
> 5. 19,080 - Sporting Kansas City v. Orlando City SC (Children's Mercy Park in Kansas City, Kansas).
> 
> 6. 18,997 - New England Revolution v. Chicago Fire (Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Massachusetts).
> 
> 7. 17,943 - Houston Dynamo v. Real Salt Lake (BBVA Compass Stadium in Houston, Texas).
> 
> 8. 15,023 - Columbus Crew SC v. Colorado Rapids (Mapfre Stadium in Columbus).
> 
> 9. 14,630 - FC Dallas v. Seattle Sounders FC (Toyota Stadium in Frisco, Texas).
> 
> *The Portland Timbers versus New York City FC attendance wasn't announced when this story was posted, but Providence Park in Portland, Oregon has a listed capacity of about 22,000.
> 
> _For context, four of the top five MLS teams in terms of average home attendance played on the road this weekend, or didn't play at all. Those four teams — Seattle Sounders, Orlando City, NYCFC and Los Angeles Galaxy (didn't play) — all average larger home crowds than FC Cincinnati's crowd of 23,375, according to Soccer Stadium Digest. Toronto is only team in the top five to host a game this weekend._


_Still...impressive..most impressive!_


----------



## bd popeye

*MLS Attendance for the 2016 season*


----------



## GunnerJacket

a) Thanks for keeping us up to date, BD!

b) Again with the C's and D's dropping to the bottom of the list! If the league did add current crowd darling Cincinnati I wonder if they would buck the trend or if the sphere of influence would see their numbers brought low amongst these others! 

c) I do hope Colorado shows improvement soon. Their team is looking very solid and if they could sustain the run there's every reason for fans to return. Plus, with the weather trending toward summer for them... Columbus, meanwhile, will be intriguing now that they've dealt Kai Kamara. The team was already struggling, so we'll see if this is a case of addition through subtraction regarding the combustible personality.


----------



## Blueandwhite

Average attendances in the Danske Bank Premiership 2015/16 (Northern Ireland) 

Team Average Attendance 
Linfield 2304 
Crusaders 1562	
Glentoran 1448	
Cliftonville 1206	
Glenavon 1054	
Ballymena 958	
Coleraine 895	
Portadown 665	
Carrick Rangers 514	
Dungannon Swifts 427
Ballinamallard United 388 
Warrenpoint Town 250 

Overall Average 978


----------



## NL-duketown

ForzaD said:


> Scottish football surely has the most impressive attendance per capita stats.


not 100% sure about that. 

It's just a 12 club league. Dutch have an 18 club league with 20.000 average on 17 million inhabitants. Based on a 12 team league we would average well over 30.000.


----------



## NL-duketown

DanMB said:


> It will be interesting to follow the Russian premier league next season from an average attendance point of view. Many clubs will have new stadiums with bigger capacity (CSKA, Zenit, Krasnodar, Dinamo etc) which should lead to a few thousand more in average attendance.





GunnerJacket said:


> There will surely be a nice bump, though many of the venues don't come online for another year so the most telling change may not come til 2-3 seasons down the line. Zenit will be an interesting case, especially, since they're doing comparably well in Europe and their venue will help protect against the elements during the colder months.
> 
> I think a lot will also depend on the performance of the Russian side, as well. If they really struggle it might dampen some enthusiasm.


Hmm.. Given current statistics and relegation, probably an alltime low seems more realistic. If clubs need to pay for those stadions themselves (after WC) I foresee even more trouble.


----------



## NL-duketown

Patrick said:


> Germany, as at least for the first 4 tiers the season is over (except for some promotion playoffs in the 4th tier; source: weltfussball.de)
> 
> *1. BUNDESLIGA*
> *43,300 | TOTAL AVERAGE
> 
> 2. BUNDESLIGA*
> *19,155 | TOTAL AVERAGE
> 
> 3. LIGA*
> *_7,068 | TOTAL AVERAGE
> *


*

Three divisions with so many fans... JUST CRAZY!!

Besides, 2. Bundesliga clubs are growing:
Fortuna Cologne gets a renewed stadium.
Greuther Fürth started renewing much of their stadium for €17 million for all works, 23,000 instead of 18,000. 
Saarbrücken is soon starting renewing their stadium (decrease from 35,000+ to 16,000) for €16 million. 
Rot-Weiß Erfurt is doing a €40 million stadium redevelopment.
Darmstadt, €33 million convert to football-only lay-out stadium, ready 2018.

Munchen, Bremen, Aachen and Mainz already made great updates. Jahn Regensburg has a new €53 million stadium.*


----------



## Rev Stickleback

NL-duketown said:


> not 100% sure about that.
> 
> It's just a 12 club league. Dutch have an 18 club league with 20.000 average on 17 million inhabitants. Based on a 12 team league we would average well over 30.000.


Scotland's population is only 5 million though, and even with another six teams, the average would still probably be over 10,000.

Even if you take out the 6 worst supported teams from the Dutch top division, the average is 24000, not 30,000.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

The maths for best support per capita has been done and Scotland was indeed the best, I'll try to look up the source.


----------



## www.sercan.de

Another year with the PassoLig fancard, another bad year.

Süper Lig 2015-2016

1. Fenerbahçe SK 28.589 
2. Galatasaray SK 18.996 
3. Beşiktaş JK 18.668 
4. Konya SK 15.871 
5. Bursa SK 12.744 
6. Trabzon SK 10.059 
7. Antalya SK 9.362 
8. Eskişehir SK 6.815 
9. Mersin IY SK 5.116 
10. Sivas SK 4.881 
11. Kayseri SK 4.517 
12. Osmanlı FK 4.186 
13. Rize SK 3.314 
14. Gaziantep SK 3.065 
15. Başakşehir FK 2.716 
16. Gençlerbirliği SK 2.565 
17. Akhisar BGSK 2.394 
18. Kasımpaşa SK 1.950

League: *8.656 *


----------



## greenlion

as of May 29 average attendance of CSL and CL1

CSL Average 26,233

Guangzhou Evergrande Taobao	47346 
Beijing Guoan 42068 
Jiangsu Suning 39698 
Chongqing Lifan 39618 
Liaoning Whowin 30677 
Shanghai SIPG 29485 
Tianjin Teda 24910 
Shanghai Greenland Shenhua	22480 
Shijiazhuang Ever Bright	21884 
Hebei China Fortune 21153 
Henan Jianye 19713 
Yanbian Fude 18073 
Shandong Luneng	Taishan 17840 
Changchun Yatai 15937 
Hangzhou Greentown 11501 
Guangzhou R&F 10560 

CL1 Average 7,491

Dalian Yifang 14730 
Tianjin Quanjian	13145 
Shenzhen FC 12596 
Guizhou Zhicheng	11323 
Neimenggu Zhongyou	10264 
Meizhou Kejia 7603 
Dalian Chanyue 7116 
Wuhan Zall 6107 
Qingdao Yellowsea	6083 
Beijing Renhe 5440 
Hunan Billows 5371 
Shanghai Shenxin	5073 
Beijing BG 4638 
Xinjiang Tianshan 3909 
Zhejiang Yiteng 3612 
Qingdao Jonoon 3048


----------



## lwa

alexandru.mircea said:


> The maths for best support per capita has been done and Scotland was indeed the best, I'll try to look up the source.


Nope, it was the Faroes (Scotland in 4th, also behind Iceland and Cyprus)

http://www.sportingintelligence.com...s-iceland-cyprus-scotland-and-england-020403/


Though figures are 4 years out of date (going back to when Rangers were still in the SPL), and count 5 divisions apparently. No idea what the 5th division is…


----------



## Chimaera

*Belgian Jupiler Pro League 2015-2016:*

_club - games - total attendance - average attendance_

Club Brugge KV _(champion)_ - 20 - 526790 - *26,340*
R. Standard Club de Liège - 18 - 404147 - *22,453*
RSC Anderlecht - 20 - 418350 - *20,918*

KAA Gent - 20 - 398131 - *19,907*
KRC Genk - 21 - 360106 - *17,148*

Yellow Red KV Mechelen - 18 - 178709 - *9,928*
R. Charleroi SC - 20 - 180269 - *9,013*
Sint-Truidense VV - 18 - 160924 - *8,940*
SV Zulte Waregem - 20 - 170658 - *8,533*
KSC Lokeren - 18 - 145728 - *8,096*
KV Kortrijk - 19 - 144651 - *7,613*
Oud-Heverlee Leuven - 15 - 107818 - *7,188*
KVC Westerlo - 15 - 96000 - *6,400*
KV Oostende - 20 - 124073 - *6,204*
Waasland Beveren - 18 - 94650 - *5,258*
R. Mouscron-Péruwelz - 18 - 67880 - *3,771*

Overall: 298 - 3,578,884 - *12,010*

I will not give Belgian Cup and Champions/Europa League attendance records for Belgian clubs (a bit too much work).
The Cup Final between Standard Liège and Club Brugge at the King Baudoin Stadium was sold out (50,000).

As a fan of Club Brugge I keep track of attendance records myself and have different numbers: 518,350 total - 25,918 average

Reduced from http://www.worldfootball.net/attendance/bel-eerste-klasse-2015-2016/1/


----------



## bd popeye

FC Cincinnati of the USL attendance for last night match ,which was a draw against Richmond, was 11,278. Not bad for a third tier club.


----------



## NL-duketown

Better impression is to just look at first divisions, then Scotland is most football crazy. 
Looking at the top 7 15.000+ 18 team leagues (or top most crowded countries), The Netherlands is unbeatable in football craziness.

Even better would be to rate attendency per capita against matchday revenue.


----------



## tomlever

for the most football crazy country, surely it would be better to measure the average total attendance at football games per week, and take this as a percentage of the population


----------



## ForzaD

Average per game in Scotland next season will definitely be closer to 14000.


----------



## GunnerJacket

tomlever said:


> for the most football crazy country, surely it would be better to measure the average total attendance at football games per week, and take this as a percentage of the population


Statistically speak this would indeed provide a clearer picture, and should probably include more than simply the top flights. So take the above averages and multiply that by the number of games for the weekend and weigh that figure against the population.


----------



## flierfy

Scotland has the biggest ration of total attendance by population as a quick calculation of selected countries reveals. The total in the chart is the total attendance of one season of cup and league matches as far as I could gather them.



Code:


population		          total	     tot/pop
 5.347.600	Scotland	 4.124.533	0,771
54.316.600	England    	33.646.060	0,619
17.014.040	Netherlands	 7.941.938	0,467
   332.529	Iceland    	   146.130	0,439
 5.223.256	Norway     	 2.091.120	0,400
11.316.587	Belgium    	 4.419.229	0,391
46.423.064	Spain      	15.390.871	0,332
81.770.900	Germany    	25.195.148	0,308
 5.717.014	Denmark     	 1.692.900	0,296
 8.325.194	Switzerland	 2.397.473	0,288
60.674.003	Italy      	14.416.155	0,238
66.689.000	France     	11.315.460	0,170
 8.699.730	Austria    	 1.468.080	0,169
 4.225.316	Croatia    	   443.521	0,105
 2.886.026	Albania    	   265.860	0,092

Sources are Wikipedia and Weltfussball.de


----------



## NL-duketown

flierfy said:


> Scotland has the biggest ration of total attendance by population as a quick calculation of selected countries reveals. The total in the chart is the total attendance of one season of cup and league matches as far as I could gather them.
> 
> ...



"total attendance by population", doesn't say much about a League's fan-density. At least, factor out the number of clubs in first League being a factor. You need the #of matches in this equation and thus divide population/*avg. League match attendency*. Then Premier League, which holds 20 teams, would drop significant. By the way, I posted those statistics a few posts back.

Maybe even add matchday revenue to see how commited fans are ;-)


----------



## gmacruyff

www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm

That's the whole of Europe last season!

n.b. Scotlands "second tier" league had higher average attendances than the same league in Spain,France and Italy!(thanks to Rangers ave of 45000)

Next season,with Rangers back in the top league,average attendances will rocket up to what it was like 5 years ago!


----------



## bd popeye

*Pair of Okoli goals lead to FC Cincinnati win*

Another great crowd for FC Cincinnati... 14,267 - Saturday versus FC Montreal..and the won the match to boot!



> FC Cincinnati surpasses 100K in league attendance
> 
> For the seventh consecutive game, Cincinnati pre-sold at least 10,000 tickets for a home match. The continuation of the streak also allowed FC Cincinnati to cross the 100,000 threshold for league attendance on the season. The team came into the FC Montreal match with 97,223 total attendance through its first six USL matches and, with Saturday's crowd of 14,267, upped its season total to 111,490 (120,158 including the May 18 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup match against Indy Eleven NPSL).
> 
> Harkes said he's pleasantly surprised every time the organization achieves another attendance feat.
> 
> "I think people just want to see a high-level performance in the city," said Harkes. "The fans are there... The fan base is fantastic. They get behind us and their passion comes across really well. We appreciate all the suppport they're giving us."


_FC Cincinnati is a first year team in the third tier USL in the US. _


----------



## bd popeye

COPA 2016 attendance


----------



## HB07

Any figures of EPL attendance ? with the West Ham new stadium and expansion of Anfield ?


----------



## bd popeye

HB07 said:


> Any figures of EPL attendance ? with the West Ham new stadium and expansion of Anfield ?


Google is your friend...


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> Google is your friend...


Indeed, however our friend is asking about the season that just started. Allow me to help!



HB07 said:


> Any figures of EPL attendance ? with the West Ham new stadium and expansion of Anfield ?


One version of early 2016/2017 data can be found here. It's incomplete, though, as it's missing one Burnley match, and keep in mind Liverpool have not yet hosted a match in their recently expanded stadium.


----------



## bd popeye

GunnerJacket said:


> Indeed, however our friend is asking about the season that just started. Allow me to help!


Now wait a minute..not a soccer fan here. how would I know that the EPL season has started? oh yea... google is my friend.....:|


----------



## bd popeye

*FC Cincinnati* home attendance for 2016.


----------



## Épicolx

Source: http://stadiumdb.com/news/2016/08/new_list_these_20_clubs_draw_biggest_crowds


----------



## isaidso

It says in the title that all draw more than 46,000 except the #20 team clearly does not.


----------



## bd popeye

At least 46,000(45,538) a match/game?^^ Not bad...

_Selected_ NCAA FBS Football attendance for 1 Sept thru 5 Sept..

Home school listed.

Michigan...Michigan Stadium, Ann Arbor, Michigan Attendance: 110,222

Ohio State...Ohio Stadium, Columbus, Ohio Attendance: 107,193

Texas...Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium/Jamail Field, Austin, Texas Attendance: 102,315

Texas A&M...Kyle Field, College Station, Texas Attendance: 100,443

Tennessee...Neyland Stadium, Knoxville, Tennessee Attendance: 100,074

Penn State....Beaver Stadium, University Park, Pennsylvania Attendance: 94,378

Nebraska....Tom Osborne Field at Memorial Stadium, Lincoln, Nebraska Attendance: 90,013

Florida....Florida Field at Ben Hill Griffin Stadium, Gainesville, Florida Attendance: 88,121

Auburn....Jordan-Hare Stadium, Auburn, Alabama Attendance: 87,451

Wisconsin....Lambeau Field(neutral site), Green Bay, Wisconsin Attendance: 77,823

Michigan State...Spartan Stadium, East Lansing, Michigan Attendance: 74,516

Houston....NRG Stadium, Houston, Texas Attendance: 71,016

Iowa.....Kinnick Stadium, Iowa City, Iowa Attendance: 68,390

Texas A&M....Jones AT&T Stadium, Lubbock, Texas Attendance: 60,097

Washington.....Alaska Airlines Field at Husky Stadium, Seattle, Washington Attendance: 58,640

Oregon....Autzen Stadium, Eugene, Oregon Attendance: 53,817

Arizona...University of Phoenix Stadium, Glendale, Arizona Attendance: 50,528


----------



## jts1882

Épicolx said:


> Source: http://stadiumdb.com/news/2016/08/new_list_these_20_clubs_draw_biggest_crowds


At least four PL clubs will join the >46k group in the next few years. Liverpool have opened a new stand that will take them to 54k (with outline plans for 58k), West Ham have moved into the revamped Olympic Stadium and should get 50-60k, while Spurs are half way through the build of a new 61k stadium and Chelsea are in the process of getting permission for one of around 60k. Everton are also in the process of planning a new ground, which should be over 50k. 

That could take to total to nine over 50k: four in London, two each in Manchester and Liverpool, one in Newcastle. Sunderland also have a stadium that could be 48k if they can come up with a football team good enough to fill it. Of our bigger cities only Birmingham seems unable to join the club. Glasgow also has three stadia that can be over 50k, but lack enough matches of sufficient interest.

This period is for the PL similar to rebuilding in Germany for the 2006 World Cup.


----------



## weava

We are 4 days away from the Battle At Bristol. US college football game between University of Tennessee and Virginia Tech University. Crowd of over 150,000 expected.


----------



## bd popeye

*MLS attendance thru 3 September 2016*



*Total attendance over 269 matches played = 5,789,026 averaging 21,521 per match.*


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> _Selected_ NCAA FBS Football attendance for 1 Sept thru 5 Sept..
> 
> Wisconsin....Lambeau Field(neutral site), Green Bay, Wisconsin Attendance: 77,823


Unless certain sections were closed off I'm really disappointed by this figure. It's a marquee match-up in a venue most football fans would love to see (during a game that matters), and yet the Badger faithful couldn't muster up a full house?! Perhaps I was overrating them.

Still a great marching band, though. 


jts1882 said:


> At least four PL clubs will join the >46k group in the next few years. Liverpool have opened a new stand that will take them to 54k (with outline plans for 58k), West Ham have moved into the revamped Olympic Stadium and should get 50-60k, while Spurs are half way through the build of a new 61k stadium and Chelsea are in the process of getting permission for one of around 60k. Everton are also in the process of planning a new ground, which should be over 50k.


I've a feeling it will be a while before we see anything physical from Chelsea and Everton, however. The formal apparently underestimated the weight and bureaucracy of the London development process while the latter is toiling in an economic twilight zone. I'm hopeful, but suspect nothing will break ground on either front for a solid 3 years out.



> Of our bigger cities only Birmingham seems unable to join the club.


More of a head-scratcher than your Sunderland nod considering the pedigree of the Villa name. I think Wolves beautiful designs would only max out around 45k, no? Regardless, they're both a ways out from investing as needed to see something over the 46k mark. I'd love to see a larger and refined Villa Park, though.



> Glasgow also has three stadia that can be over 50k, but lack enough matches of sufficient interest.


Three venues but only 2 clubs that could pull it off, so no need to raise Hampden/Queen's Park, I say.


----------



## GunnerJacket

weava said:


> We are 4 days away from the Battle At Bristol. US college football game between University of Tennessee and Virginia Tech University. Crowd of over 150,000 expected.


I'll admit, I'm curious. 

C'mon Hokies!


----------



## Andy-i

alexandru.mircea said:


> The first season of PRO Rugby is getting nearer and nearer to its debut, which is happening in mid April. This will be the first professional competition in rugby union, at club level, ever held in the USA. Hopefuly there are some US based rugby fans that will keep us posted on the development of this league.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_PRO_Rugby_season






Andy-i said:


> First 2 games drew 3,400 and 2,312.
> 
> It's also only a 5 team league. Can't see it making much of an impact TBH.


The season is now over and it drew 51,696 over the 30 games for an average of 1723.

So not much of an impact and in the world of pro team sports in the US it's not even a blip. 

In Rugby terms, it's not that far behind the 2nd tier in England though, which averaged 2064 last season.

I always find it odd when some UK rugby fans talk of Rugby becoming bigger than football (soccer to our American cousins) in the US, as it's played at college level.

They seem to have no idea how big the MLS is now, or how small Rugby is as a spectator sport.

It will be interesting to see if it can grow in terms of teams and/or crowds in the future.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Andy-i said:


> I always find it odd when some UK rugby fans talk of Rugby becoming bigger than football (soccer to our American cousins) in the US, as it's played at college level.


Part of this might be how they're seeing their own sport grow compared to a couple generations ago, with wider global appeal and more professional opportunities. From outside looking in it's tough to discern how insular is the culture for US sports.


----------



## irving1903

bd popeye said:


> At least 46,000(45,538) a match/game?^^ Not bad...
> 
> _Selected_ NCAA FBS Football attendance for 1 Sept thru 5 Sept..
> 
> Home school listed.
> 
> Texas...Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium/Jamail Field, Austin, Texas Attendance: 102,315
> 
> Texas A&M...Kyle Field, College Station, Texas Attendance: 100,443
> 
> Houston....NRG Stadium, Houston, Texas Attendance: 71,016
> 
> Texas A&M....Jones AT&T Stadium, Lubbock, Texas Attendance: 60,097


I think you meant Texas Tech friend. It's good to see all of them drawing so well to start the season. Hopefully Texas and Houston can keep it up this year.


----------



## Village Idiot

The US National Womens Soccer League deserves some recognition. The Portland Thorns have higher attendance than a couple of the MLS teams.

Portland Thorns FC - 16,819
Orlando Pride - 9,201
Houston Dash - 5,651
Seattle Reign FC - 4,590
Western New York Flash - 3,868
Washington Spirit - 3,864
Boston Breakers - 3,780
FC Kansas City - 3,258
Chicago Red Stars - 3,033
Sky Blue FC - 1,973

League average: 5,503


----------



## jts1882

Andy-i said:


> The season is now over and it drew 51,696 over the 30 games for an average of 1723.
> 
> So not much of an impact and in the world of pro team sports in the US it's not even a blip.
> 
> In Rugby terms, it's not that far behind the 2nd tier in England though, which averaged 2064 last season.
> 
> I always find it odd when some UK rugby fans talk of Rugby becoming bigger than football (soccer to our American cousins) in the US, as it's played at college level.
> 
> They seem to have no idea how big the MLS is now, or how small Rugby is as a spectator sport.
> 
> It will be interesting to see if it can grow in terms of teams and/or crowds in the future.


It depends what your criteria are. MLS, however good the attendance numbers, is way behind other global leagues.

Rugby has far less support nearly everywhere (New Zealand, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and, to a lesser extent, Australia). The US, though, has potential to become a serious contender because it has the population and because there is a large pool of unfulfilled talent left over from American Football. There are some incredible athletes not good enough for the NFL who could be part of a high quality rugby side.

I remember watching club rugby on some obscure channel when I lived in LA in the 1990s, mostly west coast and mountain zone clubs. There is raw talent there. The introduction of Rugby Sevens into the Olympics could also help.


----------



## Spus65

Rangers actually managed the highest average attendance in Scotland last season despite not being in the top division!

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/archive/sco/avesco16.htm


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Congratz GJ on becoming a mod! 



Andy-i said:


> The season is now over and it drew 51,696 over the 30 games for an average of 1723.
> 
> So not much of an impact and in the world of pro team sports in the US it's not even a blip.
> 
> In Rugby terms, it's not that far behind the 2nd tier in England though, which averaged 2064 last season.
> 
> I always find it odd when some UK rugby fans talk of Rugby becoming bigger than football (soccer to our American cousins) in the US, as it's played at college level.
> 
> They seem to have no idea how big the MLS is now, or how small Rugby is as a spectator sport.
> 
> It will be interesting to see if it can grow in terms of teams and/or crowds in the future.


Thanks for the info. The league does look small on a general scale but for rugby things are more relative. If a decently functioning pro league helps American rugby to suddenly rise to the top, American audiences will back a strong national team during big events, given what I understand about American sports culture. And that would create a virtuous circle. 

If this league pays the US average wage then it can have all the best Tier 2 talent and more, if they want to go that way. There aren't many places to play for a decent living wage if you're a player, in the Romanian rugby millieus it's said that a lot of players are eyeing this US league for potential contracts.


----------



## GunnerJacket

alexandru.mircea said:


> Congratz GJ on becoming a mod!


Danke!


----------



## isaidso

The University of Tennessee met Virginia Tech in front of 156,990 fans at Bristol Motor Speedway to set an attendance record for a football game.









Courtesy of bleacherreport


----------



## Scba

^^ That's obviously a render of the event, and a poor one at that


----------



## Aceventura

Scba said:


> ^^ That's obviously a render of the event, and a poor one at that



I posted some pictures in the Bristol thread in completed stadiums.


----------



## Glasgow High Rise

jts1882 said:


> At least four PL clubs will join the >46k group in the next few years. Liverpool have opened a new stand that will take them to 54k (with outline plans for 58k), West Ham have moved into the revamped Olympic Stadium and should get 50-60k, while Spurs are half way through the build of a new 61k stadium and Chelsea are in the process of getting permission for one of around 60k. Everton are also in the process of planning a new ground, which should be over 50k.
> 
> That could take to total to nine over 50k: four in London, two each in Manchester and Liverpool, one in Newcastle. Sunderland also have a stadium that could be 48k if they can come up with a football team good enough to fill it. Of our bigger cities only Birmingham seems unable to join the club. Glasgow also has three stadia that can be over 50k, but lack enough matches of sufficient interest.
> 
> This period is for the PL similar to rebuilding in Germany for the 2006 World Cup.


Re Glasgow. 

Celtic season sales jumped by almost 10k - to 52k -with the appointment of Brendan Rodger in late May, they were stagnant prior to that point, despite new club Rangers being in the division. 

To date, this 2016-17 season, with 2 home league matches and 3 home European qualifiers played at Celtic Park the average attendance is just over 55k. This is back to pre recession figures 2008 and should see the club back in the top 10 watched in Europe.. 
http://www.fitbastats.com/celtic/club_records_league_attendance.php


----------



## Kobo

English Premier League attendances

Game 6

Manchester Utd vs Leicester 4-1 Att: 75,256
Swansea vs Manchester City 1-3 Att: 20,786
Arsenal vs Chelsea 3-0 Att: 60,028
Liverpool vs Hull 5-1 Att: 53,109
Sunderland vs Crystal Palace 2-3 Att: 38,941
Middlesbrough vs Tottenham 1-2 Att: 32,703
Bournemouth vs Everton 1-0 Att: 11,291
Stoke vs WBA 1-1 Att: 27,645
West Ham Utd vs Southampton 0-3 Att: 56,895


----------



## panfas

Average crowds for the National Rugby League (NRL) in Australia and New Zealand for the 2016 season (including finals series)

*34,475 | Brisbane Broncos* Suncorp Stadium, Brisbane (52,500)
*21,585 | Melbourne Storm* AAMI Park, Melbourne (30,050)
*17,239 | North Queensland Cowboys* 1300SMILES Stadium, Townsville (26,500)
*16,261 | Cronulla Sutherland Sharks* Southern Cross Stadium, Cronulla (22,000)
*15,390 | Wests Tigers ANZ Stadium*, Sydney (83,500)
*15,202 | Canterbury Bankstown Bulldogs* ANZ Stadium, Sydney (83,500)
*14,457 | Newcastle Knights* Hunter Stadium, Newcastle (33,000)
*14,331 | South Sydney Rabbitohs* ANZ Stadium, Sydney (83,500)
*14,302 | Warriors* Mt Smart Stadium, Auckland (30,000)
*13,930 | Parramatta Eels* Pirtek Stadium, Parramatta (20,700)
*13,807 | Canberra Raiders* GIO Stadium, Canberra (25,011)
*13,806 | Gold Coast Titans* CBUS Super Stadium, Gold Coast (27,400)
*13,632 | St George Illawarra Dragons* WIN Stadium, Wollongong (23,000)
*13,586 | Penrith Panthers* Pepper Stadium, Penrith (22,500)
*12,249 | Manly Warringah Sea Eagles* Brookvale Oval, Manly (20,000)
*10,232 | Sydney Roosters* Allianz Stadium, Sydney (45,500)

*15,905 | Average per team
3,227,770 | Total attendance in 2016*


----------



## GunnerJacket

MLS breaks regular-season attendance records for third straight season

_"Major League Soccer logged a third straight regular-season attendance record in 2016, and the league now ranks sixth in the world in attendance -- ahead of Italy's Serie A and France's Ligue 1, according to ESPNFC.com.

For the year, MLS drew more than 7 million fans across 330 matches. Average attendance per match was 21,692, up slightly vs. 2015._"

I'm not sure of the year or the root sources but the article cites ESPNFC.com as having the Serie A and Ligue Un attendance averages as 21,069 and 20,898, respectively. 

This is a very modest bump for MLS of a couple hundred fans (IIRC), but that's still pretty good all things considered. The bigger notes that I see:

- Second year in a row with no games below 10k!
- Every team averaged over 14k, which was the range for the overall league average around the early 2000's!
- 13 teams averaged better than 90% capacity, which is great for communicating with sponsors, building gameday atmosphere, and for budgeting purposes. All the rest were within 80% except one (78%).

Even accounting for these figures being "tix distributed" versus butts in the seats, it's still a continuing definitive step forward for the business model. More people are attending and being exposed to MLS, more people are watching the games on TV, and more people are growing accustomed to the brand and appeal of MLS. 

Slowly but surely, folks. Slowly but surely.


----------



## isaidso

MLS is doing very well. I would like to see it expand to 30 teams eventually.


----------



## GunnerJacket

The next round will take it to 28, the announcement for which we expect within the next 18 months. I imagine with yesterday's upheaval in the minor league ranks MLS will be more patient as they find cities to partner with Sacramento. 

Odds are they'll hold there at 28 until they find 4 more so as to keep an even number of teams in each conference. A lot there will depend on the value of the next TV contracts in 2022(?).


----------



## flierfy

GunnerJacket said:


> For the year, MLS drew more than 7 million fans across 330 matches. Average attendance per match was 21,692, up slightly vs. 2015.[/I]"


This is more or less on par with the 2.Bundesliga, not really impressive.


----------



## GunnerJacket

flierfy said:


> This is more or less on par with the 2.Bundesliga, not really impressive.


Compared to trends and conditions in the US, it is. What's attendance like for the 5th most popular sport in other countries?


----------



## vitacit

not only attendances in MLS are nice, but also MLS football is nicely "watchable". good to see this progress. keep going MLS !


----------



## Walbanger

*Australian Football League 2016 season attendance
*
Home and Away season: 31877
Finals (playoffs): 62038
*Overall: 33188*

Averages a little down from previous years as Melbourne's "Big 4" clubs Collingwood, Carlton, Richmond and Essendon all had average to terrible seasons, all missing the finals and Essendon finishing last.
*Essendon had 12 of it best 22 suspended by WADA for the whole season for an illegal Peptide program run by the club in 2012.

Geelong's main ground had a reduced capacity due to a staged rebuild. 
Fremantle had a nightmare season, finishing 16th after finishing last years home & away season top (they didn't win the Grand Final).
Brisbane continues to be rabble.
GWS and Gold Coast continue to plug away as expansion clubs in nontraditional Aussie Rules areas. GWS performing on the field while Gold Coast remains mediocre. 

*47056 | Adelaide Crows* Adelaide Oval, Adelaide (53 583)
*46188 | Collingwood Magpies* MCG, Melbourne (100 024)
*41155 | Richmond Tigers* MCG, Melbourne (100 024)
*39665 | Port Adelaide Power* Adelaide Oval, Adelaide (53 583)
*36814 | Hawthorn Hawks* MCG, Melbourne (100 024), York Park, Launceston (20 000)
*36545 | West Coast Eagles* Subiaco Oval, Perth (43 500)
*35386 | Carlton Blues* Etihad Stadium, Melbourne (53 359), MCG, Melbourne (100 024)
*33729 | Essendon Bombers* Etihad Stadium, Melbourne (53 359)
*33425 | Sydney Swans* SCG, Sydney (48 000)
*31416 | Fremantle Dockers* Subiaco Oval, Perth (43 500)
*31326 | Melbourne Demons* MCG, Melbourne (100 024)
*30747 | St Kilda Saints* Etihad Stadium, Melbourne (53 359)
*30699 | Western Bulldogs* Etihad Stadium, Melbourne (53 359)
*30497 | Geelong Cats* Kardinia Park, Geelong (27 000, under redevelopement) 
*28171 | North Melbourne Kangaroos* Etihad Stadium, Melbourne (53 359), Blundstone Arena, Hobart (20 000)
*17074 | Brisbane Lions* The Gabba, Brisbane (42 000)
*12333 | Greater Western Sydney Giants* Spotless Stadium, Sydney (25 000), Manuka Oval, Canberra (15 000)
*11561 | Gold Coast Suns* Metricon Stadium, Gold Coast (25 000)


----------



## flierfy

GunnerJacket said:


> Compared to trends and conditions in the US, it is.


The condition is a country of 315 Million people and by that multiple times the size of Germany and numerous multiples more than any other footballing country.



GunnerJacket said:


> What's attendance like for the 5th most popular sport in other countries?


This is exactly it, 5th biggest. How can football be the 5th biggest game? There is something utterly wrong in the USA.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

flierfy said:


> The condition is a country of 315 Million people and by that multiple times the size of Germany and numerous multiples more than any other footballing country.
> 
> 
> This is exactly it, 5th biggest. How can football be the 5th biggest game? There is something utterly wrong in the USA.


Easy, because Americans enjoy Football, Basketball, Baseball and Hockey more than they do Soccer.


----------



## aquamaroon

^^ Honestly, 5th is kind of generous for Soccer. Here are the sports off the top of my head that I'd say are more popular in the U.S.:

1. NFL
2. College Football
3. MLB
4. NBA
5. NHL
6. College Basketball (especially March Madness)
7. The four majors in Golf
8. The four majors in Tennis

THEN I'd probably slot Soccer in, along say with MMA/Boxing and NASCAR; sports with smallish but very devoted fanbases (and in general skew to a younger more desirable demo to be fair).
So in that case I'd say 21,695 fans on average is pretty impressive!


----------



## aquamaroon

GunnerJacket said:


> MLS breaks regular-season attendance records for third straight season
> 
> _"Major League Soccer logged a third straight regular-season attendance record in 2016, and the league now ranks sixth in the world in attendance -- ahead of Italy's Serie A and France's Ligue 1, according to ESPNFC.com.
> 
> For the year, MLS drew more than 7 million fans across 330 matches. Average attendance per match was 21,692, up slightly vs. 2015._"
> 
> I'm not sure of the year or the root sources but the article cites ESPNFC.com as having the Serie A and Ligue Un attendance averages as 21,069 and 20,898, respectively.
> 
> This is a very modest bump for MLS of a couple hundred fans (IIRC), but that's still pretty good all things considered. The bigger notes that I see:
> 
> - Second year in a row with no games below 10k!
> - Every team averaged over 14k, which was the range for the overall league average around the early 2000's!
> - 13 teams averaged better than 90% capacity, which is great for communicating with sponsors, building gameday atmosphere, and for budgeting purposes. All the rest were within 80% except one (78%).
> 
> Even accounting for these figures being "tix distributed" versus butts in the seats, it's still a continuing definitive step forward for the business model. More people are attending and being exposed to MLS, more people are watching the games on TV, and more people are growing accustomed to the brand and appeal of MLS.
> 
> Slowly but surely, folks. Slowly but surely.


Anyways, this is all great news for MLS! Looks like the league is definitely growing and perhaps more importantly, as you point out, the growth is spread across all of MLS, and not just a few teams at the top. It's hard for teams in the US that were formed in the 1990's to compete with European clubs that were formed in the *1890's* but every year the league gets better and better. Personally I can't wait to catch a game at LAFC's new stadium in a few years! :cheers:


----------



## bd popeye

flierfy said:


> The condition is a country of 315 Million people and by that multiple times the size of Germany and numerous multiples more than any other footballing country.
> 
> This is exactly it, 5th biggest. How can football be the 5th biggest game? There is something utterly wrong in the USA.


You need to realize that Major League Baseball(MLB) is in season the same time as the MLS. MLB averaged 30,131 over 2428 games played. 

When the MLS season is starting up it's season it is also in direct competition with the NBA and NHL and a host of other minor league sports...hockey, baseball, basketball and a host of local high school sports.

American football is the biggest sport in the US. Here are all attendance averages for NCAA FBS *college football* for 2015 of teams whose home attendance averaged more than 50,000. and yes we realize these schools play only 6 or 7 home games. 

Michigan	110,168	
Ohio State 107,244	
Texas A&M 103,622	
Alabama	101,112	
Tennessee	100,584	
Penn State 99,799	
LSU 93,441	
Georgia	92,746	
Florida	90,065	
Texas	90,035	
Nebraska	89,998	
Auburn	87,451	
Oklahoma	85,357	
Clemson	81,751	
Notre Dame	80,795	
South Carolina	78,822	
Wisconsin 78,014	
USC 75,358	
Michigan State	74,661	
Florida State	73,219	
Arkansas 67,326	
UCLA 66,858	
Missouri 65,120	
Iowa 63,142	
Washington	61,919	
Mississippi State 61,784	
Kentucky 61,295	
Virginia Tech	60,824	
Ole Miss 60,479	
BYU 58,532	
Oklahoma State	57,668	
Oregon 57,631	
NC State 56,988	
Iowa State 56,519	
Texas Tech	56,340	
West Virginia	54,826	
Kansas State	53,100	
Arizona State	52,712	
Minnesota 52,355	
Arizona 51,393	
Georgia Tech	50,707


----------



## weava

^^ 

You can add LSU to the 100k club this year. and if penn state draws well their next 2 games they can break 100k again. That would be 7 teams averaging 100,000+ this year. That's crazy.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

aquamaroon said:


> ^^ Honestly, 5th is kind of generous for Soccer. Here are the sports off the top of my head that I'd say are more popular in the U.S.:
> 
> 1. NFL
> 2. College Football
> 3. MLB
> 4. NBA
> 5. NHL
> 6. College Basketball (especially March Madness)
> 7. The four majors in Golf
> 8. The four majors in Tennis
> 
> THEN I'd probably slot Soccer in, along say with MMA/Boxing and NASCAR; sports with smallish but very devoted fanbases (and in general skew to a younger more desirable demo to be fair).
> So in that case I'd say 21,695 fans on average is pretty impressive!


Err, college football isn't a different sport to NFL football. Same for basketball. You probably mean different leagues. 

