Expansion World Cup 2018 a windfall for Aussie Rules

[acker]

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.

 

[weagles_fan]

Very true, a lot of tourists will see the games.

 

[acker]

And at the end of the day we pose no real threat to soccer.

 

[Dogs Of War]

Why wouldn't it be just as big event for Rugby League? If anything League and Union will benefit more as rectangle stadiums are upgraded to host the event.

As for the kick along the international stage, what do you think people who are coming over to watch soccer are suddenly going to convert to AFL and starting playing it back home? Get real.

 

[acker]

Why wouldn't it be just as big event for Rugby League? If anything League and Union will benefit more as rectangle stadiums are upgraded to host the event.

As for the kick along the international stage, what do you think people who are coming over to watch soccer are suddenly going to convert to AFL and starting playing it back home? Get real.

Union and League have allready tried to go international with limited success and failed to progress further than where they are.

Aussie Rules exept for Ireland has never been very tied up with expansion nor wasted dollars on it rather spent them on grass roots. If some big time world event like this comes along and since Aussie Rules in Australia is in the position of power amongst the alternative football codes they are in an excellent positition to swing some resources behind soccers attempt at snaring the World Cup and picking up a bit of international exposure as well.

 

[Dogs Of War]

Oh yes, League and Union with professional comps scattered around the world have really no success. Really we should just disband our comps. We have nothing compared to the might of the AFL.

Geez, both sports running World Cups for years now. While yours run one that doesn't even involve the host country.

 

[erpel9999]

what a load of crap.

will do about as much for afl as the london olympics will do for british bog snorkelling

a) the afl will pause or run early (or even a short season)

b) anyone who travels from the other side of the world to watch their national football team play in the world cup will not care in the slightest.

c) unless the entire northern hemisphere blows up, and australia gets another 5 cities and another 7 rectangular stadiums australia WILL NOT get the world cup

 

[Copernicus]

I don't buy your logic. It could well be that the AFL will attract visitors from overseas while they're here for the world cup, but they aren't likely to take the game home with them, especially if they just go and randomly spectate for a game or two.

I don't see the World Cup giving the AFL any kind of advantage at all, but that said it is at least ten years away and one never knows what position the various leagues will be in by that stage.

 

[NimChief]

I see the benefit of the World Cup as coming in infrastructure development.

There'll need to be sevreal new stadia, and upgrades to other stadia should we host the cup.

If the AFL are smart, they could get in on a few of the projects and have them designed so they can be converted into oval grounds after the competition is finished.

 

[genghiskhan]

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.

First, I think it is a waste of government money because Australia is very unlikely to get it, and also because soccer will have gone the way of basketball in Australia by 2018.

However, if I am wrong and soccer is more than a fad, and does get the world cup, I think it would help football indirectly by weakening rugby league. Presently, soccer has three teams in football territory and five in league territory. After the next round of expansion, it will be three in football and seven in league territory, so it is quite obvious which code soccer is targeting.

The Newcastle/Central coast region gives an indication of what the future could hold. At Gosford, a new stadium was built for rugby league. No rugby league plays on the ground. Instead, soccer plays on it. In Newcastle, the Knights have traditionally commanded fanatical support and had a monopoly on the region. Despite this monopoly, they have always done it tough financially. Now they have two soccer teams competing with them for media attention and sponsorship. That is going to hit them where it hurts. The media will also hurt as well. For example, in days gone by, all the media attention at this time of year would have been devoted to building excitement about the Knights prospects this season. Instead, it is devoted to talk of this A-league grand final between the Gosford and Newcastle teams.

The Knights are very important for the image of rugby league. If they went under, that would impact negatively on the code as a whole.

 

[agga78]

Association football will never go the way of basketball for starters Australia now has the socceroos who will soon be the number one national team in this country also the game is a code of football which has inbuilt tribalism no other code has. Secondly if we get the world cup this is the kind of benefits Australia will get out it even with 3 or 4 failed bids if we do get it one day. The FFA would make so much money from the world cup billions of dollars that all 3 other football codes will be in trouble.


