Expansion World Cup 2018 a windfall for Aussie Rules

[BuddyHawk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attendance_figures_at_domestic_professional_sports_leagues

NFL in America - total attendence = 17,341,012 average 67,738
Basebal US - total attendance = 79,502,524, average 32,785
Premier league - English soccer = 13,094, 307 average 34,459
AFL - 7,050,945 average = 38,113

Baseball leads total attendance by a country mile. More than ten times as much as AFL and almost fives times as much as English soccer. American football has the highest average. Australian football has the second highest average. German soccer has the fourth highest average.

It seems you need to provide the best to keep the fans. In the age of globalisation, 2nd and 3rd rate leagues just don't cut it.

But Major League baseball stages about 14,000 games per season! (excuse the slight exaggeration). Of course its accumulative attendance figures are going to be that high!

I was only questioning your reference to overall average attendances, which, aside from everything else, paint the AFL in a fantastic light. To have an average in excess of 38,000, second only behind the NFL (where most stadiums hold between 65 and 85 thousand people), is a terrific effort.

 

[Ronin]

I will repeat that quote, "the stands are mostly empty, for whatever reason."

I am not going to get into an argument about why the stands are empty, the only thing that matters is that they ARE empty. And the trend in South America is for the stands to get emptier year by year.

Brazil has a population of about 180 million. They've won the world cup about five times. If you call it a success if they get 10,000 to a game then you are far too easily pleased. Soccer leagues in South America have failed!

Now maybe Brazil will get the 2014 world cup. Then they can have 12 40,000 seat stadiums. Then they can get the $27 billion in revenue. Then after cup is all finished, they can have their crowds of 5,000 people (on current projections) enjoying their 40,000 seat stadiums.

I see that you don't answer my questions.

So lets see Brazil again:

Brazil: 6.5m (total attendence), 17,461 (average)
Brazil (2nd div): 2.6m, 7,219

Where is that close to 10,000???? 6.5m punters through the gates, 10th highest total of all Football codes.

Did you even check my links on the club and country games? They are packed out, and watched by millions.

So what is the sport of choice in South America, please let us know (after all if the sport has failed, something else must have taken the mantle as the #1 game).......

 

[genghiskhan]

But Major League baseball stages about 14,000 games per season! (excuse the slight exaggeration). Of course its accumulative attendance figures are going to be that high!

I was only questioning your reference to overall average attendances, which, aside from everything else, paint the AFL in a fantastic light. To have an average in excess of 38,000, second only behind the NFL (where most stadiums hold between 65 and 85 thousand people), is a terrific effort.

I am not a fan of baseball but you have to give credit where credit is due. If the game is popular to have people attend 14,000 games per season, then that is an achievement in itself.

 

[genghiskhan]

I see that you don't answer my questions.

So lets see Brazil again:

Brazil: 6.5m (total attendence), 17,461 (average)
Brazil (2nd div): 2.6m, 7,219

Where is that close to 10,000???? 6.5m punters through the gates, 10th highest total of all Football codes.

Did you even check my links on the club and country games? They are packed out, and watched by millions.

So what is the sport of choice in South America, please let us know (after all if the sport has failed, something else must have taken the mantle as the #1 game).......

I saw a figure yesterday saying 10,000. I did a quick search but couldn't find it and I don't care enough to search again.

I am not disputing with you that soccer is the most dominant sport in South America. I am simply showing you figures that prove their domestic leagues are failing. In the case of Brazil, crowds have dropped 40 per cent.

This is important to consider when the government is making decisions to invest in soccer stadiums in Australia. In the age of globalisation, second and third rate leagues do not cut it. In Australia, any investment in soccer stadiums is likely to create white elephants.

 

[Dogs Of War]

LOL.....you seriously can't call the trash that rugby league dish up every 4 years a World Cup! Given the #1 side - Australia, beats the #2 side - New Zealand 50-0, the sport has zero international credibility. Especially when aside from NSW/Qld, New Zealand (although very very much a secondary sport in a tiny country of 4million people), and small pockets of northern England (very much a poor cousin to soccer and union though) no one plays the game in a serious capacity.

We beat NZ 50-0 last year yes, and they beat us in the Tri Nations final the year before. NZ were below par, and at least we have other countries playing our sport professionally. Rugby League in England averages higher crowds to it's league games than Union does, and there is a team from France as well. Now they are moving to a franchise system, I only see the code strengthing from there on in. Hopefully the Wales franchise gets the nod as well. Rugby League is in a very good position in England to surge ahead. You probably should stop talking about stuff you have no idea about.