MLS is extremey impressive, as is the second Bundesliga at the same time. Comparing something the second Bundesliga is not putting that thing down, on the contrary.


----------



## CharlieP

aquamaroon said:


> ^^ Honestly, 5th is kind of generous for Soccer. Here are the sports off the top of my head that I'd say are more popular in the U.S.:
> 
> 1. NFL
> 2. College Football
> 3. MLB
> 4. NBA
> 5. NHL
> 6. College Basketball (especially March Madness)
> 7. The four majors in Golf
> 8. The four majors in Tennis


That's only six sports. Your list would be like me saying that rugby is only the third or fourth most popular sport in England because both the Premier League and Championship (soccer) have higher attendances.


----------



## aquamaroon

^^ Fair points guys . Sorry in my fault I was looking at the MLS as a league in the US compared to other major leagues/events, should've been more clear. And to be fair there are fans of College B-ball and (Am.) Football who want nothing to do with the major pro leagues, and vice-versa.
In my experience soccer as a spectator sport in the U.S. tends to ebb and flow in popularity sort of like an Olympic sport. It reaches its height in popularity once every four years when the U.S. is competing in the world cup, and then falls down in middle periods back to its devoted fanbase. At its peak, ratings for a U.S. World Cup game can reach 20 million plus viewers (including the Spanish language television station ratings). The last world cup, the U.S. - Portugal game drew almost 25 million viewers (~18.5 million ESPN, ~6.5 million Univision). That's roughly the same ratings range as a well watched NBA Finals, adding the Spanish language boost. So I'd say, at its ABSOLUTE peak, Soccer can reach NBA levels of popularity. It's just not for a sustained time period... yet!

(anyways that's all. sorry, don't want to go off topic I know this thread is just about attendance!)


----------



## CharlieP

Well, personally, I feel a strange sense of unease at soccer becoming a popular sport in the USA and Australia. It's like the natural order of things has been upset. :lol:


----------



## aquamaroon

Haha same for me! On the flip side of things, I'm still wrapping my head around the fact that I saw on TV the Cincinnati Bengals take on Washington at Wembley Stadium in London in front of 85,000 people. Oh well the world is all connected now and we'll just have to get used to it :lol:


----------



## weava

aquamaroon said:


> ^^ Fair points guys . Sorry in my fault I was looking at the MLS as a league in the US compared to other major leagues/events, should've been more clear. And to be fair there are fans of College B-ball and (Am.) Football who want nothing to do with the major pro leagues, and vice-versa.
> In my experience soccer as a spectator sport in the U.S. tends to ebb and flow in popularity sort of like an Olympic sport. It reaches its height in popularity once every four years when the U.S. is competing in the world cup, and then falls down in middle periods back to its devoted fanbase. At its peak, ratings for a U.S. World Cup game can reach 20 million plus viewers (including the Spanish language television station ratings). The last world cup, the U.S. - Portugal game drew almost 25 million viewers (~18.5 million ESPN, ~6.5 million Univision). That's roughly the same ratings range as a well watched NBA Finals, adding the Spanish language boost. So I'd say, at its ABSOLUTE peak, Soccer can reach NBA levels of popularity. It's just not for a sustained time period... yet!
> 
> (anyways that's all. sorry, don't want to go off topic I know this thread is just about attendance!)


Soccer and the Olympics are hard to compare to mainstream sports in the US as most of their popularity only happens once every 4 years as they are events that draw in the non-sports fans. Swimming, track/field, and gymnastic events at the Olympics can draw bigger TV ratings than the soccer world cup. And nobody would ever call those Olympic sports top 10 sports despite their 30 million viewers being far higher than the NBA finals games for example. 

Also MMA and Nascar have massive fanbases, but are also hard to compare to the team sports.

Also someone noted that soccer tends to be younger and a "better" demo, actually golf/tennis are the demos that advertisers like, that's why the stars of those sports make so much money from advertising deals, far more than they make from tournements. The older audience that can afford a $50,000+ car is more lucrative than the young audience than can afford a $90 pair of Nike shoes from what I understand. Plus golf is an expensive sport and golfers tend to spend $100s to 1000s of dollars every year on equipment and such so they are a highly coveted demo.


----------



## aquamaroon

^^ yeah all good points! Like you said Soccer and the Olympics are hard to quantify in comparison to the mainstream U.S. sports scene. You're right, I mean women's gymnastics draws huge ratings in the US every four years and no one would claim that's a big sport. The world cup viewing audience is probably more "culturally" driven than "sport" driven, i.e. they watch to see the US win at something, doesn't matter if it's soccer or not.
That being said there definitely is an audience here for the sport. It's not a big 4 level fanbase, but it is growing and devoted. Really I think the biggest issue for soccer as a sport in the U.S. is for the homegrown league, the MLS, to keep growing in quality and finances, and stop soccer fans from looking across the atlantic for clubs to support. The more the MLS is seen as a product worthy of your fandom and your city pride, the more soccer will take hold in this country.


----------



## gmacruyff

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> Easy, because Americans enjoy Football, Basketball, Baseball and Hockey more than they do Soccer.


Bunch of weirdos!


----------



## iranii

Average attendances of Persian Gulf Pro League (Iran) after 10 rounds:

*1. Persepolis (Tehran) - 51,200
2. Esteghlal (Tehran) - 35,000
3. Esteghla Khuzestan (Ahvaz) - 10,200
4. Sanat Naft (Abadan) - 7,000
5. Tractor Sazi (Tabriz) - 6,220
6. Foolad (Ahvaz) - 5,097
7. Sepahan (Isfahan) - 4,988
8. FC Mashhad (Mashhad) - 3,908
9. Saipa (Tehran) - 3,715
10. Paykan (Tehran) - 2,990
11. Machine Sazi (Tabriz) - 1,673
12. Gostaresh Foolad (Tabriz) - 1,581
13. Padideh (Mashhad) - 1,525
14. Zob Ahan (Isfahan) - 1,260
15. Naft Tehran (Tehran) - 385
16. Saba Qom (Qom) - 228

Total average: 8,134*

Some notes:
*Tractor Sazi* is playing in their training stadium (max capacity 6,000) as the pitch at Sahand Stadium is under renovation (capacity 66,000). *Sepahan's* new stadium just got completed (75,000 capacity), so their final average should be above 10,000. The story with Sepahan is sad and complex, they are one of Iran's biggest teams yet for 10 years they have to play in a stadium 40km outside of the city which has a dangerous road to get to, dozens and dozens of fans have died travelling to the stadium and it is great such a horrible era has ended.


Average attendance of Azadegan League (Iran 2nd tier) after 11 rounds:

*1. Nassaji Mazandaran (Qaemshahr) - 9,667
2. Sepidrood (Rasht) - 5,333
3. Khooneh Be Khooneh (Babol) - 4,000
4. Malavan (Anzali) - 3,151
5. Aluminium Arak (Arak) - 2,600
6. Kheybar (Khorramabad) - 2,333
6. Naft Masjed Soleyman (Masjed Soleyman) - 2,333
8. Fajr Sepasi (Shiraz) - 2,167
9. Iranjavan (Bushehr) - 1,833
10. Gol Gohar (Sirjan) - 1,583
11. Pars Jam (Jam) - 1,575
12. Mes Kerman (Kerman) - 1,250
13. Baadraan (Tehran) - 800
13. Esteghlal Ahvaz (Ahvaz) - 800
15. Mes Rafsanjan (Rafsjanan) - 692
16. Foolad Yazd (Yazd) - 633
17. Oxin Alborz (Karaj) - 375
18. Rah Ahan (Tehran) - 200

Total average: 2,354
*


----------



## Kobo

English Premier League attendance this weekend

Bournemouth vs Sunderland Att: 11,084
Burnley vs Crystal Palace Att: 19,196
Chelsea vs Everton Att: 41,429
Man City vs Middlesbrough Att: 54,294
West Ham vs Stoke Att: 56,970
Arsenal vs Tottenham Att: 60,039
Hull vs Southampton Att:17,762
Liverpool vs Watford Att: 53,163
Swansea vs Man Utd Att: 20,938
Leicester vs West Brom Att: 31,879


----------



## bd popeye

_I've not posted any NCAA FBS attendance this season..I'll post a few from yesterday....home team listed first._

Michigan....3:30 PM ET, Nov. 5, 2016
Michigan Stadium(The BIG House), Ann Arbor, Michigan Attendance: 110,626

Ohio State....8:00 PM ET, Nov. 5, 2016
Ohio Stadium, Columbus, Ohio Attendance: 108,750

Penn State....7:30 PM ET, Nov. 5, 2016
Beaver Stadium, University Park, Pennsylvania Attendance: 106,194

Louisiana State University....8:00 PM ET, Nov. 5, 2016
Tiger Stadium, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attendance: 102,321

Tennessee....4:00 PM ET, Nov. 5, 2016
Neyland Stadium, Knoxville, Tennessee Attendance: 98,343

Auburn....12:00 PM ET, Nov. 5, 2016
Jordan-Hare Stadium, Auburn, Alabama Attendance: 87,451

Clemson....3:30 PM ET, Nov. 5, 2016
Memorial Stadium, Clemson, South Carolina Attendance: 80,609

University of Southern California....7:00 PM ET, Nov. 5, 2016
Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles, California Attendance: 74,625

Arkansas...3:30 PM ET, Nov. 5, 2016
Donald W. Reynolds Razorback Stadium, Fayetteville, Arkansas Attendance: 74,432

South Carolina....4:00 PM ET, Nov. 5, 2016
Williams-Brice Stadium, Columbia, South Carolina Attendance: 73,817

Iowa State....7:30 PM ET, Nov. 3, 2016
Jack Trice Stadium, Ames, Iowa Attendance: 50,662


----------



## Glasgow High Rise

Glasgow High Rise said:


> Re Glasgow.
> 
> Celtic season sales jumped by almost 10k - to 52k -with the appointment of Brendan Rodger in late May, they were stagnant prior to that point, despite new club Rangers being in the division.
> 
> To date, this 2016-17 season, with 2 home league matches and 3 home European qualifiers played at Celtic Park the average attendance is just over 55k. This is back to pre recession figures 2008 and should see the club back in the top 10 watched in Europe..
> http://www.fitbastats.com/celtic/club_records_league_attendance.php


As predicted, Celtic now 3rd best attended club in UK (behind Man U and Arsenal) with 55,590 ave attendance this season. 

http://talksport.com/football/avera...0-british-clubs-featuring-premier-league?p=17


----------



## Spus65

Celtic are 4th and will end up 5th at the end of the season. An impressive 26,1% increase though due to the promotion of Rangers and the return of the 'Old Frim' derby.

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/avesco.htm
http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/aveeng.htm


----------



## isaidso

In MLS playoff action Toronto lost @ Montreal Impact 3-2. Attendance was 61,004.

*Olympic Stadium, Montreal*








Courtesy of CTV News


----------



## bd popeye

isaidso said:


> In MLS playoff action Toronto lost @ Montreal Impact 3-2. Attendance was 61,004.
> 
> *Olympic Stadium, Montreal*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Courtesy of CTV News


... 61,000 butts in the seats! WOW!!

As I've stated many times>>>>I'm not a soccer/futbol/Association football fan ..but I like this. I love the reactions of the Montreal supporters to their sides goals..


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Are those tables with people dining, right behind the advertising boards? 

That would be an interesting take on the business of hospitality.


----------



## isaidso

bd popeye said:


> ... 61,000 butts in the seats! WOW!!
> 
> As I've stated many times>>>>I'm not a soccer/futbol/Association football fan ..but I like this. I love the reactions of the Montreal supporters to their sides goals.


Same here but not surprised at all about the big crowd. Montreal sports fans are extremely fickle but will turn up en masse for a big event. Football, soccer, Formula One, etc. 9 of the 10 largest CFL crowds ever have been in Montreal. 400,000 people turned out for a Grey Cup victory parade a few years ago. It's a big event town.


----------



## weava

isaidso said:


> Same here but not surprised at all about the big crowd. Montreal sports fans are extremely fickle but will turn up en masse for a big event. Football, soccer, Formula One, etc. 9 of the 10 largest CFL crowds ever have been in Montreal. 400,000 people turned out for a Grey Cup victory parade a few years ago. It's a big event town.


Montreal has been turning up big for MLB preseason games the last couple years too. I would think any sports team could draw well in Montreal if they were winning. I'd like to see the expos return in a proper baseball stadium to see if Montreal would support them.


----------



## weava

Week 12 NFL attendance: (all games)

Dallas Cowboys (vs Redskins): 93,099	

New York Jets (vs Patriots): 78,160	

Denver Broncos (vs Chiefs): 76,819

New Orleans Saints (vs Rams): 73,067	

Houston Texans (vs Chargers): 71,897	

Baltimore Ravens (vs Bengals): 70,903	

Atlanta Falcons (vs Cardinals): 69,233	

Philadelphia Eagles (vs Packers): 69,596	

Buffalo Bills (vs Jaguars): 67,849	

Indianapolis Colts (vs Steelers): 66,583	

Miami Dolphis (vs 49ers): 65,856	

Detriot Lions (vs Vikings): 63,793	

Tampa Bay Buccaneers (vs Seahawks): 63,674	

Cleveland Browns (vs Giants): 60,034

Chicago Bears (vs Titans): 59,494	

Oakland Raiders (vs Panters): 54,909


----------



## isaidso

weava said:


> Montreal has been turning up big for MLB preseason games the last couple years too. I would think any sports team could draw well in Montreal if they were winning. I'd like to see the expos return in a proper baseball stadium to see if Montreal would support them.


I believe they would if it were a downtown, open air ball park. I'd also like to see them in the American League to give them more dates against the Jays.


----------



## weava

isaidso said:


> I believe they would if it were a downtown, open air ball park. I'd also like to see them in the American League to give them more dates against the Jays.


They really should be in the same division as the Jays for rivalry reasons. 

Baseball seems to really like splitting teams up though for whatever reason. The LA, Chicago, Bay Area, and NY areas all have 2 teams each, and in each case the teams are in different leagues. Even in states with 2 teams like Missouri, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc they split the teams up. (Texas was like this until just recently when Houston moved to the AL with the Rangers)

If I had my way, I'd reorganize baseball, do away with the DH, and put geographically close teams in the same league. Maybe do like the NBA and NHL with an east and west, rather than like MLB and NFL where they overlap.


----------



## bd popeye

Well now.. I think I'll post NCAA FBS attendance from the last two weeks with games over 75,000 in attendance. Home team listed.

Michigan....3:30 PM ET, Nov. 19, 2016
Michigan Stadium, Ann Arbor, Michigan Attendance: 110,288

Ohio State...12:00 PM ET, Nov. 26, 2016
Ohio Stadium, Columbus, Ohio Attendance: 110,045

Texas A&M 7:30 PM ET, Nov. 24, 2016
Kyle Field, College Station, Texas Attendance: 102,961

Texas A&M 12:00 PM ET, Nov. 19, 2016
Kyle Field, College Station, Texas Attendance: 102,502

Louisiana State University 1:00 PM ET, Nov. 19, 2016
Tiger Stadium, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attendance: 102,043

Alabama...7:00 PM ET, Nov. 19, 2016
Bryant-Denny Stadium, Tuscaloosa, Alabama Attendance: 101,821

Alabama...3:30 PM ET, Nov. 26, 2016
Bryant-Denny Stadium, Tuscaloosa, Alabama Attendance: 101,821

Tennessee...3:30 PM ET, Nov. 19, 2016
Neyland Stadium, Knoxville, Tennessee Attendance: 101,012

Penn State...3:30 PM ET, Nov. 26, 2016
Beaver Stadium, University Park, Pennsylvania Attendance: 97,418

Georgia...12:00 PM ET, Nov. 19, 2016
Sanford Stadium, Athens, Georgia Attendance: 92,746

Georgia...12:00 PM ET, Nov. 26, 2016
Sanford Stadium, Athens, Georgia Attendance: 92,746

Nebraska...12:00 PM ET, Nov. 19, 2016
Tom Osborne Field at Memorial Stadium, Lincoln, Nebraska Attendance: 89,704

Auburn...7:30 PM ET, Nov. 19, 2016
Jordan-Hare Stadium, Auburn, Alabama Attendance: 87,451

Clemson....7:30 PM ET, Nov. 26, 2016
Memorial Stadium, Clemson, South Carolina Attendance: 81,542

Notre Dame...3:30 PM ET, Nov. 19, 2016
Notre Dame Stadium, Notre Dame, Indiana Attendance: 80,795

Florida State...8:00 PM ET, Nov. 26, 2016
Bobby Bowden Field at Doak Campbell Stadium, Tallahassee, Florida Attendance: 78,342

Wisconsin...3:30 PM ET, Nov. 26, 2016
Camp Randall Stadium, Madison, Wisconsin Attendance: 77,216

South Carolina....4:00 PM ET, Nov. 19, 2016
Williams-Brice Stadium, Columbia, South Carolina Attendance: 76,650

_someone in Europe or elsewhere should post college futbol.football/assn Football attendance from their country... ooppps! sorry.._:hmm: tee hee..


----------



## bd popeye

weava said:


> They really should be in the same division as the Jays for rivalry reasons.
> 
> Baseball seems to really like splitting teams up though for whatever reason. The LA, Chicago, Bay Area, and NY areas all have 2 teams each, and in each case the teams are in different leagues. Even in states with 2 teams like Missouri, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc they split the teams up. (Texas was like this until just recently when Houston moved to the AL with the Rangers)
> 
> If I had my way, I'd reorganize baseball, do away with the DH, and put geographically close teams in the same league. Maybe do like the NBA and NHL with an east and west, rather than like MLB and NFL where they overlap.


I most heartly agree about the DH..Never like it.

MLB was established in 1876 with the National League. Things are very slow to change. Teams are split up in my opinion so fans can see teams from both leagues..but that is somewhat of a mute point with inter league play.

In the early days(1901-1954)of MLB when there was no inter-league play these cities had two teams.. three in the case of NYC all in different leagues except the Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Giants.

NY Yankees, NY Giants & Brooklyn Dodgers(Dodgers and Giants moved to the West coast in 1958)

Boston Red Sox, Boston Braves(Braves moved to Milwaukee in 1953)

Philadelphia Phillies, Philadelphia Athletics( the A's moved to Kansas City in 1955)

St Louis Cardinals, St Louis Browns(the Browns to to Baltimore in 1954 and became the Orioles)

..and that's how it was and no one complained.


----------



## isaidso

weava said:


> They really should be in the same division as the Jays for rivalry reasons.


Simply moving the Tampa Bay Rays to Montreal would accomplish that and wouldn't effect any other division as they're already in the American League East.



weava said:


> If I had my way, I'd reorganize baseball, do away with the DH, and put geographically close teams in the same league. Maybe do like the NBA and NHL with an east and west, rather than like MLB and NFL where they overlap.


You'd spur rivalries but end the possibility of an all Missouri World Series, or all New York City World Series, etc. I'd still favour the former as the latter hardly ever happens.


----------



## Scotleag

*Just saying hello*

Hi to all. Just a quick introduction. I came across this forum by pure accident but wish I'd done so long ago. I used to think I was the only person interested in attendance figures and it's nice to know there are so many of us.

I got the bug back in the mid-80s. I couldn't understand why Scottish football attendance figures were 90-95% rounded three zero estimates while in England they were 90-95% precise.

I spent many years tracking down accurate figures whenever I could despite the Scottish League guarding their figures like the crown jewels. English attendances have been openly available since 1925.

After years of arguing, cajoling and downright crawling I finally persuaded the Scottish League to give me access to theirs in 2004. To my disappointment they only go back to 1961.

Still, they may be of interest and I'll post some later. 

I now also have attendance stats for many leagues though as others on this forum have commented, many are still hard to track down, particularly in Africa.

I produced reports on football attendances worldwide in early 2015 (including links to sources) which some may find of interest but I understand forum rules preclude posting links until I've made ten posts so that'll have to wait for now,

Anyway, that's all I want to say for now other than to congratulate all the contributors here over the years and to re-iterate I wish I'd dropped by this way a lot sooner


----------



## philexile

Hi Scotleag, I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one interested in attendances, especially English and Scottish ones. My particular interest is in total aggregate attendances for a single day in England and Scotland with special interest in days when English football achieved more than one million spectators in the four divisions, i think the last time that this happened was 26/12/1970, and it may never happen again, I think the highest aggregate attendance in recent years is around 870,000 so it would take several big stadium developments throughout English football and for all the higher drawing sides to be at home for it to be done again.
I would imagine that the magic figure in Scotland would be 200,000 in a single day, would you know the last time that this was achieved,(I think the record for a one day aggregate attendance in Scotland is around 270,000, an incredible figure for a country of only 5 million, the equivalent of England drawing nearly 3 million in a single day, the average now being around 750,000 for the four divisions)
One footnote, i now count one day attendances as all the league fixtures scheduled for that particular weekend as we all know that due to TV all the fixtures do not kick off at 3 on a Saturday afternoon


----------



## Eurostallion1

With this year's Autumn Internationals in rugby union, now finished, I though I'd post the attendance figures. I can't seem to find reliable attendance figures for France's games. The figures I have would seem to be estimates. Only full tests involving at least one tier 1 nation are included. 

Week 1, 5/11/2016

Wales v Australia, Millennium Stadium, Cardiff. Att. 55,776

Ireland v New Zealand, Soldier Field, Chicago. Att. 62,300

Japan v Argentina, Chichibunomiya Stadium, Tokyo. Att. 18,397

Week 2, 12/11/2016


Italy v New Zealand, Stadio Olimpico, Rome. Att. 60,693

England v South Africa, Twickenham, London. Att. 81,221

Scotland v Australia, Murrayfield, Edinburgh. Att. 65,395

France v Samoa, Stade Municipal, Toulouse. Att. 33,000

Wales v Argentina, Millennium Stadium, Cardiff. Att. 50,175

Ireland v Canada, Aviva Stadium, Dublin. Att. 43,000

Week 3 19/11/2016

Italy v South Africa, Stadio Artemio Franchi, Florence. Att. 21,700

England v Fiji, Twickenham, London. Att. 81,409

Wales v Japan, Millennium Stadium, Cardiff. Att. 73,969

Scotland v Argentina, Murrayfield, Edinburgh. Att. 50,481

Ireland v New Zealand, Aviva Stadium, Dublin. Att. 51,000

France v Australia, Stade de France, Paris. Att. 80,000

Week 4 26/11/2016

Italy v Tonga, Stadio Eugeneo, Padua. Att. 18,125

England v Argentina, Twickenham, London. Att. 81,586

Scotland v Georgia, Rugby Park, Kilmarnock. Att. 15,401

Ireland v Australia, Aviva Stadium, Dublin. Att. 51,000

Wales v South Africa, Millennium Stadium, Cardiff. Att. 55,122

France v New Zealand, Stade de France, Paris. Att. 80,000

Week 5 3/12/2016

England v Australia, Twickenham, London. Att. 81,787

It seems strange that Wales sold out against Japan but had 20,000+ empty seats in the theoretically more attractive fixtures against Australia Argentina and South Africa. I assume this must be down to the pricing strategy. 
Good to see Scotland attract a full house for an Autumn international against someone other than the All Blacks.
England continue to sell out Twickenham, no matter who the opponent is. 
Great to see Ireland v the All Blacks attracting a full house in the US.


----------



## BeestonLad

Eurostallion1 said:


> It seems strange that Wales sold out against Japan but had 20,000+ empty seats in the theoretically more attractive fixtures against Australia Argentina and South Africa. I assume this must be down to the pricing strategy.
> Good to see Scotland attract a full house for an Autumn international against someone other than the All Blacks.
> *England continue to sell out Twickenham, no matter who the opponent is. *
> Great to see Ireland v the All Blacks attracting a full house in the US.


Precisely the reason they should look in to expanding the stadium. I'm sure they could fill 90k+ for all six nations games and the big 4 southern hemisphere teams. On a side note I can't understand why they didn't play New Zealand instead of either of Fiji or Argentina :dunno:


----------



## Scotleag

philexile said:


> Hi Scotleag, I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one interested in attendances, especially English and Scottish ones. My particular interest is in total aggregate attendances for a single day in England and Scotland with special interest in days when English football achieved more than one million spectators in the four divisions, i think the last time that this happened was 26/12/1970, and it may never happen again, I think the highest aggregate attendance in recent years is around 870,000 so it would take several big stadium developments throughout English football and for all the higher drawing sides to be at home for it to be done again.
> I would imagine that the magic figure in Scotland would be 200,000 in a single day, would you know the last time that this was achieved,(I think the record for a one day aggregate attendance in Scotland is around 270,000, an incredible figure for a country of only 5 million, the equivalent of England drawing nearly 3 million in a single day, the average now being around 750,000 for the four divisions)
> One footnote, i now count one day attendances as all the league fixtures scheduled for that particular weekend as we all know that due to TV all the fixtures do not kick off at 3 on a Saturday afternoon


Hi Philexile and thanks for the welcome. Yes, it's highly unlikely English league football will ever hit 1M again in a single round of fixtures. Total league capacity is just over 2M and obviously only half of the grounds can be in use at the same time.

Even if every home match was played at the biggest grounds in each division the potential capacity is just over 1.3M, meaning (current line-ups in each division) averages of roughly 50K Prem & 500,000 spread between the three other divisions or just under 14K per match to do it. So theoretically it's possible but in practice unlikely.

The highest single day figure I can come up for Scotland is January 2nd 1950 - 371,875 - of which 280,355 was in the A Division. 

Yes, Scottish crowds hold up well internationally. The following is a survey I undertook in 2013 for a website I used to run.

*European Attendances as percentage of population 2013. *

Having said in my book ‘The ROAR of the Crowd’ in 2005 that as a percentage of population, attendances in Scotland were higher than anywhere in continental Europe and surpassed in UEFA members by only Cyprus and Iceland, I wanted to see if that was still the case.

There have been a number of other surveys posted on various sites over the past few years, including one by the esteemed HibeeJibee which was expressed as a ratio of population (i.e. 1 in so many watch a game) and some which were spectacularly out – though that’s down to the mathematical skills (or lack thereof) of the compilers. One of those claimed almost 10% of Faroese attended the average match. That would mean an average attendance of almost 5,000 per game and with five matches per round a total of around 25,000 - half the entire population - which is patently absurd. The same site’s figures for Scotland would mean almost 150,000 per week, which is also a non-starter. That kind of figure is only ever approached on those rare occasions when the Old Firm are both at home and even then hardly ever. The highest number in 2012-13 for a full set of matches was in week 5 (SPL), 4(SFL) with a total of 146,574.

A word on the how the figures were arrived at. To simply take the match average means nothing by itself. The average for the SPL last season was 10,022. But that figure cannot be taken in isolation and extrapolated as a percentage of the weekly number of spectators. What we have to do to find the percentage of the population which watches football every week is to multiply the average by the number of games played. Thus in last season’s SPL we have a figure of 60,132 (10,022 x6) for each round of matches. That comes out at 1.136% every week or every round of fixtures (rounded up) out of a population of approximately 5,295,000. 

Another problem is that while the attendance figures are pretty reliable, population is not as it fluctuates constantly, in an upward direction for some countries and downwards for others. I have used the latest figures available for both crowds and population. Any other anomalies I have dealt with in the footnotes. 

These figures are for top divisions only as to try and find total figures as a percentage is impossible. Most leagues have only two national divisions with figures for their pyramid systems below that difficult to come by. Many of the level two leagues are not regarded as highly as others, even in the larger countries. In France last season just three teams in level two averaged five figure gates while in England, Peterborough United were the only one of 22 clubs which didn’t. With five national divisions the English structure goes down more levels on a national basis than any other. If it were possible to construct full figures for all clubs in all countries down to level five then England would come much higher up the rankings. The only country to match England below level one is Germany, which has three national levels with averages in the second and third much the same as England. However as a percentage of population the ratio of spectators to population at these levels is much lower in Germany than in England.

The Netherlands in 7th, are the top country with a population of over 10M (a shade under17M). At 13th, England are the best of the “big five". Spain are 15th, Germany 17th, Italy 20th & France trail in at 27th. 

Scotland has, as we know, four national levels, but in addition to the senior levels below that, we also have over 150 Junior clubs whose figures are not quantifiable. So I hope you can understand why this exercise has, of necessity, been restricted to top divisions only.

*All figures expressed as a % of total population*

Faroe Islands 5.224
San Marino 4.495
Cyprus 2.443 1
Iceland 1.925
Scotland 1.136 2
Norway 1.130
Netherlands 1.051
Belgium 0.829
Switzerland 0.777
Portugal 0.730
Denmark 0.724
Montenegro 0.700
England 0.678 3 
Malta 0.665
Sweden 0.609
Spain 0.600
Luxembourg 0.510
Germany 0.469
Israel 0.452
Austria 0.404
Italy 0.379
Czech Republic 0.364
Greece 0.349
Croatia 0.334
Macedonia 0.334
Albania 0.325
France 0.301
Bosnia 0.287
Bulgaria 0.285
Serbia 0.284
Northern Ireland 0.273
Slovakia 0.231
Finland 0.227
Hungary 0.226
Ukraine 0.225
Romania 0.219
Slovenia 0.217
Ireland (ROI) 0.211
Kazakhstan 0.177
Poland 0.176
Turkey 0.154
Georgia 0.132
Belarus 0.130
Lithuania 0.123
Azerbaijan 0.108
Moldova 0.096
Armenia 0.089
Latvia 0.089
Russia 0.074
Estonia 0.070
Wales 0.055 4
Andorra ? 5
Gibraltar ? 5
Liechtenstein ? 5

*Conclusions*

We can see therefore that Scotland is fifth. I don’t think that’s actually a drop in position, more likely my failure to even think of the Faroes & San Marino in the first place. My assertion in the book about no country with a population of over a million having better proportionate attendance figures than Scotland remains true. Cyprus has a population of over a million but is less than that with the Turkish north taken out of the calculations. It is possible that Norway may overtake Scotland this season and/or next season. 

They would need to reach an average of around 8,450 to overtake Scotland. They’ve had that and better in the recent past but would need a jump of around 20% to achieve it now. Even if that happened, once Rangers are back in the top flight, normal service will be resumed. The Netherlands can’t match Scotland either in the short or long term. Dutch crowds have been increasing but they would need to reach a new high of over 21,000 to match Scotland. 

There is absolutely no chance of Scotland moving up in these rankings. The average would have to rise to around 17,000 to do so. That figure has never been reached under the current format, the closest being 2006-07 when it was some 800 below that number. Even under the 10-club format it couldn’t happen. In fact the average would have to be over 20,000 to match the Icelandic equivalent. 

Perhaps the most important conclusion of all is this: a full year after “Armageddon,” Scotland retains exactly the same position in crowd figures in comparison to other countries as it has for many years. 

*Notes*

1 Excludes the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Has no effect on overall figure or placing as no club from this area plays in the Cypriot League. 

2 Doesn’t include Rangers. Including Rangers’ last season in the SPL the figure is 1.571. No effect on placing.

3 Excludes Wales. Including Wales the figure is 0.641. No effect on placing.

4 Six leading Welsh clubs play within the English structure. 

5 I can find no information on crowds for three UEFA members. One is the lowest ranked league in Europe (Andorra), one has just joined UEFA (Gibraltar), and one is irrelevant (Liechtenstein).

Andorra has eight clubs in the top division and only two grounds are used, neither of which has a capacity of over 1,000. Population: 85,468. 

Gibraltar has eight teams in the top division with only one ground, capacity 5,000, though a new national all-seated 10,000 stadium is planned now that they have been accepted by UEFA. Population: 29,635.

Liechtenstein has no national league with all their sides playing in Switzerland. Population: 36,835.


----------



## Scotleag

philexile said:


> I would imagine that the magic figure in Scotland would be 200,000 in a single day, would you know the last time that this was achieved


Sorry, I missed this bit. The Scottish League only keeps records from 1961-62 onwards and the highest single day figures I can find since then are just below 190,000 on a few occasions. Estimated figures for Jan 2nd 1961 come to around 250,000 of which around 220,000 were top flight.

However, comparing with matches where there WERE declared figures that season I'd say the estimates aren't wildly unreasonable & definitely not to the extent of a 50,000 over-estimation so I reckon it's safe to say there were over 200,000 that day & highly unlikely to have touched that mark since.

There are a number of factors involved in determining big crowd days in Scotland. The main three are:

1. A day when there were both Old Firm and Edinburgh derbies taking place
2. A New Year's fixture card when there were local derbies almost everywhere, increasing crowds all round.
3. In tandem with the above, mild weather and no or few postponements with any postponed games not being 'big' games.

From the mid-Sixties onwards the Old Firm match was moved to the second New Year fixture in a bid to reduce alcohol-fuelled violence, thus meaning Edinburgh and Glasgow derbies were played on different days. Following the 1971 Ibrox disaster capacities everywhere were reduced substantially, virtually reducing the possibility of a single day attracting 200,000 to almost zero.

Theoretically there's more chance of this happening again than reaching 1M in England. Taking the biggest grounds, assuming all the home matches are at these (and ignoring Queen's Park who aren't going to fill Hampden) the top two divisions are capable of holding 250,000 in such a scenario.

Overall capacity is below 500,000 though, compared to around 1.3M pre-war


----------



## gmacruyff

Id be interested to find out if Scotland holds the record for the top 4 "LEAGUE" attendance statistics e,g,

1.Rangers (118,600)
2.Queens Park ( 95722)
3. Celtic ( 83500)
4 Hibernian ( 66000)

Spain(46 million) is the only country that might beat it,but when you consider the population in Scotland is 5.3 million,then the ratio is no comparison!


----------



## isaidso

The US would beat that but it's still very impressive considering Scotland's population.


----------



## Eurostallion1

BeestonLad said:


> Precisely the reason they should look in to expanding the stadium. I'm sure they could fill 90k+ for all six nations games and the big 4 southern hemisphere teams. On a side note I can't understand why they didn't play New Zealand instead of either of Fiji or Argentina :dunno:



I think there's been discussions about potential Twickenham expansion on the Twickenham thread. Apparently, the RFU's looked at lowering the pitch and extending the lower tier so that it's closer to the touchlines. I don't know how many extra seats that would allow but the general consensus is that it wouldn't be worth the expense since they would also have to extend the roof and it might harm the sightlines of existing seats. Given that there's only about eight events a year when the RFU can sell out the stadium at premium prices I don't think the economics add up since the RFU would have to fund it out of their own pockets. Then remember that Twickenham is an upper middle class residential area and the local NIMBYs resent the fact the stadium has already been expanded to 82,000 and will bitterly oppose future expansion.


----------



## Scotleag

gmacruyff said:


> Id be interested to find out if Scotland holds the record for the top 4 "LEAGUE" attendance statistics e,g,
> 
> 1.Rangers (118,600)
> 2.Queens Park ( 95722)
> 3. Celtic ( 83500)
> 4 Hibernian ( 66000)
> 
> Spain(46 million) is the only country that might beat it,but when you consider the population in Scotland is 5.3 million,then the ratio is no comparison!


The Queen's Park figure is actually a cup tie v Rangers 18/1/30 but they are the 4th ranked club for a high league attendance - 60,000 v Rangers 12/1/29.

I'd imagine several countries can top that. In England almost twenty clubs have had higher league attendances than 60,000, in Italy, the two Milan clubs, both Rome sides plus Napoli have drawn higher figures than that. That's without looking elsewhere. Same applies to the Bundesliga - Dortmund & Bayern play before 80K & 75K each home match and two Berlin clubs - Hertha & Tasmania have both played before over 80,000. Tasmania drew the biggest crowd of the 1965-66 season with 81,000 v Karlsruher then a few months later - 15/1/66 - had the lowest ever Bundesliga crowd of just 827 v Borussia Mönchengladbach. The Bundesliga record is - I believe - 90,000 Hertha v Cologne in September 1969.

That's before looking at other countries which may have drawn higher figures than the best four Scotland - Portugal, Netherlands, USSR, DDR, Poland are all possibilities in Europe and of course Spain as you say


----------



## Scotleag

isaidso said:


> The US would beat that but it's still very impressive considering Scotland's population.


At soccer? Would this be the NASL in the '70s? Or has it happened in MLS?


----------



## bd popeye

isaidso said:


> The US would beat that but it's still very impressive considering Scotland's population.


In college (American) football in the US population in the city/town plays in means nothing. Long ago in this thread or a previous thread this was argued.

If anyone doubts what I post just check the population for some of the cities & towns college football is played in.


----------



## Scotleag

I mentioned earlier that the oldest season the now-defunct Scottish Football League held attendance records (League & League Cup) for is 1961-62. These are the averages for that season:

First Division
35917 Rangers
25332 Celtic
15934 Dundee
14495 Hearts
10359 St Mirren
9825 Partick Thistle
9763 Hibernian
9622 Kilmarnock
9380 Dundee United
8750 St Johnstone
7952 Motherwell
7910 Dunfermline Athletic
7762 Aberdeen
7108 Third Lanark
6477 Falkirk
5289 Stirling Albion
4464 Airdrieonians
4318 Raith Rovers

Division Total 3,411,129, average 11147

Second Division
5031 Morton
4050 Queen of the South
2786 Clyde
2689 Ayr United
2047 East Fife
1749 Arbroath
1608 Hamilton Academical
1505 Berwick Rangers
1408 Dumbarton
1401 Alloa Athletic
1396 Montrose
1256 Queen’s Park
1214 Stranraer
798 Albion Rovers
739 Forfar Athletic
700 East Stirlingshire
675 Cowdenbeath
515 Brechin City
469 Stenhousemuir

Division Total 576,659 – average 1686

League Total – 3,987,788 – average 6154

Just seven clubs drew more in 2015-16 than 1961-61
Aberdeen
Brechin City
Celtic
Hamilton Academical
Hearts
Rangers 
Stenhousemuir

I've also had access to the Hampden Park gate book and have figures for every major match (plus Queen's Park & - occasionally other teams - league matches) played there since January 1934 (records previous to then were lost in a fire). These often show a difference compared to published and generally accepted figures. If anyone's interested in any particular game, let me know.