By Tom Smithies

February 29, 2008 12:00am

THE full magnitude of what hosting the 2018 World Cup could bring to Australia can be revealed today as a government report highlights the billions of dollars of economic benefits.

Just days after Prime Minister Kevin Rudd pledged his Government's backing, the report revealed the financial boost Japan and Korea enjoyed after hosting the 2002 World Cup - a staggering $27 billion.

The data was prepared for the Department of Tourism after the 2003 Rugby World Cup to assess the impact it had and helps put the Cup into context against various other big sporting events.

The RWC generated $290 million and even the Sydney Olympics only produced $6 billion.

Last night, Football Australia chief executive Ben Buckley said the report was hard evidence of the effect hosting a World Cup could have on the country and sport in general.

"Figures like that illustrate why we are bidding for such a big tournament," he said.

"There are obvious and substantial economic and social benefits to be gained from a World Cup and the historical evidence is that it benefits the economy across the board.

"It goes way beyond football, though obviously it would be a huge shot in the arm for the code. But all walks of life, let alone all sports, would benefit from the investment in infrastructure and facilities.

"Even bidding for the tournament can have benefits but we're very serious about winning."

Hosting a World Cup requires significant investment across transport, communications and associated infrastructure but the net benefits are seen to be huge.

Germany, for instance, spent about $2.4 billion refurbishing and building the 12 40,000-seat stadiums that are required.

The German Government estimates the 2006 World Cup created some 50,000 jobs and brought millions of tourists to the country.

But what all those figures equally prove is how stiff the competition will be to land the event, with England, China, the US and Holland all expressing serious interest.

The ultimate choice will be determined in the corridors of governing body FIFA and in offices around the soccer world.

The decision on who will host the 2018 World Cup will be taken by the 24-strong executive committee - not, as in previous years, by the congress of all FIFA's member nations.

The committee is dominated by Sepp Blatter and includes powerbrokers Jack Warner from Trinidad, Chuck Blazer from the US Federation and UEFA chief Michel Platini.

These are the men whose heads have to be turned - and they are all coming to Sydney in May.

FIFA will hold its congress here, the annual talkfest when delegates from all the 200-plus member nations gather for a week of discussions, dinner and mutual appreciation.

It is a good opportunity to show Sydney's wares, but the politicking has long been underway and Football Australia will have to mount a diplomatic offensive of epic proportions to garner enough votes.

Warner, for instance, was previously hostile to England's bid but after meeting officials from the English FA, is now supportive.

Frank Lowy's power will carry influence and it will be crucial to secure the backing of the AFC, whose head, Mohamed Bin Hammam, is on the executive committee.

THE Mariners last night submitted an appeal on behalf of goalkeeper Danny Vukovic against the nine-month ban he received for striking a referee. It's expected the appeal will be heard early next week.

 

[mustapha]

To summarise:

Fifa World Cup 2002: $27 billion
Sydney Olympics: $6 billion
Rugby World Cup 2003: $290 million

Wow!

 

[3kzisfootball]

A couple of points

I agree that if they play their cards right Australian Rules football can benefit from the exposure of a World Cup. I know that people here (especially on the football only forums) believe that a World Cup in Australia would be disasterous for the AFL. We had a great World Cup in Germany, considering our international success in previous years, but the AFL seems to me to be healthy as ever. And if the AFL gets in the program it will be able to showcase its game worldwide (invite sport journos, having Australian soccer playes that also like AFL - yes they do exist- to talk about the game to foreign media etc.)

I don't want to start another 'footy vs. soccer' thread because there are plenty of those already. But I often hear Australian Rules only people (unlike bicodals like me ) people that 'soccer is a fad and will fade as basketball did in the 90's'. Soccer is not a 'tacked on' sport like basketball is in Australia. Soccer has been in our country in one form or the other for at least 100 years, and of course had a boost after the war due European migration. This has established a strong community network that is very Australian and permanent. Basketball sort of appeared because of media interest with Michael Jordan etc. And after that it did fade.