 

[Ronin]

I saw a figure yesterday saying 10,000. I did a quick search but couldn't find it and I don't care enough to search again.

I am not disputing with you that soccer is the most dominant sport in South America. I am simply showing you figures that prove their domestic leagues are failing. In the case of Brazil, crowds have dropped 40 per cent.

This is important to consider when the government is making decisions to invest in soccer stadiums in Australia. In the age of globalisation, second and third rate leagues do not cut it. In Australia, any investment in soccer stadiums is likely to create white elephants.

When have Brazilian crowds dropped by 40%. Rubbish. That would mean that they once had a crowd total topping 9m. Never happened. Is that also from your imaginary site? Furthermore, you finally agree that Football is their #1 code, but you still deny that 6.5m people (not even including the lower divisions) is significant. Has the Ref counted 75 yet?

 

[genghiskhan]

When have Brazilian crowds dropped by 40%. Rubbish. That would mean that they once had a crowd total topping 9m. Never happened. Is that also from your imaginary site? Furthermore, you finally agree that Football is their #1 code, but you still deny that 6.5m people (not even including the lower divisions) is significant. Has the Ref counted 75 yet?

About Brazil
http://football.guardian.co.uk/euro2...229916,00.html

"As the best players move to Europe, support is dwindling, with attendance at Brazilian club games falling by 40 per cent over the past 15 years."

You can write a strongly worded letter to the Guardian if you believe it is imaginary.

6.5 million isn't much out of 180 million. Let's say every soccer fan goes to about six games a year (conservative estimate) that means that for every one person that watches a game, there are around 179 that do not. Why should the 179 pay for good stands for that one person?

 

[Ronin]

About Brazil
http://football.guardian.co.uk/euro2...229916,00.html

"As the best players move to Europe, support is dwindling, with attendance at Brazilian club games falling by 40 per cent over the past 15 years."

You can write a strongly worded letter to the Guardian if you believe it is imaginary.

6.5 million isn't much out of 180 million. Let's say every soccer fan goes to about six games a year (conservative estimate) that means that for every one person that watches a game, there are around 179 that do not. Why should the 179 pay for good stands for that one person?

Hey champ, I am guessing that you are comparing the 180m against our 21m, and coming to your conclusion.

You must either be too young or a moron of the highest order if you don't know the the social characteristics of that nation.

 

[genghiskhan]

Hey champ, I am guessing that you are comparing the 180m against our 21m, and coming to your conclusion.

You must either be too young or a moron of the highest order if you don't know the the social characteristics of that nation.

So tell me the social characteristics that will make club soccer succeed in Australia where it has failed in South America? Soccer is more passionated supported in Australia? Less competition from other codes? Higher density population?

 

[Red_and_white]

I think if Australia does get the World Cup 2018 it will be if Aussie Rules (the AFL) manages it right the biggest kick along aussie rules will or ever has got on the international stage.

Sometimes someone's threat is another's opportunity.

I think the 2018 World Cup is a threat to Rugby (League and Union) yet I think it is a huge opportunity for Aussie Rules.

As long as we see it as such and jump on board early.

I understand your point but if anything it will help rugby league and union because it will force first-class rectangular stadiums to be built or upgraded around the country.

 

[HitEmHardFreo]

I understand your point but if anything it will help rugby league and union because it will force first-class rectangular stadiums to be built or upgraded around the country.

But as has been pointed out elsewhere, this in no way guarantees the NRL rent-a-crowds will stick around.

 

[jackmac7]

The only reason we are going for 2018 is because Frank Lowy has a dream and he is 76 and not getting any younger. He wants the world cup for himself and he will hand Rudd and FIFA millions of dollars to persuade them as much as he can.

 

[jackmac7]

I can't understand why we would build these massive stadiums for one month of world cup. A-league teams and NRL teams can't even fill their local park stadiums so why should we pay millions of dollars for these stadiums to rot for the next 50 years.

 

[genghiskhan]

I understand your point but if anything it will help rugby league and union because it will force first-class rectangular stadiums to be built or upgraded around the country.

That would hinder rather than help rugby league. Think about it. They would have to play in stadiums like Docklands or Sydney Football Stadium instead of Leichart Oval or Olympic park. A crowd of 10,000 looks better in a small stadium than a big one. It is also more economical. There is a good reason why the Storm doesn't want to play at Docklands, and why only one NRL club plays at the SFS.

