PDA

View Full Version : MLB Attendance Declines for 3rd Straight Year


Hitmen77
10-05-2010, 01:32 PM
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/mlb-wide-attendance-declines-for-third-straight-season.php

It's not a huge drop over 2009, but a decline nonetheless. 2/3 of the teams drew fewer than 2.8 million fans. The link below shows the individual teams' changes from '09 to '10. Here are some noteworthy numbers:

- 2 of the 8 playoff teams have attendance of 2.0 million or less

- Two top drawing teams in the early to mid 90s were Toronto and Baltimore. Skydome and Camden Yards were huge draws. Today, both teams are near the bottom in attendance. Toronto had a drop of almost 300,000 for 2010.

- The Mets had the biggest drop (over 500,000)

- Cleveland (where "455" is a retired number and the team was one win away from the World Series 3 years ago) is dead last in attendance after seeing a 375,000 drop.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/current_attendance.shtml

WhiteSox5187
10-05-2010, 02:09 PM
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/mlb-wide-attendance-declines-for-third-straight-season.php

It's not a huge drop over 2009, but a decline nonetheless. 2/3 of the teams drew fewer than 2.8 million fans. The link below shows the individual teams' changes from '09 to '10. Here are some noteworthy numbers:

- 2 of the 8 playoff teams have attendance of 2.0 million or less

- Two top drawing teams in the early to mid 90s were Toronto and Baltimore. Skydome and Camden Yards were huge draws. Today, both teams are near the bottom in attendance. Toronto had a drop of almost 300,000 for 2010.

- The Mets had the biggest drop (over 500,000)

- Cleveland (where "455" is a retired number and the team was one win away from the World Series 3 years ago) is dead last in attendance after seeing a 375,000 drop.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/current_attendance.shtml

It's no surprise that the three teams you mentioned are where they are in terms of attendance. Toronto and Baltimore haven't contended since the mid-1990s, the Mets were a disaster again this year and even with a new park fans aren't going to spend a ton of money to see a sub .500 team (especially with all the off the field antics surrounding that team), and Cleveland is a 90 loss team. Not many 90 loss teams outside of the Cubs draw well.

mrwag
10-05-2010, 03:26 PM
Doesn't help that it costs nearly $250 to take my family of four to the game by the time it's all said and done. I don't have that much "blow money" anymore, and I can't make it during the week during their cheaper rates.

ewokpelts
10-05-2010, 04:57 PM
73 million fans is nothing to sneeze at. mlb has unrealistic capacity goals, as they play 81 games a year.

Tannerfan
10-05-2010, 05:34 PM
On the other hand...

http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4742:mlb-projected-to-pull-in-a-record-7-billion-in-revenues&catid=30:mlb-news&Itemid=42

Hitmen77
10-06-2010, 11:31 AM
It's no surprise that the three teams you mentioned are where they are in terms of attendance. Toronto and Baltimore haven't contended since the mid-1990s, the Mets were a disaster again this year and even with a new park fans aren't going to spend a ton of money to see a sub .500 team (especially with all the off the field antics surrounding that team), and Cleveland is a 90 loss team. Not many 90 loss teams outside of the Cubs draw well.

Toronto was a huge draw back then because the Skydome was popular at the time and the team won back to back WS. Camden Yards was a huge draw in it's early years. I'm sure the years of bad teams has hurt them. It could also be that Camden Yards isn't that special anymore now that just about every team has a "retro" park. Has a team in DC eaten into Baltimore's ticket sales too?

As far as Cleveland goes, they have had back to back 90 loss seasons now. But they're not that far removed from a deep playoff run. 1.3 million is a huge drop off in a short time. They're dead last in attendance now.....several hundred thousand behind teams that have been bad every year for almost 2 decades like KC and Pittsburgh.

73 million fans is nothing to sneeze at. mlb has unrealistic capacity goals, as they play 81 games a year.

I think this is the problem right there. In today's economics, people expect every team to draw like the Yankees, Cubs, Dodgers, etc. It used to be (as recently as the 1980s) that 2.0 million was a great turnout for a season. Now, if teams aren't pushing 3 million in attendance (or at least averaging 30,000 every night), it's an attendance problem....and that's not realistic for most teams.

asindc
10-06-2010, 11:48 AM
Toronto was a huge draw back then because the Skydome was popular at the time and the team won back to back WS. Camden Yards was a huge draw in it's early years. I'm sure the years of bad teams has hurt them. It could also be that Camden Yards isn't that special anymore now that just about every team has a "retro" park. Has a team in DC eaten into Baltimore's ticket sales too?

As far as Cleveland goes, they have had back to back 90 loss seasons now. But they're not that far removed from a deep playoff run. 1.3 million is a huge drop off in a short time. They're dead last in attendance now.....several hundred thousand behind teams that have been bad every year for almost 2 decades like KC and Pittsburgh...