----------



## CharlieP

Eurostallion1 said:


> I think there's been discussions about potential Twickenham expansion on the Twickenham thread. Apparently, the RFU's looked at lowering the pitch and extending the lower tier so that it's closer to the touchlines. I don't know how many extra seats that would allow but the general consensus is that it wouldn't be worth the expense since they would also have to extend the roof and it might harm the sightlines of existing seats.


The sightlines shouldn't be an issue, as it's already a pretty steep gradient for a lower tier.

Looking at the seat map on Ticketmaster, there are roughly 240 seats down each touchline and 116 at each end, not including any on the "curve". So each additional row would add approximately 712 seats, meaning 10 new rows (which is certainly possible in the horizontal space) would take capacity close to 90,000. The problem is the expense and practicality - excavating all that soil and installing a new pitch would be impossible in the short windows (June-August, October, December-January and April) that the stadium isn't used, and it would be a waste of the millions they've just spent on the hybrid pitch.


----------



## Village Idiot

philexile said:


> My particular interest is in total aggregate attendances for a single day in England and Scotland with special interest in days when English football achieved more than one million spectators in the four divisions, i think the last time that this happened was 26/12/1970, and it may never happen again, I think the highest aggregate attendance in recent years is around 870,000 so it would take several big stadium developments throughout English football and for all the higher drawing sides to be at home for it to be done again.


I love the concept! 

This leaves me wondering what the single day attendance for US college football is? Are we at record levels now?


----------



## weava

gmacruyff said:


> Id be interested to find out if Scotland holds the record for the top 4 "LEAGUE" attendance statistics e,g,
> 
> 1.Rangers (118,600)
> 2.Queens Park ( 95722)
> 3. Celtic ( 83500)
> 4 Hibernian ( 66000)
> 
> Spain(46 million) is the only country that might beat it,but when you consider the population in Scotland is 5.3 million,then the ratio is no comparison!


All time high attendance? I don't think any league can touch the high attendances of American College Football. Listed each teams highest attended home game (*Bolded*) and neutral site games over 100k.

1. 156,990 U. of Tennessee vs Virginia Tech Univ. (2016, Neutral Site, Bristol Motor Speedway

2. 123,000 Univ. of Southern California vs Notre Dame (1927, Neutral Site, Soldier Field Chicago)

3. 115,109 *Michigan Univ. *(2013 vs Notre Dame, Michigan Stadium)

4. 110,753 *Penn State Univ.*(2002 vs. Nebraska, Beaver Stadium)

5. 110,633 *Texas A&M *(2014 vs. Ole Miss, Kyle Field)

6. 109,061* U of Tennessee *(2004 vs. Florida, Neyland Stadium) 

7. 108,975 *Ohio State U.*(2015 vs. Michigan State, Ohio Stadium)

8. 106,869 USC vs. Ohio State (1973 Rose Bowl game, Nuetral Site, Rose Bowl Stadium)

9. 102,321 *Louisiana State* (Several times (most recently vs. Florida, Oct. 17, 2015, Tiger Stadium) 

10. 102,315 *U. of Texas* (2016 vs. Notre Dame, Darryl K. Royal Memorial Stadium) 

11. 101,821 *U. of Alabama* (Several times (most recently vs. LSU, Nov. 7, 2015. Bryant-Denny Stadium)


----------



## mamangvilla

I'm pulling number out of my ass here, but it should be close to 2 million if not over.


----------



## gmacruyff

I haven't got the figures in front of me,but somebody once told me that the top 20 international Soccer attendances in history are held between Brazil and Scotland e.g.

Brazil-199,00 etc

Scotland-149,500 etc

Considering Brazil has a population of 200 million approx,compared to Scotlands 5.2 million,the mind boggles!


----------



## isaidso

Scotleag said:


> At soccer? Would this be the NASL in the '70s? Or has it happened in MLS?


NCAA football and NFL.


----------



## Scotleag

isaidso said:


> NCAA football and NFL.


Thanks


----------



## Scotleag

gmacruyff said:


> I haven't got the figures in front of me,but somebody once told me that the top 20 international Soccer attendances in history are held between Brazil and Scotland e.g.
> 
> Brazil-199,00 etc
> 
> Scotland-149,500 etc
> 
> Considering Brazil has a population of 200 million approx,compared to Scotlands 5.2 million,the mind boggles!


Not got the top twenty but this is the progression of the world record attendance as far as can be determined with any degree of accuracy. Split England-Scotland to 1908. Scotland 1908-1950, Brazil 1950-date

Progression of world attendance record.

3,000 Hallam v Norfolk 5/3/1867, Youden Cup Final, Bramall Lane, Sheffield
5,000 Sheffield v London 2/11/1872 Challenge match, Bramall Lane, Sheffield
7,000 Queen's Park v Renton 10/4/1875 Scottish Cup Final, 1st Hampden Park, Glasgow
16,000 Scotland v England 4/3/1876 International, Hamilton Crescent, Partick
17,000 Scotland v Wales 25/4/1876 International, Hamilton Crescent, Partick
22,088 Aston Villa v West Bromwich Albion 3/1/1885 FA Cup R3, Perry Barr, Birmingham
22,688 Preston North End v West Bromwich Albion 30/3/1889 FA Cup Final, The Oval, London
26,379 Scotland v England 5/4/1890 International Championship, 2nd Hampden Park, Glasgow
32,810 West Bromwich Albion v Aston Villa 19/3/1892 FA Cup Final, The Oval, London
45,067 Wolves v Everton 25/3/1893 FA Cup Final, Fallowfield, Manchester
51,345 Scotland v England 4/4/1896 International Championship, Celtic Park, Glasgow
65,891 Aston Villa v Everton 10/4/1897 FA Cup Final, Crystal Palace, London
73,833 Sheffield United v Derby County 15/4/1899 FA Cup Final, Crystal Palace, London
110,820 Tottenham Hotspur v Sheffield United 20/4/1901 FA Cup Final, Crystal Palace, London
121,452 Scotland v England 4/4/1908 International Championship, 3rd Hampden Park, Glasgow
127,307 Scotland v England 23/3/1912 International Championship, 3rd Hampden Park, Glasgow
131,273 Scotland v England 28/3/1931 International Championship, 3rd Hampden Park, Glasgow
136,259 Scotland v England 1/4/1933 International Championship, 3rd Hampden Park, Glasgow
149,547 Scotland v England 17/4/1937 International Championship, 3rd Hampden Park, Glasgow
152,722 Brazil v Spain 13/7/1950 World Cup Final Group, Maracanå, Rio De Janeiro
173,850 paid Brazil v Uruguay 16/7/1950, World Cup Final Group, Maracanå, Rio De Janeiro 199,854 in attendance
174,599 paid Brazil v Paraguay 21/3/1954, World Cup qualifier, Maracanå, Rio De Janeiro 195,513 in attendance
177,656 paid Fluminense v Flamengo 15/12/1963, Campeonato Carioca, Maracanå, Rio De Janeiro 194,603 in attendance
183,341 Brazil v Paraguay 31/8/1969 , World Cup qualifier, Maracanå

The last four games figures from RSSSF Brazil in Brazil depend on how you read things, i.e. whether you accept only paying spectators or the actual number in attendance. I opt for the latter and therefore consider the world record to be the widely regarded one of 199,854 on 16/7/1950 but have included those matches with more paying spectators for sake of completeness.


----------



## Scotleag

gmacruyff said:


> I haven't got the figures in front of me,but somebody once told me that the top 20 international Soccer attendances in history are held between Brazil and Scotland e.g.
> 
> Brazil-199,00 etc
> 
> Scotland-149,500 etc
> 
> Considering Brazil has a population of 200 million approx,compared to Scotlands 5.2 million,the mind boggles!


 Record attendance progression in Scotland - all matches
4,000 Scotland v England 30/11/1872, International Hamilton Crescent, Partick
7,000 Scotland v England 7/3/1874, International Hamilton Crescent, Partick
7,000 Queen's Park v Renton 10/4/1875, Scottish Cup Final, 1st Hampden Park, Glasgow
16,000 Scotland v England 4/3/1876, International, Hamilton Crescent, Partick
17,000 Scotland v Wales 25/3/1876, International, Hamilton Crescent, Partick
18,391 Third Lanark v Celtic 2/2/1889, Scottish Cup Final*, 2nd Hampden Park, Glasgow
26,379 Scotland v England 5/4/1890, International Championship, 2nd Hampden Park, Glasgow
45,017 Scotland v England, 7/4/1894, International Championship, Celtic Park, Glasgow
51,345 Scotland v England 4/4/1896, International Championship, Celtic Park, Glasgow
63,000 Scotland v England 7/4/1900, International Championship, Celtic Park, Glasgow 
68,114 Scotland v England 5/4/1902, International Championship, Ibrox Park, Glasgow**
121,452 Scotland v England 4/4/1908, International Championship, 3rd Hampden Park, Glasgow
127,307 Scotland v England 23/3/1912, International Championship, 3rd Hampden Park, Glasgow
131,273 Scotland v England 13/4/1929, International Championship, 3rd Hampden Park, Glasgow
136,259 Scotland v England 1/4/1933, International Championship, 3rd Hampden Park, Glasgow
149,547 Scotland v England 17/4/1937 International Championship, 3rd Hampden Park, Glasgow

* This match was subject to a successful protest and replayed a week later with a crowd of 17,278 which would also have been a record.
** The Ibrox Disaster of 1902 which was subsequently deemed unofficial.

Whether protested or unofficial these games took place with these crowds in attendance and in my opinion should be counted. Others may of course disagree.


----------



## gmacruyff

You guys amaze me with your Stats knowledge!

I think the Scotland games included Scottish Cup Finals and Euro matches e.g. Real Madrid v Eintracht Frankfurt (1960)-130000 and Celtic v Leeds(1970)- 136000!


----------



## Scotleag

gmacruyff said:


> You guys amaze me with your Stats knowledge!
> 
> I think the Scotland games included Scottish Cup Finals and Euro matches e.g. Real Madrid v Eintracht Frankfurt (1960)-130000 and Celtic v Leeds(1970)- 136000!


RSSSF Brazil have a list of all six-figure games played in that country. In Scotland there were a total of 96 such matches 1908-1973, 92 of them at Hampden and four at Ibrox.

There have been six-figure games in England, Spain, USSR, Poland and probably others. The provenance of many is doubtful as I've seen estimates which fall sharply when detailed figures become available. I think also some figures which appear huge related more to the capacity of the stadium as opposed to those actually attending.

Until comparatively recently record-keeping in football was pretty poor compared to cricket in particular and US sports in general.


----------



## gmacruyff

Scotleag said:


> Record attendance progression in Scotland - all matches
> 4,000 Scotland v England 30/11/1872, International Hamilton Crescent, Partick
> 7,000 Scotland v England 7/3/1874, International Hamilton Crescent, Partick
> 7,000 Queen's Park v Renton 10/4/1875, Scottish Cup Final, 1st Hampden Park, Glasgow
> 16,000 Scotland v England 4/3/1876, International, Hamilton Crescent, Partick
> 17,000 Scotland v Wales 25/3/1876, International, Hamilton Crescent, Partick
> 18,391 Third Lanark v Celtic 2/2/1889, Scottish Cup Final*, 2nd Hampden Park, Glasgow
> 26,379 Scotland v England 5/4/1890, International Championship, 2nd Hampden Park, Glasgow
> 45,017 Scotland v England, 7/4/1894, International Championship, Celtic Park, Glasgow
> 51,345 Scotland v England 4/4/1896, International Championship, Celtic Park, Glasgow
> 63,000 Scotland v England 7/4/1900, International Championship, Celtic Park, Glasgow
> 68,114 Scotland v England 5/4/1902, International Championship, Ibrox Park, Glasgow**
> 121,452 Scotland v England 4/4/1908, International Championship, 3rd Hampden Park, Glasgow
> 127,307 Scotland v England 23/3/1912, International Championship, 3rd Hampden Park, Glasgow
> 131,273 Scotland v England 13/4/1929, International Championship, 3rd Hampden Park, Glasgow
> 136,259 Scotland v England 1/4/1933, International Championship, 3rd Hampden Park, Glasgow
> 149,547 Scotland v England 17/4/1937 International Championship, 3rd Hampden Park, Glasgow
> 
> * This match was subject to a successful protest and replayed a week later with a crowd of 17,278 which would also have been a record.
> ** The Ibrox Disaster of 1902 which was subsequently deemed unofficial.
> 
> Whether protested or unofficial these games took place with these crowds in attendance and in my opinion should be counted. Others may of course disagree.


For the era after 1937,basically up to 1964:-

Scotland v England had 10 games at Hampden,going from 149,547 to 133,300

+WW2 interruption during that period!


----------



## Scotleag

gmacruyff said:


> You guys amaze me with your Stats knowledge!
> 
> I think the Scotland games included Scottish Cup Finals and Euro matches e.g. Real Madrid v Eintracht Frankfurt (1960)-130000 and Celtic v Leeds(1970)- 136000!


I was going to say that I've reached the magic ten posts so can include an image of the figures but I don't think I can drag and drop from my desktop. Sorry


----------



## Scotleag

gmacruyff said:


> For the era after 1937,basically up to 1964:-
> 
> Scotland v England had 10 games at Hampden,going from 149,547 to 133,300
> 
> +WW2 interruption during that period!


There were capacity restrictions in place for much of the war. Once these were eased there were three unofficial internationals v England with six-figure gates

17/4/43 137,363
22/4/44 132,835
14/4745 134,479


----------



## Glasgow High Rise

Spus65 said:


> Celtic are 4th and will end up 5th at the end of the season. An impressive 26,1% increase though due to the promotion of Rangers and the return of the 'Old Frim' derby.
> 
> htthttp://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/avesco.htm
> p://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/aveeng.htm


Nothing to do with New club Rangers. As mentioned earlier, despite them being in the top league for the first time , it never had a positive impact on Celtic's season ticket sales, in fact sales to mid May had dropped like on like on the previous season.

It took the appointment of a top class coach to re-invigorate the support. - not some derby that means less to the green half of Glasgow than it does the blue.


----------



## flierfy

philexile said:


> Hi Scotleag, I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one interested in attendances, especially English and Scottish ones. My particular interest is in total aggregate attendances for a single day in England and Scotland with special interest in days when English football achieved more than one million spectators in the four divisions, i think the last time that this happened was 26/12/1970, and it may never happen again, I think the highest aggregate attendance in recent years is around 870,000 so it would take several big stadium developments throughout English football and for all the higher drawing sides to be at home for it to be done again.


I would reckon that it takes a Saturday on which the England ladies play the USA in front of a capacity crowd at Wembley while Man Utd, Liverpool, West Ham, Newcastle, Spurs, Aston Villa, Leeds and Wednesday play crucial matches or local derbies at home. These games alone would add up to 500'000. Then one only needs another half a million from all the other league and none-league matches.


----------



## bd popeye

philexile said:


> Hi Scotleag, I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one interested in attendances, especially English and Scottish ones. My particular interest is in total aggregate attendances for a single day in England and Scotland with special interest in days when English football achieved more than one million spectators in the four divisions,


How many matches are played by the four divisions on a single Saturday? Thank you.


----------



## philexile

10 in the Premiership and 12 in each of the lower 3 divisions, so 46 in total, but in the old days when the record was set it was 4 divisions of 11, so 44 matches in total, but of course now due to TV the matches take place over 3-4 days, Friday until Monday 
For the record the all time record took place on 18/9/1948 when the aggregate total was approximately 1,2800,000.
I will try and post those results but i know Everton pulled in over 78,000 that day (against Liverpool


----------



## Scotleag

flierfy said:


> I would reckon that it takes a Saturday on which the England ladies play the USA in front of a capacity crowd at Wembley while Man Utd, Liverpool, West Ham, Newcastle, Spurs, Aston Villa, Leeds and Wednesday play crucial matches or local derbies at home. These games alone would add up to 500'000. Then one only needs another half a million from all the other league and none-league matches.


I estimate the average weekly attendance to be around 350-360K Premier & about 430K for the other divisions and the non-league pyramid of which roughly 85K is non-league. I have a recent (detailed) blog on English attendances here:
http://hereticallyorthodox.blogspot.co.uk

Of course if a womens international brought it up to 1M that wouldn't be a league only figure. 

I reckon the 1M mark is actually reached several times each season if you take the UK as a whole. A weekly average would be about 780K in England, another 120K in Scotland (100K league, 20K non-league), and about 10K for the NI & Welsh leagues.

So the weekly UK average is a shade over 900K. There are bound to be several occasions when that hits the 1M mark.


----------



## Scotleag

flierfy said:


> I would reckon that it takes a Saturday on which the England ladies play the USA in front of a capacity crowd at Wembley while Man Utd, Liverpool, West Ham, Newcastle, Spurs, Aston Villa, Leeds and Wednesday play crucial matches or local derbies at home. These games alone would add up to 500'000. Then one only needs another half a million from all the other league and none-league matches.


Additionally, there are around 200K attending rugby union and rugby league matches each weekend. The only other major European country with any significant number of rugby spectators is France (union, there are fewer than dozen pro RL teams). So attendances in the UK are better vis-avis Germany, Italy, Spain as none of these countries have any spectator sport which is a serious alternative to soccer.


----------



## Scotleag

flierfy said:


> I would reckon that it takes a Saturday on which the England ladies play the USA in front of a capacity crowd at Wembley while Man Utd, Liverpool, West Ham, Newcastle, Spurs, Aston Villa, Leeds and Wednesday play crucial matches or local derbies at home. These games alone would add up to 500'000. Then one only needs another half a million from all the other league and none-league matches.


I've done some calculations as follows:

By my reckoning around 940,000 attend a match in one of the UK’s league pyramid matches each week. So a week with attendances 6.5% above average would take it over the 1M mark.

Figures compiled from official league tallies and from the website nonleaguematters.co.uk where these aren’t available. All for 2015-16 season.

English Tiers 1-10 in descending order:
364563
211345
86324
58797
22966
17248 (two leagues)
11988 (three leagues)
11437 (six leagues)
15924 (fourteen leagues)
9851 (sixteen leagues)

Scotland Tiers 1-4
58115
37306
5008
2883

Northern Ireland Tier 1
5836

Wales Tiers 1-2
2118
1212 (one of two regional leagues at this level)

That comes to a total of 922,921

There are no figures for several leagues. These are:
West Midlands Regional League, England tier 10. At an estimated 40 per game gives 400 per week (ten matches)

One of the Welsh second tier leagues has no figures. Combining that with the three levels below and estimating 25 per game gives 2850 per week (95 matches)

Northern Ireland tiers two and three – six games each. An estimate of 30 per match gives 360 per week.

Scotland tiers five and six. 33 or 34 matches per week (odd number of teams in some divisions). Estimating the fifth tier Highland League at 150 and the Lowland League at 100 with an estimate of 30 for the sixth tier leagues gives a weekly figure of 2,510

Scottish Juniors – an explanation is needed here. ‘Junior’ in this sense means simply a different level to the ‘senior’ leagues. It has nothing to do with age. Until fairly recently there was no mixing of junior and non-league senior at a competitive level but for the past nine seasons top junior sides have competed in the Scottish Cup and performed well with several wins over much higher ranked clubs. Indeed only last week junior side Bonnyrigg Rose knocked Championship (tier two) team Dumbarton out of the Scottish Cup – and at Dumbarton too. 

Some of the best teams at this level are capable of drawing four-figure crowds for big matches. Pollok for example are averaging around 650-700 this season – higher than many third tier league one clubs. At the other end of the scale Johnstone Burgh had an attendance of 24 for their last home match. There are eighty league games each week all told and I have estimated the average to be 150, providing a total of 12,000

The estimated figures come to 18,120 to be added to the certified numbers for a total of 941,041.

It’s impossible to make any attempt to estimate figures below these levels as there are simply too many leagues below. Though considerably more would be added to the total if this were possible. For example I regularly watch English tier eleven football (not included here). I’ve seen attendances as high as 200 but never below 50. Of course the teams I see may well be at the top end of the scale. Even so I think my estimates for the ‘missing’ leagues in the pyramids are realistic. I’ve tried to err on the side of caution so I’d say that the figure of 18,000 is a reasonable one.

I’ve absolutely no doubt that attendances in the UK as a whole will top 1M several times a season based on these figures.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

Scotleag said:


> Additionally, there are around 200K attending rugby union and rugby league matches each weekend. The only other major European country with any significant number of rugby spectators is France (union, there are fewer than dozen pro RL teams). So attendances in the UK are better vis-avis Germany, Italy, Spain as none of these countries have any spectator sport which is a serious alternative to soccer.


Rugby union crowds don't seem to have any noticeable impact of football crowds though. Where rugby union has grown in the professional era, a rise in support has not been matched by a drop in support for football.

Part of that is probably down to the antipathy between the two sports, with people typically either liking football _or_ rugby, not both, and that like is usually more cultural than a sporting preference.


----------



## Scotleag

Rev Stickleback said:


> Rugby union crowds don't seem to have any noticeable impact of football crowds though. Where rugby union has grown in the professional era, a rise in support has not been matched by a drop in support for football.
> 
> Part of that is probably down to the antipathy between the two sports, with people typically either liking football _or_ rugby, not both, and that like is usually more cultural than a sporting preference.


You’re undoubtedly right about lack of impact on football attendances. Professional RU was established just as football was picking itself up from its lowest crowds in 70 years and both have prospered in the past thirty years

And yes, there are many people for whom never the twain shall meet. OTOH there are areas where pro RU or RL has little if any presence – Wearside, Teesside – others where they have a broad parity – East Midlands, South West – and some, chiefly rural, low density population, where professional football barely exists – Scottish Borders, Cornwall. 

But the point I was trying to make concerns the pool of potential support. The RU (or RL) supporting demographic exists in Germany, Italy and Spain yet there is no significant level of support for RU or RL clubs. (yes, Italy is in the Six Nations but in terms of club support it’s distinctly at a ‘non-league’ level compared to the other five).

So what do these people do at the weekend? If you accept – as I think we must – that many people who in England or France would attend rugby matches aren’t just inclined to sit at home or spend their weekend at B&Q then many will be at a football match.

That’s what I meant by saying English and French football crowds are, comparatively speaking, better than the headline figures. 

To make a rough comparison look at the Leeds-Bradford conurbation and Cologne. Both have a population of something over a million. In the German city there are two clubs in the national league structure with just over 50,000 watching home games, 48,500 of them following 1.FC Cologne. There is no other significant spectator sport rivalling football.

Leeds-Bradford has two teams also with 41,000 regularly watching football (22,500 Leeds United, 18,500 Bradford City). But the latter also has Leeds Rhinos (RL) with an average touching 16,000 & Bradford Bulls (RL) 4,500 –a good deal more if and when they return to the top flight. Throw in Yorkshire Carnegie (RU) at 2,500 and the diversity of support is plain to see. Of course while football and RU seasons largely overlap, only six of the eight months in the RL season now correspond to the football season.

Still, around 1/3 of the people who go and watch a team sport each weekend don’t go to a football match. Regardless of preference or any cultural difference a large number of these people would opt for football if there was no other option open to them.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

Scotleag said:


> So what do these people do at the weekend? If you accept – as I think we must – that many people who in England or France would attend rugby matches aren’t just inclined to sit at home or spend their weekend at B&Q then many will be at a football match.


People who don't like football won't go to football just because there's no rugby to watch. They'll just do what the 98% of the population who don't go to football any given weekend do.



> That’s what I meant by saying English and French football crowds are, comparatively speaking, better than the headline figures.
> 
> To make a rough comparison look at the Leeds-Bradford conurbation and Cologne. Both have a population of something over a million. In the German city there are two clubs in the national league structure with just over 50,000 watching home games, 48,500 of them following 1.FC Cologne. There is no other significant spectator sport rivalling football.


Cologne has Bayer Leverkusen just seven miles away, pulling 30,000, and the Cologne ice hockey team, who average 12500.

50,000 is also the capacity of the RheinEnergie Stadium. With a bigger capacity, they'd no doubt draw more.

The German basketball and handball leagues both average 4500.



> Still, around 1/3 of the people who go and watch a team sport each weekend don’t go to a football match. Regardless of preference or any cultural difference a large number of these people would opt for football if there was no other option open to them.


But there are loads of other options open to them, just non-sporting ones.

If rugby league was such a factor then rugby league crowds would be noticeably larger during the football close season, and the months where seasons overlap would see a drop in football crowds.

I do get what you are saying, but the number of people actively choosing which sport to go to is quite small, in my opinion at least.


----------



## bd popeye

The MLS Cup was played last night in Toronto before 36,045 fans at BMO Field.
The match was decided on penalty kicks. Seattle won...

*Toronto FC loses MLS Cup in heartbreaking fashion*


----------



## Octav Lucius

How popular is the domestic fotball (soccer) league in US?


----------



## bd popeye

Octav Lucius said:


> How popular is the domestic fotball (soccer) league in US?


I'm no soccer fan but the MLS average match attendance for 2016 was 21,692 with a total of 7,375,287 over 340 matches played.

However.. the TV ratings are poor and the MLS gets little coverage outside of the cities in which the MLS has clubs.

MLS TV ratings were up this season.

http://worldsoccertalk.com/2016/10/25/2016-mls-tv-ratings/

Go to the thread below for much more info on soccer in the USA and Canada;

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=647092


----------



## Octav Lucius

Thanks for the info


----------



## Acidline

weava said:


> If I had my way, I'd reorganize baseball, do away with the DH, and put geographically close teams in the same league. Maybe do like the NBA and NHL with an east and west, rather than like MLB and NFL where they overlap.


You'll never see the end of the DH for a healthy list of reasons, but the main one being the players association will never agree to something that actually eliminates work/contracts for players, in this case DHs generally being older, or partially injured players who can still swing a bat as well as anyone else. Let's be honest, automatic outs are a waste of time. A double switch is not all that exciting, or strategic. You will see the DH gradually phased into NL parks via reversed inter league rules, then eventually made standard across the league. 

I actually like the full national scope of each league. Paring each league down to a polar East/West division system is kind of boring, and would promote more unbalanced World Series simply because one team from East or West of the Mississippi HAS to appear in it. Imagine if the NBA had a system like MLB/NFL. How many of those western conference superteams that were crammed together from 1999-2011 might have been in a Finals matchup devoid of an Eastern conference team that was "good" but not "great"? Same goes for hockey.


----------



## lwa

Rev Stickleback said:


> *Rugby union crowds don't seem to have any noticeable impact of football crowds though. Where rugby union has grown in the professional era, a rise in support has not been matched by a drop in support for football.*
> 
> Part of that is probably down to the antipathy between the two sports, with people typically either liking football _or_ rugby, not both, and that like is usually more cultural than a sporting preference.


I would argue that Glasgow was an exception to that in recent seasons (although probably in reverse). Football crowds in Glasgow, whilst still fairly impressive, were falling until this season - meanwhile crowds at Glasgow Warriors have increased drastically over 4 season Rangers spent in the lower leagues and are now constrained by capacity. And it's not just them either; Pretty sure there is a similar story at Braehead Clan (Ice Hockey) and Glasgow Rocks (Basketball)



Scotleag said:


> You’re undoubtedly right about lack of impact on football attendances. Professional RU was established just as football was picking itself up from its lowest crowds in 70 years and both have prospered in the past thirty years
> 
> And yes, there are many people for whom never the twain shall meet. OTOH there are areas where pro RU or RL has little if any presence – Wearside, Teesside – others where they have a broad parity – East Midlands, South West – and some, chiefly rural, low density population, where professional football barely exists – Scottish Borders, Cornwall.
> 
> But the point I was trying to make concerns the pool of potential support. The RU (or RL) supporting demographic exists in Germany, Italy and Spain yet there is no significant level of support for RU or RL clubs. (yes, Italy is in the Six Nations but in terms of club support it’s distinctly at a ‘non-league’ level compared to the other five).
> 
> So what do these people do at the weekend? If you accept – as I think we must – that many people who in England or France would attend rugby matches aren’t just inclined to sit at home or spend their weekend at B&Q then many will be at a football match.
> 
> That’s what I meant by saying English and French football crowds are, comparatively speaking, better than the headline figures.
> 
> To make a rough comparison look at the Leeds-Bradford conurbation and Cologne. Both have a population of something over a million. In the German city there are two clubs in the national league structure with just over 50,000 watching home games, 48,500 of them following 1.FC Cologne. There is no other significant spectator sport rivalling football.
> 
> Leeds-Bradford has two teams also with 41,000 regularly watching football (22,500 Leeds United, 18,500 Bradford City). But the latter also has Leeds Rhinos (RL) with an average touching 16,000 & Bradford Bulls (RL) 4,500 –a good deal more if and when they return to the top flight. Throw in Yorkshire Carnegie (RU) at 2,500 and the diversity of support is plain to see. Of course while football and RU seasons largely overlap, only six of the eight months in the RL season now correspond to the football season.
> 
> Still, around 1/3 of the people who go and watch a team sport each weekend don’t go to a football match. Regardless of preference or any cultural difference a large number of these people would opt for football if there was no other option open to them.


A few points here:

Firstly, I think you are seriously underestimating other sports. The bigger handball/basketball/ice hockey sides in many continental European nations draw crowds to rival most club rugby sides (of either code). In fact, even in Scotland, it's not uncommon for Braehead Clan to outdraw half the Scottish Premiership! (Belfast Giants probably worth a mention too - they outdraw every football team in NI)

Secondly, Spain has no rugby support? I beg to differ. In the past year, Spain has seen:
- 98,000 people watch the French Championship Final in Barcelona, a world record crowd for a club match.
- 26,500 people watch the Copa del Rey Final in Valladolid - a sell-out crowd
- 22,000 people watch internationals on one day in Spain last month, including 12,000 in San Sebastian watching Tonga play USA
- RCD Espanyol sent people to Twickenham last month as they are apparently keen to host rugby matches at their ground in the near future. I wouldn't be too surprised to see the 2018 European Cup Finals played in Barcelona, albeit the main event is more likely to be at the Nou Camp

What Spain is lacking is a real outlet for the potential support that is there. One thing that always amazes me is the number of Spanish flags you tend to see at 6 Nations games at Murrayfield (In particular, it always amazes me they choose Murrayfield…)


----------



## CharlieP

Scotleag said:


> Additionally, there are around 200K attending rugby union and rugby league matches each weekend.


Don't forget, though, that the rugby union and rugby league seasons only overlap in September/October and February to May. The top leagues in rugby league, at least - the winter leagues won't generate significant numbers.

If we're not limiting ourselves to league competitions, the biggest weekends in rugby union are during November, when the Home Unions international sides are at home and the club sides are playing as well. Although the clubs will tend to play on Friday or Sunday when that happens, if you're looking for the best-attended day.


----------



## CharlieP

lwa said:


> Secondly, Spain has no rugby support? I beg to differ. In the past year, Spain has seen:
> - 98,000 people watch the French Championship Final in Barcelona, a world record crowd for a club match.
> - 26,500 people watch the Copa del Rey Final in Valladolid - a sell-out crowd
> - 22,000 people watch internationals on one day in Spain last month, including 12,000 in San Sebastian watching Tonga play USA
> - RCD Espanyol sent people to Twickenham last month as they are apparently keen to host rugby matches at their ground in the near future. I wouldn't be too surprised to see the 2018 European Cup Finals played in Barcelona, albeit the main event is more likely to be at the Nou Camp
> 
> What Spain is lacking is a real outlet for the potential support that is there. One thing that always amazes me is the number of Spanish flags you tend to see at 6 Nations games at Murrayfield (In particular, it always amazes me they choose Murrayfield…)


I bumped into the FC Barcelona rugby team's coach in a bar when I was over there - he asked if I fancied a game for them, but sadly I was flying home before the weekend. :lol:


----------



## CharlieP

Rev Stickleback said:


> People who don't like football won't go to football just because there's no rugby to watch. They'll just do what the 98% of the population who don't go to football any given weekend do.


Indeed. I've been to one live soccer match in the last 22 years, and that's because I'd wanted to go to the Nou Camp ever since I saw a photo of it in 1991.


----------



## gincan

lwa said:


> Secondly, Spain has no rugby support? I beg to differ. In the past year, Spain has seen:
> - 98,000 people watch the French Championship Final in Barcelona, a world record crowd for a club match.
> - 26,500 people watch the Copa del Rey Final in Valladolid - a sell-out crowd
> - 22,000 people watch internationals on one day in Spain last month, including 12,000 in San Sebastian watching Tonga play USA
> - RCD Espanyol sent people to Twickenham last month as they are apparently keen to host rugby matches at their ground in the near future. I wouldn't be too surprised to see the 2018 European Cup Finals played in Barcelona, albeit the main event is more likely to be at the Nou Camp
> 
> What Spain is lacking is a real outlet for the potential support that is there. One thing that always amazes me is the number of Spanish flags you tend to see at 6 Nations games at Murrayfield (In particular, it always amazes me they choose Murrayfield…)


The Spanish national rugby league has been running every year since 1970. They usuallt play in front of family and friends, there just isn't any demand.

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/División_de_Honor_de_Rugby

NFL Europe tried to run a team in Barcelona in 1991-2003. There was an initial hype and they even managed to sell out the Olympic stadium 1 time but the following dissapeared rather quickly after the novelty died of.


----------



## CharlieP

The Aviva Premiership (top level of rugby union in England) attendances are up 10% this season, with the average currently 13,833:

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/new...emiership-rugby-attendances-and-tv-audiences/

With Saracens still to play at Wembley and Bath at Twickenham, and Bristol to host Bath and Gloucester, I'd expect the final total to push 14,000.


----------



## Andy-i

alexandru.mircea said:


> The first season of PRO Rugby is getting nearer and nearer to its debut, which is happening in mid April. This will be the first professional competition in rugby union, at club level, ever held in the USA. Hopefuly there are some US based rugby fans that will keep us posted on the development of this league.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_PRO_Rugby_season






Andy-i said:


> First 2 games drew 3,400 and 2,312.
> It's also only a 5 team league. Can't see it making much of an impact TBH.





Andy-i said:


> The season is now over and it drew 51,696 over the 30 games for an average of 1723.
> 
> So not much of an impact and in the world of pro team sports in the US it's not even a blip.
> 
> In Rugby terms, it's not that far behind the 2nd tier in England though, which averaged 2064 last season.
> 
> I always find it odd when some UK rugby fans talk of Rugby becoming bigger than football (soccer to our American cousins) in the US, as it's played at college level.
> 
> They seem to have no idea how big the MLS is now, or how small Rugby is as a spectator sport.
> 
> It will be interesting to see if it can grow in terms of teams and/or crowds in the future.


Looks they have folded after just the one season:
http://www.rugbytoday.com/elite/down-goes-pro

I'm not sure what the point of launching a professional league of only 5 teams for a sport with little domestic profile and history as a pro spectator sport was?


----------



## rixvt

* LigaMX (México) - Average attendances for this ongoing season (Clausura 2017): Weeks 1 & 2*


----------



## Scotleag

lwa said:


> I would argue that Glasgow was an exception to that in recent seasons (although probably in reverse). Football crowds in Glasgow, whilst still fairly impressive, were falling until this season - meanwhile crowds at Glasgow Warriors have increased drastically over 4 season Rangers spent in the lower leagues and are now constrained by capacity. And it's not just them either; Pretty sure there is a similar story at Braehead Clan (Ice Hockey) and Glasgow Rocks (Basketball)
> 
> 
> 
> A few points here:
> 
> Firstly, I think you are seriously underestimating other sports. The bigger handball/basketball/ice hockey sides in many continental European nations draw crowds to rival most club rugby sides (of either code). In fact, even in Scotland, it's not uncommon for Braehead Clan to outdraw half the Scottish Premiership! (Belfast Giants probably worth a mention too - they outdraw every football team in NI)
> 
> Secondly, Spain has no rugby support? I beg to differ. In the past year, Spain has seen:
> - 98,000 people watch the French Championship Final in Barcelona, a world record crowd for a club match.
> - 26,500 people watch the Copa del Rey Final in Valladolid - a sell-out crowd
> - 22,000 people watch internationals on one day in Spain last month, including 12,000 in San Sebastian watching Tonga play USA
> - RCD Espanyol sent people to Twickenham last month as they are apparently keen to host rugby matches at their ground in the near future. I wouldn't be too surprised to see the 2018 European Cup Finals played in Barcelona, albeit the main event is more likely to be at the Nou Camp
> 
> What Spain is lacking is a real outlet for the potential support that is there. One thing that always amazes me is the number of Spanish flags you tend to see at 6 Nations games at Murrayfield (In particular, it always amazes me they choose Murrayfield…)


Gincan is right. There is next to no demand for rugby union as a spectator sport in Spain though there are a healthy number playing the game. The Camp Nou crowd was impressive but a one-off. I lived in Barcelona for six years and I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of times rugby got a mention in the sports press - and that includes Six Nations and World Cup. 

Glasgow Warriors are undoubtedly a success story and more power to their elbow. Capacity is definitely a problem. Here's hoping they can get it sorted soon.

Braehead Clan figures are impressive but they can only make the comparison because of the sheer bloody awful crowds of some SPFL teams. And it's occasional rather than regular. Again, they're restricted by capacity but over the course of last season the only Premiership side they'd outstrip even if they sold every ticket for every match would have been Hamilton Accies (av 3027) Next worst SPFL was Inverness CT (3754) which is more than Braehead's 3576 capacity.

Unlike rugby they're not in any competition with football, given days and times of matches. And this was my point. Comparing football with rugby may arguably be comparing apples and pears but comparing football or rugby with indoor court games is apples & artichokes


----------



## Scotleag

CharlieP said:


> Don't forget, though, that the rugby union and rugby league seasons only overlap in September/October and February to May. The top leagues in rugby league, at least - the winter leagues won't generate significant numbers.
> 
> If we're not limiting ourselves to league competitions, the biggest weekends in rugby union are during November, when the Home Unions international sides are at home and the club sides are playing as well. Although the clubs will tend to play on Friday or Sunday when that happens, if you're looking for the best-attended day.