 

[ParraEelsNRL]

That would hinder rather than help rugby league. Think about it. They would have to play in stadiums like Docklands or Sydney Football Stadium instead of Leichart Oval or Olympic park. A crowd of 10,000 looks better in a small stadium than a big one. It is also more economical. There is a good reason why the Storm doesn't want to play at Docklands, and why only one NRL club plays at the SFS.

I can't understand why we would build these massive stadiums for one month of world cup. A-league teams and NRL teams can't even fill their local park stadiums so why should we pay millions of dollars for these stadiums to rot for the next 50 years.

But as has been pointed out elsewhere, this in no way guarantees the NRL rent-a-crowds will stick around.

FFS, stop being a bunch of knobs, it's like trying to have a conversation with Huey Duey and Louie

We know Wests Tigers can't ever fill Leichart Oval, we know Parramatta has never filled Parramatta stadium, we know St George has never filled Oki as well as Wollongong.

Then there are the Broncos, they have never gone close to selling out ANZ stadium or Lang park, the cowboys couldn't fill a phone booth in Townsville, we know this, so why keep repeating it?

Canterbury wouldn't get a crowd even if you invited Bin Laden, the biggest they've had is 10,000.

Don't get me started on Souths and the Roosters, in 100 years, you could add up all their crowds together and they wouldn't get near the Swans crowds in a single season.

Penrith?

Who are they, last I heard, they had crowds of 258, the reason being is they play in AFL's heartland.

Gold Coast, those cheap bastards only got the new stadium so they could lease it to soccer so they can make money, lord knows the Titans will never fill it.

Canberra, they've never had a crowd over 4,000, everyone knows Canberra belongs to the AFL and Union to a lesser extent.

Auckland are only playing until the AFL offers 3 dozen dole checks and a free trip to Manly to switch codes.

And the Storm, well they will be dead at the end of this year, how any team can survive with crowds under 50 I'll never know.

Cronulla, well they'd get a bigger crowd to a riot and Newcastle was never liked in the hunter, thats why Soccer has taken over in 3 seasons, matter of fact, the knights have never had a crowd over the lowest Jets crowd.

And last of all is Manly, the biggest crowd they ever had was in 1995, it was 6,792 and three quarters of those were swans fans who got lost.

Sound right to you guys?

 

[acker]

I understand your point but if anything it will help rugby league and union because it will force first-class rectangular stadiums to be built or upgraded around the country.

Nah

You can turn a greyhound track into a stadium if you want to.

If the money's there I have no doubt Aussie Rules will work it out and end up with the stadiums afterwards.

I would be extremely surprised if the final did not end up at the M.C.G

Not just because of "icon" status, but the whole package Melbourne and the "MCG" offers including accom, getting there, iconic status, atmosphere,,etc

 

[Tigerdrive]

genghiskhan, Rather than comparing the Brasillian league with the A-league why don't you actually choose a country more similar to us to judge if the A-League will be a long term success.

I'm talking about Major League Soccer a relativley new league (started in 1996) in a country where Soccer is not the national sport (USA) and several sports compete for exposure, the MLS has had its ups and downs but has now become stable and averaged crowds of 17,000 in the 2007 season. This is a league that has survived and is thriving and expanding in a country where the passion for Soccer is low and there are several other sports on offer, if soccer can succeed in America how can you say it is going to fail in Australia especially given the last three years we have had?

 

[genghiskhan]

genghiskhan, Rather than comparing the Brasillian league with the A-league why don't you actually choose a country more similar to us to judge if the A-League will be a long term success.

I'm talking about Major League Soccer a relativley new league (started in 1996) in a country where Soccer is not the national sport (USA) and several sports compete for exposure, the MLS has had its ups and downs but has now become stable and averaged crowds of 17,000 in the 2007 season. This is a league that has survived and is thriving and expanding in a country where the passion for Soccer is low and there are several other sports on offer, if soccer can succeed in America how can you say it is going to fail in Australia especially given the last three years we have had?

An Australia Brazil comparison is as fair as an Australia America comparison. Yes, both Australia are first world countries with plenty of competiton from other sports, but Americans superior economic power and large cities is a very significant difference. Potentially, America would have the financial power to buy world class players such as Pele and Beckam.

Anyway, for the purposes of comparison, lets have a look. But we shouldn't begin with the Major league. We should begin with the North American Soccer League that failed previously.