If you go to a match with the National Team, or a Melbourne Victory match, you can see there lots of people who have been football supporters for a long time. Maybe with South Melbourne, maybe with the Melbourne Knights etc. soccer is in their tradition (most, especially the young ones, are also football supporters btw.) Of course there is always a 'bandwagon effect' because a team is successful, or because of the world cup etc. But there always be a soccer 'true believer'. Not as many as football of course, but enough to sustain a national league.

 

[Ronin]

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.

Maybe they can hand out those free Auskick backpacks as the overseas spectators come through customs.

 

[genghiskhan]

A couple of points

I agree that if they play their cards right Australian Rules football can benefit from the exposure of a World Cup. I know that people here (especially on the football only forums) believe that a World Cup in Australia would be disasterous for the AFL. We had a great World Cup in Germany, considering our international success in previous years, but the AFL seems to me to be healthy as ever. And if the AFL gets in the program it will be able to showcase its game worldwide (invite sport journos, having Australian soccer playes that also like AFL - yes they do exist- to talk about the game to foreign media etc.)

I don't want to start another 'footy vs. soccer' thread because there are plenty of those already. But I often hear Australian Rules only people (unlike bicodals like me ) people that 'soccer is a fad and will fade as basketball did in the 90's'. Soccer is not a 'tacked on' sport like basketball is in Australia. Soccer has been in our country in one form or the other for at least 100 years, and of course had a boost after the war due European migration. This has established a strong community network that is very Australian and permanent. Basketball sort of appeared because of media interest with Michael Jordan etc. And after that it did fade.

If you go to a match with the National Team, or a Melbourne Victory match, you can see there lots of people who have been football supporters for a long time. Maybe with South Melbourne, maybe with the Melbourne Knights etc. soccer is in their tradition (most, especially the young ones, are also football supporters btw.) Of course there is always a 'bandwagon effect' because a team is successful, or because of the world cup etc. But there always be a soccer 'true believer'. Not as many as football of course, but enough to sustain a national league.

Basketball has also been in Australia for a long time. Baseball has been in Australia for 150 years.

Basketball failed because it was built on hype, and eventually people see through the hype. In the 90s, there was Jordan but also there was the Dreamteam. Basketball seemed like the greatest show on earth, player numbers in Australia were huge (as they still are today) and basketball decided it should challenge to become the dominant sport in Australia. But one day, specatators looked at stadiums that were 60 per cent empty and realised it didn't match what they were hearing about their code. They also looked at the standard of play and realised that the likes of Andrew Gaze were no Michael Jordans.

Soccer is all about hype. It hyped up as being watched by the entire world, and it is going to be the dominant sport in Australia. But that will wear off, and when it does, so will the appeal of the game.

Look to South America for your guide. Brazil averages around 10-12,000 for its club games. Chile averages around 4,000. Peru averages a couple of hunded. Why will club soccer succeed in Australia when it has failed in South America? Furthermore, if Australia got the world cup and built 12 40,000 seat stadiums, how is an A-league crowd of 10,000 people going to look in each 40,000 seat stadium?

As for you being a bi-codal fan, I could go even better and say I'm multi-codal. I like sport. I am not really rusted onto any one code. However, I should also point out that I haven't been to a rugby or football game in almost ten years. None of the codes get any money out of me. The fans that the codes make most money out of have one code. It is these one-eyed loyal monocodal fans that buy memberships year in and year out and give the code its strenth. People like myself who watch most sport offer little value at all.

 

[mustapha]

Basketball has also been in Australia for a long time. Baseball has been in Australia for 150 years.