To answer the bolded question, no. The O's drop in attendance is due primarily to its lousy play over the past 13 years and the corresponding success of the Ravens. Baltimore is very much a rust belt city (more so than any other East Coast city), so there is a limited number of people who can spend disposable income on both teams. With the Ravens being much better and having only eight home dates versus 81 for the O's, dollars (but not necessarily allegiances) have shifted to the Ravens.

The O's got such a sweetheart TV deal from MLB in exchange for their approval of the Nats relocation that any hit they took in their fanbase from the move (most estimates I've read put it at no more than 10%, if that much) is mostly made up through getting a significant chunk of the Nats' TV revenue and being able to pre-empt the Nats' HD broadcast for its own in DC.

Jason82807
10-06-2010, 04:07 PM
Doesn't help that it costs nearly $250 to take my family of four to the game by the time it's all said and done. I don't have that much "blow money" anymore, and I can't make it during the week during their cheaper rates.

Unless you insist on infield lower level seats, or you're going to a near-capacity game, you can get a much better deal if you buy upper deck seats from a season ticket holder and sit somewhere on the 100-level down the line. The Sox let upper deck season tickets have 100-level access. Some teams, like the O's, don't even have anyone that checks your ticket once you get past the front gates.

ewokpelts
10-06-2010, 04:08 PM
Toronto was a huge draw back then because the Skydome was popular at the time and the team won back to back WS. Camden Yards was a huge draw in it's early years. I'm sure the years of bad teams has hurt them. It could also be that Camden Yards isn't that special anymore now that just about every team has a "retro" park. Has a team in DC eaten into Baltimore's ticket sales too?

As far as Cleveland goes, they have had back to back 90 loss seasons now. But they're not that far removed from a deep playoff run. 1.3 million is a huge drop off in a short time. They're dead last in attendance now.....several hundred thousand behind teams that have been bad every year for almost 2 decades like KC and Pittsburgh.



I think this is the problem right there. In today's economics, people expect every team to draw like the Yankees, Cubs, Dodgers, etc. It used to be (as recently as the 1980s) that 2.0 million was a great turnout for a season. Now, if teams aren't pushing 3 million in attendance (or at least averaging 30,000 every night), it's an attendance problem....and that's not realistic for most teams.the average mlb stadium has 40k seats per game for 81 home games.

nba/nhl arenas have an average of 19k seats for the 40-45 games each league plays at home. with games played indoors

nfl has 65-100k seats per game for 10 home games(preseason and regular season).

mlb can clearly blow each league out of the water in attendance, but that higher capacity is hard to fill without discounts or offers.

Jason82807
10-06-2010, 04:09 PM
I'll go out on a limb here and say that the O's will have the largest % increase in attendance from 2010-2011. Buck has given the team some hope, and a team that has been that lousy for so long will probably draw a lot of fans at any sign of a significant improvement.

ewokpelts
10-06-2010, 04:09 PM
Unless you insist on infield lower level seats, or you're going to a near-capacity game, you can get a much better deal if you buy upper deck seats from a season ticket holder and sit somewhere on the 100-level down the line. The Sox let upper deck season tickets have 100-level access. Some teams, like the O's, don't even have anyone that checks your ticket once you get past the front gates.
yes, but the sox' full price upper deck reserved seats are as cheap as $20(not counting mondays). 4 tix is $80 BEFORE service fees. When you add parking, you're looking at $103 to walk in the door.

Not a smart business model.

Jason82807
10-06-2010, 07:37 PM
yes, but the sox' full price upper deck reserved seats are as cheap as $20(not counting mondays). 4 tix is $80 BEFORE service fees. When you add parking, you're looking at $103 to walk in the door.

Not a smart business model.

I think the Sox (and probably other teams as well) need to have some massive promotions for cheap tickets for the really bad seats and crappy games. It's better for a team to have people sitting in seats, even if they paid basically nothing for the seats, because they'll probably buy some food/drinks/souvenirs/parking while they're there. Plus, the atmosphere is a lot better with a near-full house. The only downside is they'll probably have to have a little more security, but I think the benefits will offset the extra cost.

Daver
10-06-2010, 07:41 PM
I think the Sox (and probably other teams as well) need to have some massive promotions for cheap tickets for the really bad seats and crappy games. It's better for a team to have people sitting in seats, even if they paid basically nothing for the seats, because they'll probably buy some food/drinks/souvenirs/parking while they're there. Plus, the atmosphere is a lot better with a near-full house. The only downside is they'll probably have to have a little more security, but I think the benefits will offset the extra cost.

Intentionally de-valuing your product is a dismal business model.

DSpivack
10-06-2010, 07:49 PM
A bad economy certainly doesn't help, either.

Jason82807
10-06-2010, 10:21 PM
Intentionally de-valuing your product is a dismal business model.

Sox Bleacher tickets were on Stubhub for $3 each for the last game of the 2010 season. I don't think anything they can do will de-value the product more than that. They don't need to have discounts for premium seats or prime/premium games. There will be 8 or 9 half-price Mondays next season so that will help (assuming they're still doing that promo).

