Home Attendance
| Team | HG | Total | Avg | Best vs | Worst vs | HR |
| LA | 15 | 363,782 | 24,252 | 27,000* | 19,225 RSL 6/17 | 6-6-3 |
| TFC | 15 | 301,906 | 20,127 | 20,522 LA 8/05 | 19,123 HD 5/16 | 5-7-3 |
| DC | 15 | 293,554 | 19,570 | 46,686 LA 8/09 | 12,908 NE 5/03 | 10-2-3 |
| NE | 15 | 251,132 | 16,742 | 35,402 LA 8/12 | 9,508 CF 5/06 | 8-3-4 |
| NY | 15 | 247,948 | 16,530 | 66,237 LA 8/18 | 7,802 CR 5/13 | 9-3-3 |
| CF | 15 | 247,356 | 16,490 | 21,374 LA 10/21 | 10,115 CC 6/03 | 6-3-6 |
| RSL | 15 | 239,395 | 15,960 | 24,633 LA 9/19 | 13,003 HD 8/04 | 4-7-4 |
| HD | 15 | 238,240 | 15,883 | 30,588 LA 10/07 | 11,114 TFC 7/15 | 8-3-4 |
| FCD | 15 | 227,182 | 15,145 | 20,500** | 9,165 NE 4/29 | 7-5-3 |
| CC | 15 | 226,706 | 15,113 | 22,555 LA 9/30 | 10,254 KC 6/20 | 5-5-5 |
| CV | 15 | 226,227 | 15,082 | 27,000*** | 8,756 FCD 5/26 | 10-1-4 |
| CR | 15 | 221,229 | 14,749 | 18,458 LA 5/26 | 10,677 NE 8/16 | 6-4-5 |
| KC | 15 | 173,784 | 11,586 | 32,867 LA 9/27 | 7,101 CR 7/22 | 5-3-2 |
* LA reached 27,000 six times - 4/28 CV, 8/23 CV, 9/01 RSL, 9/23 FCD, 10/13 HD & 10/18 NY
** FC Dallas reached 20,500 twice - 4/22 CR & 10/20 KC
*** Chivas USA reached 27,000 twice - 5/20 LA & 9/29 CF
Nothing overly surprising from these numbers. There is the big 15-16,000 pack with a couple teams sliding under and three jumping nicely over. Also, no surprise that every team had their largest home crowd against LA, except FC Dallas who did not have a MLS game against LA when Beckham was on the team. It is interesting to note that home record does not seem to have a big influence on the numbers. But how do these numbers compare to last season?
Last Season
| Team | Avg Attend 06 | Avg Attend 07 | % Change |
| NE | 11,786 | 16,742 | + 42.0% |
| CR | 12,056 | 14,749 | + 22.3% |
| CF | 14,088 | 16,490 | + 17.0% |
| LA | 20,814 | 24,252 | + 16.5% |
| CC | 13,294 | 15,113 | + 13.7% |
| NY | 14,570 | 16,530 | + 13.5% |
| DC | 18,215 | 19,570 | + 7.4% |
| KC | 11,083 | 11,586 | + 4.5% |
| FCD | 14,982 | 15,145 | + 1.1% |
| RSL | 16,366 | 15,960 | - 2.5% |
| HD | 18,935 | 15,883 | - 16.1% |
| CV | 19,840 | 15,082 | - 24.0% |
Way to go New England for getting those numbers up, but will they be able to do it again next year without the benefit of as many international double headers? Colorado did well to get people to their new stadium, the Fire used Blanco to get their seats filled and the Crew, New York and DC should all be happy with their bumps.
Kansas City's numbers are lackluster but they are better then what could have been since the team didn't know where they were going to play till a month or so before the season. With this in mind, this year has got to be seen as a minor success, but also a warning that they need to decide on a 2008 home soon.
Both Real and Houston are in similar boats as the aura of a new team is wearing off. That said, I am a bit surprised to see the Dynamo's numbers down as much as they are since they are league champions.
Dallas grew but I doubt they are very happy with the rate. I wonder if the stadium's location has anything to do with the stagnant number?
Finally, what is up with Chivas? The best year by far and they dropped a quarter of their total attendance. Their numbers picked up after they removed GM Javier Leo, but they still have a great deal of work ahead of them.
Home Capacity
| Team | Avg Attend | Capacity | Avg % of Cap | Stadium Type |
| TFC | 20,127 | 20,522 | 98.1% | SSS |
| LA | 24,252 | 27,000 | 89.8% | SSS |
| CF | 16,490 | 20,000 | 82.5% | SSS |
| CR | 14,749 | 18,086 | 81.5% | SSS |
| FCD | 15,145 | 20,500 | 73.9% | SSS |
| CC | 15,113 | 22,555 | 67.0% | SSS |
| CV | 15,082 | 27,000 | 55.9% | SSS |
| HD | 15,883 | 32,000 | 49.6% | CS |
| DC | 19,570 | 45,016 | 43.5% | NFL |
| RSL | 15,960 | 45,634 | 35.0% | CS |
| NE | 16,742 | 68,756 | 24.3% | NFL |
| NY | 16,530 | 80,242 | 20.6% | NFL |
| KC | 11,586 | 79,451 | 14.6% | NFL |
It is nice to see every sss above 50%, but again Chivas sticks out as the oddball. Toronto and Colorado have got to be happy with their numbers, although the Rapids obvious have a lot more room to improve.