Basketball failed because it was built on hype, and eventually people see through the hype. In the 90s, there was Jordan but also there was the Dreamteam. Basketball seemed like the greatest show on earth, player numbers in Australia were huge (as they still are today) and basketball decided it should challenge to become the dominant sport in Australia. But one day, specatators looked at stadiums that were 60 per cent empty and realised it didn't match what they were hearing about their code. They also looked at the standard of play and realised that the likes of Andrew Gaze were no Michael Jordans.

Soccer is all about hype. It hyped up as being watched by the entire world, and it is going to be the dominant sport in Australia. But that will wear off, and when it does, so will the appeal of the game.

Look to South America for your guide. Brazil averages around 10-12,000 for its club games. Chile averages around 4,000. Peru averages a couple of hunded. Why will club soccer succeed in Australia when it has failed in South America? Furthermore, if Australia got the world cup and built 12 40,000 seat stadiums, how is an A-league crowd of 10,000 people going to look in each 40,000 seat stadium?

As for you being a bi-codal fan, I could go even better and say I'm multi-codal. I like sport. I am not really rusted onto any one code. However, I should also point out that I haven't been to a rugby or football game in almost ten years. None of the codes get any money out of me. The fans that the codes make most money out of have one code. It is these one-eyed loyal monocodal fans that buy memberships year in and year out and give the code its strenth. People like myself who watch most sport offer little value at all.

There is very little marketing for the A League on FTA TV. The newspapers virtually ignore it unless there is a minor incident in the crowd. It is definitely not surviving on hype in Australia. The crowds are growing because people like supporting their team and they like the sport. If they disliked the product they wouldn't return and crowds wouldn't be growing like they are.

 

[Power King]

The fact that our game is called 'Australian Football' (as football everywhere else in the world except for the US pretty much is regarded as soccer) will limit its expansion into other countries in terms of popularity.

 

[Ronin]

Basketball has also been in Australia for a long time. Baseball has been in Australia for 150 years.

Basketball failed because it was built on hype, and eventually people see through the hype. In the 90s, there was Jordan but also there was the Dreamteam. Basketball seemed like the greatest show on earth, player numbers in Australia were huge (as they still are today) and basketball decided it should challenge to become the dominant sport in Australia. But one day, specatators looked at stadiums that were 60 per cent empty and realised it didn't match what they were hearing about their code. They also looked at the standard of play and realised that the likes of Andrew Gaze were no Michael Jordans.

Soccer is all about hype. It hyped up as being watched by the entire world, and it is going to be the dominant sport in Australia. But that will wear off, and when it does, so will the appeal of the game.

Look to South America for your guide. Brazil averages around 10-12,000 for its club games. Chile averages around 4,000. Peru averages a couple of hunded. Why will club soccer succeed in Australia when it has failed in South America? Furthermore, if Australia got the world cup and built 12 40,000 seat stadiums, how is an A-league crowd of 10,000 people going to look in each 40,000 seat stadium?

As for you being a bi-codal fan, I could go even better and say I'm multi-codal. I like sport. I am not really rusted onto any one code. However, I should also point out that I haven't been to a rugby or football game in almost ten years. None of the codes get any money out of me. The fans that the codes make most money out of have one code. It is these one-eyed loyal monocodal fans that buy memberships year in and year out and give the code its strenth. People like myself who watch most sport offer little value at all.

So Football has failed in South America.

How many times have I looked up stats to find that people on here wouldn't know shiate from clay?

Brazil: 6.5m (total attendence), 17,461 (average)
Brazil (2nd div): 2.6m, 7,219
Argentina: 6.6m, 17,363
They are the two powers in the region.

In terms of the smaller (and poorer) nations of Chile and Peru, how can you compare them to the A-League?????

In any case;
Chile: has indeed been poor, the issues there are clearly bigger than the game (the Govt is looking to take action): http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_football/3583913.stm

Peru: couldn't find a decent article.

That said, they all still turn up for (and which you overlooked):

Copa Libertadores (club comp) and the Copa America (Country Comp):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copa_Libertadores_2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copa_América_2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attendance_figures_at_domestic_professional_sports_leagues

Lastly, in terms of the 'hype' that you talk about, you do realise that there is a WC played every 4 years, and Asian Cups in between? The Socceroos will be playing so many qualifying matches from now on, so they will always be in the press. Get used to it.