This sums it up:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Soccer_League

"The biggest club in the league and the organization's bellwether was the New York Cosmos, who drew upwards of 40,000 fans per game at their height while aging Brazilian superstar Pelé (considered to be the greatest player of all time) played for them. Giants Stadium sold out (73,000+) their 1978 championship win. However, the overall average attendance of the entire league never reached 15,000, with some clubs averaging fewer than 5,000."

As for MLS

A few interesting points from wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Soccer

"Major League Soccer has lost more than $350 million since its founding, according to a report by BusinessWeek in 2004"

"The league began play in 1996 with 10 teams, and enjoyed promising attendance numbers in its first season. Numbers declined going into the new millennium, but have rebounded in recent years."

The crowds seem more like 14,000 than 17,000.

 

[Grunty]

The Wikipeadia article continues....


Expansion, contraction and relocation


Following the 2004 season to the present, the league has expanded by four new teams: Real Salt Lake and Chivas USA for the 2005 season, the Houston Dynamo relocating from San Jose for the 2006 season, and Toronto FC for the 2007 season.

Although the San Jose Earthquakes relocated to Houston, the Earthquakes’ name and history were not transferred making the Dynamo an expansion team.

For the 2008 season, the Earthquakes return to the MLS bringing the current total number of clubs to fourteen.

The league plans to have two more expansion teams by 2010, and to have a total of eighteen teams by 2012.

Future Expansion

Sports Illustrated reported on its website that Seattle had been awarded a franchise for the 2009 season, Don Garber made the official announcement the week of MLS Cup 2007.

On November 9, 2007, the Seattle Times reported that the long standing rumors were confirmed and that Seattle would be receiving an MLS expansion team for the 2009 season.

The primary ownership would include Seattle Sounders owner Adrian Hanauer, Seattle Seahawks owner Paul Allen, comedian Drew Carey, Hollywood mogul Joe Roth and fan ownership based on the model created by the legendary FC Barcelona. The team would play its home games at Qwest Field.

The MLS is currently trying to add another team, as early as 2009, to make the league 16 teams. If they do not have a plan finalized by January 31, 2008, then they will press on with 15 teams for 2009.

At the 2007 State of the League address at the end of the season on 16 November 2007, Commissioner Don Garber revised the official list of "priority" candidate cities for future expansion.

The list includes Atlanta, Las Vegas, a return to Miami, Montreal, a second team in New York in Queens, Philadelphia in the area of Chester, Portland, St. Louis in the area of Collinsville, and Vancouver.

Garber had made public statements that the Philadelphia and St. Louis areas were the highest priority candidates for expansion, and closest to becoming the next MLS city.
He said that the league expected one of the two cities to join the league in either 2009 along with Seattle, or 2010 depending on whether the league chose to wait until a stadium was completed in that market or to have the team play their first season in a temporary home. He also added that the league expected a decision to be made about the future of the league's sixteenth team to be made by the end of January 2008.

On January 31, 2008, Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell announced a $47 million package to help finance the construction of a stadium in the Philadelphia suburb of Chester.

As for a return in Miami, Major League Soccer president Mark Abbott had a meeting with Miami Mayor Manny Diaz and city commissioners, and said he left feeling "very pleased" with what he heard about plans for a 25,000-seat soccer stadium at the Orange Bowl site.

The $100 million stadium would receive half of its funding from an MLS ownership group. He has said MLS is attracted to Miami because of its Latin diversity, its affinity for soccer and the fact that it is a large market and "the gateway to Latin America."

Diaz said he wouldn't build a $100 million soccer stadium next to a proposed Marlins stadium unless he is assured Major League Soccer will award Miami a team.

That hasn't happened yet, "but they're very interested." Owners would also need to be found. Florida International University, has said they would also welcome an MLS team to their new stadium and would do it to the extent of free rent.

If an MLS soccer franchise is not granted to Miami by June 1, 2008, or the construction of the soccer stadium cannot reasonably be expected to be completed by 60 days following the first baseball game at the site of the Orange Bowl, where the soccer stadium is to be along with New Marlins stadium , the city will not permit the soccer stadium construction to start until the second anniversary of the other stadium completion date.

It should be also noted that after the success of Toronto FC in its first and second years of existence, interest in professional soccer has been rekindled throughout the rest of Canada. Talks have already taken place between the management of Toronto FC and the Montreal Impact and Vancouver Whitecaps of the USL-1 league which indicates both Canadian USL teams may apply for MLS franchise candidacy in the near future.

Each has plans to build or expand stadiums to capacities suitable for MLS.