DC did an amazing job in an American football stadium, while NE's, NY's and KC's percentages show the other side of things. Having a stadium less then a quarter full really hurts any environment.
But how much do these numbers have to do with Beckham?
Home Attendance minus Beckham matches
| Team | Avg w/o | Avg w/ | % Change |
| NY | 12,979 | 16,530 | - 21.5% |
| KC | 10,066 | 11,586 | - 13.1% |
| DC | 17,633 | 19,570 | - 9.9% |
| NE | 15,409 | 16,742 | - 8.0% |
| HD | 14,832 | 15,883 | - 6.6% |
| RSL | 15,340 | 15,960 | - 3.9% |
| CV | 14,493 | 15,082 | - 3.9% |
| CC | 14,582 | 15,113 | - 3.5% |
| CF | 16,142 | 16,490 | - 2.1% |
| CR | 14,510 | 14,749 | - 1.6% |
| TFC | 20,099 | 20,127 | - .1% |
It is also worth noting that without the Beckham game, only 6 teams do worse then they did last year (NY, KC, DC, HD, CV RSL). Don't get me wrong, that is still over half the list but it also means five teams improved (not counted LA or Toronto) even without the big man.
But what about road shows?
Road Attendance
| Team | AG | Total Att. | Avg | AR |
| LA | 15 | 418,780 | 27,919 | 3-8-4 |
| CF | 15 | 261,229 | 17,415 | 4-7-4 |
| FCD | 15 | 250,220 | 16,681 | 6-7-2 |
| NY | 15 | 245,844 | 16,390 | 3-8-4 |
| DC | 15 | 240,674 | 16,045 | 6-5-4 |
| CC | 15 | 240,153 | 16,010 | 4-6-5 |
| CV | 15 | 239,618 | 15,975 | 5-6-4 |
| RSL | 15 | 235,367 | 15,691 | 2-8-5 |
| HD | 15 | 234,730 | 15,649 | 7-5-3 |
| NE | 15 | 223,544 | 14,903 | 6-5-4 |
| TFC | 15 | 221,650 | 14,777 | 1-10-4 |
| CR | 15 | 215,154 | 14,344 | 3-9-3 |
| KC | 15 | 210,635 | 14,042 | 4-7-4 |
It should come as no surprise that LA is top or that Chicago is second. If anything, this is proof that the designated player idea has worked out at least in one way for MLS. In fact, the four teams that currently have a designated player hold the top four road averages. It could be a coincidence or it could be fans showing up to see the big paycheck talent.
The bottom five positions are also interesting. Toronto makes sense because they were not very good and Colorado is a team most people seem to forget about, so that explains their numbers, but KC, Houston and New England had quality sides this year (although KC fell to pieces toward the end). I know the difference in the numbers is minimal, but one would think Houston and New England as 2 of the best teams in the league with some well known players would have had better road attendance.
So there are the full attendance numbers for the 2007 regular season. What does it tell us? Maybe that people actually started tuning in a bit more and showing up, but we will need to see if this once a one time 'oh wow, Beckham is here' event or if the league can keep the growth going. With San Jose not really having a home pitch, KC still struggling to get noticed, and NY and NE still not packing them in even with strong play, next year might prove a bit difficult.
By the way, here are the season ending numbers from the USL-First Division (thanks to Lucas over at Nerdword)
Here are the numbers:
| Team | HG | Total Att | Avg Att |
| Montreal Impact | 14 | 154,497 | 11,036 |
| Rochester Raging Rhinos | 14 | 130,700 | 9,336 |
| Portland Timbers | 14 | 95,592 | 6,828 |
| Vancouver Whitecaps | 14 | 72,264 | 5,162 |
| Carolina RailHawks | 14 | 71,735 | 5,124 |
| Puerto Rico Islanders | 14 | 66,143 | 4,725 |
| Charleston Battery | 14 | 55,550 | 3,968 |
| Seattle Sounders | 14 | 46,545 | 3,325 |
| Minnesota Thunder | 14 | 44,110 | 3,151 |
| Atlanta Silverbacks | 14 | 36,003 | 2,572 |
| California Victory | 14 | 15,619 | 1,116 |
| Miami FC | 14 | 12,828 | 916 |
Read More...
[Source: My Soccer Blog]
No comments:
Post a Comment