RL yes and one of the reasons for the change was to maximise TV revenue, to avoid being in competition with football for as long as possible RU season is Sep-Apr (and increasingly the beginning of May too for play-offs)


----------



## Scotleag

philexile said:


> Hi Scotleag, I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one interested in attendances, especially English and Scottish ones. My particular interest is in total aggregate attendances for a single day in England and Scotland with special interest in days when English football achieved more than one million spectators in the four divisions, i think the last time that this happened was 26/12/1970, and it may never happen again, I think the highest aggregate attendance in recent years is around 870,000 so it would take several big stadium developments throughout English football and for all the higher drawing sides to be at home for it to be done again.
> I would imagine that the magic figure in Scotland would be 200,000 in a single day, would you know the last time that this was achieved,(I think the record for a one day aggregate attendance in Scotland is around 270,000, an incredible figure for a country of only 5 million, the equivalent of England drawing nearly 3 million in a single day, the average now being around 750,000 for the four divisions)
> One footnote, i now count one day attendances as all the league fixtures scheduled for that particular weekend as we all know that due to TV all the fixtures do not kick off at 3 on a Saturday afternoon


The Xmas round of fixtures produced well over one million in the UK and I’m 100% certain also in England alone (though ‘only’ 880,801 of these were English league fixtures). I’m counting matches played as the designated round of fixtures which were spread over Fri 23rd Dec – Weds Dec 28th. I EXCLUDE Scottish Premiership matches played Dec 27th-Dec 28th as these were a separate round of fixtures, there already being a full programme over the weekend. 

Figures are as follows
880,801 – All four English divisions, 46 matches 
104,904 – All four Scottish divisions, 19 matches 
16,853 – Northern Ireland Premier, six matches
2,428 – Welsh Premier, six matches 

That’s a total of 1,004,986 for all UK senior league matches

In addition I’ve looked at the major English non-league divisions (the first four non-league tiers):
104,944 – 134 matches

Four non-league matches were postponed (all in the fourth tier) as were two Scottish matches (one each in Leagues One and Two)

This produces a grand total of 1,109,121 of which 984,896 were in England alone. The reason I’m sure it was more than a million in England is that though figures for lower levels of non-league football are incomplete as of writing, taking figures over the past few years for the holiday fixtures produces an average of around 25,000 for the fifth and sixth non-league tiers (levels nine and ten in England as a whole). And certainly it would be in excess of the 15,104 needed to hit the million mark.

League	Total Matches Average	High Low Notes
Premier	379323	10	37932	75325 - Manchester United	20304 - Watford	
Championship	300683	12	25057	52179 - Newcastle United	10158 - Rotherham United	
League One	134161	12	11180	25821 - Sheffield United	3863 - Rochdale	
League Two	66634	12	5553	12210 - Plymouth Argyle	3237 - Mansfield Town	
National	33552	12	2796	7274 - Tranmere Rovers	1353 - Braintree Town	
National North	18532	11	1685	3858 - AFC Fylde	517 - Brackley Town	
National South	9642	11	877	2404 - Dartford	305 - Concord Rangers	
Isthmian Premier	6155	12	513	1348 - Bognor Regis Town	268 - Kingstonian	
Southern Premier	7869	12	656	2033 - Dorchester Town	322 - Cirencester Town	
Northern Premier	8292	12	691	1826 - Stafford Rangers	205 - Ashton United	
Isthmian 1 North	1969	11	179	346 - Heybridge Swifts	70 - Witham Town	One game postponed/not scheduled
Isthmian 1 South	3732	12	311	702 - Hastings United	126 - South Park	
Southern 1 Central	1498	8	187	293 - Histon	116 - AFC Dunstable	Three games postponed/not scheduled
Southern 1 South & West	5572	11	507	1365 - Bishop's Cleeve	105 - Slimbridge	
Northern 1 North	3816	11	347	721 - Tadcaster Albion	80 - Burscough	
Northern 1 South	3466	11	315	631 - AFC Rushden & Diamonds	78 - Romulus	
SPFL Premier	69110	6	11518	48528 - Rangers	2935 - Ross County	Not including matches Dec 27-28, as these are from next round of fixtures
SPFL Championship	31869	5	6374	15409 - Hibernian	1441 - Ayr United	
SPFL League One	1949	4	487	819 - Livingston	317 - Stranraer	1 game postponed
SPFL League Two	2016	4	504	659 - Forfar Athletic	317 - Cowdenbeath	1 game postponed
Welsh Premier	2428	6	405	658 - Bangor City	211 - Bala Town	
Northern Ireland Premier	16853	6	2809	7820 - Linfield	348 - Dungannon Swifts	

Total	1109121 
England only	984896 

Plus approximately 25K for non-league tiers 9 & 10

My apologies for the disjointed way this has come out but I hope they can be understood easily enough by applying *League Total Matches Average High Low Notes* to each division throughout. I can't drag and drop the file so short of writing it all out again (which would take ages) this'll have to do. Hope it's of some use


----------



## Scotleag

Rev Stickleback said:


> People who don't like football won't go to football just because there's no rugby to watch. They'll just do what the 98% of the population who don't go to football any given weekend do.
> 
> 
> Cologne has Bayer Leverkusen just seven miles away, pulling 30,000, and the Cologne ice hockey team, who average 12500.
> 
> 50,000 is also the capacity of the RheinEnergie Stadium. With a bigger capacity, they'd no doubt draw more.
> 
> The German basketball and handball leagues both average 4500.
> 
> 
> But there are loads of other options open to them, just non-sporting ones.
> 
> If rugby league was such a factor then rugby league crowds would be noticeably larger during the football close season, and the months where seasons overlap would see a drop in football crowds.
> 
> I do get what you are saying, but the number of people actively choosing which sport to go to is quite small, in my opinion at least.


I was determined to let this lie but after much thought feel I must respond I’ve built up a reputation in this field over almost thirty years and I’m not going to allow it to be trashed by specious arguments. I engaged politely and in depth with your initial response but your reaction to it dismays me. It seems to me you’re determined to argue for the hell of it. I can’t think of any other reason for evidence-free assertions and the introduction of irrelevant factors and comparisons.

Let’s deal with your assertions in turn. The idea that rugby followers don’t watch football is an interesting one. Next time I attend my local Championship match I must remember to raise the issue in the clubhouse after the match. It’ll be a short discussion though. I’ll have to restrict it to half-time otherwise I’ll be told in no uncertain terms to shut up while the football’s on TV.

There is a crossover element. Just as there is within football itself, particularly among those who will watch a local non-league side when their ‘big’ team is playing away. How large an element is a matter for discussion and debate but to deny its existence is to fly in the face of reality.

I find your Leverkusen and basketball and handball comparisons risible and this is what I mean by arguing for the hell of it. I could just as easily have said Halifax is as close to Bradford as Leverkusen to Cologne Or that Wakefield, Dewsbury, Castleford and Huddersfield all lie just a few minutes further away from the Leeds-Bradford conurbation.

But I didn’t. You know why? Because sports fans in those localities by and large support their local teams. And I suspect you are well aware that a Leverkusen fan is as likely to watch Cologne as a Huddersfield one is to watch Leeds. I wanted to make a rough comparison between two conurbations with a similar size of population. 

Capacity is another red herring. Cologne fill an impressive percentage of capacity, no doubt, but eleven English Premiership teams fill more of their grounds and they’re not all clamouring to build a bigger ground. If Leeds were in the Premier League they’d no doubt be one of them.

You’ll be aware no doubt that the Mungersdorfer was renovated as recently as 2004 in preparation for the 2006 World Cup. With the boom in attendances already well under way had there been any desire for an increased capacity that would have been accommodated then (as Dortmund did for example). In fact the opposite happened and capacity dropped by over 10,000.

Basketball, ice hockey and handball: I compared outdoor sports which kick-off at broadly the same time and same days and operate in direct competition with each other most of the time. You counter with indoor court games of an entirely different kind and where matches rarely coincide with football. In the case of Cologne you include the impressive ice hockey attendances but neglect to mention the basketball team plays in a 4,000 capacity stadium, with an average attendance of just 1,500.

I believe this is a comparison made for comparison’s sake and an utterly ridiculous one at that. It’s as if I claimed AFC Wimbledon are competing with tennis or Liverpool and Everton with Aintree racecourse (other than the Grand National that is)

Finally, rugby league. I had suspected your post was being deliberately contrary but this is what convinced me. I almost fell off my chair laughing when you mentioned rugby league and your claim that crowds would be larger in the football close season and smaller when they overlap. I find it difficult to believe that someone with your knowledge would be unaware that one of the prime reasons for the change in the rugby league season was precisely to AVOID clashing with football for as much of the time as was possible both with regard to live attendance and for TV purposes (the League of Ireland (football) did precisely the same because of the competition from English football both from fans travelling to England and live TV – not it has to be said with a great deal of success, given the way football has become almost a year-round games these days. Football is only the fourth most popular spectator sport in Ireland but is far and away the armchair number one. And, no, the move wasn’t made to avoid Hurling, Gaelic Football and Rugby Union, as there is no point in the Irish sporting calendar when football can have a ‘clear run’).

I’m left wondering why RL made such a move if there was no crossover in support between the sports? 

As for what remains of the close season I’m equally sure you’re aware of the existence of Yorkshire CCC. Unless you think they’re irrelevant and that cricket supporters, like those of the two rugby codes and football fans operate in hermetically sealed environments, never to meet.

My point stands. Of the ‘Big Five’ football countries of Europe, only England and France face significant competition from rival sports, similar in character, aimed at largely the same demographic (I’m not quite sure what you mean by ‘cultural’ differences, though I do hope it’s not the insulting, old-fashioned and erroneous idea that sport is divided by class) and played on the same days and times. And that of those two the popularity of Rugby League in England means that football there has the most intense competition of all.

There. I’ve had my say. I was delighted to find this forum and thought I’d meet like-minded people here. Your attitude may not be typical –I hope not – but as the time it’s taken for me to respond to this shows – I have other things to do. If I hang around I’ll feel obliged to respond. As I said earlier I’ve worked hard for almost three decades now to build up some expertise in this area. The hours spent in draughty libraries all over the UK, the eating on the hoof that’s been done in order not to miss valuable research time, the travelling all over the country, the often eighteen-hour days and the time spent away from my family compels me to defend my reputation. I can’t afford the time to do it constantly so I’ll leave it here. Respond if you like but it’ll be to an echo chamber. Goodbye.


----------



## bd popeye

*2016 NCAA College Football FBS attendance..part one*


----------



## bd popeye

*2016 NCAA College Football FBS attendance..part two*


----------



## rixvt

LIGAMX (México) - Clausura 2017 (Average attendances & records - 
Weeks from 1 to 14 (only 3 weeks/matches missing for play-offs (liguilla))

*
Total Season attendance + Total week attendance *









*
League Average attendance + Week average attendance*










*Record Attendances (Highest & Lowest) *








​


----------



## GunnerJacket

It's nice to see the new venues in LMX paying off. It's certainly giving more teams better, bona fide home fields with character and more intimate support. Wasn't that long ago when I would tune in and see the parade of large, outdated stadiums so sparsely filled. Much better today.

I really hope I'll get to see Mexico host a World Cup all their own someday. Or maybe with just one other Central American partner. Will take some work but it would go a long way to ensuring they have the depth of top-class stadiums to help take the league to the next level. They're financially the strongest league in the Americas, I believe, but still having issues in competing with their South American peers.


----------



## iranii

Average attendance of Azadegan League (Iran 2nd tier) after 31 rounds:

*1. Nassaji Mazandaran - 10,333
2. Sepidrood - 8,214
3. Khooneh be Khooneh - 4,136
4. Malavan - 3,365
5. Kheybar Khorramabad - 2,750
6. Gol Gohar - 2,281
7. Aluminium Arak - 2,267
8. Mes Kerman - 2,069
9. Naft Masjed Soleyman - 2,033
10. Fair Sepasi - 1,844
10. Iranjavan - 1,844
12. Pars Jam - 1,750
13. Esteghlal Ahvaz - 954
14. Foolad Yazd - 708
15. Mes Rafsanjan - 707
16. Oxin Alborz - 647
17. Baadraan Tehran - 559
18. Rah Ahan - 200

League Average: 2,569*


----------



## bd popeye

*MLS attendance thru the seventh week of the 2017 season*


----------



## aquamaroon

The Revolution are such a mark against the MLS at this point hno:. IMO, doing 13,000 in that market with where the MLS has gotten to as a league is such a huge disappointment. I have no doubt that a "Boston Revolution FC" with a SSS somewhere in Boston, Cambridge or Somerville would be a huge hit and have an attendance somewhere in the 20,000's. IF they can ever get that ball rolling that is.


----------



## GunnerJacket

aquamaroon said:


> The Revolution are such a mark against the MLS at this point hno:. IMO, doing 13,000 in that market with where the MLS has gotten to as a league is such a huge disappointment. I have no doubt that a "Boston Revolution FC" with a SSS somewhere in Boston, Cambridge or Somerville would be a huge hit and have an attendance somewhere in the 20,000's. IF they can ever get that ball rolling that is.


a) They've only had 2 home games, with their first one <12k largely due to cold (<40') and another date cancelled due to snow. But they've managed to swing over the 15k mark by the season's end so no cause to panic. Yet.

b) The team's owner own's Gillette stadium, so they're unlikely to move. Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest the team would need to average about 23k in a new stadium to warrant the extra expense.

c) At some point this is on the fans, as well. Gillette has proven more than a viable, raucous home field for the Patriots so the locals have demonstrated it can work, so there's reason to believe that they could replicate what Orlando did at the Citrus Bowl or what ATL will do at MBS to make the setting work, even if the location is less than ideal. 

One man's thoughts, anyway.


----------



## bd popeye

GunnerJacket said:


> b) The team's owner own's Gillette stadium, so they're unlikely to move. Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest the team would need to average about 23k in a new stadium to warrant the extra expense.


So true.. anytime Mr Kraft waves the New SSS Stadium flag I immediately hoist my BS flag..



Because I know this is coming >>>>:storm:

Any doubters? read the very first post of this thread from 2006 >>> *Soccer Stadiums of the USA and Canada*;



yure323 said:


> http://www.cityofboston.gov/news/default.aspx?ID=3225
> _Boston is honored and proud to be recruited by Major League Soccer to be the potential home for the New England Revolution,” said Mayor Thomas M. Menino. “This is a fantastic opportunity for our city and our neighborhoods, but it will require a throughout exploration of possible sites – we need to make sure this works for Boston residents.” _
> Do you think there's any chance to get past NIMBY's in Boston ?


Although Mr Kraft is not mentioned in the article he has yet to *honestly* pursue any of the proposals for a SSS in metro Boston.


----------



## aquamaroon

GunnerJacket said:


> a) They've only had 2 home games, with their first one <12k largely due to cold (<40') and another date cancelled due to snow. But they've managed to swing over the 15k mark by the season's end so no cause to panic. Yet.
> 
> b) The team's owner own's Gillette stadium, so they're unlikely to move. Back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest the team would need to average about 23k in a new stadium to warrant the extra expense.
> 
> c) At some point this is on the fans, as well. Gillette has proven more than a viable, raucous home field for the Patriots so the locals have demonstrated it can work, so there's reason to believe that they could replicate what Orlando did at the Citrus Bowl or what ATL will do at MBS to make the setting work, even if the location is less than ideal.
> 
> One man's thoughts, anyway.


Thanks for the points :cheers: (especially about the snowstorm! didn't know about that). I think your third point is a symptom of a larger problem related to the Revolution's digs: the lack of real support for the soccer team from ownership. 
I am fully onboard with BD Popeye, whenever you hear Kraft talk about a new SSS it's hard to take it seriously. In all honesty, Mr. Kraft gives the impression sometimes that the NE Revolution exists solely to fill dates at Gillette Stadium when the Patriots are on their offseason. That's probably not fair, but for the longterm health of the franchise they have to get out of Foxborough and into the heart of the Boston metro area proper.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Of course, no sooner do I offer those words and then the Revs go out and draw 10k and change last night. :| In their defense lone midweek games never fair well in this league, but that's cutting it awfully close to our now sacred >10k mark. 

Agreed about the impact of the ownership. Blank's passion and *relatable nature on behalf of Atlanta United is certainly part of why the fans have been on board since day 1, while the aloof nature of Stan Kroenke with the STL/LA Rams and Arsenal are a large reason why those fans are turning sour. That Kraft would be so emotional about the Pats and yet so distant regarding the Revs is surely disconcerting to locals. He is the wicked stepmother to that Cinderella of a MLS franchise, it appears. 

Designed parity may inhibit that chances for dynasties on the field but I don't believe the league can have it where every team is wonderfully supported because many teams are bound for losing seasons. It may simply be that the Revs may be perennial baggage. I just hope they remain sustainable and give the fans something to get behind.


Edit: BTW, I gave relatable an * because this spellcheck doesn't recognize it as a bona fide word! Weird.


----------



## Patrick

so FC Cincinnati, playing in "third-tier" USL, would average on rank 11th currently in the MLS with its average crowd of 19,608 after three home games this seeason. not bad at all.


----------



## CharlieP

The regular season of the Avivia Premiership (top tier of rugby union in England) finished on Saturday, with attendances up 10% on last season. Only Saracens (by 36) and Worcester had lower average crowds than 2015-16.

Harlequins	23,380	(19,307)
Leicester	22,899	(21,770)
Wasps	18,664	(15,051)
Saracens	18,604	(18,640)
Bath	18,232	(13,226)
Northampton	15,464	(15,451)
Gloucester	14,111	(13,885)
Bristol	13,433	(N/A)
Exeter	11,346	(11,032)
Worcester	8,825	(9,042)
Newcastle	7,090	(6,472)
Sale	6,202	(6,152)

*Average 14,854 (13,488)
*


----------



## GunnerJacket

Patrick said:


> so FC Cincinnati, playing in "third-tier" USL, would average on rank 11th currently in the MLS with its average crowd of 19,608 after three home games this seeason. not bad at all.


Technically USL is now considered Division 2 ball. It's conditional and this is only the first season with that designation, so not everyone is up to spending that much money as of yet, but that's where they sit.


----------



## weava

well I'm calling BS on MLS attendance now. I went to my first ever game last Wednesday as they were giving away free tickets and my wife (who is Brazilian and likes soccer) wanted to go. Seattle @ KC, there was easily over 1,000 open seats in the 18,467 seat stadium yet listed attendance was 20,139...


----------



## jts1882

It's common in football to announce ticket sales as the attendance. If season ticket holders don't turn up they still get counted in the official attendance. Ask GunnerJacket about the thousands of no-shows in the sold out Emirates Stadium.


----------



## flierfy

The league season of German football came to a conclusion this weekend with all divisions covered in the statistic above playing their finals games.

This time the most outstanding figures came from the 2nd division without a doubt which added another 10% to the record figures of last season. Its mean average came even close to beat the Serie A. It was nonetheless Europe's 5th best attended division this season.
As expected the numbers in the 2nd division were boosted by the relegation of Stuttgart and Hannover from the top and the promotion of Dynamo Dresden from the 3rd division. Stuttgart itself set a new non-top-flight record of over 50'000 on average this season.
That said the adjacent divisions took consequently a hit. The 1st division lost 1'800 per game and the 3rd division 1'200.

Some of these shifts will be reverse again. With Stuttgart and Hannover replacing low-drawing Ingolstadt and Darmstadt the Bundesliga could mark its best ever numbers next season.
The 2nd division on the other hand will struggle to repeat the feat of its most recent seasons. But we will see how it all evolves.


----------



## bd popeye

weava said:


> well I'm calling BS on MLS attendance now. I went to my first ever game last Wednesday as they were giving away free tickets and my wife (who is Brazilian and likes soccer) wanted to go. Seattle @ KC, there was easily over 1,000 open seats in the 18,467 seat stadium yet listed attendance was 20,139...


C'mon I think you know>>>That's how most attendance in the US in all sports is counted. Not rear ends in the seats but tickets sold. And in some cases tickets distributed.


----------



## GunnerJacket

weava said:


> well I'm calling BS on MLS attendance now. I went to my first ever game last Wednesday as they were giving away free tickets and my wife (who is Brazilian and likes soccer) wanted to go. Seattle @ KC, there was easily over 1,000 open seats in the 18,467 seat stadium yet listed attendance was 20,139...


a) This is pretty much across the board in US sports and most leagues around the world. 
b) You're just catching on to this now?
c) It's not that big of a deal.



jts1882 said:


> It's common in football to announce ticket sales as the attendance. If season ticket holders don't turn up they still get counted in the official attendance. Ask GunnerJacket about the thousands of no-shows in the sold out Emirates Stadium.


Hey now, those were strategically coordinated absences, I tell ya! They weren't "no-shows," but rather they were staging a protest of invisibility! 

But seriously, can you blame them? Ultimately in the game of chicken between an egregious ownership and the fans the only real muscle the fans have available is to impact the team in the pocket book. Sadly.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

GunnerJacket said:


> a) This is pretty much across the board in US sports and most leagues around the world. .


Tickets sold, yes, but not tickets distributed.


----------



## Patrick

flierfy said:


> The league season of German football came to a conclusion this weekend with all divisions covered in the statistic above playing their finals games.
> 
> This time the most outstanding figures came from the 2nd division without a doubt which added another 10% to the record figures of last season. Its mean average came even close to beat the Serie A. It was nonetheless Europe's 5th best attended division this season.
> As expected the numbers in the 2nd division were boosted by the relegation of Stuttgart and Hannover from the top and the promotion of Dynamo Dresden from the 3rd division. Stuttgart itself set a new non-top-flight record of over 50'000 on average this season.
> That said the adjacent divisions took consequently a hit. The 1st division lost 1'800 per game and the 3rd division 1'200.
> 
> Some of these shifts will be reverse again. With Stuttgart and Hannover replacing low-drawing Ingolstadt and Darmstadt the Bundesliga could mark its best ever numbers next season.
> The 2nd division on the other hand will struggle to repeat the feat of its most recent seasons. But we will see how it all evolves.


how comes the Regio Bayern had such a loss this season?


----------



## CrayZD

I guess it's due to the promotion of Jahn Regensburg in 2016. They've had an average attendance of 6'500 in Regio Bayern. On the other hand, there were no relegations from 3rd division last year, but four promoting teams from Bayernliga (5th tier) with poor attendance.


----------



## pesto

weava said:


> SKC doesn't sell out every game. They still have tickets/seats available every game yet call them "sell outs"...


LOL. Just like every other sell-out in any sport where there are rows of empty seats. The Red Sox had hundreds of sell-outs in a row until MLB forced them to stop lying because there were so many TV and internet shots of empty sections.

The SF Giants likewise had a ridiculous streak, kept alive by "selling" 5 tickets to one person for the price of one and other such tricks. In fact my nephew tells me that right now for day games they will give you as many tickets as you want for $6 (he only took 2 extras, for his fiancé and buddy).

As for "official" numbers that come out much later than the match after official "review"....no comment.

The point is that attendance and "sell-outs" are always suspect.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Ligue 1 average after each team has played one match at home is 23067. Nothing to be excited about though, at the same stage two years ago the average was 23400 but by the end of the season the average had dropped to bellow 20.9k.

Ligue 2 after three rounds stands at 6286.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

pesto said:


> LOL. Just like every other sell-out in any sport where there are rows of empty seats. The Red Sox had hundreds of sell-outs in a row until MLB forced them to stop lying because there were so many TV and internet shots of empty sections.
> 
> The SF Giants likewise had a ridiculous streak, kept alive by "selling" 5 tickets to one person for the price of one and other such tricks. In fact my nephew tells me that right now for day games they will give you as many tickets as you want for $6 (he only took 2 extras, for his fiancé and buddy).
> 
> As for "official" numbers that come out much later than the match after official "review"....no comment.
> 
> The point is that attendance and "sell-outs" are always suspect.


The Boston streak was ridiculously inflated and just embarrassing. It was the worst case of puffing i had seen... until the Giants. They would have multiple empty sections and claim a sellout... for at least a couple years.


----------



## bd popeye

Some selected NCAA FBS Division 1 attendance for this weekend..home team is listed in the left column.

Penn State....Beaver Stadium, University Park, Pennsylvania Attendance: 101,684

Georgia....Sanford Stadium, Athens, Georgia Attendance: 92,746

Nebraska...Tom Osborne Field at Memorial Stadium, Lincoln, Nebraska Attendance: 90,171

Texas....Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium/Jamail Field, Austin, Texas Attendance: 88,396

Auburn...Jordan-Hare Stadium, Auburn, Alabama Attendance: 87,451

Oklahoma....Gaylord Family-Oklahoma Memorial Stadium, Norman, Oklahoma Attendance: 86,076	

Clemson....Memorial Stadium, Clemson, South Carolina Attendance: 80,121

Florida & Michigan.....AT&T Stadium, Arlington, Texas Attendance: 75,802(neutral site)

Wisconsin....Camp Randall Stadium, Madison, Wisconsin Attendance: 75,324

Michigan State...Spartan Stadium, East Lansing, Michigan Attendance: 71,202

Iowa....Kinnick Stadium, Iowa City, Iowa Attendance: 68,075

University of Southern California.....Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles, California Attendance: 61,125.._Very poor showing by USC fans._hno:

Iowa State....Jack Trice Stadium, Ames, Iowa Attendance: 61,500

Oklahoma State.....Boone Pickens Stadium, Stillwater, Oklahoma Attendance: 56,790

Rutgers....High Point Solutions Stadium, Piscataway, New Jersey Attendance: 46,093


----------



## pesto

bd popeye said:


> Some selected NCAA FBS Division 1 attendance for this weekend..home team is listed in the left column.
> 
> Penn State....Beaver Stadium, University Park, Pennsylvania Attendance: 101,684
> 
> Georgia....Sanford Stadium, Athens, Georgia Attendance: 92,746
> 
> Nebraska...Tom Osborne Field at Memorial Stadium, Lincoln, Nebraska Attendance: 90,171
> 
> Texas....Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium/Jamail Field, Austin, Texas Attendance: 88,396
> 
> Auburn...Jordan-Hare Stadium, Auburn, Alabama Attendance: 87,451
> 
> Oklahoma....Gaylord Family-Oklahoma Memorial Stadium, Norman, Oklahoma Attendance: 86,076
> 
> Clemson....Memorial Stadium, Clemson, South Carolina Attendance: 80,121
> 
> Florida & Michigan.....AT&T Stadium, Arlington, Texas Attendance: 75,802(neutral site)
> 
> Wisconsin....Camp Randall Stadium, Madison, Wisconsin Attendance: 75,324
> 
> Michigan State...Spartan Stadium, East Lansing, Michigan Attendance: 71,202
> 
> Iowa....Kinnick Stadium, Iowa City, Iowa Attendance: 68,075
> 
> University of Southern California.....Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles, California Attendance: 61,125.._Very poor showing by USC fans._hno:
> 
> Iowa State....Jack Trice Stadium, Ames, Iowa Attendance: 61,500
> 
> Oklahoma State.....Boone Pickens Stadium, Stillwater, Oklahoma Attendance: 56,790
> 
> Rutgers....High Point Solutions Stadium, Piscataway, New Jersey Attendance: 46,093


Interesting numbers. And 76k for Alabama and FSU.

As for SC, it was rather hot and the opposition was W. Michigan. Also note that it is the only game played in a major city; the rest are in college towns where students are trapped in the first place and socially have to attend or be alone for 6 hours.

But for sure the South and Midwest are the hotbeds of college football.


----------



## bd popeye

pesto said:


> Interesting numbers. And 76k for Alabama and FSU.
> 
> As for SC, it was rather hot and the opposition was W. Michigan. Also note that it is the only game played in a major city; the rest are in college towns where students are trapped in the first place and socially have to attend or be alone for 6 hours.
> 
> But for sure the South and Midwest are the hotbeds of college football.


100% true^^

..and what people that do not realize in the US is that many college football fans travel very long distances to see their favorite team play. Many in attendance at the games are alumni.


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> Texas....Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium/Jamail Field, Austin, Texas Attendance: 88,396


Methinks the natives are still very restless. The team's showing didn't help matters any.



pesto said:


> As for SC, it was rather hot and the opposition was W. Michigan. *Also note that it is the only game played in a major city;*


Apart from the neutral site matches in Dallas and Atlanta you had 50,454 for Bethune Cookman @ Miami.


----------



## bd popeye

pesto said:


> Interesting numbers. And 76k for Alabama and FSU.(in Atlanta)
> 
> As for SC, it was rather hot and the opposition was W. Michigan. Also note that it is the only game played in a major city...


Yes many college games are played in smaller cities and towns across the US.

A few years ago when I first posted in this thread a "lurker" sent me a PM questioning the attendance at American College football "matches"..yeesh..

He found it hard to understand how such small towns could draw such large crowds. I explained that NCAA FBS fans come from all over the US to support their teams. And population of the towns where the games are played has nothing to do with college football attendance. This just did not registrar with him.


----------



## bd popeye

Some tremendous attendance at NCAA FBS Football games yesterday.

Home team listed first...selected games..

Michigan...Michigan Stadium, Ann Arbor, Michigan Attendance: 111,384

Penn State....Beaver Stadium, University Park, Pennsylvania Attendance: 109,898

Ohio State...Ohio Stadium, Columbus, Ohio Attendance: 109,088

Alabama...Bryant-Denny Stadium, Tuscaloosa, Alabama Attendance: 101,127

Texas A&M.....Kyle Field, College Station, Texas Attendance: 100,276

Tennessee....Neyland Stadium, Knoxville, Tennessee Attendance: 99,015

LSU....Tiger Stadium, Baton Rouge, Louisiana Attendance: 97,289

Texas...Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium/Jamail Field, Austin, Texas Attendance: 88,117



> Methinks the natives are still very restless. ^^ The team's showing didn't help matters any.


Clemson....Memorial Stadium, Clemson, South Carolina Attendance: 81,799

Norte Dame...Notre Dame Stadium, Notre Dame, Indiana Attendance: 77,622

Wisconsin....Camp Randall Stadium, Madison, Wisconsin Attendance: 77,542

USC.....Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles, California Attendance: 77,614

Michigan State...Spartan Stadium, East Lansing, Michigan Attendance: 72,910


----------



## damien1

*Scottish Premiership 2017-18 after matchday 5:
*
Celtic: 58,644
Rangers: 49,492
Hearts*: 24,248
Hibernian: 17,133
Aberdeen: 15,405
Partick Thistle: 6,404
Motherwell: 6,268
Kilmarnock: 5,696
Dundee: 5,518
Ross County: 5,341
St Johnstone: 4,170
Hamilton: 3,451

Average: 16,814

*_Hearts temporarily playing at Murrayfield Stadium_


----------



## bd popeye

More NCAA FBS attendance for 09.09.2017...home team listed..

Arkansas...Donald W. Reynolds Razorback Stadium, Fayetteville, Arkansas Attendance: 73,668

Washington .....Alaska Airlines Field at Husky Stadium, Seattle, Washington Attendance: 68,491

BYU.....LaVell Edwards Stadium, Provo, Utah Attendance: 63,470

Iowa State....Jack Trice Stadium, Ames, Iowa Attendance: 61,500

Virginia Tech...Lane Stadium/Worsham Field, Blacksburg, Virginia Attendance: 62,526

Oregon....Autzen Stadium, Eugene, Oregon Attendance: 58,389

West Virginia...Mountaineer Field at Milan Puskar Stadium, Morgantown, West Virginia Attendance: 56,797

Arizona State....Sun Devil Stadium, Frank Kush Field, Tempe, Arizona Attendance: 54,336

Kansas State....Bill Snyder Family Stadium, Manhattan, Kansas Attendance: 50,807

UCLA....Rose Bowl, Pasadena, California Attendance: 50,444

*Georgia Tech....Bobby Dodd Stadium at Historic Grant Field, Atlanta, Georgia Attendance: 50,161*

North Carolina....Kenan Memorial Stadium, Chapel Hill, North Carolina Attendance: 47,000

Arizona....Arizona Stadium, Tucson, Arizona Attendance: 43,334

Cal....Kabam Field at California Memorial Stadium, Berkeley, California Attendance: 36,209

Washington State...Clarence D. Martin Stadium, Pullman, Washington Attendance: 32,631

Army...Blaik Field at Michie Stadium, West Point, New York Attendance: 24,017


----------



## bd popeye

*MLS attendance thru the 26th week of the 2017 season...*


----------



## Walbanger

The *AFL* season wrapped up at the end of August. 

6,733,062 attended 198 games for an average crowd of *34005* per game

There was a one week bye for the top 8 who made the Finals (playoffs)

Week one of Finals:
Qualifying final 1- Adelaide def GWS at Adelaide Oval, crowd: 52,805
Qualifying final 2- Richmond def Geelong at MCG, crowd: 95,028
Elimination final 1- Sydney def Essendon at SCG, crowd: 46,323
Elimination final 2- West Coast def Port Adelaide at Adelaide Oval, crowd: 41,172


----------



## GunnerJacket

bd popeye said:


> Kansas State....Bill Snyder Family Stadium, Manhattan, Kansas Attendance: 50,807
> 
> UCLA....Rose Bowl, Pasadena, California Attendance: 50,444
> 
> North Carolina....Kenan Memorial Stadium, Chapel Hill, North Carolina Attendance: 47,000
> 
> Arizona....Arizona Stadium, Tucson, Arizona Attendance: 43,334
> 
> Cal....Kabam Field at California Memorial Stadium, Berkeley, California Attendance: 36,209


Hmm. Quite a few notable non-sell-outs there.


----------



## bd popeye

GunnerJacket said:


> Hmm. Quite a few notable non-sell-outs there.


UCLA and Cal seldom have sell-outs..But UNC?? What happened??

=====================================================



*NFL first week attendance 2017*

Dallas....AT&T Stadium, Arlington, Texas Attendance: 93,183

Washington....FedEx Field, Landover, Maryland Weather: 67°, Clear Attendance: 78,685

Green Bay....Lambeau Field, Green Bay, Wisconsin Weather: 71°, Clear Attendance: 78,381

Denver....Sports Authority Field at Mile High, Denver, Colorado Weather: 73°, Cloudy Attendance: 76,324

Houston....NRG Stadium (dome), Houston, Texas Attendance: 71,710

San Francisco....Levi's Stadium, Santa Clara, California Weather: 87°, Clear Attendance: 70,178

Tennessee....Nissan Stadium, Nashville, Tennessee Weather: 72°, Clear Attendance: 69,089

Buffalo....New Era Field, Orchard Park, New York Weather: 65°, Partly Cloudy Attendance: 68,751

Cleveland....FirstEnergy Stadium, Cleveland, Ohio Weather: 63°, Clear Attendance: 67,431

U.S. Bank Stadium(dome), Minneapolis, Minnesota Attendance: 66,606

New England...Gillette Stadium, Foxborough, Massachusetts Weather: 63°, Clear Attendance: 65,878

Chicago...Soldier Field, Chicago, Illinois Weather: 64°, Clear Attendance: 61,857

Detroit....Ford Field, Detroit, Michigan Attendance: 60,957

LA Rams...Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles, California Weather: 90°, Clear Attendance: 60,128

Cincinnati.....Paul Brown Stadium, Cincinnati, Ohio Weather: 68°, Clear Attendance: 55,524


----------



## bd popeye

*Selected NCAA FBS football attendance for this weekend...home team listed.*

Michigan...Michigan Stadium, Ann Arbor, Michigan Attendance: 111,387

The Ohio State University...Ohio Stadium, Columbus, Ohio Attendance: 108,414

Penn State....Beaver Stadium, University Park, Pennsylvania Attendance: 102,746

Alabama....Bryant-Denny Stadium, Tuscaloosa, Alabama Attendance: 101,821

Texas A&M....Kyle Field, College Station, Texas Attendance: 98,412

Georgia....Sanford Stadium, Athens, Georgia Attendance: 92,746

Nebraska....Tom Osborne Field at Memorial Stadium, Lincoln, Nebraska Attendance: 89,664

Florida....Florida Field at Ben Hill Griffin Stadium, Gainesville, Florida Attendance: 87,736

Auburn....Jordan-Hare Stadium, Auburn, Alabama Attendance: 87,033

Oklahoma...Gaylord Family-Oklahoma Memorial Stadium, Norman, Oklahoma Attendance: 86,290

USC....Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles, California Attendance: 84,714

Washington.....Alaska Airlines Field at Husky Stadium, Seattle, Washington Attendance: 68,384

Iowa....Kinnick Stadium, Iowa City, Iowa Attendance: 65,668

BYU....LaVell Edwards Stadium, Provo, Utah Attendance: 61,143

Louisville...Papa John's Cardinal Stadium, Louisville, Kentucky Attendance: 55,588

TCU....Amon G. Carter Stadium, Fort Worth, Texas Attendance: 44,489

San Diego State...Qualcomm Stadium, San Diego, California Attendance: 43,040

Vanderbilt...Vanderbilt Stadium, Nashville, Tennessee Attendance: 40,350

Pitt...Heinz Field, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Attendance: 38,952

South Florida...Raymond James Stadium, Tampa, Florida Attendance: 35,404


----------



## GunnerJacket

*ahem*

Top 10 world soccer attendances (Sept. 15-17)

1. Borussia Dortmund vs. FC Koln (Bundesliga): 81,000
2. Manchester United vs. Everton (English Premier League): 75,042
3. Bayern Munich vs. FC Mainz (Bundesliga): 75,000
*4. Atlanta United vs. Orlando City SC (MLS): 70,425*
5. Tottenham Hotspur vs. Swansea City (English Premier League): 65,366
6. Atletico Madrid vs. Malaga (La Liga): 63,114
7. Liverpool vs. Burnley (English Premier League): 53,231
8. Newcastle United vs. Stoke City (English Premier League): 51,795
9. VfB Stuttgart vs. VfL Wolfsburg (Bundesliga): 50,500
10. AC Milan vs. Udinese Calcio (Serie A): 49,473


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^ do you happen to have a top 10 MLS attendances for regular season matches? Would be nice to check it out.