 

[genghiskhan]

So Football has failed in South America.

How many times have I looked up stats to find that people on here wouldn't know shiate from clay?

Brazil: 6.5m (total attendence), 17,461 (average)
Brazil (2nd div): 2.6m, 7,219
Argentina: 6.6m, 17,363
They are the two powers in the region.

In terms of the smaller (and poorer) nations of Chile and Peru, how can you compare them to the A-League?????

In any case;
Chile: has indeed been poor, the issues there are clearly bigger than the game (the Govt is looking to take action): http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_football/3583913.stm

Peru: couldn't find a decent article.

That said, they all still turn up for (and which you overlooked):

Copa Libertadores (club comp) and the Copa America (Country Comp):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copa_Libertadores_2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copa_América_2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attendance_figures_at_domestic_professional_sports_leagues

Lastly, in terms of the 'hype' that you talk about, you do realise that there is a WC played every 4 years, and Asian Cups in between? The Socceroos will be playing so many qualifying matches from now on, so they will always be in the press. Get used to it.

Wealth of a country does not matter. During the depression in Australia, football attendances increased in both Sydney and Melbourne. It becomes more important for poorer people.

Here is something about Peru
http://journalperu.com/?p=479

"For most of the games I watched - and they were quite a few - the stands are mostly empty, for whatever reason. It seems that only the media, the clubs functionaries, a couple of sponsors, the two teams and the referee crew, and a few hundred fans - some of them hooligans - made their way to the game."

About Brazil
http://football.guardian.co.uk/euro2004/story/0,,1229916,00.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."

I've found different figures about domestic crowds in Brazil. On wikipedia they match yours, but I saw some the other day that had the attendance at 8,000 or so. Perhaps there might be some rugby league crowd counters in Brazil.

I also discovered the four leagues with the most attendance and highest averages are America; baseball, basketball, hockey, and gridiron. It is interesting; playing a world game doesn't seem to be necessary for a thriving domestic league.

 

[Ronin]

Wealth of a country does not matter. During the depression in Australia, football attendances increased in both Sydney and Melbourne. It becomes more important for poorer people.

Here is something about Peru
http://journalperu.com/?p=479

"For most of the games I watched - and they were quite a few - the stands are mostly empty, for whatever reason. It seems that only the media, the clubs functionaries, a couple of sponsors, the two teams and the referee crew, and a few hundred fans - some of them hooligans - made their way to the game."

About Brazil
http://football.guardian.co.uk/euro2004/story/0,,1229916,00.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."

I've found different figures about domestic crowds in Brazil. On wikipedia they match yours, but I saw some the other day that had the attendance at 8,000 or so. Perhaps there might be some rugby league crowd counters in Brazil.

I also discovered the four leagues with the most attendance and highest averages are America; baseball, basketball, hockey, and gridiron. It is interesting; playing a world game doesn't seem to be necessary for a thriving domestic league.

Just had a look at that Peruvian link:

This isn’t any different in Peru where every second youngster is wearing a football jersey and carries a ball around instead of a book. Many kids in poverty stricken South America only have one or two pieces of clothing they can wear which is an indication of significance. If you drive through the poorer rural areas, you will notice that the tiniest village has at least a small church and two or even four goal posts. Nevertheless, Peruvian football is on the decline for two decades now while other South American countries - for example Chile, Colombia, Paraguay and even tiny Ecuador - are steadily on the rise and compete for the third spot on the continent.


and

In Peru stadium attendance is as poor as it gets despite a steadily growing economy. I guess this is just another example for the fact that the economic boom hasn’t reached the masses, the average José. Although official unemployment numbers are somewhere below 8% and despite a strong macroeconomic performance, underemployment and poverty have stayed persistently high (both around 50%, more or less).