Toronto FC would have to approve new Canadian teams prior to 2010 as a condition of their expansion agreement.

 

[jackmac7]

The MLS averages 16,000 crowds which has dropped from their highest attendance average of 17,000 12 years ago. WTF are they doing?

 

[Tigerdrive]

Anyway, for the purposes of comparison, lets have a look. But we shouldn't begin with the Major league. We should begin with the North American Soccer League that failed previously.

The Yes the NASL failed but so to did the NSL here now both countries have re modeled their leagues and are taking a more cautious approach.

"Major League Soccer has lost more than $350 million since its founding, according to a report by BusinessWeek in 2004"

There was also the next line in the article which you forgot...

"However, there are positive signs for profitability in the near future. As soccer-specific stadiums are built, ownership expands and television coverage increases, MLS has managed to see their revenues increase while costs are kept to a minimum."

The crowds seem more like 14,000 than 17,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attendance_figures_at_domestic_professional_sports_leagues

Scroll down and you will see the attendance listed as 16,770, my mistake I read the one above it the first time I checked.

 

[Grunty]

The MLS averages 16,000 crowds which has dropped from their highest attendance average of 17,000 12 years ago. WTF are they doing?

What is the MLS doing?

Expanding all over the US, and getting hundreds of millions of dollars for new rectangular stadiums.


The league has expanded by four new teams:

Real Salt Lake and Chivas USA for the 2005 season.
Houston Dynamo for the 2006 season,
Toronto FC for the 2007 season.

For the 2008 season, the Earthquakes return to the MLS bringing the current total number of clubs to fourteen.

The league plans to have two more expansion teams by 2010, and to have a total of eighteen teams by 2012.


Seattle had been awarded a franchise for the 2009 season,


The MLS is currently trying to add another team, as early as 2009, to make the league 16 teams.


The official list of "priority" candidate cities for future expansion includes
Atlanta, Las Vegas, Miami, Montreal, a second team in New York in Queens, Philadelphia in the area of Chester, Portland, St. Louis in the area of Collinsville, and Vancouver.



Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell announced a $47 million package to help finance the construction of a stadium in the Philadelphia suburb of Chester.

Major League Soccer president Mark Abbott had a meeting with Miami Mayor Manny Diaz and city commissioners, and said he left feeling "very pleased" with what he heard about plans for a 25,000-seat soccer stadium at the Orange Bowl site.

The $100 million stadium would receive half of its funding from an MLS ownership group. He has said MLS is attracted to Miami because of its Latin diversity, its affinity for soccer and the fact that it is a large market and "the gateway to Latin America."


After the success of Toronto FC in its first and second years of existence, interest in professional soccer has been rekindled throughout the rest of Canada.

Talks have already taken place between the management of Toronto FC and the Montreal Impact and Vancouver Whitecaps of the USL-1 league which indicates both Canadian USL teams may apply for MLS franchise candidacy in the near future.

Each has plans to build or expand stadiums to capacities suitable for MLS.

 

[Red_and_white]

That would hinder rather than help rugby league. Think about it. They would have to play in stadiums like Docklands or Sydney Football Stadium instead of Leichart Oval or Olympic park. A crowd of 10,000 looks better in a small stadium than a big one. It is also more economical. There is a good reason why the Storm doesn't want to play at Docklands, and why only one NRL club plays at the SFS.

Upgrading/building new stadiums doesn't just mean increasing their capacity. It's also about improving seating, transport links, corporate facilities etc, obviously beneficial for rugby codes.

 

[genghiskhan]

The Yes the NASL failed but so to did the NSL here now both countries have re modeled their leagues and are taking a more cautious approach.



There was also the next line in the article which you forgot...

"However, there are positive signs for profitability in the near future. As soccer-specific stadiums are built, ownership expands and television coverage increases, MLS has managed to see their revenues increase while costs are kept to a minimum."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attendance_figures_at_domestic_professional_sports_leagues

Scroll down and you will see the attendance listed as 16,770, my mistake I read the one above it the first time I checked.

Both failed for different reasons. It is generally accepted the NSL failed due to racism and ethnic associations with teams. The north American soccer league seems to have failed due to lack of interest.

 

[genghiskhan]

Upgrading/building new stadiums doesn't just mean increasing their capacity. It's also about improving seating, transport links, corporate facilities etc, obviously beneficial for rugby codes.

I'm just using history as mu guide. Lots of money has been spent building and upgradindg stadiums for rugby league and the crowds stay the same size, or rugby league decides to use a different stadium instead.