----------



## bd popeye

alexandru.mircea said:


> ^ do you happen to have a top 10 MLS attendances for regular season matches? Would be nice to check it out.


Here'ya go...

*2017 MLS Attendance...| Soccer Digest*


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Very impressive attendances in Atlanta. Is there a reason why they're drawing such large crowds? I know Seattle had a history of high attendances before they joined MLS but wasn't aware of Atlanta having a similar history.


----------



## tinyslam

HB07 said:


> Why MLS attendance in playoffs games (semi-finales) are not as high as regular season! That’s quite surprising since these matches should be more attractive for fans


Weeknights.


----------



## Kobo

Premier League attendance this weekend (4th & 5th November) match number 11 of season.

Stoke vs Leicester Attn: 29,602 Bet365 Stadium
Huddersfield vs West Brom Attn: 24,169 John Smith Stadium
Newcastle Utd vs Bournemouth Attn: 52,237 St James Park
Southampton vs Burnley Attn: 30,491 St Mary's Stadium
Swansea vs Brighton Attn: 20,822 Liberty Stadium
West Ham vs Liverpool Attn: 56,961 London Stadium
Tottenham vs Crystal Palace Attn: 65,270 Wembley Stadium
Manchester City vs Arsenal Attn: 54,286 Etihad Stadium
Chelsea vs Manchester United Attn: 41,615 Stamford Bridge
Everton vs Watford Attn: 38,609 Goodison Park


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Kobo said:


> Premier League attendance this weekend (4th & 5th November) match number 11 of season.
> 
> Stoke vs Leicester Attn: 29,602 Bet365 Stadium
> Huddersfield vs West Brom Attn: 24,169 John Smith Stadium
> Newcastle Utd vs Bournemouth Attn: 52,237 St James Park
> Southampton vs Burnley Attn: 30,491 St Mary's Stadium
> Swansea vs Brighton Attn: 20,822 Liberty Stadium
> West Ham vs Liverpool Attn: 56,961 London Stadium
> Tottenham vs Crystal Palace Attn: 65,270 Wembley Stadium
> Manchester City vs Arsenal Attn: 54,286 Etihad Stadium
> Chelsea vs Manchester United Attn: 41,615 Stamford Bridge
> Everton vs Watford Attn: 38,609 Goodison Park


Interesting. That is an average of 41,400 for the weekend. With Spurs at Wembley this year we will probably get a 38-39,000 league average over the season. Also 163,000 at the three London matches. I can't think of any other city in the world that gets a football attendance that high for one round of matches (unless some city has all their teams at home the same weekend) and that is without including the lower league teams.


----------



## Kobo

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Interesting. That is an average of 41,400 for the weekend. With Spurs at Wembley this year we will probably get a 38-39,000 league average over the season. Also 163,000 at the three London matches. I can't think of any other city in the world that gets a football attendance that high for one round of matches (unless some city has all their teams at home the same weekend) and that is without including the lower league teams.


I was hoping that the Premier League might overtake the Bundesliga this season it terms of average attendance with Spurs at Wembley, but it probably won't as the Bundesliga is averaging 44,818 so far and the Premier league is averaging 38,505. Hopefully next season with Spurs in their new 61,000 stadium and Chelsea playing at Wembley it might get over the 40,000 average.

The only city I can think of that might get close to London in Football attendance is Madrid.


----------



## RobH

Kobo said:


> Hopefully next season with Spurs in their new 61,000 stadium and Chelsea playing at Wembley it might get over the 40,000 average.


Chelsea won't be at Wembley next season. Things are lagging with their new stadium.

See https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/fo...-out-of-stamford-bridge-to-2019-a3530486.html

And if West Ham don't get their act together next season could see the opposite happening with average PL attendances.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

The Premier League is not going to be able to overhaul the Bundesliga for attendances for a few more years. Chelsea at Wembley and eventually a new Bridge, Everton with a new ground, Old Trafford expanded. Possibly City, Liverpool or even Newcastle in expanded grounds. A higher capacity for West Ham if they don't get relegated. Even if a fair chunk of that happens it would probably rely on a particularly good selection of clubs in the league. So clubs like Villa, Sunderland, Leeds making it back up and the likes of Bournemouth, Burnley, Watford slipping down. Those clubs alone swapping places would add perhaps 3,000 to the average. Of course there are clubs in Germany that could add to their attendances too and it would be a bit freakish to have the biggest clubs all in the top flight at once.

When you consider the size of England compared with Germany and the fact that there are two more clubs playing a total of 74 more matches English attendances hold up very well.


----------



## GunnerJacket

RobH said:


> And if West Ham don't get their act together next season could see the opposite happening with average PL attendances.


Maybe they'll help the Championship set new attendance records?


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

GunnerJacket said:


> Maybe they'll help the Championship set new attendance records?


Doubt it very much as they won't be getting over 50,000 in the Championship like Newcastle did. A derby with Millwall at the London Stadium would be fun, depending on your definition of fun.


----------



## GunnerJacket

You see, the joke was...


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

GunnerJacket said:


> You see, the joke was...


I got the joke. I should have chucked a smiley face on my reply as it wasn't meant to be serious. Their fans are not at all happy at the moment.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Has anyone heard about SLO before? I think it means Supporter Liaison Officer but I'm not sure. I'm hearing that the implementation of the idea has made attendances in Sweden grow by 146%. 



> Bottom line in Sweden: attendances are up 146% and commercial interest in the Swedish League is growing significantly...


https://twitter.com/SuppLiaison


----------



## Rover030

They didn't grow by 146%, they are 146% of what they were in 2010, the lowest point in recent years. Before that it was higher, even higher than now (10k vs 9k). The 146% is not fully accurate according to world football. 2010 had 6513 supporters on average, 2017 had 9048. That's a 39% growth. Could be that their source has different numbers of course.

A large part of the difference is caused by clubs being in the second league back then that are now in the top of the attendance list. So I think saying 146% is misleading.

Of course having a club representative that talks and listens to the different groups of fans (which is what an SLO is) is positive and probably has caused part of the growth as well.


----------



## damien1

*Scottish Premiership 2017-18 after matchday 19:
*
Celtic: 57,818
Rangers: 48,968
Hearts: 19,004
Hibernian: 18,337
Aberdeen: 15,899
Motherwell: 6,189
Dundee: 6,014
Partick Thistle: 4,787
Kilmarnock: 4,730
Ross County: 4,606
St Johnstone: 4,134 
Hamilton: 3,050

Average: 15,752


----------



## unitedfc

Moroccan Botola average home attendances 2017-18, not 100% completed season yet:

Raja 19,625
Ittihad Tanger 14,600
Hassania d'Agadir 10,800
Wydad 7,100
Olympique Safi 6,625
Olympique Khouribga 6,529
Kawkab Marrakech 5,600
FAR 5,500
Rapide Oued Zem 5,333
Chabab Atlas Khénifra 5,075
Moghreb Tétouan 4,200
Difaa El Jadida 3,875
CR Al Hoceima 3,650
FUS 3,063
Renaissance de Berkane 2,600

Top 3 teams in Linafoot, Democratic Republic of the Congo:

Motema Pembe 20,000 (25% of stadium's 80,000 capacity)
Vita Club 20,000 (25% of stadium's 80,000 capacity)
Mazembe 11,000 (61% of stadium's 18,000 capacity)


----------



## RobH

Won't happen again, but hey, look at that #1 spot! :cheers:


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Will be interesting to see that at the end of the season. Barcelona's league attendances are surprisingly low whilst their domestic cup attendances are surprisingly high as I didn't think they took it that seriously. Borussia Dortmund's are seriously impressive and up to 3rd for League only. Spurs might occasionally find themselves as high as 3 or 4 in a good cup season at the new WHL.


----------



## Rover030

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Will be interesting to see that at the end of the season. Barcelona's league attendances are surprisingly low whilst their domestic cup attendances are surprisingly high as I didn't think they took it that seriously. Borussia Dortmund's are seriously impressive and up to 3rd for League only. Spurs might occasionally find themselves as high as 3 or 4 in a good cup season at the new WHL.


Barcelona takes the cup most seriously of the Spanish top clubs. They also had 5 matches this season including Supercopa, which gives an average of 70k. That's still better than league, which had 10 home matches if you exclude the Las Palmas match without supporters. 

I think the main factor is that cup games aren't included in season tickets for everyone, making it a bit more likely that people with tickets actually attend.


----------



## FCIM

Germany’s Bundesliga has reported first half of 2017-18 season attendances as being the second-highest average attendance in Bundesliga history at 43,429 fans per match.

http://www.insideworldfootball.com/...t-hanover-96-push-bundesliga-crowd-figures-8/


----------



## flierfy

RobH said:


> Won't happen again, but hey, look at that #1 spot! :cheers:


It seems quite likely at the moment that Spurs will keep this top spot this season. There are currently only 9 ticket left for the Huddersfield game which means that even that fixture will produce another 80'000+ crowd. And the team don't miss any chance to add more games to the Wembley tally as well.


----------



## jts1882

I think United have an extra league home game which will add another 75k (they report sales, not attendance). We have the Rochdale replay but United have a home game in the next round. We may need another away draw to stay ahead. Then there is progress in the CL, which might also give Madrid a chance to catch us.


----------



## rebelheartous

5portsF4n said:


> *Representation by sport: *
> Football/soccer: 236





isaidso said:


> football/soccer teams .





5portsF4n said:


> 52 professional soccer teams



:nuts:

Not soccer, just football.


----------



## rebelheartous

5portsF4n said:


> I was wrong about 15, but there are 12 teams in the top flight from Buenos Aires this season. I'm not limiting it to city limit, I'm using metropolitan area. I know Englishmen (don't know if you're one) have a thing against using metropolitan areas, but that's what I'm applying here. Look at the map here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018–19_Argentine_Primera_División


Racing, for instance, is not a Buenos Aires team (so are their rivals - Independiente). Everyone knows its name - Racing Club de Avellaneda. It is famous for being one of the most successful clubs outside Buenos Aires.


----------



## Guest

rebelheartous said:


> Racing, for instance, is not a Buenos Aires team (so are their rivals - Independiente). Everyone knows its name - Racing Club de Avellaneda. It is famous for being one of the most successfull clubs outside Buenos Aires.


I really don't know what part of metropolitan area you didn't understand. Avellaneda is 30 minutes from Buenos Aires. *4 miles away. *

If you wish to keep referring to it as a completely different city, all the best. 

Tomorrow, my daily walk will cross 3.5 miles. I'll still be in the same neighborhood.


----------



## rebelheartous

Distances don't apply here. Like if you've heard of polish cities of Sopot, Gdynia and Gdansk (check above Lechia Gdansk). They also form a metropolitan area called Tricity. And it's not more than 20 km from one end to the other. Which doesn't make these cities a single entity and we should all respect that. And no, I'm not from Poland.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Avellaneda is an inner suburb. It appears to be two stadiums some industrial buildings and little else. I love how close together the two stadiums are. If we're going to say that it isn't a part of Buenos Aires I'm going to have to count Crystal Palace as Surrey and West Ham as Essex. So long as the two clubs at La Plata are not counted as Buenos Aires then there isn't a problem.


----------



## nicko_viteh

It's like saying the Giants and Jets don't count as New York sport teams because their stadium is located on New Jersey. Or that London boroughs are separate entities (or at least they were until the creation of the Greater London Authority) and thus Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham, West Ham, etc. belong only to their borough. How the area is administered can change, that's why using administrative boundaries to determine where a city ends is misleading.

Buenos Aires has teams that were born inside the city proper but then moved to the suburbs because the land was cheaper, specially in their early years (including Boca and River, although they returned since). Almagro, Chacarita or Estudiantes (not the La Plata team) are a few examples.


----------



## BillericaySpurs

5portsF4n said:


> Oops, my bad, good spot. I've added it now but I've numbered it 44a and Fener 44b, not updating the numbering order on this one! Thanks for that, but now I'm worried I've missed something else :cheers:


Was a fab list.

I'm more concerned I was sad enough to notice. Promise I won't go digging for others.:lol:


----------



## deebs

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> They are not all going to be playing at home on the same weekend. And the American Football teams play far fewer matches. Also, you've made a mistake putting the Raiders in there! I know people forget who the second LA NFL teams is but still...
> 
> Otherwise the target for football in London, based on the figures in 5portsF4n's excellent European attendance list of teams attracting over 10,000, would be 299,695. If you include the Harlequins rugby team then you get 320,106. I haven't included Watford FC and it is easy to argue that they should count.
> 
> The Melbourne figures are interesting though, didn't see them when posted.
> 
> Buenos Aires does have a lot of clubs, if someone wants to add up their attendances that would be good.


On top of the 9 AFL teams based in Melbourne, you can add 2 round-ball teams and 1 rugby league team (plus two cricket franchises that share the stadia).

There's only about a month when the three football code seasons overlap (April), so I'll keep an eye out this year for any triple-code mega weekends; I can't remember if this happens much, but then I don't really pay attention to the soccer or rugby .

There can be weekends in January when the Melbourne sports precinct has a full-ish MCG (maybe 60-80,000) BBL cricket match adjacent to a full-ish AAMI Park (soccer, 25-30,000) adjacent to a packed Melbourne Park Aus Open tennis (80,000+), which is quite a sight to see...




-----
deebs


----------



## Guest

rebelheartous said:


> Distances don't apply here. Like if you've heard of polish cities of Sopot, Gdynia and Gdansk (check above Lechia Gdansk). They also form a metropolitan area called Tricity. And it's not more than 20 km from one end to the other. Which doesn't make these cities a single entity and we should all respect that. And no, I'm not from Poland.


The polish example is unique and not at all comparable to Buenos Aires considering BA is a massive city surrounded by satellite towns. You also just said it is a metro area but that they are single entities, so which is it? Those towns may have identities of their own, but when taking into account metropolitan areas, no serious demographer is going to sit there and say BA and Avellanada are two separate metropolises. 

Distance absolutely plays a part, as metropolises are often defined by the ability of people working in one area and living in another. If i can get to work in BA living in Avellanada in a reasonable timeframe, Im part of the same metro area. In this case, i could run to work everyday, so its definitely one and the same.



OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Avellaneda is an inner suburb. It appears to be two stadiums some industrial buildings and little else. I love how close together the two stadiums are. If we're going to say that it isn't a part of Buenos Aires I'm going to have to count Crystal Palace as Surrey and West Ham as Essex. So long as the two clubs at La Plata are not counted as Buenos Aires then there isn't a problem.


Agreed


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

k5villan said:


> those LA figures arent really true or fair though are they?
> 
> raiders need replacing by the chargers who play at the stubhub so thats a significant drop
> 
> there are 2 NFL teams, 1 college football team, 1 college basketball team and 2 soccer teams vs the london figures
> 
> in the 2018 global cities index London came out on top for sporting events, i think there are 14 soccer teams, 4 rugby teams, 2 cricket clubs, 1 basketball team then you add in the marathon, the international series, tennis plus all the various world championships


Not true.. We have the LA Rams and LA Chargers in NFL Football (72,500 a game and 32,700 respectively, UCLA and USC in NCAA Football (both typically average in the 60 - 75,000 a game range), LA Galaxy and LAFC in MLS (around 25,000 and 22,000 a game)


----------



## CharlieP

rebelheartous said:


> :nuts:
> 
> Not soccer, just football.


There are lots of different kinds of football.


----------



## rebelheartous

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Avellaneda is an inner suburb. It appears to be two stadiums some industrial buildings and little else. I love how close together the two stadiums are. If we're going to say that it isn't a part of Buenos Aires I'm going to have to count Crystal Palace as Surrey and West Ham as Essex. So long as the two clubs at La Plata are not counted as Buenos Aires then there isn't a problem.


What sth appears may be misleading to what it really is. Sassuolo, for example, is a team from Sassuolo, Emilia-Romagna. However, they play at Mapei Stadium in nearby city of Reggio Emilia which doesn't mean they administratively belong to it.



5portsF4n said:


> The polish example is unique and not at all comparable to Buenos Aires considering BA is a massive city surrounded by satellite towns. You also just said it is a metro area but that they are single entities, so which is it? Those towns may have identities of their own, but when taking into account metropolitan areas, no serious demographer is going to sit there and say BA and Avellanada are two separate metropolises.
> 
> Distance absolutely plays a part, as metropolises are often defined by the ability of people working in one area and living in another. If i can get to work in BA living in Avellanada in a reasonable timeframe, Im part of the same metro area. In this case, i could run to work everyday, so its definitely one and the same.


There are lots of similar cases, bro. Check also Getafe and Leganes. Madrid teams? Not really.  I don't know how it is in the States but all around the would clubs are bound to their home cities no matter what.


----------



## flierfy

5portsF4n said:


> I was wrong about 15, but there are 12 teams in the top flight from Buenos Aires this season. I'm not limiting it to city limit, I'm using metropolitan area. I know Englishmen (don't know if you're one) have a thing against using metropolitan areas, but that's what I'm applying here. Look at the map here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018–19_Argentine_Primera_División


If you chose some arbitrary boundary instead, then you can't call it Buenos Aires though. Buenos Aires stretches over a defined area. Everything beyond that is not Buenos Aires.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

5portsF4n said:


> Distance absolutely plays a part, as metropolises are often defined by the ability of people working in one area and living in another. If i can get to work in BA living in Avellanada in a reasonable timeframe, Im part of the same metro area.


It's a common point of contention when viewed from a US standpoint, where you have a city, and everything within 50 miles tends to be regarded as at very least a suburb of that city, typically because that's how the areas developed there.


Elsewhere, you can have two cities, that regarded themselves as separate entities, growing separately, that eventually merged together due to sprawl.

Due to that prior history though, they regard themselves as distinct separate cities.

You can certainly argue if the crux of your comparison is the number of teams in a specific urban area, lumping them together does make sense, but that still doesn't make them one city.


In England, for example, many Americans would regard anything within 50 miles of London as effectively being part of London, whereas nobody in England would. London has a distinct boundary, and even if you were being very lax, the absolute limit would be the M25 motorway around the city. Nothing outside would ever be called London.


----------



## parcdesprinces

CharlieP said:


> There are lots of different kinds of football.


Indeed, and personally I tend to prefer the one played _"selon la règle de Rugby***"_! (***as we say in froggish language) :cheers:


----------



## Guest

Rev Stickleback said:


> It's a common point of contention when viewed from a US standpoint, where you have a city, and everything within 50 miles tends to be regarded as at very least a suburb of that city, typically because that's how the areas developed there.
> 
> 
> Elsewhere, you can have two cities, that regarded themselves as separate entities, growing separately, that eventually merged together due to sprawl.
> 
> Due to that prior history though, they regard themselves as distinct separate cities.
> 
> You can certainly argue if the crux of your comparison is the number of teams in a specific urban area, lumping them together does make sense, but that still doesn't make them one city.
> 
> 
> In England, for example, many Americans would regard anything within 50 miles of London as effectively being part of London, whereas nobody in England would. London has a distinct boundary, and even if you were being very lax, the absolute limit would be the M25 motorway around the city. Nothing outside would ever be called London.


Fair enough. Im not arguing theyre not different cities. But Avellanada is 100% part of the BA metropolitan area. 

In a sporting sense, proximity to teams is very important. Someone who is 50 miles away from a team is much more likely to follow that team than someone 200 miles away. 

In England, youre probably going to find plenty of Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs supporters in the surrounding regions bordering London proper. 

The London metro includes Reading, Southend and High Wycombe, among many other cities. Obviously, all those cities have their own professional team. And as you say few people would refer to them as part of London. But their proximity to London means they are part of London metro. Because of that, those teams directly compete with the London teams for fans.


----------



## nicko_viteh

Even if BA teams have a strong connection to their neighborhood/city (Boca Juniors = La Boca, San Lorenzo = Boedo, Independiente & Racing = Avellaneda), is the people that mix together by working and studying and entertaining all over the area, using more than 800 km of commuter rail. That's why I say people here don't care about city limits, it's hard to dissect the metro area as if they were separate cities, as most of them were created as dormitory suburbs around train stops and then grew their density (and activities) as more and more people went to live there.


----------



## CharlieP

parcdesprinces said:


> Indeed, and personally I tend to prefer the one played _"selon la règle de Rugby***"_! (***as we say in froggish language) :cheers:


Moi aussi. :yes:


----------



## Guest

nicko_viteh said:


> Even if BA teams have a strong connection to their neighborhood/city (Boca Juniors = La Boca, San Lorenzo = Boedo, Independiente & Racing = Avellaneda), is the people that mix together by working and studying and entertaining all over the area, using more than 800 km of commuter rail. That's why I say people here don't care about city limits, it's hard to dissect the metro area as if they were separate cities, as most of them were created as dormitory suburbs around train stops and then grew their density (and activities) as more and more people went to live there.


Right, that sounds logical, and is typical of most metropolitan areas. There is just too much mixing to think that they are completely independent areas.


----------



## Union Man

5portsF4n said:


> *European professional sports teams averaging over 10,000*


Good list!

Just to add, you missed Norwich City - 25,785 2017/18

Current season 25,856


----------



## Guest

nicko_viteh said:


> What's the source of the Argentine league figures?


https://www.transfermarkt.com/primera-division/besucherzahlen/wettbewerb/AR1N/plus/?saison_id=2018


----------



## Guest

Last season's college football attendances sorted by state (above 10,000 average attendance). 

* denotes FCS (what you might think of as the second division)
** denotes Div 2 and Div 3 (what you might think of everything as everything below second division)

*Alabama*
1.	Alabama 101,562
2.	Auburn 84,462
3.	Troy 24,527
4.	UAB 24,291
5.	Alabama State 16,073*
6.	South Alabama 16,064
7.	Alabama AM 12,522*
8.	Tuskegee 11,058**

*Arizona*
1.	Arizona State 48,515
2.	Arizona 45,436

*Arkansas *
1.	Arkansas 59,884
2.	Arkansas State 19,834

*California*
1.	Southern California 55,449
2.	UCLA 51,164
3.	California 42,886
4.	Stanford 37,842
5.	Fresno State 31,503
6.	San Diego State 31,439
7.	San Jose State 14,255

*Colorado *
1.	Colorado 45,809
2.	Colorado State 29,504
3.	Air Force 27,701

*Connecticut*
1.	UConn 20,924

*Delaware*
1.	Delaware 16,299

*Florida*
1.	Florida 82,328
2.	Florida State 68,288
3.	Miami 61,469
4.	UCF 44,019
5.	South Florida 38,517
6.	Florida AM 17,873*
7.	Florida Atlantic 17,051
8.	Jacksonville State 16,904
9.	FIU 15,685

*Georgia*
1.	Georgia 92,746
2.	Georgia Tech 43,087
3.	Georgia Southern 16,802
4.	Georgia State 16,615
5.	Morehouse 12,037**

*Hawaii*
1.	Hawaii 25,682

*Idaho*
1.	Boise State 33,068
2.	Idaho 11,280*

*Illinois*
1.	Northwestern 43,873
2.	Illinois 36,151
3.	Northern Illinois 10,404

*Indiana*
1.	Notre Dame 77,622
2.	Purdue 51,120
3.	Indiana 40,965
4.	Ball State 10,288

*Iowa*
1.	Iowa 68,043
2.	Iowa State 56,010

*Kansas*
1.	Kansas State 49,738
2.	Kansas 19,424

*Kentucky*
1.	Kentucky 55,117
2.	Louisville 50,251
3.	Western Kentucky 14,231

*Louisiana*
1.	LSU 100,819
2.	Louisiana 18,551
3.	Tulane 18,015
4.	Southern U 18,803*
5.	Louisiana Tech 17,525
6.	Lousiana Monroe 14,210
7.	McNeese 10,963

*Massachussetts*
1.	Boston College 37,623
2.	Massachusetts 10,385

*Maryland*
1.	Maryland 33,594
2.	Navy 31,464

*Memphis*
1.	Memphis 30,178

*Michigan*
1.	Michigan 110,737
2.	Michigan State 72,584
3.	Western Michigan 18,293
4.	Central Michigan 12,840
5.	Grand Valley State 11,039**

*Minnesota*
1.	Minnesota 37,915

*Mississippi*
1.	Mississippi State 58,057
2.	Ole Miss 55,685
3.	Jackson State 24,770*
4.	Southern Miss 21,615
5.	Alcorn 15,184

*Missouri*
1.	Missouri 51,466

*Montana*
1.	Montana 24,677
2.	Montana State 16,471*

*New York*
1.	Syracuse 37,043
2.	Army West Point 31,693
3.	Buffalo 18,380

*New Jersey*
1.	Rutgers 37,799

*Nebraska*
1.	Nebraska 89,034

*Nevada*
1.	Nevada 17,181
2.	ULV 16,823

*New Mexico*
1.	New Mexico 16,587
2.	New Mexico State 13,706

*New Hampshire*
1.	New Hampshire 10,154*

*North Carolina*
1.	NC State 56,855
2.	North Carolina 43,622
3.	East Carolina 32,908
4.	Wake Forest 26,842
5.	Duke 26,646
6.	Appalachian State 21,953
7.	North Carolina A&T 15,494*
8.	Charlotte 11,771
9.	Western Carolina 10,580*

*North Dakota*
1.	North Dakota 18,106*

*Ohio*
1.	Ohio State 101,947
2.	Cincinnati 30,519
3.	Toledo 21,352
4.	Akron 18,515
5.	Ohio 16,229
6.	Bowling Green 15,044
7.	Miami 14,253
8.	Kent State 13,118
9.	Youngstown 11,554*

*Oklahoma *
1.	Oklahoma 86,735
2.	Oklahoma State 53,542
3.	Tulsa 17,098

*Oregon*
1.	Oregon 53,016
2.	Oregon State 35,209

*Pennsylvania*
1.	Penn State 105,485
2.	Pittsburgh 41,696
3.	Temple 28,470

*South Carolina*
1.	Clemson 80,400
2.	South Carolina 73,628
3.	Coastal Carolina 10,463

*South Dakota*
1.	South Dakota 10,178*

*Tennessee*
1.	Tennessee 92,984
2.	Vanderbilt 28,045
3.	Middle Tennessee 15,577
4.	Tennessee State 10,442*

*Texas*
1.	Texas AM 99,844
2.	Texas 97,713
3.	Texas Tech 56,034
4.	TCU 42,868
5.	Baylor 41,336
6.	Houston 29,838
7.	UTSA 24,710
8.	North Texas 23,355
9.	Rice 20,172
10.	SMU 19,383
11.	UTEP 14,155
12.	Texas State 13,115

*Utah*
1.	BYU 52,476
2.	Utah 46,332
3.	Utah State 18,717

*Virginia*
1. Virginia Tech 59,574
2.	Virginia 39,705
3.	James Madison 20,911*
4.	Old Dominion 19,633
5.	Liberty 16,282**

*Washington*
1.	Washington 69,068
2.	Washington State 30,091

*West Virginia*
1.	West Virginia 58,158
2.	Marshall 24,063

*Wisconsin*
1.	Wisconsin 77,153

*Wyoming *
1.	Wyoming 18,880


----------



## Red85

5portsF4n said:


> With most of Europe's leagues wrapping up (Sweden is just getting going though), here's all the clubs that averaged over 20,000 this season (Hammarby in Sweden has an asterisk next to it as it's played just 5 games). I've probably missed some team, but hopefully not.
> 
> 
> 1.	Borussia Dortmund 80,820
> 2.	FC Barcelona 75,208
> 3.	Bayern Munich 75,000
> 4.	Manchester United 74,498
> 5.	Real Madrid 60,967
> 6.	Schalke 04 60,941
> 7.	Arsenal 59,899
> 8.	West Ham United 58,336
> 9.	Internazionale 58,275
> 10.	Celtic 57,661
> 11.	Atletico Madrid 56,055
> 12.	AC Milan 54,651
> 13.	VfB Stuttgart 54,625
> 14.	Tottenham Hotspur 54,216
> 15.	Manchester City 54,130
> 16.	Benfica 53,824
> 17.	Liverpool 52,983
> 18.	Ajax Amsterdam 52,961
> 19.	Newcastle United 51,121
> 20.	Olympique Marseille 50,140
> 21.	Eintracht Frankfurt 49,794
> 22.	Borussia Monchengladbach 49,668
> 23.	FC Koln 49,547
> 24.	Rangers 49,534
> 25.	Hertha BSC 49,258
> 26.	Olympique Lyon 49,079
> 27.	Hamburger SV 48,864
> 28.	Zenit St Petersburg 47,981
> 29.	Paris St Germain 46,911
> 30.	Real Betis 44,142
> 31.	Fortuna Dusseldorf 43,928
> 32.	Feyenoord 41,771
> 33.	FC Porto 41,626
> 34.	Werder Bremen 41,415
> 35.	Athletic Bilbao 40,800
> 36.	Chelsea 40,437
> 37.	FC Nurnberg 40,372
> 38.	Valencia 39,566
> 39.	Juventus 39,193
> 40.	Everton 38,780
> 41.	RB Leipzig 38,380
> 42.	Hannover 96 38,365
> 43.	AS Roma 37,306
> 44.	Lazio 36,864
> 45.	Galatasaray 36,123
> 46.	Sevilla 36,049
> 47.	Aston Villa 36,029
> 48.	Fenerbahce 35,798
> 49.	Lille OSC 34,079
> 50.	PSV Eindhoven 34,071
> 51.	Leeds United 34,033
> 52.	Sporting CP 33,691
> 53.	Sunderland 32,157
> 54.	Leicester City 31,851
> 55.	Cardiff City 31,413
> 56.	Spartak Moskva 31,327
> 57.	FK Rostov 31,034
> 58.	Wolverhampton Wanderers 31,030
> 59.	ACF Fiorentina 30,765
> 60.	Brighton and Hove Albion 30,426
> 61.	Southampton 30,139
> 62.	Besiktas 29,872
> 63.	FC St Pauli 29,503
> 64.	SSC Napoli 29,000
> 65.	FC Augsburg 28,623
> 66.	1899 Hoffenheim 28,456
> 67.	Dynamo Dresden 28,434
> 68.	AS Saint Etienne 28,401
> 69.	Nottingham Forest 28,144
> 70.	Bayer Leverkusen 27,978
> 71.	Derby County 26,850
> 72.	RC Lens 26,427
> 73.	FSV Mainz 05 26,246
> 74.	Sheffield United 26,175
> 75.	Norwich City 26,014
> 76.	Trabzonspor 25,687
> 77.	Crystal Palace 25,455
> 78.	BSC Young Boys 25,435
> 79.	RC Strasbourg 25,216
> 80.	Stoke City 25,200
> 81.	FC Nantes 25,185
> 82.	FK Krasnodar 24,507
> 83.	VfL Wolfsburg 24,481
> 84.	FC Basel 24,434
> 85.	Sheffield Wednesday 24,429
> 86.	Fulham 24,371
> 87.	Club Brugge 24,209
> 88.	West Bromwich Albion 24,148
> 89.	Hammarby IF 24,098*
> 90.	SC Freiburg 23,894
> 91.	Stade Rennes 23,675
> 92.	Middlesbrough 23,217
> 93.	Huddersfield Town 23,201
> 94.	Birmingham City 22,483
> 95.	Real Sociedad 22,260
> 96.	Standard Liege 21,955
> 97.	Genoa CFC 21,736
> 98.	Bursaspor 21,358
> 99.	Bologna 21,342
> 100.	Torino 21,216
> 101.	FC Union Berlin 21,200
> 102.	Kaiserslautern 21,156
> 103.	Bristol City 21,080
> 104.	Olympiacos 21,073
> 105.	Girondins Bordeaux 20,849
> 106.	Real Zaragoza 20,650
> 107.	Burnley 20,534
> 108.	Udinese Calcio 20,315
> 109.	FC Magdeburg 20,224
> 110.	Sampdoria 20,119
> 111.	Watford 20,016


Lots of secondary level clubs are mentioned but not the Dutch. FC Twente which averaged 26.305 last season. 
https://www.transfermarkt.nl/fc-twente-enschede/besucherzahlenentwicklung/verein/317


----------



## Guest

Red85 said:


> Lots of secondary level clubs are mentioned but not the Dutch. FC Twente which averaged 26.305 last season.
> https://www.transfermarkt.nl/fc-twente-enschede/besucherzahlenentwicklung/verein/317


Ah yes thanks, I think I just assumed all major Dutch clubs were in Eredivisie and didn't bother checking lower divisions. hno:


----------



## GunnerJacket

5portsF4n said:


> Florida
> 3.	Miami 61,469


Quite good considering how often this program is ridiculed.



> Illinois
> 2.	Illinois 36,151


Considering the program's pedigree and circumstances that's just a shame.



> Kansas
> 2.	Kansas 19,424


Poorest among the Power 5. I realize they're not a football school but that's woeful. 



> Louisiana
> 2.	Louisiana 18,551


Be careful or the folks at LSU will hunt you down for failing to include the "LaFayette." The matter rankles them so they passed a law regarding this, such is their pettiness.



> Virginia
> 1.	Virginia 39,705


Virginia Tech 59,574


----------



## Guest

GunnerJacket said:


> Virginia Tech 59,574


I always miss something with these lists. Thanks I'll update. As for the Lafayette thing, they can take it up with the NCAA! Unless I overlooked something, it's written like that in official NCAA attendance documentation (apologies if wrong but cbf going back to look over it).


----------



## Urmstoniain

I notice that on the list ^^ clubs are given their correct name - i.e. the name in their native language, rather than the anglicised one.

e.g. FC Koln - not Cologne, Sporting CP - not Sporting Lisbon, Spartak Moskva - not Moscow etc.

But not Bayern München 

Do Bayern themselves use the 'Munich' naming convention in the name of international recognition?


----------



## Guest

Urmstoniain said:


> I notice that on the list ^^ clubs are given their correct name - i.e. the name in their native language, rather than the anglicised one.
> 
> e.g. FC Koln - not Cologne, Sporting CP - not Sporting Lisbon, Spartak Moskva - not Moscow etc.
> 
> But not Bayern München
> 
> Do Bayern themselves use the 'Munich' naming convention in the name of international recognition?


The source where I got it from uses Bayern Munchen. But for my entire life I've been calling them by their anglicized Bayern Munich name and I wasn't gonna stop now! :cheers:

On a serious note, there's crossover with Bayern with use of Munich/Munchen, but I've almost never seen any crossover use of Koln or Cologne. It's always been Koln, to the point where I suspect some people don't even know the club plays in Cologne. 

And I believe Sporting Lisbon isn't an anglicized version. There is no club called Sporting Lisbon. I'm not sure how it ever became a thing with some people.


----------



## deebs

With the finals underway, here are some stats for the Australian Football League (AFL) 2019 regular season.

Average attendances (22 rounds):

54894 | Collingwood
50835 | Richmond
48227 | Essendon
44808 | West Coast
39471 | Carlton
37962 | Geelong
35833 | Adelaide
35801 | Hawthorn
33746 | Fremantle
33173 | Port Adelaide
32672 | Melbourne
30988 | Western Bulldogs
30840 | Sydney
29012 | St Kilda
27429 | North Melbourne
27058 | Brisbane Lions
19810 | Gold Coast
19640 | Greater Western Sydney


Average attendances by stadium:

53694 | M.C.G.
47204 | Perth Stadium
39232 | Adelaide Oval
31875 | Docklands
31070 | S.C.G.
27811 | Kardinia Park
24741 | Gabba
13922 | York Park
12411 | Sydney Showground
11884 | Manuka Oval
11834 | Carrara
10634 | Marrara Oval
9882 | Bellerive Oval
9412 | Jiangwan Stadium (China)
9300 | Eureka Stadium
7243 | Riverway Stadium
7164 | Traeger Park


Four crowds over 80,000 5 last year)
One crowd over 90,000 (2 last year)

92241 | Essendon v Collingwood	M.C.G.
85405 | Collingwood v Essendon	M.C.G.
85016 | Carlton v Richmond M.C.G.
80176 | Richmond v Essendon M.C.G.




-----

deebs


----------



## Urmstoniain

5portsF4n said:


> The source where I got it from uses Bayern Munchen. But for my entire life I've been calling them by their anglicized Bayern Munich name and I wasn't gonna stop now! :cheers:
> 
> On a serious note, there's crossover with Bayern with use of Munich/Munchen, but I've almost never seen any crossover use of Koln or Cologne. It's always been Koln, to the point where I suspect some people don't even know the club plays in Cologne.
> 
> And I believe Sporting Lisbon isn't an anglicized version. There is no club called Sporting Lisbon. I'm not sure how it ever became a thing with some people.


I'd say in the UK it's always Cologne - see here https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...left-unsafe-cologne-fans-storm-stadium-cause/


----------



## OzStadiumGeek

deebs said:


> Average attendances (22 rounds):


Lol, I'm a Giants supporter and it's interesting to see that we average a lower attendance than the Suns across all 22 home and away matches, yet we have a higher home average at Giants Stadium and Manuka!! Must only mean that GCS pull a better crowd when they play away which is very surprising considering how bad they are (although it's almost a guaranteed win for every supporter of the team that plays them!)


----------



## Guest

Urmstoniain said:


> I'd say in the UK it's always Cologne - see here https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...left-unsafe-cologne-fans-storm-stadium-cause/


I just found links from the Standard, Independent, Sky all using Koln. It may be that Cologne is more standard in the UK, and I was wrong to think that Cologne wasn't used, but both versions are used by English media judging by a quick google scan.


----------



## OzStadiumGeek

Urmstoniain said:


> Do Bayern themselves use the 'Munich' naming convention in the name of international recognition?


Their logo is "Munchen", but their official club website changes from Munchen to Munich, depending which language you select.