Also, comparing the depression years in Oz, to what is happening in South America now is nonsensical. Would you rather feed your children or go to the G? Lucky we don't have to make that choice. Show me where people even paid to get into games during those terrible economic times.

In any case, drop your quote that Football has failed in South America, it isn't backed up by the facts, as it is embraced across a multitude of levels, and nothing else comes close.

 

[Johnny Utah #9]

Oh yes, League and Union with professional comps scattered around the world have really no success. Really we should just disband our comps. We have nothing compared to the might of the AFL.

Geez, both sports running World Cups for years now. While yours run one that doesn't even involve the host country.

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.

 

[genghiskhan]

Just had a look at that Peruvian link:

This isn’t any different in Peru where every second youngster is wearing a football jersey and carries a ball around instead of a book. Many kids in poverty stricken South America only have one or two pieces of clothing they can wear which is an indication of significance. If you drive through the poorer rural areas, you will notice that the tiniest village has at least a small church and two or even four goal posts. Nevertheless, Peruvian football is on the decline for two decades now while other South American countries - for example Chile, Colombia, Paraguay and even tiny Ecuador - are steadily on the rise and compete for the third spot on the continent.


and

In Peru stadium attendance is as poor as it gets despite a steadily growing economy. I guess this is just another example for the fact that the economic boom hasn’t reached the masses, the average José. Although official unemployment numbers are somewhere below 8% and despite a strong macroeconomic performance, underemployment and poverty have stayed persistently high (both around 50%, more or less).


Also, comparing the depression years in Oz, to what is happening in South America now is nonsensical. Would you rather feed your children or go to the G? Lucky we don't have to make that choice. Show me where people even paid to get into games during those terrible economic times.

In any case, drop your quote that Football has failed in South America, it isn't backed up by the facts, as it is embraced across a multitude of levels, and nothing else comes close.

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.

 

[genghiskhan]

There is very little marketing for the A League on FTA TV. The newspapers virtually ignore it unless there is a minor incident in the crowd. It is definitely not surviving on hype in Australia. The crowds are growing because people like supporting their team and they like the sport. If they disliked the product they wouldn't return and crowds wouldn't be growing like they are.

Just like the Northern Spirit didn't live on hype before collapsing, hey? If the a-league is strong after ten years then you can say it isn't hype.

 

[BuddyHawk]

Wealth of a country does not matter. During the depression in Australia, football attendances increased in both Sydney and Melbourne. It becomes more important for poorer people.

Here is something about Peru
http://journalperu.com/?p=479

"For most of the games I watched - and they were quite a few - the stands are mostly empty, for whatever reason. It seems that only the media, the clubs functionaries, a couple of sponsors, the two teams and the referee crew, and a few hundred fans - some of them hooligans - made their way to the game."

About Brazil
http://football.guardian.co.uk/euro2004/story/0,,1229916,00.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."

I've found different figures about domestic crowds in Brazil. On wikipedia they match yours, but I saw some the other day that had the attendance at 8,000 or so. Perhaps there might be some rugby league crowd counters in Brazil.

I also discovered the four leagues with the most attendance and highest averages are America; baseball, basketball, hockey, and gridiron. It is interesting; playing a world game doesn't seem to be necessary for a thriving domestic league.

I'm not sure where you found that information - the facts are that the AFL, German Bundesliga and English Premier League all have higher average attendances than Major League baseball. US basketball and hockey, admittedly constrained by stadium sizes, are a long way down the list.

Unless, of course, you meant to say that those four sports draw the largest average attendances in America alone - if so, you're correct, but hardly making a startling revelation.

 

[genghiskhan]

I'm not sure where you found that information - the facts are that the AFL, German Bundesliga and English Premier League all have higher average attendances than Major League baseball. US basketball and hockey, admittedly constrained by stadium sizes, are a long way down the list.

Unless, of course, you meant to say that those four sports draw the largest average attendances in America alone - if so, you're correct, but hardly making a startling revelation.

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.