I always look at what the confederation website calls them - in this case UEFA, and they use "Munchen"

https://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/uefarankings/club/#/yr/2020


----------



## vitacit

OzStadiumGeek said:


> Lol, I'm a Giants supporter and it's interesting to see that we average a lower attendance than the Suns across all 22 home and away matches, yet we have a higher home average at Giants Stadium and Manuka!! Must only mean that GCS pull a better crowd when they play away which is very surprising considering how bad they are (although it's almost a guaranteed win for every supporter of the team that plays them!)


i guess i am only person in slovakia who follows AFL but i like the progress of giants in the last years. and yeah - great game yesterday against lions !


----------



## OzStadiumGeek

vitacit said:


> i guess i am only person in slovakia who follows AFL but i like the progress of giants in the last years. and yeah - great game yesterday against lions !


That's awesome! It's great to hear from supporters across the globe! I actually didn't get to watch the full game yesterday, and I'm probably glad I didn't because I don't think I would have coped!!! I watched the last 10 minutes on replay, and even though I knew the final result it was still unbearable!!!!


----------



## Walbanger

deebs said:


> With the finals underway, here are some stats for the Australian Football League (AFL) 2019 regular season.
> 
> Average attendances (22 rounds):
> 
> 54894Collingwood
> 50835Richmond
> 48227Essendon
> 44808West Coast
> 39471Carlton
> 37962Geelong
> 35833Adelaide
> 35801Hawthorn
> 33746Fremantle
> 33173Port Adelaide
> 32672Melbourne
> 30988Western Bulldogs
> 30840Sydney
> 29012St Kilda
> 27429North Melbourne
> 27058Brisbane Lions
> 19810Gold Coast
> 19640Greater Western Sydney
> 
> 
> Average attendances by stadium:
> 
> 53694M.C.G.
> 47204Perth Stadium
> 39232Adelaide Oval
> 31875Docklands
> 31070S.C.G.
> 27811Kardinia Park
> 24741Gabba
> 13922York Park
> 12411Sydney Showground
> 11884Manuka Oval
> 11834Carrara
> 10634Marrara Oval
> 9882Bellerive Oval
> 9412Jiangwan Stadium (China)
> 9300Eureka Stadium
> 7243Riverway Stadium
> 7164Traeger Park
> 
> 
> Four crowds over 80,000 5 last year)
> One crowd over 90,000 (2 last year)
> 
> 92241Essendon v CollingwoodM.C.G.
> 85405Collingwood v EssendonM.C.G.
> 85016Carlton v RichmondM.C.G.
> 80176Richmond v EssendonM.C.G.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----
> 
> deebs




Don't you think a fairer metric would be HOME average attendance. Considering the amount of Victorian derbies that pad crowd figures which is the opposite for non vic clubs.


----------



## deebs

Walbanger said:


> Don't you think a fairer metric would be HOME average attendance. Considering the amount of Victorian derbies that pad crowd figures which is the opposite for non vic clubs.


Fair enough!

This is across each team's 11 home games. Of course, in some cases this will include 'home' games traded away to China or other not-actually-home venues (e.g. Melbourne averages just 9,119 over their 10 games in Darwin, which pulls down their 'home' average), but this is at least the raw stats.

59987 | Richmond
58975 | Collingwood
53513 | West Coast
47733 | Essendon
46730 | Carlton
44514 | Adelaide
40896 | Fremantle
33950 | Port Adelaide
33405 | Geelong
31077 | Hawthorn
31070 | Sydney
28968 | Melbourne
26747 | Western Bulldogs
25401 | St Kilda
24741 | Brisbane Lions
20808 | North Melbourne
12267 | Greater Western Sydney
11417 | Gold Coast



Just for fun, I slotted the AFL's top 3 into the Euro figures from 5portsF4n above:

Borussia Dortmund 80,820
FC Barcelona 75,208
Bayern Munich 75,000
Manchester United 74,498
Real Madrid 60,967
Schalke 04 60,941
*Richmond 59,987*
Arsenal 59,899
*Collingwood 58,975*
West Ham United 58,336
Internazionale 58,275
Celtic 57,661
Atletico Madrid 56,055
AC Milan 54,651
VfB Stuttgart 54,625
Tottenham Hotspur 54,216
Manchester City 54,130
Benfica 53,824
*West Coast 53,513*
Liverpool 52,983





-----

deebs


----------



## H.H.

I wonder if many other clubs around the world do the same as West Ham (and Arsenal) who badly distort the average attendance higher by many thousands because they do the attendance by tickets sold instead of people who actually turn up (unlike Tottenham and I think most others) who also sell more tickets but announce actual people through the gate attendance?


----------



## Guest

H.H. said:


> I wonder if many other clubs around the world do the same as West Ham (and Arsenal) who badly distort the average attendance higher by many thousands because they do the attendance by tickets sold instead of people who actually turn up (unlike Tottenham and I think most others) who also sell more tickets but announce actual people through the gate attendance?


Tickets sold is very common, and is used across North America as well. It is a byproduct of sports leagues that sell lots of season tickets.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

H.H. said:


> I wonder if many other clubs around the world do the same as West Ham (and Arsenal) who badly distort the average attendance higher by many thousands because they do the attendance by tickets sold instead of people who actually turn up (unlike Tottenham and I think most others) who also sell more tickets but announce actual people through the gate attendance?


Most these days go by tickets sold. The old way was a hangover from the days of cash admission, where season ticket numbers were small, and most just paid cash at the turnstiles (so unless somebody paid at the turnstile and didn't bother going in, the count would be the same).

Even then though, season ticket holders were counted whether they turned up or not, as space in the ground had to be left for them in case they did turn up. e.g. if a ground held 40,000 and had 8000 season ticket holders, they could only offer cash admission to 32000 people.

It's also why games would often be called "all ticket", as they were games where either crowd trouble was likely, or capacity might be reached, so they'd make all sales be made in advance, with no tickets sold on the day, to limit people being stuck outside if it sold out. Even later, when everybody purchased a paper ticket before going in to any game, the term "all-ticket" remained, to describe a game where no walk-up tickets would be sold.


----------



## GunnerJacket

The big thing is that not only is the average overall viewership going up, but it's doing so while simultaneously providing greater volumes of content. Where in the past only a few teams could draw bigger numbers now more teams and players can do that, plus casual fans are able to better recognize when a match-up has meaning even if the brands involved aren't the biggest ones. 

That last thing is key, which is also greatly aided by the improving marketing and broadcast quality. Every other major league (and US college sports) has the ability to get fans to buy in based on the context of the match, be it playoff implications, a #1 vs #3 showdown, or the chance for personal records. Casual sports fans are seeing this from MLS, and with an increasing number of very solid stadium scenes the league has that many more opportunities for showing games that are meaningful. 

Put another way, the calibre of the product (both on and off the pitch) as seen on TV has improved greatly, and the league is bearing the fruit of those results.


----------



## gabriel campos

5portsF4n said:


> Off-topic but I've put together a list of all professional sports teams with over 10 million fans in total across the 3 major social media networks (Facebook, Twitter and Instagram). Different to attendances but a better reflection of popularity.
> 
> *The 10 Million Club*
> 
> 1.	*Real Madrid 222m* (SOCCER, SPAIN)
> 2.	*Barcelona 211.8m* (SOCCER, SPAIN)
> 3.	*Manchester United 125.2m* (SOCCER, ENGLAND)
> 4.	*Chelsea 80.3m* (SOCCER, ENGLAND)
> 5.	*Juventus 79.3m* (SOCCER, ITALY)
> 6.	*Bayern Munich 72.9m* (SOCCER, GERMANY)
> 7.	*Paris St Germain 70.1m* (SOCCER, FRANCE)
> 8.	*Arsenal 68.5m* (SOCCER, ENGLAND)
> 9.	*Liverpool 67.5m* (SOCCER, ENGLAND)
> 10.	*Manchester City 59.6m* (SOCCER, ENGLAND)
> 11.	*LA Lakers 38.3m* (BASKETBALL, USA)
> 12.	*AC Milan 38.1m* (SOCCER, ITALY)
> 13.	*Golden State Warriors 30.8m* (BASKETBALL, USA)
> 14.	*Galatasaray 29.1m* (SOCCER, TURKEY)
> 15.	*Borussia Dortmund 26.8m* (SOCCER, GERMANY)
> 16.	*Chicago Bulls 26.4m* (BASKETBALL, USA)
> 17.	*Atletico Madrid 25.7m* (SOCCER, SPAIN)
> 18.	*Miami Heat 23.3m* (BASKETBALL, USA)
> 19.	*Inter Milan 22.4m* (SOCCER, ITALY)
> 20.	*Flamengo 22.1m* (SOCCER, BRAZIL)
> 21.	*Mumbai Indians 21.9m* (CRICKET, INDIA)
> 22.	*Tottenham Hotspur 21.6m* (SOCCER, ENGLAND)
> 23.	*Kolkata Knight Riders 21.5m* (CRICKET, INDIA)
> 24.	*Corinthians 21.4m* (SOCCER, BRAZIL)
> 25.	*Al Ahly 21.2m *(SOCCER, EGYPT)
> 26.	*Fenerbahce 20.8m* (SOCCER, TURKEY)
> 27.	*Chennai Super Kings 20.5m* (CRICKET, INDIA)
> 28.	*Houston Rockets 19.6m* (BASKETBALL, USA)
> 29.	*Cleveland Cavaliers 19m* (BASKETBALL, USA)
> 30.	*Boston Celtics 16.7m* (BASKETBALL, USA)
> 31.	*Persib Bandung 16.5m* (SOCCER, INDONESIA)
> 32.	*Boca Juniors 16.2m* (SOCCER, ARGENTINA)
> 33.	*Club America 15.9m* (SOCCER, MEXICO)
> 34.	*Royal Challengers Bangalore 15.7m * (CRICKET, INDIA)
> 35.	*New England Patriots 15.5m* (AM FOOTBALL, USA)
> 36.	*Dallas Cowboys 15.4m* (AM FOOTBALL, USA)
> 37.	*River Plate 15.3m* (SOCCER, ARGENTINA)
> 38.	*New York Yankees 14.3m* (BASEBALL, USA)
> 39.	*AS Roma 14.2m* (SOCCER, ITALY)
> 40.	*OKC Thunder 14m* (BASKETBALL, USA)
> 41.	*Sao Paulo 13.4m* (SOCCER, BRAZIL)
> 42.	*San Antonio Spurs 13.1m* (BASKETBALL, USA)
> 43.	*Besiktas 12.6m* (SOCCER, TURKEY)
> 44.	*Pittsburgh Steelers 11.9m* (AM FOOTBALL, USA)
> 45.	*Chivas Guadalajara 11.8m* (SOCCER, MEXICO)
> 46.	*Kings Punjab XI 11.6m* (CRICKET, INDIA)
> 47.	*Al Hilal 11.3m* (SOCCER, SAUDI ARABIA)
> 48.	*Leicester City 11.1m* (SOCCER, ENGLAND)
> 49.	*Zamalek 10.9m* (SOCCER, EGYPT)
> 50.	*NY Knicks 10.1m* (BASKETBALL, USA)


Top 45 Brazilian clubs


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> The big thing is that not only is the average overall viewership going up, but it's doing so while simultaneously providing greater volumes of content. Where in the past only a few teams could draw bigger numbers now more teams and players can do that, plus casual fans are able to better recognize when a match-up has meaning even if the brands involved aren't the biggest ones.
> 
> That last thing is key, which is also greatly aided by the improving marketing and broadcast quality. Every other major league (and US college sports) has the ability to get fans to buy in based on the context of the match, be it playoff implications, a #1 vs #3 showdown, or the chance for personal records. Casual sports fans are seeing this from MLS, and with an increasing number of very solid stadium scenes the league has that many more opportunities for showing games that are meaningful.
> 
> *Put another way, the calibre of the product (both on and off the pitch) as seen on TV has improved greatly, and the league is bearing the fruit of those results.*


Not sure about that, but it is a point not lost on ESPN and the Bundesliga who have signed a new broadcast arrangement in the US. Interesting to see how they do against MLS, which has many unknown teams and needs to focus on matches between teams who are at least building a national rep.

Also interesting that it runs through 2026 when the WC comes to the US.


----------



## shivtim

GunnerJacket said:


> Also, comments form several folks on other boards suggest that while Saputo is a decent stadium it is relatively bare bones. Great for the 2.0 era but perhaps lacking compared to 3.0 models.


I was up there for the Atlanta United game last month, and Saputo does have some major downsides. Fantastic fans and an enthusiastic and welcoming supporter section, and good sight-lines from the stands, but the compliments end there. I was surprised to see the bathrooms are in cramped trailers. The food and drink selection was really bad, over-priced, and they ran out of a lot of stuff by the half. It doesn't create a great game-day experience for fans and families. They may also have been hurt a bit this year because the stadium is basically in the middle of a giant construction site right now. From the metro you have to walk a long plywood bridge through a dirt pit. I think they could step up their game just a bit, offer a few better local food and drink selections (why on earth don't they have poutine?) and refresh the bathrooms and they might get a good response.


----------



## GunnerJacket

shivtim said:


> I was up there for the Atlanta United game last month, and Saputo does have some major downsides. Fantastic fans and an enthusiastic and welcoming supporter section, and good sight-lines from the stands, but the compliments end there. I was surprised to see the bathrooms are in cramped trailers. The food and drink selection was really bad, over-priced, and they ran out of a lot of stuff by the half. It doesn't create a great game-day experience for fans and families. They may also have been hurt a bit this year because the stadium is basically in the middle of a giant construction site right now. From the metro you have to walk a long plywood bridge through a dirt pit. I think they could step up their game just a bit, offer a few better local food and drink selections (why on earth don't they have poutine?) and refresh the bathrooms and they might get a good response.


Sounds like a lot of the needs are for things that are behind the scenes or off the stadium property itself. Hopefully they get that sorted out.


----------



## isaidso

Average Attendance, Canadian Football League


In the CFL, average attendance is down across the board and has now fallen 7 years in a row. The Prairies continue to be the nation's football heartland while the sport is weakest in the 3 largest cities (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver). Toronto continues to be the worst football market in the country. 


1. Saskatchewan Roughriders 30,543 -4.8%

2. Edmonton Eskimos 28,363 -10.0%

3. Calgary Stampeders 25,167 -0.5%

4. Winnipeg Blue Bombers 25,028 -6.0%

5. Hamilton Tiger-Cats 22,888 -3.0%

6. Ottawa RedBlacks 22,268 -5.6%

7. BC Lions 18,196 -9.4%

8. Montreal Alouettes 17,222 -3.6%

9. Toronto Argonauts 13,370 -3.7%


Average Attendance 2012-2019

2012: 28,191
2013: 27,006
2014: 25,286
2015: 24,733
2016: 24,692
2017: 24,644
2018: 23,956
2019: 22,786 (after 43 games)


----------



## GunnerJacket

isaidso said:


> In the CFL, average attendance is down across the board and has now fallen 7 years in a row. The Prairies continue to be the nation's football heartland while the sport is weakest in the 3 largest cities (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver). Toronto continues to be the worst football market in the country.
> 
> ...
> 
> Average Attendance 2012-2019
> 
> 2012: 28,191
> 2013: 27,006
> 2014: 25,286
> 2015: 24,733
> 2016: 24,692
> 2017: 24,644
> 2018: 23,956
> 2019: 22,786 (after 43 games)


So what are your thoughts as to the causes and, more importantly, potential solutions?

- It's possible the presence of MLS teams in those 3 biggest markets is a factor in that it's consuming some fan attention and money during the same season, and likely is more popular with certain sponsor groups seeking a larger audience via the bi-national league. 

- Are Canadians feeling the same way toward gridiron with regard to health effects and the soft push-back against the sport?

- Is the trend similar with the universities? Is the a correlation between where the university programs are located vs the professional teams? (ie: How many markets feature both pro and college teams?)

- How are TV ratings? A lot of fans in the States are simply consuming sports via home theaters and pubs vs seeing it live.


----------



## Guest

GunnerJacket said:


> So what are your thoughts as to the causes and, more importantly, potential solutions?
> 
> - *It's possible the presence of MLS teams in those 3 biggest markets is a factor in that it's consuming some fan attention and money during the same season, and likely is more popular with certain sponsor groups seeking a larger audience via the bi-national league. *


I wouldn't imagine so. Even in a sports-mad city like Seattle, several years ago it was determined there is a 3% crossover between Sounders and Seahawks season ticket holders. If I'm not mistaken it's a similar case in Atlanta. 

It's just a different breed of supporter. 

The usual culprit in this type of scenario is ticket prices and costs of living going up.


----------



## Cjones2451

5portsF4n said:


> I wouldn't imagine so. Even in a sports-mad city like Seattle, several years ago it was determined there is a 3% crossover between Sounders and Seahawks season ticket holders. If I'm not mistaken it's a similar case in Atlanta.
> 
> It's just a different breed of supporter.
> 
> The usual culprit in this type of scenario is ticket prices and costs of living going up.


I think in the three markets it is different issues

Vancouver - cost of living make disposable income very discretionary and people are choosing to spend elsewhere or just not go - Whitecaps numbers were down this year, but the biggest reason is both teams were AWFUL this year. 

Toronto - bottom line is the CFL and Argos have done a poor job staying relevant and marketing for a while and just have become insignificant in Toronto. Most is Toronto think the CFL is not "major league" enough and the core support they do have does not want to travel all the way Downtown.

Montreal - Team has been terrible for a few years, ownership is up in the air (and they need an owner that can market to both French and English fans) The team is much better and interest has started to pick back up
TV numbers in all of the markets are strong so it is possible to get some of the fans back, but it is difficult to beat watching on a 60"+ TV and Beer and Snacks at home. I think they need to continue to market to a younger demographic, make it an event and have in game experiences you can't get at home. It seems party decks, social areas are working and need to continue to grow

I see BC and Montreal bouncing back next year (especially if both have new ownership) to 20,000+
Toronto is the tougher nut to crack, it may take YEARS for them to crack 17-18,000 on a regular basis.


----------



## GunnerJacket

5portsF4n said:


> I wouldn't imagine so. Even in a sports-mad city like Seattle, several years ago it was determined there is a 3% crossover between Sounders and Seahawks season ticket holders. If I'm not mistaken it's a similar case in Atlanta.
> 
> It's just a different breed of supporter.
> 
> The usual culprit in this type of scenario is ticket prices and costs of living going up.


Normally I'm inclined to agree with you which is why I was curious to hear from a more local source if that holds true for those cities. I, regrettably, have never had the pleasure of visiting our northern neighbors. Yet! 

(Came within 3 miles while skiing in Minnesota. That's close enough, right?! )


----------



## isaidso

GunnerJacket said:


> So what are your thoughts as to the causes and, more importantly, potential solutions?
> 
> - It's possible the presence of MLS teams in those 3 biggest markets is a factor in that it's consuming some fan attention and money during the same season, and likely is more popular with certain sponsor groups seeking a larger audience via the bi-national league.
> 
> - Are Canadians feeling the same way toward gridiron with regard to health effects and the soft push-back against the sport?
> 
> - Is the trend similar with the universities? Is the a correlation between where the university programs are located vs the professional teams? (ie: How many markets feature both pro and college teams?)
> 
> - How are TV ratings? A lot of fans in the States are simply consuming sports via home theaters and pubs vs seeing it live.


It's a whole host of things converging at the same time. The CFL can not escape comparisons with the far wealthier and far more powerful NFL to the south. In Toronto and Vancouver there's the belief that the CFL is beneath them. Many people would rather go with no football at all than to associate themselves with the CFL. I don't see that mentality as strong in Montreal but it exists there too.

Nationally, there's a long term cultural shift that's been occurring for the last 40 years. Due to heavy immigration, this shift is most pronounced in the big 3 immigrant cities: Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal. Rather than assimilating, newcomers have simply replaced the domestic culture with the one from their homeland. They flat out reject things like football, baseball, Thanksgiving, Halloween, camping, domestic food, etc. It's not uncommon to find people in Toronto, for instance, who don't know who the Argonauts are, wouldn't know that there's a difference between Canadian and American football, don't know/care about the CFL's history, and certainly wouldn't call that sport 'football'. 

There are no obvious solutions to turn things around. It bears mentioning that football and the CFL are still quite a big deal in 6 of the 9 markets: Edmonton, Calgary, Saskatchewan, Winnipeg, Hamilton, and Ottawa. Attendance is down in these markets but it's more of a 1 year blip. The league has done most things right over the last 15 year's but will likely have to accept their new status in the big 3 cities as a vastly less relevant cultural phenomenon than they were pre-1980. In these markets it's more about stabilizing the teams financially and halting further erosion in the fan base. 

The concussion issue and people preferring to watch at home/bars is a factor in Canada just like in the States. They purposely built the last 4 new CFL stadia smaller due to this. 24,000 - 26,000 seats is the new normal for CFL stadia although they did go bigger in Saskatchewan and Winnipeg (the 2 strongest markets).

I don't view MLS as a factor. Most soccer people here won't watch football period. MLS has simply given them what they wanted all along. Surprisingly, television ratings for CFL remain very strong. It's still 2nd only to the NHL although I can see a time when the NBA drops the CFL to 3rd. It's too early to tell if NBA tv viewership numbers represent a permanent increase or dependent on the fortunes of the Raptors.

University football interest has maintained a generally low level of support nationally. Quebec schools have far more support than elsewhere although you'll see the occasional event like the Panda Game that sells out TD Stadium (25,000 seats) in Ottawa. Btw, there is a correlation between the presence of the CFL and the strength/weakness of university football. Practically every university team that has decent support exists in a market with no CFL. Laval in Quebec City is the best example of that. Not only is support for Laval strong but they're quite aggressive about keeping the CFL out.

Other non-CFL cities have university football teams that periodically have decent (for Canada) support. SMU in Halifax, Sherbrooke in Sherbrooke, Queens in Kingston, Western in London, Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, and Laurier in Waterloo. The exceptions would be McMaster in Hamilton and the 2 Ottawa based schools (Carleton and Ottawa) that host the annual Panda Game. It bears mentioning that the rest of the year Carleton and Ottawa draw poorly. The Panda Game is well attended but it's really just an excuse to party/drink. Practically no one in the stands is actually watching the game. :nuts:


----------



## GunnerJacket

Thanks for the insight. Good stuff to know. Hopefully things level off and then turn upward. 

Last question/thought: As a Yank I confess that I have a difficulty adapting to the CFL rules when I try to watch. I understand them but the differences for me detract from the game because I'm so used to the American model. Has there been any discussion or assessment if that mindset is common among Americans, and if so might that disconnect be something that is hampering CFL appeal to US viewers? Otherwise you'd think the CFL is the perfect answer for US fans craving gridiron during the NFL off season.



isaidso said:


> Laval in Quebec City is the best example of that. Not only is support for Laval strong but they're quite aggressive about keeping the CFL out.


Ah. I wondered why I never hear QC mentioned as a CFL expansion candidate. Hopefully they find a 10th out there somewhere.


----------



## Guest

Current averages for soccer leagues above 5,000 (including both domestic and continental club competitions). Due to no reliable data, doesn’t include Argentina and Saudi Arabia, both of which are likely to be above 5,000. In Argentina’s case, average attendance is probably between 15,000 and 20,000. 

1.	Europe: Champions League 43,648 (32 teams)
2.	Germany: First Division 40,517 (18 teams)
3.	England: First Division 39,359 (20 teams)
4.	Spain: First Division 28,523 (20 teams)
5.	Italy: First Division 26,700 (20 teams)
6.	China: First Division 23,868 (16 teams)
7.	South America: Copa Libertadores 23,568 (47 teams)
8.	Europe: Europa League 23,465 (48 teams)
9.	Mexico: First Division 22,882 (18 teams)
10.	France: First Division 22,745 (20 teams)
11.	Brazil: First Division 22,180 (20 teams)
12.	USA/Canada: First Division 21,311 (24 teams)
13.	Germany: Second Division 20,391 (18 teams)
14.	Japan: First Division 20,366 (18 teams)
15.	England: Second Division 18,667 (24 teams)
16.	Russia: First Division 18,075 (16 teams)
17.	Netherlands: First Division 17,445 (18 teams)
18.	India: First Division 17,385 (10 teams)
19.	South America: Sudamericana 15,971 (48 teams)
20.	Scotland: First Division 15,122 (12 teams)
21.	Asia: Champions League 14,756 (32 teams)
22.	Turkey: First Division 14,457 (18 teams)
23.	Portugal: First Division 11,958 (18 teams)
24.	Australia: First Division 11,868 (11 teams)
25.	Switzerland: First Division 11,415 (10 teams)
26.	Belgium: First Division 11,072 (16 teams)
27.	Poland: First Division 9,961 (16 teams)
28.	Spain: Second Division 9,717 (22 teams)
29.	Indonesia: First Division 9,611 (18 teams)
30.	Iran: First Division 9,433 (16 teams)
31.	China: Second Division 9,202
32.	Sweden: First Division 9,162 (16 teams)
33.	Germany: Third Division 8,693 (20 teams)
34.	England: Third Division 8,440 (24 teams)
35.	Colombia: First Division 8,250 (20 teams)
36.	South Korea: First Division 8,065 (12 teams)
37.	South Africa: First Division 7,831 (16 teams)
38.	Greece: First Division 7,610 (14 teams)
39.	Vietnam: First Division 7,463 (14 teams)
40.	Chile: First Division 7,001 (16 teams)
41.	France: Second Division 6,931 (20 teams)
42.	Denmark: First Division 6,701 (14 teams)
43.	Austria: First Division 6,556 (12 teams)
44.	Italy: Second Division 6,060 (20 teams)
45.	Thailand: First Division 6,045 (16 teams)
46.	Malaysia: First Division 5,786 (12 teams)
47.	Czech Republic: First Division 5,783 (16 teams)
48.	Norway: First Division 5,778 (16 teams)
49.	Brazil: Second Division 5,495 (20 teams)


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

5portsF4n said:


> Current averages for soccer leagues above 5,000 (including both domestic and continental club competitions). Due to no reliable data, doesn’t include Argentina and Saudi Arabia, both of which are likely to be above 5,000. In Argentina’s case, average attendance is probably between 15,000 and 20,000.


Interesting list, I appreciate the effort you put in.

If you calculate the total attendance per league then the order will change around a lot. England overtaking Germany by a large margin at all levels. Spain and Italy catching up towards Germany substantially. France and Brazil would move above Mexico.

Also interesting that the English lower leagues are the only ones with a 24 team 46 match format.

Without doing the maths Scottish football probably still has the highest attendance per capita.


----------



## Guest

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Interesting list, I appreciate the effort you put in.
> 
> *If you calculate the total attendance per league then the order will change around a lot. England overtaking Germany by a large margin at all levels. Spain and Italy catching up towards Germany substantially. France and Brazil would move above Mexico.*
> 
> Also interesting that the English lower leagues are the only ones with a 24 team 46 match format.
> 
> Without doing the maths Scottish football probably still has the highest attendance per capita.


The reason I opted for averages over aggregates is because leagues are at different times of their season. Still early season across Europe, but US/Canada has finished up, Brazil and Japan about to finish up, etc etc. The average attendance gives a better snapshot in comparing the leagues as club averages won't fluctuate drastically from the early season to the end. 

Other than what you mentioned about aggregate attendance, there are other variables that would make it harder to compare the leagues. If the Germans had to pay the prices the English do, you wonder where their attendances would be. And if English stadiums weren't constrained by all-seating, it would make a huge difference to averages. 

I don't think there's any argument that the English pyramid is the best attended in the world when you take into account all variables. 

The Bundesliga has long been the best attended domestic league in the world, but it never painted the full picture. Standing areas which boosted capacities, cheaper prices, and fewer teams to drag down attendances. 

It is only with the recent boom in capacities at the top end of the English game that the PL has narrowed the gap. 

Now just need for Bournemouth to get a new stadium, or to get relegated, and 40k+ average in PL should become the new normal. 

In a fully optimized PL with the highest capacity grounds in the league, off the top of my head you'd probably be looking at 43k or so.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Averages are the best for comparison. You can't make a perfect comparison. Even within London no-one would claim that West Ham are as well supported as Arsenal although the official attendances are currently similar. No-one knows how many would turn up at Manchester United or Bayern Munich if they each had an infinite number of seats.

Other interesting figures from your list are for India, the Spanish 2nd division and the Chinese 2nd division. The depth in Spain is a bit better than I had realised. The Indian and Chinese figures suggest the potential for a lot of development in those two enormous countries over the next 10-20 years.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Keep in mind different leagues play different numbers of games, as well. The Bundesliga and MLS sides have 17 home matches per season, while Premier League and La Liga sides have 19 each, for example.


----------



## rebelheartous

Bundesliga is currently the only league out of Top 5 without 20-team championship.



5portsF4n said:


> The Bundesliga has long been the best attended domestic league in the world, but it never painted the full picture. Standing areas which boosted capacities, cheaper prices, and fewer teams to drag down attendances.
> 
> It is only with the recent boom in capacities at the top end of the English game that the PL has narrowed the gap.
> 
> Now just need for Bournemouth to get a new stadium, or to get relegated, and 40k+ average in PL should become the new normal.
> 
> In a fully optimized PL with the highest capacity grounds in the league, off the top of my head you'd probably be looking at 43k or so.


You have an issue with BL being the best attended championship, what is it? I am pretty sure with 20-team league the gap would increase even further.

Just notice Union Berlin, a team from the capital, plays in front of 21k venue since their support over the years has been enormous. If they build a bigger stadium, which is very likely to happen, it would still be sold out. They would have better figures than Hertha, the local rivals. And Hertha doesn't even have their own ground.


----------



## deebs

5portsF4n said:


> Current averages for soccer leagues above 5,000 (including both domestic and continental club competitions). Due to no reliable data, doesn’t include Argentina and Saudi Arabia, both of which are likely to be above 5,000. In Argentina’s case, average attendance is probably between 15,000 and 20,000.



The equivalent Australian Football League figures for 2019 are:

Regular season: 35122	
Finals: 62607	

*Overall: 36,317*

18 teams, 22 regular season rounds.

This would slip in to 4th place on your list (which I know was for round-ball leagues, but, eh...).




-----

deebs


----------



## Guest

GunnerJacket said:


> Keep in mind different leagues play different numbers of games, as well. The Bundesliga and MLS sides have 17 home matches per season, while Premier League and La Liga sides have 19 each, for example.


Yeah, and if US/Canada, among many other nations, was as small as England or the Netherlands, away support could make a real difference to averages.


----------



## Rover030

It's funny you mention the Netherlands, because our away support is not great and the policies around are even worse. Away supporters are treated like criminals here. If you compare it to Germany it shows that away support is also about culture. They benefit more from away supporters than anyone, because clubs like Hertha Berlin allow other clubs to bring thousands of away supporters in a stadium that would usually be half empty. In England it would be capped at 3000, while in the Netherlands it'd be 1200 or 1600.


----------



## Guest

Rover030 said:


> It's funny you mention the Netherlands, because our away support is not great and the policies around are even worse. Away supporters are treated like criminals here. If you compare it to Germany it shows that away support is also about culture. They benefit more from away supporters than anyone, because clubs like Hertha Berlin allow other clubs to bring thousands of away supporters in a stadium that would usually be half empty. In England it would be capped at 3000, while in the Netherlands it'd be 1200 or 1600.


Thanks for clarifying Dutch situation.

I may be mistaken, but I thought England was 10% of capacity? 

And yeah in Germany it's a bit like in the US where you find away fans sprinkled all around the stadium in certain games, which you never see in England.


----------



## RobH

In England for league games it's 10% of overall capacity, up to a maximum of 3,000. Or to put it another way, 10% of capacity _or_ 3,000, whichever is the smaller. Most Prem grounds are over 30,000 so it's mostly accurate to say away fans are capped at 3,000.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

RobH said:


> In England for league games it's 10% of overall capacity, up to a maximum of 3,000. Or to put it another way, 10% of capacity _or_ 3,000, whichever is the smaller. Most Prem grounds are over 30,000 so it's mostly accurate to say away fans are capped at 3,000.


Hi Rob, just to be clear to others as I'm sure you know this, it is a cap on the minimum number. So a 25,000 seat ground has a minimum away requirement of 2,500. A 40,000 seat has a minimum requirement of 3,000 for away fans. However, there is nothing to stop a club offering more than this if they have spare capacity. I don't think any club does this now as most grounds are fully sold out for most matches. The most obvious examples from the past are Wigan and Blackburn. Wigan have a capacity of around 25,000 yet offered away fans around 4,800 seats. If Preston go up they might offer more than 10%.

Also the visiting club does not get the full allocation if they won't sell them all. A club might offer 1,500 or 3,000 asking the visiting club to guarantee the sale of all tickets if they go for the larger number. This is particularly obvious at Anfield and Stamford Bridge where the allocation is at an end and goes from left to right as you look on TV. The full allocation almost reaches the goal in both cases.

For FA Cup matches the allowance is supposed to be 15% with no upper limit. So the New Spurs stadium, at 62,000, should offer around 9,300 to an FA Cup opponent. In practice it will be a slightly different number as you cannot divide the seating up exactly when taking into account segregation, entrances, facilities, etc. The Spurs ground has been designed for this and it will be a great occasion when they play an FA Cup match there.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

5portsF4n said:


> Thanks for clarifying Dutch situation.
> 
> I may be mistaken, but I thought England was 10% of capacity?
> 
> *And yeah in Germany it's a bit like in the US where you find away fans sprinkled all around the stadium in certain games, which you never see in England.*


At most clubs you have to be a member or at least on the database to buy tickets. A fan of a big club cannot just buy tickets in the home areas at an away match without having first bought tickets for other matches there. Trying to do this would get very expensive very fast. They'd probably be banned afterwards also.

There will occasionally be away fans in home areas but very few and they will keep quiet about it.

I attended a match at Highbury once in the away end with supporters of a small northern Premier League club. There were actually at least a hundred Arsenal supporters in the away section of the Clock End. I didn't realise until after the match when they applauded their players once most of the away support had left.


----------



## Guest

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> I attended a match at Highbury once in the away end with supporters of a small northern Premier League club. There were actually at least a hundred Arsenal supporters in the away section of the Clock End. I didn't realise until after the match when they applauded their players once most of the away support had left.


Lol, yeah to be fair it can be hard to distinguish as so many people wear casual clothing it seems. In Germany it can be really obvious when Dortmund fans take over a stadium, as they will happily wear their yellow in seats that would otherwise be occupied by home fans.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

5portsF4n said:


> Lol, yeah to be fair it can be hard to distinguish as so many people wear casual clothing it seems. In Germany it can be really obvious when Dortmund fans take over a stadium, as they will happily wear their yellow in seats that would otherwise be occupied by home fans.


Yes, wouldn't be advised here! Although I did attend Portugal v England at Euro 2004 in Lisbon where the attendance was roughly 50:50 Portuguese and English. We were able to behave ourselves despite a tense match finishing with Portugal winning on penalties. Probably the best atmosphere I've experienced. Afterwards I just shook hands with the Portuguese in the row in front.

A lot of people here think that an adult wearing a football shirt looks a bit ridiculous if they're not actually playing. Much more of an individualistic country than Germany so not the desire to wear a uniform. Or to have someone at the front with a megaphone leading chants.


----------



## Guest

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Yes, wouldn't be advised here! Although I did attend Portugal v England at Euro 2004 in Lisbon where the attendance was roughly 50:50 Portuguese and English. We were able to behave ourselves despite a tense match finishing with Portugal winning on penalties. Probably the best atmosphere I've experienced. Afterwards I just shook hands with the Portuguese in the row in front.
> 
> A lot of people here think that an adult wearing a football shirt looks a bit ridiculous if they're not actually playing. Much more of an individualistic country than Germany so not the desire to wear a uniform. Or to have someone at the front with a megaphone leading chants.


It's a curious one. I always figured it had to do with the cold weather. Maybe I'm imagining it but it seems as if the club colors are more prominent during the start of the season when the weather is still warmer. But eventually home and away fans become indistinguishable as they're all wearing black coats it seems.

I can understand though not wanting to leave the stadium in enemy territory wearing club colors. We've all watched Green Street Elite. I know it's much safer than used to be, but you never know who feels up for a brawl for no odd reason.

It is somewhat surprising that elements of European support culture never made it in England. Only a section of Palace's support seems willing to replicate it. 

In some ways it shows that English fans are interested in what's happening on the field more than anything. They clap more than anyone when a defender caresses the ball with the head to the keeper to defuse a 'dangerous' situation, they groan more than anyone on misplaced passes, they are strangely euphoric when a corner is earned, and they don't partake too much in pageantry of ultras as they're more interested in the game than making an atmosphere - which partly explains why English atmosphere is not what it once was, though this also seems to be connected with the ageing support in the stands, which doesn't seem as keen on singing as it was in its younger days.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

5portsF4n said:


> It's a curious one. I always figured it had to do with the cold weather. Maybe I'm imagining it but it seems as if the club colors are more prominent during the start of the season when the weather is still warmer. But eventually home and away fans become indistinguishable as they're all wearing black coats it seems.
> 
> I can understand though not wanting to leave the stadium in enemy territory wearing club colors. We've all watched Green Street Elite. I know it's much safer than used to be, but you never know who feels up for a brawl for no odd reason.
> 
> It is somewhat surprising that elements of European support culture never made it in England. Only a section of Palace's support seems willing to replicate it.
> 
> In some ways it shows that English fans are interested in what's happening on the field more than anything. They clap more than anyone when a defender caresses the ball with the head to the keeper to defuse a 'dangerous' situation, they groan more than anyone on misplaced passes, they are strangely euphoric when a corner is earned, and they don't partake too much in pageantry of ultras as they're more interested in the game than making an atmosphere - which partly explains why English atmosphere is not what it once was, though this also seems to be connected with the ageing support in the stands, which doesn't seem as keen on singing as it was in its younger days.


Coats do make a difference. The UK is mild though. Lots of Europe gets much colder in the winter than England. Edit: just to make clear that while you need to wear a coat in winter in the UK you also need to in Germany, most of Italy or Spain.

Wearing club colours away from home isn't generally a problem. The few people that still want to cause problems, despite the likelihood of being filmed, convicted and banned, don't wear club colours and are on the lookout for people who also don't wear club colours. You can tell them a mile off but so can the police so it is rare that anything much happens.

The ageing support, due to tickets prices, has the most to do with the less impressive atmosphere. Also the lack of standing room. With standing terraces people got to the ground early to get the best spots and the noisier people all stood together. Older people did not want to stand in the centre behind the goal where the crowd would surge back and forth. It actually took up a lot of energy! Now there tends to be much more of a mix of ages behind the goals as there is no need to move as you get older. The older people have seen it all before, are less easily impressed and get involved in singing less. The other thing about terraces is that people are much closer together and there is a bit more anonymity. It is just easier to start a song on a terrace.

The near celebration of a corner is a strange one. I wonder if there used to be more goals scored from corners. In general I like it when you can tell the flow of the game from the noise.


----------



## flierfy

RobH said:


> In England for league games it's 10% of overall capacity, up to a maximum of 3,000. Or to put it another way, 10% of capacity _or_ 3,000, whichever is the smaller. Most Prem grounds are over 30,000 so it's mostly accurate to say away fans are capped at 3,000.


Or to put it graphically:


----------



## deebs

Very interesting conversation for an antipodean.

With 9 of 18 teams playing in one city with 2 stadia, the mix at any 'local derby' is usually a simple reflection of the size of each club's fan base. Two Melbourne teams will draw a proportional crowd of each set of supporters. Given the two stadia have capacities of 100,000 and 65,000, sell-outs are rare and during the regular season there's no great advantage to being a club member, except perhaps access to better seats. A lot of the fans at any given game are walk-up punters on 'general admission'.

Once the finals come around - and particularly the premiership match - then, yes, a club membership is pretty much the only way you'll get access to the game, and only premium memberships will guarantee it.

Even in the pre-national-league days of 12 teams playing at 10-odd local grounds each week, most of the capacity was still general admission, with a relatively modest 'members stand' for home-club members. 

We've also been lucky not to have had the same culture of enmity to away fans, and the idea of herding supporters into opposing pens is totally alien. Members will be bunched together because they have allocated season seats, and there's a hard-core of supporters in the 'cheer squad' behind each goal that an away fan might not want to be in the middle of unless they stay pretty quiet, but there's very little fan-on-fan animosity.

These factors - and comparatively low general admission ticket prices - has led to a bigger contingent of 'theatre-goers': football fans who come to see a good game regardless of whether their own team is playing.

The size of Australia also means that the national league now has far more lop-sided crowds than in the past: only a few thousand hard-core fans will travel 5500km from Melbourne to Perth and back to watch their team play and vice versa, so it's more common than in the past to have 60,000 home fans in a stadium with 2000 away fans. I'm glad I watch most of my football in Melbourne where even an interstate team will have a decent fan-base to create some atmosphere - watching expansion-club Gold Coast play Adelaide at the Adelaide Oval last year was weird: total silence after a GC goal, which just isn't right to this football fan!




-----

deebs


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

deebs said:


> Very interesting conversation for an antipodean.
> 
> With 9 of 18 teams playing in one city with 2 stadia, the mix at any 'local derby' is usually a simple reflection of the size of each club's fan base. Two Melbourne teams will draw a proportional crowd of each set of supporters. Given the two stadia have capacities of 100,000 and 65,000, sell-outs are rare and during the regular season there's no great advantage to being a club member, except perhaps access to better seats. A lot of the fans at any given game are walk-up punters on 'general admission'.
> 
> Once the finals come around - and particularly the premiership match - then, yes, a club membership is pretty much the only way you'll get access to the game, and only premium memberships will guarantee it.
> 
> Even in the pre-national-league days of 12 teams playing at 10-odd local grounds each week, most of the capacity was still general admission, with a relatively modest 'members stand' for home-club members.
> 
> We've also been lucky not to have had the same culture of enmity to away fans, and the idea of herding supporters into opposing pens is totally alien. Members will be bunched together because they have allocated season seats, and there's a hard-core of supporters in the 'cheer squad' behind each goal that an away fan might not want to be in the middle of unless they stay pretty quiet, but there's very little fan-on-fan animosity.
> 
> These factors - and comparatively low general admission ticket prices - has led to a bigger contingent of 'theatre-goers': football fans who come to see a good game regardless of whether their own team is playing.
> 
> The size of Australia also means that the national league now has far more lop-sided crowds than in the past: only a few thousand hard-core fans will travel 5500km from Melbourne to Perth and back to watch their team play and vice versa, so it's more common than in the past to have 60,000 home fans in a stadium with 2000 away fans. I'm glad I watch most of my football in Melbourne where even an interstate team will have a decent fan-base to create some atmosphere - watching expansion-club Gold Coast play Adelaide at the Adelaide Oval last year was weird: total silence after a GC goal, which just isn't right to this football fan!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----
> 
> deebs


By walk up do you mean pay at the turnstiles or by online or at a ticket office? It isn't that long ago that people just paid cash at the turnstiles here.

It is a different culture and whilst I've enjoyed watching matches with a mixed crowd I generally prefer to be surrounded by my own club's supporters. When I was a kid or teenager I really hated it when the opposition supporters were celebrating my pain. Of course I didn't give a 2nd thought that my joy was their misery. Not at that age.

For the avoidance of doubt I have never been involved in any trouble. Also other sports are not the same. Cricket, well we want to win but it doesn't matter so much.


----------



## Guest

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> By walk up do you mean pay at the turnstiles or by online or at a ticket office? It isn't that long ago that people just paid cash at the turnstiles here.
> 
> It is a differe*nt culture and whilst I've enjoyed watching matches with a mixed crowd I generally prefer to be surrounded by my own club's supporters.* When I was a kid or teenager I really hated it when the opposition supporters were celebrating my pain. Of course I didn't give a 2nd thought that my joy was their misery. Not at that age.
> 
> For the avoidance of doubt I have never been involved in any trouble. Also other sports are not the same. Cricket, well we want to win but it doesn't matter so much.


Segregation is brilliant. One of my favorite things about soccer fandom. I've seen people describe segregation as a negative, but it only adds to the spectacle I think.


----------



## deebs

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> By walk up do you mean pay at the turnstiles or by online or at a ticket office? It isn't that long ago that people just paid cash at the turnstiles here.



Plenty of people will walk up and pay at the turnstiles (well, at the ticket booth outside), although you do risk missing out if there's any danger of a sell-out. I've only had this happen once in recent years, although I played it safe and booked on-line a few hours ahead of a game i was taking some overseas visitors to earlier this year, and we were literally in the back row and could reach up and touch the roof at Marvel stadium (65,000+). Still a pretty good view from there, tho, so no harm...


----------



## deebs

5portsF4n said:


> Segregation is brilliant. One of my favorite things about soccer fandom. I've seen people describe segregation as a negative, but it only adds to the spectacle I think.


I'd never really thought of it as a bonus rather than an unfortunate necessity brought on by fan behaviour - interesting! 

Non-soccer sports fans Down Under are conditioned by sensationalist stories from Europe of penned ultras, town-trashing post-match rioting, and matches played in empty stadia to penalise clubs for bad fan behaviour. 

A single flare at a soccer match here will feed the media hysterics for a week. Round-ball fans see it as a conspiracy by the local media - which tends to have a financial interest in the dominant AFL and NRL codes - with an unfortunate undercurrent of racism, or at least parochialism (soccer still being considered in some quarters to be the 'foreigners' sport' for ppl determined not to assimilate to local culture, which means one of two brands of 'proper footy'...). Then again, Australian Rules fans call League 'thugby' and League fans think Aussie Rules is 'ariel pingpong', so... :nuts:


----------



## Guest

Professional and amateur club competitions, must have minimum of 3 million in aggregate/total attendance, as well as over 10k average:

1.	Baseball: MLB (USA and Canada) 68.4m, 28.1k
2.	American Football (USA): NCAA Div 1 FBS 36.7m, 41.8k
3.	Baseball: NPB (Japan) 26.5m, 30.9k
4.	Ice Hockey: NHL (USA and Canada) 22.1m, 17.4k
5.	Basketball: NBA (USA and Canada) 22.1m, 17.9k
6.	American Football: NFL (USA) 17.1m, 67k
7.	Soccer: Premier League (England) 14.5m, 38.1k
8.	Soccer: Bundesliga (Germany) 13.2m, 43.5k
9.	Soccer: EFL Championship (England) 11.1m, 20.1k
10.	Soccer: La Liga (Spain) 10.1m, 26.8k
11.	Soccer: Serie A (Italy) 9.5m, 25.2k
12.	Soccer: Ligue 1 (France) 8.6m, 22.7k
13.	Soccer: MLS (USA and Canada) 8.5m, 21.8k
14.	Australian Football: AFL (Australia) 7.5m, 36.6k
15.	Soccer: Campeonato Serie A (Brazil) 7.5m, 19.9k
16.	Baseball: KBO (South Korea) 7.2m, 10.1k
17.	Soccer: Liga MX (Mexico) 6.9m, 22.7k
18.	Soccer: Superliga (Argentina) 6.3m, 19.8k
19.	Soccer: Champions League (Europe) 6.1m, 49.3k
20.	Soccer: 2 Bundesliga (Germany) 5.8m, 19.1k
21.	Soccer: J-League (Japan) 5.8m, 19k
22.	Soccer: CSL (China) 5.7m, 24.1k
23.	Soccer: Eredivise (Netherlands) 5.4m, 17.9k
24.	Soccer: Europa League (Europe) 5.1m, 25.1k
25.	Soccer: Russian Premier League (Russia) 4m, 16.8k
26.	Soccer: Copa Libertadores (South America) 3.5m, 22.6k
27.	Soccer: Primeira Liga (Portugal) 3.5m, 11.6k
28.	Soccer: SPL (Scotland) 3.1m, 16k
29.	Rugby League: NRL (Australia) 3m, 15.2k 

Breakdown by sport:

-	Soccer: 20
-	Baseball: 3
-	American Football: 2
-	Ice Hockey: 1
-	Basketball: 1
-	Australian Football: 1
-	Rugby League: 1

Breakdown by region: 

-	Europe: 13
-	North and Central America: 7
-	Asia: 4
-	South America: 3
-	Oceania: 2

MLS will comfortably rise to 10m aggregate in the next few years.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Baseball in Japan is much more popular than I realised. I knew it was a major sport there but those attendances are on a par with those in the USA per capita.


----------



## Guest

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Baseball in Japan is much more popular than I realised. I knew it was a major sport there but those attendances are on a par with those in the USA per capita.


Yeah, baseball is like soccer in the UK, dominating sports coverage. Soccer, like in the US, is very much a newcomer on the professional sports scene in its current guise. NPB's history goes much further back, starting out in 1950s. And as an aside those attendances are accrued by just 12 professional teams which make up the NPB.

I think it's a fair comparison to say that baseball in Japan is like soccer in England, with soccer in Japan like rugby in the England. Maybe generalizes things a little, but I think it's in that ballpark.


----------



## Rugster

5portsF4n said:


> Professional and amateur club competitions, must have minimum of 3 million in aggregate/total attendance, as well as over 10k average:
> 
> 1.Baseball: MLB (USA and Canada) 68.4m, 28.1k
> 2.American Football (USA): NCAA Div 1 FBS 36.7m, 41.8k
> 3.Baseball: NPB (Japan) 26.5m, 30.9k
> 4.Ice Hockey: NHL (USA and Canada) 22.1m, 17.4k
> 5.Basketball: NBA (USA and Canada) 22.1m, 17.9k
> 6.American Football: NFL (USA) 17.1m, 67k
> 7.Soccer: Premier League (England) 14.5m, 38.1k
> 8.Soccer: Bundesliga (Germany) 13.2m, 43.5k
> 9.Soccer: EFL Championship (England) 11.1m, 20.1k
> 10.Soccer: La Liga (Spain) 10.1m, 26.8k
> 11.Soccer: Serie A (Italy) 9.5m, 25.2k
> 12.Soccer: Ligue 1 (France) 8.6m, 22.7k
> 13.Soccer: MLS (USA and Canada) 8.5m, 21.8k
> 14.Australian Football: AFL (Australia) 7.5m, 36.6k
> 15.Soccer: Campeonato Serie A (Brazil) 7.5m, 19.9k
> 16.Baseball: KBO (South Korea) 7.2m, 10.1k
> 17.Soccer: Liga MX (Mexico) 6.9m, 22.7k
> 18.Soccer: Superliga (Argentina) 6.3m, 19.8k
> 19.Soccer: Champions League (Europe) 6.1m, 49.3k
> 20.Soccer: 2 Bundesliga (Germany) 5.8m, 19.1k
> 21.Soccer: J-League (Japan) 5.8m, 19k
> 22.Soccer: CSL (China) 5.7m, 24.1k
> 23.Soccer: Eredivise (Netherlands) 5.4m, 17.9k
> 24.Soccer: Europa League (Europe) 5.1m, 25.1k
> 25.Soccer: Russian Premier League (Russia) 4m, 16.8k
> 26.Soccer: Copa Libertadores (South America) 3.5m, 22.6k
> 27.Soccer: Primeira Liga (Portugal) 3.5m, 11.6k
> 28.Soccer: SPL (Scotland) 3.1m, 16k
> 29.Rugby League: NRL (Australia) 3m, 15.2k
> 
> Breakdown by sport:
> 
> -Soccer: 20
> -Baseball: 3
> -American Football: 2
> -Ice Hockey: 1
> -Basketball: 1
> -Australian Football: 1
> -Rugby League: 1
> 
> Breakdown by region:
> 
> -Europe: 13
> -North and Central America: 7
> -Asia: 4
> -South America: 3
> -Oceania: 2
> 
> MLS will comfortably rise to 10m aggregate in the next few years.




Great list - I’m surprised the IPL isn’t in there - always seemed rammed games in that league


----------



## Guest

Rugster said:


> Great list - I’m surprised the IPL isn’t in there - always seemed rammed games in that league


While the IPL is highly attended per game, around 30k, it plays very few games, and as a result total attendance is around 1.5m.


----------



## GunnerJacket

5portsF4n said:


> While the IPL is highly attended per game, around 30k, it plays very few games, and as a result total attendance is around 1.5m.


Yeah. Last I checked it was 8 teams playing 14 games each, so a very limited window of opportunity. That won't bring in volumes of fans unless you're filling NFL-sized venues.


----------



## marcobruls

MLB baseball club plays a 162!!!!!games a season???


----------



## tinyslam

marcobruls said:


> MLB baseball club plays a 162!!!!!games a season???


Yes they play pretty much everyday. Usually they have an off day every week or two.


----------



## Guest

GunnerJacket said:


> Yeah. Last I checked it was 8 teams playing 14 games each, so a very limited window of opportunity. That won't bring in volumes of fans unless you're filling NFL-sized venues.


It’s an interesting format, but one that can only work in a sport like cricket. They have 1-2 games every single day for a month or so, which gives each game the feel of an event. 

But because the cricket calendar is skewed towards internationals, and because it has 3 different formats, the club game is squeezed into pockets of the year, to the point where you have 1 month long seasons in different countries spread out across the year. 

But it does make it more like March Madness than a league. And that’s why average attendance only tells part of the story. 30k IPL vs 29k MLB isnt apples and apples when one plays 60 games and the other over 2,500.



marcobruls said:


> MLB baseball club plays a 162!!!!!games a season???


You think that’s bad? At least MLB has 30 teams. Now imagine in Japan where each team plays 143 games, but there are only 11 other opponents. Ive seen soccer fans who follow leagues with a small number of teams moan about having to play the same opponent 3 times :lol:


----------



## flierfy

It may not include the play-offs this time. But here are the average attendances of the qualifiers for next years Euro:

68.153	England
66.819	France
54.394	Poland
47.061	Russia
45.508	Netherlands
43.634	Portugal
42.677	Ireland
41.930	Ukraine
39.721	Turkey
38.342	Germany
38.314	Spain
35.785	Belgium
32.871	Sweden
31.392	Italy
30.877	Wales
30.687	Romania
28.640	Austria
28.420	Georgia
27.499	Denmark
25.889	Scotland
22.889	Kazakhstan
20.132	Croatia
18.274	Northern Ireland
17.688	Hungary
17.598	Norway
16.959	Switzerland
14.557	Slovakia
13.932	Israel
13.671	Czechia
13.119	Finland
12.923	Macedonia
12.675	Belarus
12.546	Kosovo
12.421	Slovenia
11.477	Serbia
10.937	Armenia
9.775	Albania
9.690	Estonia
9.106	Azerbaijan
8.791	Malta
8.775	Iceland
8.175	Bosnia-H
8.050	Greece
7.229	Moldova
7.032	Bulgaria
6.915	Cyprus
5.595	Luxembourg
4.282	Latvia
4.281	Montenegro
4.046	Lithuania
3.047	Liechtenstein
2.895	Faroe Islands
1.944	Andorra
1.903	Gibraltar
1.902	San Marino

The Ukraine, Russia, Spain and Turkey were the positive surprises, while Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Scotland disappointed.

The biggest relative gainer was Croatia, who climbed back to over 20'000 from abysmal crowd sizes before. Azerbaijan on the other hand fell down to 39% of the attendance from 2 years ago.


----------



## Guest

Germany played a sold out game in Mainz (26k), sold out in Hamburg (51k). Their last two games, by the time they'd effectively qualified, were in Monchengladbach (33k in 46k capacity against Belarus), and Frankfurt (43k in 48k capacity against N Ireland). 

I suppose like France at SdF they could've just played all their games in Munich and came near the top of the list.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

5portsF4n said:


> Germany played a sold out game in Mainz (26k), sold out in Hamburg (51k). Their last two games, by the time they'd effectively qualified, were in Monchengladbach (33k in 46k capacity against Belarus), and Frankfurt (43k in 48k capacity against N Ireland).
> 
> I suppose like France at SdF they could've just played all their games in Munich and came near the top of the list.


I think it is disappointing that Germany averaged less than the Bundesliga. They're right to travel around the country but something is wrong if Monchengladbach is only 3/4 full even if the match is a dead rubber. Playing at different venues ought to drive high demand locally. It is Europe's 2nd most populous country, behind only Russia. You have to go a long way down the list to find another country with a lower average than is achieved in their domestic league. I've not done an exhaustive search but I can't find another.

England would clearly benefit from playing more games away from Wembley. As would France. Both would see a lower average attendance but would benefit from increased enthusiasm. The matches still held in London and Paris would probably attract larger crowds due to a decrease in frequency.


----------



## Guest

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> I think it is disappointing that Germany averaged less than the Bundesliga. They're right to travel around the country but something is wrong if Monchengladbach is only 3/4 full even if the match is a dead rubber. Playing at different venues ought to drive high demand locally. It is Europe's 2nd most populous country, behind only Russia. You have to go a long way down the list to find another country with a lower average than is achieved in their domestic league. I've not done an exhaustive search but I can't find another.
> 
> England would clearly benefit from playing more games away from Wembley. As would France. Both would see a lower average attendance but would benefit from increased enthusiasm. The matches still held in London and Paris would probably attract larger crowds due to a decrease in frequency.


The reality is that most European leagues aren't attended well. That their national teams average higher than the league shouldn't come as a surprise. 

I can't see much reason to castigate Germany for 'disappointing' attendances when we're talking about 1 game, against a dreadful team, with qualification practically sealed, and still with almost 35k there. 

That being said, you aren't alone in your line of thinking. This is what Joshua Kimmich said in the lead up to that game: 



> Joshua Kimmich says Germany hope to seduce home fans with "sexy football" to brush Belarus aside on Saturday, in an attempt to boost both flagging attendance figures and their bid to qualify for the Euro 2020 finals.
> 
> Fan interest has never been so low since Joachim Loew took charge of Germany in 2006, with average attendances for home internationals dropping to a paltry 37,162 and only two thirds of the tickets for both remaining home qualifiers sold so far.
> 
> An emphatic win over Belarus in Moenchengladbach could help win back any fans still disgruntled by their woeful 2018 World Cup campaign when Germany came last in their group.
> 
> "First and foremost, we are responsible for getting people into the stadium whether we play sexy football or not," said midfielder Kimmich in Duesseldorf.


----------



## flierfy

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> England would clearly benefit from playing more games away from Wembley.


In which way would it be beneficial? England is the best supported football team on this planet. They fill the biggest grounds home and away. Anything less than Wembley is simply too small for them.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

flierfy said:


> In which way would it be beneficial? England is the best supported football team on this planet. They fill the biggest grounds home and away. Anything less than Wembley is simply too small for them.


1) Wembley isn't always full.
These are the Wembley attendances for 2018 & 2019
v Bulgaria 82,605
v Montenegro 77,277
v Czech Republic 82,575
v Spain 81,392
v Croatia 78,221
v USA 68,155
v Italy 82,595
v Nigeria 70,025​
2) The north of England feels cut off from the national team. There ought to be a few more matches at other stadia.

In that period there have also been matches at Elland Road, Leicester and Southampton. All sold out. These grounds are strange choices as they are all too small. Should have been Newcastle, Anfield, Old Trafford, Manchester City and Villa Park. I'd only have played two more matches away from Wembley. They would be sell outs and having fewer fixtures in London would increase demand for those that remain. The total attendance would probably be very similar.


----------



## Guest

The FA have a stadium to pay off. I don't think it's realistic to be talking about taking games away from Wembley. 

And now with Spurs and even Arsenal attracting events that might otherwise have ended up at Wembley, even less reason to move England around.


----------



## flierfy

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> 1) Wembley isn't always full.
> These are the Wembley attendances for 2018 & 2019
> v Bulgaria 82,605
> v Montenegro 77,277
> v Czech Republic 82,575
> v Spain 81,392
> v Croatia 78,221
> v USA 68,155
> v Italy 82,595
> v Nigeria 70,025​


The 80'000+ crowds were probably sell-outs nonetheless. And only two of these crowds would have fitted in excactly one ground in the north. The FA is well advised to keep playing these matches at Wembley.



OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> 2) The north of England feels cut off from the national team. There ought to be a few more matches at other stadia.


The training centre at St George Park is located in Derbyshire, I think. Derbyshire is generally considered north of England.



OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> In that period there have also been matches at Elland Road, Leicester and Southampton. All sold out. These grounds are strange choices as they are all too small. Should have been Newcastle, Anfield, Old Trafford, Manchester City and Villa Park. I'd only have played two more matches away from Wembley. They would be sell outs and having fewer fixtures in London would increase demand for those that remain. The total attendance would probably be very similar.


The biggest attendance for an England match at Old Trafford in this century is 72'062 (the average is 62'816). This number alone already suggests that your plan won't add up and that playing away from Wembley will inevitable result in lower attendances.

I'm curious to know how you justify the necessary rent payment for the stadium use to a handful of clubs in the north while every other club doesn't receive such a windfall.


----------



## jts1882

flierfy said:


> It may not include the play-offs this time. But here are the average attendances of the qualifiers for next years Euro:
> 
> 68.153	England
> 66.819	France
> 54.394	Poland
> 47.061	Russia
> 45.508	Netherlands
> 43.634	Portugal
> *42.677	Ireland*
> 41.930	Ukraine
> 39.721	Turkey
> 38.342	Germany
> 38.314	Spain
> 35.785	Belgium
> 32.871	Sweden
> 31.392	Italy
> 30.877	Wales
> 30.687	Romania
> 28.640	Austria
> 28.420	Georgia
> 27.499	Denmark
> 25.889	Scotland
> 22.889	Kazakhstan
> 20.132	Croatia
> *18.274	Northern Ireland*
> 17.688	Hungary
> 17.598	Norway
> 16.959	Switzerland
> 14.557	Slovakia
> 13.932	Israel
> 13.671	Czechia
> 13.119	Finland
> 12.923	Macedonia
> 12.675	Belarus
> 12.546	Kosovo
> 12.421	Slovenia
> 11.477	Serbia
> 10.937	Armenia
> 9.775	Albania
> 9.690	Estonia
> 9.106	Azerbaijan
> 8.791	Malta
> 8.775	Iceland
> 8.175	Bosnia-H
> 8.050	Greece
> 7.229	Moldova
> 7.032	Bulgaria
> 6.915	Cyprus
> 5.595	Luxembourg
> 4.282	Latvia
> 4.281	Montenegro
> 4.046	Lithuania
> 3.047	Liechtenstein
> 2.895	Faroe Islands
> 1.944	Andorra
> 1.903	Gibraltar
> 1.902	San Marino
> 
> The Ukraine, Russia, Spain and Turkey were the positive surprises, while Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Scotland disappointed.
> 
> The biggest relative gainer was Croatia, who climbed back to over 20'000 from abysmal crowd sizes before. Azerbaijan on the other hand fell down to 39% of the attendance from 2 years ago.


I think the Irish deserve a special mention. Ireland, where soccer isn't their major code of football, is only behind some big football nations. Northern Ireland, a footballing minnow, is just behind Denmark, Scotland and Croatia and ahead of Norway, Switzerland and Serbia.


----------



## Guest

jts1882 said:


> I think the Irish deserve a special mention. Ireland, where soccer isn't their major code of football, is only behind some big football nations. Northern Ireland, a footballing minnow, is just behind Denmark, Scotland and Croatia and ahead of Norway, Switzerland and Serbia.


Soccer is still incredibly popular in Ireland. I think it deserves a special mention as it’s the smallest country of the top 14, but not because of the game’s standing. In terms of sports related Google searches soccer makes up the majority of the top 25 results in Ireland, so popularity doesnt seem to be an issue.

When you have clubs with strong identities to represent your identity to project to the rest of the world, you’re probably less interested in national team, as you dont need it as much for identity building. The Irish, who follow the EPL in droves with barely any interest in domestic league, probably view their national team as the only way to express their identity of being Irish in the world of soccer. You see the a fair bit with countries where soccer is popular but are too small or poor to have a strong domestic league. Of those other names you mentioned, Denmark, Croatia, Serbia, Switzerland, Norway all have domestic leagues with strong club identities in those countries going back a long time.

The interesting comparison is Scotland and Ireland. 

One has soccer as their national sport, and a strong domestic league, with a poor national team and lacklustre support. 

The other doesnt have it as their national sport, but has for a long time now had a better national team with good support, despite having a poorly followed domestic league, with most fans following English clubs.

To me it highlights that using national team attendance to gauge interest is too simplistic. You need to look at all the variables. 

Italy’s national team attendance for a long time has been poor. But you’d be hard pressed to find a European country where soccer dominates the public mindset more than Italy. Maybe Portugal is the only one.


----------



## nicko_viteh

Northern Ireland plays at Windsor Park, that can fit 18.5K.

Ireland plays at Lansdowne Road, with a capacity of 50K. ROI can have such a stadium because it's also the home for the rugby union team. There's no comparison.


----------



## Guest

nicko_viteh said:


> Northern Ireland plays at Windsor Park, that can fit 18.5K.
> 
> Ireland plays at Lansdowne Road, with a capacity of 50K. ROI can have such a stadium because it's also the home for the rugby union team. There's no comparison.


Who compared Ireland and N Ireland? No one apart from you.


----------



## nicko_viteh

5portsF4n said:


> Who compared Ireland and N Ireland? No one apart from you.


And jts1882:



jts1882 said:


> I think the Irish deserve a special mention. *Ireland*, where soccer isn't their major code of football, is only behind some big football nations. *Northern Ireland*, a footballing minnow, is just behind Denmark, Scotland and Croatia and ahead of Norway, Switzerland and Serbia.


----------



## Fabio1976

5portsF4n said:


> Current averages for soccer leagues above 5,000 (including both domestic and continental club competitions). Due to no reliable data, doesn’t include Argentina and Saudi Arabia, both of which are likely to be above 5,000. In Argentina’s case, average attendance is probably between 15,000 and 20,000.
> 
> 1.	Europe: Champions League 43,648 (32 teams)
> 2.	Germany: First Division 40,517 (18 teams)
> 3.	England: First Division 39,359 (20 teams)
> 4.	Spain: First Division 28,523 (20 teams)
> 5.	Italy: First Division 26,700 (20 teams)
> 6.	China: First Division 23,868 (16 teams)
> 7.	South America: Copa Libertadores 23,568 (47 teams)
> 8.	Europe: Europa League 23,465 (48 teams)
> 9.	Mexico: First Division 22,882 (18 teams)
> 10.	France: First Division 22,745 (20 teams)
> 11.	Brazil: First Division 22,180 (20 teams)
> 12.	USA/Canada: First Division 21,311 (24 teams)
> 13.	Germany: Second Division 20,391 (18 teams)
> 14.	Japan: First Division 20,366 (18 teams)
> 15.	England: Second Division 18,667 (24 teams)
> 16.	Russia: First Division 18,075 (16 teams)
> 17.	Netherlands: First Division 17,445 (18 teams)
> 18.	India: First Division 17,385 (10 teams)
> 19.	South America: Sudamericana 15,971 (48 teams)
> 20.	Scotland: First Division 15,122 (12 teams)
> 21.	Asia: Champions League 14,756 (32 teams)
> 22.	Turkey: First Division 14,457 (18 teams)
> 23.	Portugal: First Division 11,958 (18 teams)
> 24.	Australia: First Division 11,868 (11 teams)
> 25.	Switzerland: First Division 11,415 (10 teams)
> 26.	Belgium: First Division 11,072 (16 teams)
> 27.	Poland: First Division 9,961 (16 teams)
> 28.	Spain: Second Division 9,717 (22 teams)
> 29.	Indonesia: First Division 9,611 (18 teams)
> 30.	Iran: First Division 9,433 (16 teams)
> 31.	China: Second Division 9,202
> 32.	Sweden: First Division 9,162 (16 teams)
> 33.	Germany: Third Division 8,693 (20 teams)
> 34.	England: Third Division 8,440 (24 teams)
> 35.	Colombia: First Division 8,250 (20 teams)
> 36.	South Korea: First Division 8,065 (12 teams)
> 37.	South Africa: First Division 7,831 (16 teams)
> 38.	Greece: First Division 7,610 (14 teams)
> 39.	Vietnam: First Division 7,463 (14 teams)
> 40.	Chile: First Division 7,001 (16 teams)
> 41.	France: Second Division 6,931 (20 teams)
> 42.	Denmark: First Division 6,701 (14 teams)
> 43.	Austria: First Division 6,556 (12 teams)
> 44.	Italy: Second Division 6,060 (20 teams)
> 45.	Thailand: First Division 6,045 (16 teams)
> 46.	Malaysia: First Division 5,786 (12 teams)
> 47.	Czech Republic: First Division 5,783 (16 teams)
> 48.	Norway: First Division 5,778 (16 teams)
> 49.	Brazil: Second Division 5,495 (20 teams)


Very interesting!!


----------



## gabriel campos

Final average in Brazil


----------



## GunnerJacket

Am I mistaken or is that a really low mark for Santos?


----------



## alex_lg

^^ Santos FC Stadium (Vila Belmiro) is very little, only has 16,068 seats. 

Santos city has 433,000 inhabitants.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Do Vasco da Gama play all their matches at Estádio São Januário? If so they really need to find a way to expand.


----------



## gabriel campos

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Do Vasco da Gama play all their matches at Estádio São Januário? If so they really need to find a way to expand.


Yes, but in this season played once in Brasília and the last match played in Maracanã. 

Recent expansion project around 43K


----------



## Red85

5portsF4n said:


> Current averages for soccer leagues above 5,000 (including both domestic and continental club competitions). Due to no reliable data, doesn’t include Argentina and Saudi Arabia, both of which are likely to be above 5,000. In Argentina’s case, average attendance is probably between 15,000 and 20,000.
> 
> 1.	Europe: Champions League 43,648 (32 teams)
> 2.	Germany: First Division 40,517 (18 teams)
> 3.	England: First Division 39,359 (20 teams)
> 4.	Spain: First Division 28,523 (20 teams)
> 5.	Italy: First Division 26,700 (20 teams)
> 6.	China: First Division 23,868 (16 teams)
> 7.	South America: Copa Libertadores 23,568 (47 teams)
> 8.	Europe: Europa League 23,465 (48 teams)
> 9.	Mexico: First Division 22,882 (18 teams)
> 10.	France: First Division 22,745 (20 teams)
> 11.	Brazil: First Division 22,180 (20 teams)
> 12.	USA/Canada: First Division 21,311 (24 teams)
> 13.	Germany: Second Division 20,391 (18 teams)
> 14.	Japan: First Division 20,366 (18 teams)
> 15.	England: Second Division 18,667 (24 teams)
> 16.	Russia: First Division 18,075 (16 teams)
> 17.	Netherlands: First Division 17,445 (18 teams)
> 18.	India: First Division 17,385 (10 teams)
> 19.	South America: Sudamericana 15,971 (48 teams)
> 20.	Scotland: First Division 15,122 (12 teams)
> 21.	Asia: Champions League 14,756 (32 teams)
> 22.	Turkey: First Division 14,457 (18 teams)
> 23.	Portugal: First Division 11,958 (18 teams)
> 24.	Australia: First Division 11,868 (11 teams)
> 25.	Switzerland: First Division 11,415 (10 teams)
> 26.	Belgium: First Division 11,072 (16 teams)
> 27.	Poland: First Division 9,961 (16 teams)
> 28.	Spain: Second Division 9,717 (22 teams)
> 29.	Indonesia: First Division 9,611 (18 teams)
> 30.	Iran: First Division 9,433 (16 teams)
> 31.	China: Second Division 9,202
> 32.	Sweden: First Division 9,162 (16 teams)
> 33.	Germany: Third Division 8,693 (20 teams)
> 34.	England: Third Division 8,440 (24 teams)
> 35.	Colombia: First Division 8,250 (20 teams)
> 36.	South Korea: First Division 8,065 (12 teams)
> 37.	South Africa: First Division 7,831 (16 teams)
> 38.	Greece: First Division 7,610 (14 teams)
> 39.	Vietnam: First Division 7,463 (14 teams)
> 40.	Chile: First Division 7,001 (16 teams)
> 41.	France: Second Division 6,931 (20 teams)
> 42.	Denmark: First Division 6,701 (14 teams)
> 43.	Austria: First Division 6,556 (12 teams)
> 44.	Italy: Second Division 6,060 (20 teams)
> 45.	Thailand: First Division 6,045 (16 teams)
> 46.	Malaysia: First Division 5,786 (12 teams)
> 47.	Czech Republic: First Division 5,783 (16 teams)
> 48.	Norway: First Division 5,778 (16 teams)
> 49.	Brazil: Second Division 5,495 (20 teams)


Over which season is this?
The Eredivisie had over 2018-2019 an average of 17,964 according to this source:
https://www.voetbal.com/toeschouwers/ned-eredivisie-2018-2019/1/

The wiki pages EN and NL say even 18,004 but have no sources.


----------



## alex_lg

*Chile Primera División - 2019 Season average attendance by team*


----------



## flierfy

Due to the much talked about spread of a certain virus football matches in Germany, among many other countries, will be played behind closed doors for an unforeseeable period of time. This will have a huge impact on attendance figures obviously. For this reason I decided to publish the numbers as of today:










The percentage in the first column indicates the share of the entire season which has been played until today for each division.


----------



## GunnerJacket

flierfy said:


> Due to the much talked about spread of a certain virus football matches in Germany, among many other countries, will be played behind closed doors for an unforeseeable period of time. This will have a huge impact on attendance figures obviously. For this reason I decided to publish the numbers as of today:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The percentage in the first column indicates the share of the entire season which has been played until today for each division.


I imagine most leagues will adjust the figures to reflect attendance averages as being only for those matches open to the public. No logic in including the closed-door events because those are not indicative of normal conditions. The whole point of measuring this stuff is to inform concessionaires, advertisers, and broadcast partners know what constitutes a typical event, and games closed due to epidemics are anything but normal.


----------



## BillericaySpurs

flierfy said:


> Due to the much talked about spread of a certain virus football matches in Germany, among many other countries, will be played behind closed doors for an unforeseeable period of time. This will have a huge impact on attendance figures obviously. For this reason I decided to publish the numbers as of today:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The percentage in the first column indicates the share of the entire season which has been played until today for each division.


Arsenal play to half empty stadiums some time and still list a full house using the tickets sold ruse, in a weird way clubs could do the same even if all season ticket holders were not present.


----------



## GunnerJacket

BillericaySpurs said:


> Arsenal play to half empty stadiums some time and still list a full house using the tickets sold ruse, in a weird way clubs could do the same even if all season ticket holders were not present.


As has been addressed in this thread and elsewhere this is a thing for a lot of clubs. Most leagues employ a standard for their reporting purposes.


----------



## BillericaySpurs

GunnerJacket said:


> As has been addressed in this thread and elsewhere this is a thing for a lot of clubs. Most leagues employ a standard for their reporting purposes.


Indeed they do, but it makes average attendance tables redundant in my view. The only figure that interests people is actual bums on seats. The old fashioned way, in my opinion.


----------



## deebs

This is going to be a wacky thread once anyone has the energy to try to compile and compare attendances from 2020!

The Australian Football (AFL) regular season would ordinarily have wrapped up this week, but most of this season (with a much reduced fixture) has been played to empty or heavily-limited stadiums and still has a few weeks to run before the finals. My usual sources for crowd stats haven't even bothered to compile attendance figures at all, although I'm sure someone somewhere has been trying to keep track.

Here's my post from another thread that touches on the year's disruptions Down Under, with a focus on the first-ever move of the premiership game away from Melbourne.



deebs said:


> More context on the AFL grand final for all you sports fans out there:
> 
> This is the premiership match for the Australian Football League, arguably the world's oldest football code with the rules drawn up in 1859.
> 
> The first Australian football match was played in Melbourne's Yarra Park, just outside the Melbourne Cricket Ground, in August 1858.
> 
> While the shape of the league and format to decide a season winner has changed a few times over the subsequent 161 years, since 1902 the premiership game has been played at the MCG on every occasion but five - four years during WW2 when the MCG was requisitioned as a military camp, and 1991 when the the stadium was undergoing a major rebuild and the match was held at the now-demolished VFL Park in the Melbourne suburb of Waverley.
> 
> The Grand Final has never left Melbourne, despite the league progressively expanding from a Victoria-only competition to an Australia-wide competition from 1981, and has been contracted to remain at the MCG until 2057.
> 
> The AFL Grand Final has the highest average attendance of any equivalent event, challenged only by the largest of the US college football games. The first crowd of 100,000+ was in 1956, exploiting the newly constructed Northern (later Olympic) Stand just completed in advance of the XVI Olympiad, for which the MCG was the main stadium, although a dangerously over-capacity 96,486 crammed in to the 1938 event, just after the construction of the now-demolished Southern Stand. The record official attendance was 121,696 in 1970.
> 
> After the total rebuild of the stadium over the last three decades, and the adoption of modern safety standards and the reduction in standing room, Grand Final crowds have hovered around the 100,000 mark, somewhat suspiciously(!) creeping over that mark by just 14, 21 and 22 people in the last three years.
> 
> This year's pandemic has thrown the AFL season into disarray. Games began - as scheduled but without crowds - over 19–22 March before being paused; round 2 of a re-fixtured season resumed on 11 June. The two Melbourne stadiums (MCG and Docklands) continued to host some matches until 5 July when a second-wave outbreak in Melbourne resulted in prohibitive travel restrictions and prompted the AFL to adopt a "hub" model for the rest of the season, under which most Melbourne teams relocated to Queensland.
> 
> Since then, a reduced season has been played across all Australian states and the Northern Territory, albeit with severe attendance restrictions, but not in Victoria, Tasmania or the Australian Capital Territory - all of which would usually have seen matches played.
> 
> Although Melbourne is likely to have emerged from its second COVID wave by the time the Grand Final is played at the end of October - a month later than usual - the need for certainty around planning and attendance has made it obvious for several weeks that the game would move interstate for the first time. The primary contenders to host the prestigious event were Perth Stadium - where a capacity crowd of 60,000+ may have been possible - and the Gabba (42,000, but likely to be capped at 30,000 for the grand final) in Brisbane.
> 
> Although Queensland is not a traditional Australian Football stronghold (preferring the rival Rugby League code), the AFL has apparently favoured the opportunity to "grow the game" by rewarding the match to Brisbane. Western Australians - always fanatical Australian Football supporters - are likely to be, shall we say, disappointed. The decision was also influenced by the AFL's gratitude to the Queensland state government for facilitating the complex requirements of the hastily arranged hub for many of the Victorian clubs.
> 
> The Grand Final - traditionally played on a Saturday afternoon - will be played at night for the first time, a controversial proposal that has been pushed by the AFL's TV network for several years but resisted by traditionalists and, until now, the league. It remains to be seen whether this will be the foot-in-the-door that forces the matter once the game (presumably!) returns to Melbourne in 2021. The current contract to hold the game at the MCG has been extended one year to 2058 as compensation for the move.
> 
> September in Melbourne - which prides itself as one of the world's great sporting cities and where football is something of a religion - will be a very different experience this year without football finals at the MCG. The city even has a public holiday the day before the Grand Final - the only place in the world to grant everyone a day off in honour of a football match, and not even on the same day! This year the holiday will be repurposed as a day of thanks following (hopefully!) the end of the lockdowns and nighttime curfew that have successfully curtailed the second COVID wave but have robbed the city of one of its signature cultural elements, the winter football season, from the AFL to the smallest suburban kids leagues. There is cautious optimism that the other major sporting events on the Melbourne calendar - the Spring horse-racing carnival and Melbourne Cup, the Boxing Day cricket test, and the late-January Australian Open tennis - will be staged, albeit with reduced crowds.
> 
> 
> -----
> 
> deebs


----------



## deebs

A post-COVID world-record crowd of 78,113 attended the annual ANZAC Day AFL match between Collingwood and Essendon at the Melbourne Cricket Ground last weekend.

Attendance was capped at 85% of the stadium's 100,000 capacity, so the ground wasn't quite "full", but hopes are high that by September's Grand Final a genuine full house will be able to see the championship match for the first time since 2019.










Photo Quinn Rooney/Getty Images via Yahoo!Sport


----------



## alexandru.mircea

I used to post Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 attendances every year. The LFP website does not have the attendances page anymore, but I'd like to extract the figures from each match's individual page because each team has played once at home by now (in the 2021-22 season). And I don't think there are capacity restrictions anymore, so I was curious how are attendances going. Usually, the first couple of rounds, when people are away on holidays, have 15%-20% smaller attendances than the season average.

Round 2:
Lorient 12149
Lille 30144
PSG 46962
Angers 6154 (stadium rebuild underway)
Brest 14271
Clermont 11005
Nantes 12054
Reims 8887
Lens 35541
Marseille 50000

Round 1
Monaco: had a stadium ban, apparently
Lyon 29018
Troyes 15248
Rennes 22567
Bordeaux 18748
Nice 18030
Saint-Etienne 20461
Strasbourg 23250
Metz 15551 (stadium rebuild underway)
Montpellier 13459

Total 403499, divided by 19 = 21236. At first look this is impressive, hinting towards a new record after the 2018-19 record (22831) that had surpassed itself the 2017-18 record.

EDIT: The third round is still underway but if I were to add Monaco's attendance from its already completed match in the third round (6483), the total would be 409982 and divided by 20 it would give 20499.


----------



## forestforever

alexandru.mircea said:


> I used to post Ligue 1 and Ligue 2 attendances every year. The LFP website does not have the attendances page anymore, but I'd like to extract the figures from each match's individual page because each team has played once at home by now (in the 2021-22 season). And I don't think there are capacity restrictions anymore, so I was curious how are attendances going. Usually, the first couple of rounds, when people are away on holidays, have 15%-20% smaller attendances than the season average.
> 
> Round 2:
> Lorient 12149
> Lille 30144
> PSG 46962
> Angers 6154 (stadium rebuild underway)
> Brest 14271
> Clermont 11005
> Nantes 12054
> Reims 8887
> Lens 35541
> Marseille 50000
> 
> Round 1
> Monaco: had a stadium ban, apparently
> Lyon 29018
> Troyes 15248
> Rennes 22567
> Bordeaux 18748
> Nice 18030
> Saint-Etienne 20461
> Strasbourg 23250
> Metz 15551 (stadium rebuild underway)
> Montpellier 13459
> 
> Total 403499, divided by 19 = 21236. At first look this is impressive, hinting towards a new record after the 2018-19 record (22831) that had surpassed itself the 2017-18 record.
> 
> EDIT: The third round is still underway but if I were to add Monaco's attendance from its already completed match in the third round (6483), the total would be 409982 and divided by 20 it would give 20499.


Are you able to get how many plastic bottles were thrown at Nice too


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Guess which team will probably be getting a few stadium bans to screw up the attendance averages... )

Speaking of violent crowds, OF COURSE there was no stadium ban in Monaco for their first home match (the season opener), it's the tamest venue in the competition lol. The reason why the attendance is listed as 0 on the league's website is probably that the league hasn't yet verified that attendance figure. L'équipe gives the real attendance as 7500, which gives a total of 410999 and an average (divided by 20) of 20549.


----------



## deebs

Update on the relocation of the AFL grand final for the second year running, nixing any chance of its traditional 100,000 attendance.



deebs said:


> Optus Stadium (61,000) will host the Australian Football League grand final on 25 September, only the second time that this marquee event will have left Melbourne over the 150+ years of the code's history.
> 
> Last year the match was played at the Gabba in Brisbane. Both decisions were the result of on-going Covid outbreaks in the game's traditional home, where the premiership game is the highlight of the sporting calendar and is typically played in front of a crowd of 100,000+ at the MCG. The match will return to the MCG next year (surely!), where it is contracted to be played until at least 2058, a date further extended by one year following a similar agreement to compensate for the 2020 move.
> 
> The 2021 AFL season has been the second in a row heavily impacted by rolling outbreaks and lockdowns. While the season began in front of restricted but sizeable crowds - including a post-Covid world record crowd of 78,000 at the MCG last March - various states have subsequently suffered outbreaks that either nixed crowds or sent teams into interstate bubbles.
> 
> This year's final series has for the first time seen matches at UTAS Stadium (20,000) in Launceston, Tasmania, as well as the Adelaide Oval, the Gabba in Brisbane, and Optus Stadium in Perth. No finals could be hosted in Melbourne or Sydney, which are both under heavy lockdowns.
> 
> Although traditionalists were relieved that last year's experiment with a night-time grand final in Brisbane was not due to be repeated in 2021, the relocated match is likely to be scheduled for the Perth late-afternoon, which would place it in evening prime time for the eastern states. The game has always previously been played on a Saturday afternoon.


----------



## pesto

BillericaySpurs said:


> Indeed they do, but it makes average attendance tables redundant in my view. The only figure that interests people is actual bums on seats. The old fashioned way, in my opinion.


Not so. Physical attendance may reflect giveaways of seats, heavily discounted sales or donations to people who really have minimal interest or likelihood of attending again unless it's free. In short, it reflects an attempt to look like there are people in the seats and demand exists.

By contrast, people who are paying for a ticket or season pass are very likely to have a continuing interest in the team and anyone dealing with the ownership commercially would be interested in how big their revenues are, not sheer numbers..


----------



## Ramanaramana

If someone has attended an event even if they have no broader interest in it, they have still chosen to use their most precious commodity - time - to attend.

We already know Arsenal are one of the biggest earners in matchday revenue. No one disputes that. But if we're talking strictly about attendances, I'd prefer to know how many people actually showed up, paid ticket or otherwise. In a hypothetical, if a club convinces 15,000 people to attend by giving them a free ticket, it would be an amazing achievement. In reality, that's never going to happen, and the effect of free tickets in popular leagues like the PL is negligible. Most people who are offered something for free don't instinctively jump onboard, as there's usually a reason why they've never bothered to pay for a ticket prior.

A sports club does not have an infinite amount of curious onlookers or 'people who have minimal interest' to draw upon. Which means that over time they would lose their capacity to find people to fill those seats. If people are only there because of free tickets, they'll get weeded out over time and a true reflection of attendance would manifest.

Of course, that's not the case with Arsenal. In fact they are the opposite. Fans who would otherwise go week in week out yesteryear have been priced out because the middle class takeover of the game has created a new brigade of 'consumers' who will book their place for when the times are good but are more than happy to sit out matches when the team is shite or the opponents deemed uninteresting.

London can also charge higher prices than Liverpool, and that will always be the case as it's a richer city with higher wages. But if Liverpool had a stadium as big as Arsenal or Spurs, they'd outdraw both clubs, even though they'd generate less money, which makes sense as Liverpool are a bigger club than those two. That would be a case of attendance reflecting popularity and interest more than matchday revenue.

When talking about attendances, that's what we should be interested in. If we want to discuss total revenue or matchday revenue, that's fine, but it's a different discussion to attendance.

I understand how leagues choose to report attendance, and have no real problem with it, but it would make attendance discussion much more interesting if we only counted actual attendance.


----------



## pesto

Ramanaramana said:


> If someone has attended an event even if they have no broader interest in it, they have still chosen to use their most precious commodity - time - to attend.
> 
> We already know Arsenal are one of the biggest earners in matchday revenue. No one disputes that. But if we're talking strictly about attendances, I'd prefer to know how many people actually showed up, paid ticket or otherwise. In a hypothetical, if a club convinces 15,000 people to attend by giving them a free ticket, it would be an amazing achievement. In reality, that's never going to happen, and the effect of free tickets in popular leagues like the PL is negligible. Most people who are offered something for free don't instinctively jump onboard, as there's usually a reason why they've never bothered to pay for a ticket prior.
> 
> A sports club does not have an infinite amount of curious onlookers or 'people who have minimal interest' to draw upon. Which means that over time they would lose their capacity to find people to fill those seats. If people are only there because of free tickets, they'll get weeded out over time and a true reflection of attendance would manifest.
> 
> Of course, that's not the case with Arsenal. In fact they are the opposite. Fans who would otherwise go week in week out yesteryear have been priced out because the middle class takeover of the game has created a new brigade of 'consumers' who will book their place for when the times are good but are more than happy to sit out matches when the team is shite or the opponents deemed uninteresting.
> 
> London can also charge higher prices than Liverpool, and that will always be the case as it's a richer city with higher wages. But if Liverpool had a stadium as big as Arsenal or Spurs, they'd outdraw both clubs, even though they'd generate less money, which makes sense as Liverpool are a bigger club than those two. That would be a case of attendance reflecting popularity and interest more than matchday revenue.
> 
> When talking about attendances, that's what we should be interested in. If we want to discuss total revenue or matchday revenue, that's fine, but it's a different discussion to attendance.
> 
> I understand how leagues choose to report attendance, and have no real problem with it, but it would make attendance discussion much more interesting if we only counted actual attendance.


Some of these points might not help you in an interview for a marketing job. But, let me give a real example from one of the Asian language threads on another site:

A poster claimed that country x got 20k attendance at a tournament match between 2 obscure sides and this proved how much demand for soccer there was in that city. Someone responded that actual sales were 4000 seats at the equivalent of US$.25 (that is, 25 cents each) and the other 16k were given away free with locals pressured to attend or lose their jobs.

That’s a gross of $1000. By contrast, a game I went to (happened to be baseball) had single tickets asking for $2000 (mine were more like $130, two sections further back).

These are facts that would interest ownership, the league, FIFA, potential investors, media, advertisers, vendors, credit institutions, etc. Those going to the matches already know whether they got what they wanted.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

Maybe we can solve this by having tickets sold and attendance figures.... whereby clubs sell 40k but actually have more or less in the crowd due to reasons that people don’t attend or in the case of some places where fans often jump the turnstiles. (Certainly the case in South America)


----------



## pesto

Juanpabloangel said:


> Maybe we can solve this by having tickets sold and attendance figures.... whereby clubs sell 40k but actually have more or less in the crowd due to reasons that people don’t attend or in the case of some places where fans often jump the turnstiles. (Certainly the case in South America)


LOL. Unfortunately those people don't really count since they aren't paying for tickets or are not very likely to buy things once inside. But it could cause a "bandwagon" effect, if their presence makes people believe that the match is something worth seeing.

Ticket revenues is better than attendance, but gameday revenues is a better measure than either. Since margins are known ahead of time, gameday revenues is the simple way to see how well you are doing and also let's others see if their model cold work better. Of course, this has to supplemented by media and other revenues to get a full picture.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

So, I quickly gave up on following Ligue 1 attendances this season because of the many stadium bans due to fan misbehaving, but I found this website seemingly using the L1 official figures to put out a centralised table which is very useful: deux-zero.com

If the figure of *20976 *as season average so far is correct, then it's better than what I was expecting with all the pandemic context and the crowd trouble. Ignoring the three rounds played with the 5k covid restriction, the attendance so far would be *21409*.

The largest total attendance of any round happened on the 27th round, when Marseille played home (56k), as did Lens (36k), Saint-Etienne (35k), Lille (33k), Nice (31k) and Rennes (27k). The ensuing average was *28746*. Most of the small clubs were playing away, only Reims (10k) and Lorient (13k) registered under 20K attendances.

The second highest total attendance was on round 10 with Marseille (57k), Lyon (50k), PSG (47k), Bordeaux (39k) and Strasbourg (29k) playing at home. The average was downed by Troyes (7k), Brest (9k), Clermont (11k) and Montpellier (12k).

The lowest average attendance without any stadium bans or Covid restrictions happened on round 1 (*18383*), when all of Marseille, PSG, Lens, Lille and Nantes happened to play away, while Lyon and Nice only recorded a 29k and respectively 18k attendance.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

There is also an average attendance table per club, with home attendances on the left and away attendances on the right: deux-zero.com

Not many surprises on the left, I'd just give a mention to Montpellier who have gradually diminished into a small club. On the right, it is interesting but unsurprising to see PSG, Lyon, Monaco and Nice to be the top four teams most attracting attendances where they travel, while Marseille dropped mid-table by having _four_ big fixtures played behind closed doors (PSG, Lyon, Nice and Bordeaux) and another one played with the 5K covid attendance limit (Lens).

EDIT: and a first mistake I spotted, PSG - Marseille was not played behind closed doors, something's wrong. I think the authorities have not confirmed the figures yet.

Finally, I was surprised to the Reims and Strasbourg as the least appealing visiting teams, these are two traditional clubs, one of which is still quite successful now. Rennes fourth least appealing, Lille sixth (the champions!).


----------



## Colm Flynn

Average attendance so far in the top 5 divisions in England 2022/23

Prem









Championship









League 1









League 2









National League


----------



## Ramanaramana

45k average is easily doable this decade with planned expansions, even accounting for Bournemouth and Brentford staying in the league. Replace them with just about anyone else and it becomes easier, although I expect another Amex on the south coast at some point.

Who knows maybe real terracing returns too, and then we're talking 50k as real possibility.


----------



## Colm Flynn

Ramanaramana said:


> 45k average is easily doable this decade with planned expansions, even accounting for Bournemouth and Brentford staying in the league. Replace them with just about anyone else and it becomes easier, although I expect another Amex on the south coast at some point.
> 
> Who knows maybe real terracing returns too, and then we're talking 50k as real possibility.


If Sunderland go back up, with Anfield Expansion, Everton new stadium, Leciester City expansion, then it is possible.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Colm Flynn said:


> If Sunderland go back up, with Anfield Expansion, Everton new stadium, Leciester City expansion, then it is possible.


Sunderland, Sheff Wed et all replacing the capacity cellar-dwellers would help absolutely. Assuming it's the same teams as this season though, I don't think ~45k is out of the realm of possibility by decade's end.

United 80k at least
West Ham 68k
Tottenham 62k
Arsenal 60k
City 60k
Liverpool 61k
Newcastle 60k
Villa 50k
Chelsea 60k
Everton 51k
Leeds at least 40k
Leicester 40k
Brighton 31k
Wolves 38k
Southampton 30k
Nottingham 38k
Palace 34k
Fulham 30k
Brentford 17k
Bournemouth 22k

Many of these capacities are based on figures that have been bandied about when clubs have discussed expansion. At 95% occupancy it'd be over 44,000 average.

Don't think anything above is overly optimistic. As long as clubs are committed to improving their stadiums all those capacities are fairly conservative.


----------



## HB07

Why the PL could not increase the minimum capacity requirement to 20k ?


----------



## Colm Flynn

HB07 said:


> Why the PL could not increase the minimum capacity requirement to 20k ?


There are some teams in the championship who's stadiums are not 20k, If they did all the hard work to get promoted and be told you can't get promoted because your stadium capacity isn't 20k would be very unfair.


----------



## Ramanaramana

HB07 said:


> Why the PL could not increase the minimum capacity requirement to 20k ?


It's taboo in English football, especially with the focus on merit, as well as the real possibility of ending up with an oversized and expensive stadium in the lower leagues. It'd be seen as elitism, and anyway it's usually not a problem.

Most teams who reach the PL would already meet that criteria. Bournemouth is an extreme case, being the smallest in the PL era. Wimbledon, Oldham, Swindon, Brentford, Bournemouth, Blackpool and QPR. I think they're the PL teams to have stadiums under 20k, and apart from Oldham and Bournemouth all were over 15k.

I find it more annoying that AFCB haven't kicked on with plans to build a new stadium yet. It's not as if it's a massive risk to build a 20-30k stadium in Bournemouth. The Bournemouth/Poole urban area has almost 500,000 people, which is the same size as Brighton and Hove. Another AMEX on the south coast would do just fine.


----------



## SteveCourty

Ramanaramana said:


> It's taboo in English football, especially with the focus on merit, as well as the real possibility of ending up with an oversized and expensive stadium in the lower leagues. It'd be seen as elitism, and anyway it's usually not a problem.
> 
> Most teams who reach the PL would already meet that criteria. Bournemouth is an extreme case, being the smallest in the PL era. Wimbledon, Oldham, Swindon, Brentford, Bournemouth, Blackpool and QPR. I think they're the PL teams to have stadiums under 20k, and apart from Oldham and Bournemouth all were over 15k.
> 
> I find it more annoying that AFCB haven't kicked on with plans to build a new stadium yet. It's not as if it's a massive risk to build a 20-30k stadium in Bournemouth. The Bournemouth/Poole urban area has almost 500,000 people, which is the same size as Brighton and Hove. Another AMEX on the south coast would do just fine.


Yep swindon fan here, attendances have been good the last year with new owners but we usually average between 5-10k depending on league and how well we are doing. Although we are planning to redevelop to about 20k we really don’t need capacity just modernisation. An old 20K stadium would have caused all sorts of financial issues, more than we already had


----------



## Colm Flynn

Top 5 leagues in Europe average attendance.

Germany









England










Spain










Italy










France


----------



## Juanpabloangel

Ramanaramana said:


> It's taboo in English football, especially with the focus on merit, as well as the real possibility of ending up with an oversized and expensive stadium in the lower leagues. It'd be seen as elitism, and anyway it's usually not a problem.
> 
> Most teams who reach the PL would already meet that criteria. Bournemouth is an extreme case, being the smallest in the PL era. Wimbledon, Oldham, Swindon, Brentford, Bournemouth, Blackpool and QPR. I think they're the PL teams to have stadiums under 20k, and apart from Oldham and Bournemouth all were over 15k.
> 
> I find it more annoying that AFCB haven't kicked on with plans to build a new stadium yet. It's not as if it's a massive risk to build a 20-30k stadium in Bournemouth. The Bournemouth/Poole urban area has almost 500,000 people, which is the same size as Brighton and Hove. Another AMEX on the south coast would do just fine.


there is still a minimum to get into the football league from the non league level. Bournemouth could easily share with Southampton and get bigger crowds for all Their games. Even if it is 30% away fans


----------



## Ramanaramana

Colm Flynn said:


> Top 5 leagues in Europe average attendance.
> 
> Germany
> View attachment 3784506
> 
> 
> England
> 
> View attachment 3784509
> 
> 
> Spain
> 
> View attachment 3784513
> 
> 
> Italy
> 
> View attachment 3784516
> 
> 
> France
> 
> View attachment 3784522


France (certainly) and Italy (probably) will be at 18 teams soon enough. Real chance of seeing Serie A above 30k with fewer teams and modernised stadiums. 



Juanpabloangel said:


> there is still a minimum to get into the football league from the non league level. Bournemouth could easily share with Southampton and get bigger crowds for all Their games. Even if it is 30% away fans


Sure, they can try, and in the process piss off 100% of their fanbase. It would be a very bad move that wouldn’t go down well, even in a situation where Saints agreed. CCFC playing at Brum went down like coal at Christmas and their relations at Ricoh were on life support at the time. Fans like their home grounds. The only outcome is for AFCB to build a new stadium. 

The PL doesn’t need a minimum requirement because most teams that have any hope of getting there already have good sized venues. Bournemouth is a larger catchment area that could easily house a new 30k stadium. I don’t agree they should have to build one to play in the PL. Like Brighton, that decision has to be made in the right interests of the club with or without PL football. For whatever reason, the club doesn’t feel it’s the right time. Though their precarious position in the league maybe explains why they’re hesitant on taking on such an expensive project.


----------



## SteveCourty

Juanpabloangel said:


> there is still a minimum to get into the football league from the non league level. Bournemouth could easily share with Southampton and get bigger crowds for all Their games. Even if it is 30% away fans


This comment shows that you have no idea what you are talking about, this is a very easy way to turn your fans against you as an owner.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

No I am just stirring! Although I can’t imagine there are any of them on here


----------



## Eurostallion1

There are some minimum ground criteria for hosting Premier League matches. They tend to relate to changing rooms, floodlight quality and media facilities. I don’t think there is a minimum capacity but if there is it’s very low. When Luton got into the Championship playoffs last season, it became apparent that their ground was so bad that Premier League matches couldn’t be played there. Although they reckoned they’d be able to do the necessary upgrades in the close season. In the event, Luton didn’t get promoted and the Luton owners were relieved that they could continue to let their ground rot. 

Personally, I think the Premier League should set aside some funds for the Premier League’s basement dweller clubs to use to improve their grounds that they would get even if they got relegated. So many of the clubs in the bottom half of the table are scared of long term
investment because of the ever present fear of relegation.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Eurostallion1 said:


> There are some minimum ground criteria for hosting Premier League matches. They tend to relate to changing rooms, floodlight quality and media facilities. I don’t think there is a minimum capacity but if there is it’s very low. When Luton got into the Championship playoffs last season, it became apparent that their ground was so bad that Premier League matches couldn’t be played there. Although they reckoned they’d be able to do the necessary upgrades in the close season. In the event, Luton didn’t get promoted and the Luton owners were relieved that they could continue to let their ground rot.
> 
> Personally, I think the Premier League should set aside some funds for the Premier League’s basement dweller clubs to use to improve their grounds that they would get even if they got relegated. So many of the clubs in the bottom half of the table are scared of long term
> investment because of the ever present fear of relegation.


Is that true, cos I am sure Luton have been moving towards building new stadium for years now? No sane owner would be relieved at missing out on promotion.


----------



## Eurostallion1

Ramanaramana said:


> Is that true, cos I am sure Luton have been moving towards building new stadium for years now? No sane owner would be relieved at missing out on promotion.


Luton have been talking about a new stadium for about 40 years. In that time their ground has seen zero investment and it is rotting. I don’t believe that their latest fantasy plan
will lead to so much as one spade in the ground. It’s just a distraction by the owner. 

Anyway, if they’d got promoted, they couldn’t have built a whole new ground in a six week close season even if they wanted to. I suspect they might have played somewhere like Stadium MK until they got relegated again.


----------



## CBDS

Colm Flynn said:


> Top 5 leagues in Europe average attendance.
> 
> Germany
> View attachment 3784506
> 
> 
> England
> 
> View attachment 3784509
> 
> 
> Spain
> 
> View attachment 3784513
> 
> 
> Italy
> 
> View attachment 3784516
> 
> 
> France
> 
> View attachment 3784522


In the German attendances there are number of teams who have suspicious round numbers for fans attending (i.e B Munich, Koln, Stuttgart, Bremen ) Is there any way to validate those numbers?


----------



## bd popeye

_MLS home match attendance for 2022_






Major League Soccer 2022 - Attendance


Major League Soccer 2022 » Attendance » Home matches




www.worldfootball.net


----------



## bd popeye

_National Football League home attendance so far for the 2022 season_


----------



## bd popeye

Juanpabloangel said:


> I wonder what the figures in the US for their gate receipts are and how they compare. Specifically for NFL, as football would have to be cheaper.


The National Football League is a money making juggernaut.

Read about how the NFL makes money;

 *How the NFL Makes Money*

p.s. Just for starters each team in the NFL makes $309 million US dollars from TV contracts before the season starts.


----------



## aquamaroon

Juanpabloangel said:


> I wonder what the figures in the US for their gate receipts are and how they compare. Specifically for NFL, as football would have to be cheaper.



The sports trade website Sportico did a deep dive on this topic: Last year the Las Vegas Raiders ranked #1 with $119 Million in gate receipts and the Detroit Lions ranked last with $51 Million. With 9 home games that works out to about $13.2 million/game and $5.7 million/game respectively. I don't know what the median is, the article is behind a paywall, though of course it would be between those two figures. Two caveats: AFAIK that number doesn't include suite revenue as that is its own yearly product and also the NFL splits gate receipts 60/40 between the home and visiting team so there's quite bit of smoothing out among each teams home ticket revenue (the home team in each game though collects everything from concessions, parking, etc.)


----------



## Juanpabloangel

Why is the PCT (which I assume is percentage expressed in letters rather than %) higher than 100% for some teams? Las Vegas has a smaller attendance but highest gate receipts. I guess the tickets have a tourist premium.


----------



## pesto

bd popeye said:


> _National Football League home attendance so far for the 2022 season_


Three of the most valuable teams are ranked 26, 30 and 32 in attendance. Other revenue sources seem to be of higher importance.


----------



## bd popeye

Juanpabloangel said:


> Why is the PCT (which I assume is percentage expressed in letters rather than %) higher than 100% for some teams?


 Some cities or states permit a percentage of standing room in attendance. That is why the % is over 100%.


----------



## bd popeye

*Tennessee GAME-WINNER vs. Alabama & fans rush the field
Neyland Stadium, Knoxville, Tennessee Attendance: 101,915*


----------



## Juanpabloangel

bd popeye said:


> Some cities or states permit a percentage of standing room in attendance. That is why the % is over 100%.


Is this standing, a form of safe standing?


----------



## bd popeye

Juanpabloangel said:


> Is this standing, a form of safe standing?


Stadiums usually have areas where standing is permitted. And the number of fans standing cannot be exceeded.


----------



## pesto

bd popeye said:


> *Tennessee GAME-WINNER vs. Alabama & fans rush the field
> Neyland Stadium, Knoxville, Tennessee Attendance: 101,915*


Nice. Zero dead; zero injured; teams congratulate each other; players hugging their friends and girlfriends; fans not confronting each. .


----------



## bd popeye

Yep..


pesto said:


> Nice. Zero dead; zero injured; teams congratulate each other; players hugging their friends and girlfriends; fans not confronting each. .


When I lived in San Diego I traveled to a UCLA Vs Tenn at Neyland Stadium in 1996. It was the first game of the season and naturally UCLA got stomped by the Vols 35-20. But you know what? What an experience. All I can say is that place is awesome....PERIOD! The Vol fans were so cordial. Just an awesome experience.


----------



## pesto

bd popeye said:


> Yep..
> 
> 
> When I lived in San Diego I traveled to a UCLA Vs Tenn at Neyland Stadium in 1996. It was the first game of the season and naturally UCLA got stomped by the Vols 35-20. But you know what? What an experience. All I can say is that place is awesome....PERIOD! *The Vol fans were so cordial.* Just an awesome experience.


I went to UCLA vs. Wisconsin at the Rose Bowl. For some reason about 12 bench seats to my right were empty but the rows in front and behind were packed with Wisconsin people. They asked if they could sit there and I joked that they couldn't since I had bought those seats so as to have extra room. Not one person commented negatively.

Of course I then said I was joking and they could use all of the seats as the chose. They chuckled and said "well, that was a good one, wasn't it?" Wisconsin won on the last play of the game and they all expressed their feelings that UCLA was the better team and should have won and hoped I would come to Wisconsin someday. 

It makes you wonder why you live in a big city.


----------



## bd popeye

pesto said:


> It makes you wonder why you live in a big city.


Amen..I lived in San Diego for 26 years population 1.2Million with 3.2 million in the county. Now I live in Cedar Rapids IA. Population 130,000..metro population..??...276,000. Much more peaceful.
Much more. I love it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Some NCAA FBS attendance from this past Saturday.

Michigan Vs Penn State...Michigan Stadium, Ann Arbor, Michigan *Attendance:* 110,812

Tennessee Vs Alabama...Neyland Stadium, Knoxville, Tennessee *Attendance:* 101,915

Texas Vs Iowa State...Darrell K. Royal-Texas Memorial Stadium/Jamail Field, Austin, Texas *Attendance:* 100,072

Georgia Vs Vanderbilt ...Sanford Stadium, Athens, Georgia *Attendance:* 92,746

Florida VS LSU...Florida Field at Ben Hill Griffin Stadium, Gainesville, Florida *Attendance:* 90,585

Oklahoma Vs Kansas....Gaylord Family-Oklahoma Memorial Stadium, Norman, Oklahoma *Attendance:* 83,874

Notre Dame Vs Stanford ....Notre Dame Stadium, Notre Dame, Indiana *Attendance:* 77,622

Washington Vs Arizona ....Alaska Airlines Field at Husky Stadium, Seattle, Washington *Attendance:* 63,189

NCAA= *National Collegiate Athletic Association* 

FBS= Football Championship Subdivision

In this link below all 130 NCAA FBS schools average attendance for 2022 is listed;






2022 FBS Attendance Trends | College Athletics News | D1 ticker


A look at FBS attendance for the 2022 season compared to year-over-year and five-year-over-year averages.




www.d1ticker.com


----------



## bd popeye

MLS Draws Record Attendance for 2022 Season


MLS hosted more than 10 million fans during the 2022 season, leading to the highest ticket revenue clubs have ever generated.




frontofficesports.com





Soccer’s popularity is picking up steam across the globe, and this year’s Major League Soccer regular season was a clear sign of its growth in North America.

The league hosted more than *10 million fans* during the 2022 regular season, marking the highest ticket revenue clubs have ever generated — and far exceeding the record 8.6 million fans in 2019, according to Forbes.

*Atlanta United FC* led the league’s average attendance with 47,116 fans, while *Charlotte FC *broke the single-game attendance record when it hosted 74,479 fans at the start of the season.

On Disney networks, viewership reached *356,000 *for people aged 2 and up — the league’s *highest average ever*. FOX Deportes and ESPN Deportes had a 13% year-over-year viewership increase, and TSN in Canada saw an 8% increase.

MLS recorded increases in merchandise sales, viewership, and online engagement. 


The league added 600,000 net followers on social media platforms, a *65% *year-over-year increase.
Sales for jerseys launched in 2022 on MLSstore.com increased *10%* from last year.
MLS isn’t slowing down.

Next year, the league will add a new team — *St. Louis City SC* — and start a new, exclusive media deal with Apple reportedly worth at least *$2.5 billion*.

“It’s all with a view to the *2026 World Cup* being here, Canada, and Mexico, and the ability to really draft off that incredible moment, which will be the biggest sporting event the world’s ever seen at that point,” said David Bruce, MLS senior vice president of brand and integrated marketing.


----------



## bd popeye

Selected NCAA FBS attendance from this past Saturday...;

Minnesota at Penn State.....Beaver Stadium, University Park, Pennsylvania *Attendance:* 109,813

Iowa at Ohio State....Ohio Stadium, Columbus, Ohio *Attendance:* 104,848

Tennessee-Martin at U of Tennessee...Neyland Stadium, Knoxville, Tennessee *Attendance:* 101,915

Ole Miss at LSU....Tiger Stadium, Baton Rouge, Louisiana *Attendance:* 100,821

Mississippi State at Alabama...Bryant-Denny Stadium, Tuscaloosa, Alabama *Attendance:* 100,077

Syracuse at Clemson.... Memorial Stadium, Clemson, South Carolina Attendance: 81,500

Purdue at Wisconsin....Camp Randall Stadium, Madison, Wisconsin *Attendance* 75,018

UNLV at Notre Dame....Notre Dame Stadium, Notre Dame, Indiana *Attendance:* 73,165

UCLA at Oregon....Autzen Stadium, Eugene, Oregon Attendance: 59,962

Kansas at Baylor...McLane Stadium, Waco, Texas Attendance: 45,882


----------



## Ramanaramana

http://billsportsmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/england_map-2021-22_football-clubs_drawing-above-1-thousand-per-game_143-clubs_n_.gif


----------



## bd popeye

2022 NFL Football Attendance - National Football League - ESPN


Find out the 2022 attendance numbers for every NFL football team




www.espn.com


----------



## bd popeye

Selected NCAA FBS attendance for this past Saturday.

NCAA= *National Collegiate Athletic Association*

FBS= Football Championship Subdivision

Michigan State Vs Michigan.... Michigan Stadium, The Big House, Ann Arbor, Michigan *Attendance:* 111,083

Ohio State Vs Penn State... Beaver Stadium, University Park, Pennsylvania *Attendance:* 108,433

Kentucky Vs Tennessee...Neyland Stadium, Knoxville, Tennessee *Attendance:* 101,915

Ole Miss Vs Texas A&M.... Kyle Field, College Station, Texas *Attendance:* 101,084

Illinois Vs Nebraska... Tom Osborne Field at Memorial Stadium, Lincoln, Nebraska *Attendance:* 86,691

Arkansas Vs Auburn... Jordan-Hare Stadium, Auburn, Alabama *Attendance:* 83,792

Missouri Vs South Carolina... Williams-Brice Stadium, Columbia, South Carolina *Attendance:* 77,578

Florida Vs Georgia... TIAA Bank Field, Jacksonville, Florida *Attendance:* 75,868

Northwestern Vs Iowa.... Kinnick Stadium, Iowa City, Iowa *Attendance:* 69,250

East Carolina Vs BYU.... LaVell Edwards Stadium, Provo, Utah *Attendance:* 55,525

Oklahoma St. VS Kansas St..... Bill Snyder Family Stadium, Manhattan, Kansas *Attendance:* 51,133

USC Vs Arizona..... Arizona Stadium, Tucson, Arizona *Attendance:* 44,006


----------



## bd popeye

I'm not a association futbol fan but I gotta say I loved this! Awesome..






VENUE: Banc of California Stadium, ATTENDANCE: 22,384


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Colm Flynn said:


> Second tier attedances among top leagues in europe (couldn't get attendance figures for Ligue 2 in France)
> 
> Germany
> View attachment 3826748
> 
> 
> England
> View attachment 3826749
> 
> Spain
> View attachment 3826750
> 
> 
> Italy
> View attachment 3826751


Here are the official Ligue 2 figures from last season, which had only three rounds affected by sanitary restrictions:


*Les affluences par club lors de la saison 2021/2022 :*
1. Toulouse FC : 12 510
2. SM Caen : 10 638
3. FC Sochaux-Montbéliard : 9 361
4. AJ Auxerre : 8 919
5. SC Bastia : 8 390
6. EA Guingamp : 8 347
7. Valenciennes FC : 7 748
8. Dijon FCO : 7 413
9. Amiens SC : 7 394
10. AS Nancy Lorraine : 7 033
11. Havre AC : 6 067
12. Grenoble Foot 38 : 3 934
13. Quevilly-Rouen : 3 194
14. AC Ajaccio : 3 169
15. Paris FC : 3 135
16. Pau FC : 2 713
17. USL Dunkerque : 2 266
18. Chamois Niortais FC : 2 015
19. Nîmes Olympique : 1 934
20. Rodez AF : 2 758

Total: 2 031 669
Average: 5 855









Les affluences de la saison 2021/2022


Affluence moyenne par club, taux de remplissage… Tous les chiffres à retenir côté tribunes pour la saison écoulée en Ligue 2 BKT.




www.ligue2.fr


----------