Rdy2PlayBall
10-06-2010, 10:51 PM
Intentionally de-valuing your product is a dismal business model.I'm sure Tampa Bay made good money giving away thousands of tickets.

I don't think the Sox could get away with that though.

ewokpelts
10-07-2010, 11:19 AM
Intentionally de-valuing your product is a dismal business model.like the group discount codes and twitter offers dont dothat already.

stubhub had upper deck tix consistently under box office face almost everygame. hell, some games were $10 BEFORE the sox were eliminated.

why buy from the sox direct when STH's were blowing out tix moneths before they were out of the race?

oh, and let's not forget about the smart circle books. those had $1 upper deck ticket coupons as well as 1/2 price lower deck vouchers.

ewokpelts
10-07-2010, 11:22 AM
Sox Bleacher tickets were on Stubhub for $3 each for the last game of the 2010 season. I don't think anything they can do will de-value the product more than that. They don't need to have discounts for premium seats or prime/premium games. There will be 8 or 9 half-price Mondays next season so that will help (assuming they're still doing that promo).as a soon to be former STH, why should i pay $35 to go to a game that someone else paid $3?

Hitmen77
10-07-2010, 11:46 AM
the average mlb stadium has 40k seats per game for 81 home games.

nba/nhl arenas have an average of 19k seats for the 40-45 games each league plays at home. with games played indoors

nfl has 65-100k seats per game for 10 home games(preseason and regular season).

mlb can clearly blow each league out of the water in attendance, but that higher capacity is hard to fill without discounts or offers.

Agreed. I think people fail to realize this when they say that (name a city) would be a great MLB market because they have a successful NBA or NFL team.

Even half the existing MLB markets can keep up with the attendance demands that today's MLB economics pushes for.

hawkjt
10-07-2010, 01:03 PM
Still, revenues are clearly very strong overall. A record revenue of 7 billion is nothing to sneeze at. That works out to almost 100 dollars per 73 million in the park. Now, I know that includes out of park dollars,but I think it reflects a pretty hefty increase in revenue/fan ratio...which shows how out of park revenues from TV ,merchandise ect have continued to provide a larger percentage of overall revenue.

If there was total revenue sharing, at 7 billion, the 30 teams would all average 234 million in revenue....enough for everyone to have a 100 million dollar payroll,probably. Should be more like the NFL,where it is almost complete socialism...and everyone has a good shot at winning the super bowl.

ewokpelts
10-07-2010, 01:20 PM
Still, revenues are clearly very strong overall. A record revenue of 7 billion is nothing to sneeze at. That works out to almost 100 dollars per 73 million in the park. Now, I know that includes out of park dollars,but I think it reflects a pretty hefty increase in revenue/fan ratio...which shows how out of park revenues from TV ,merchandise ect have continued to provide a larger percentage of overall revenue.

If there was total revenue sharing, at 7 billion, the 30 teams would all average 234 million in revenue....enough for everyone to have a 100 million dollar payroll,probably. Should be more like the NFL,where it is almost complete socialism...and everyone has a good shot at winning the super bowl.too bad the nfl's facing a total collapse next year

Jason82807
10-07-2010, 01:24 PM
as a soon to be former STH, why should i pay $35 to go to a game that someone else paid $3?

That's kind of my point. Reducing ticket prices doesn't de-value the product. The free market value is already below face value, and lower prices would make the face value more in-line with value.

ewokpelts
10-07-2010, 01:33 PM
That's kind of my point. Reducing ticket prices doesn't de-value the product. The free market value is already below face value, and lower prices would make the face value more in-line with value.
I agree. Empty green seats dont being in any additional revenue.

Fenway
10-08-2010, 11:51 AM
Washington looks more and more like a mistake....

Tampa will not draw in South St Pete, now they are looking at LAKELAND to become a regional team

The Indians were a huge draw when The Jake opened but keep in mind one thing..... The Browns were on hitaus

doublem23
10-08-2010, 11:58 AM
too bad the nfl's facing a total collapse next year

Yeah, it's not from a lack of revenue, though, it's because the owners and players are having a money fight.

doublem23
10-08-2010, 11:58 AM
The Indians were a huge draw when The Jake opened but keep in mind one thing..... The Browns were on hitaus

They were also really ****ing good.

asindc
10-08-2010, 12:03 PM
Washington looks more and more like a mistake....

Tampa will not draw in South St Pete, now they are looking at LAKELAND to become a regional team

The Indians were a huge draw when The Jake opened but keep in mind one thing..... The Browns were on hitaus

When the Nats started contending, they will draw. The main problem with the Nats, besides the losing of course, is that most people here, including me, think that the wrong ownership group was awarded the team. The Lerners have done nothing to change anyone's mind. The concessions are the among the most expensive in MLB and the organization has fought with the city constantly. The 30-year lease makes all the difference because it will give the team plenty of time to build a lasting relationship with a generation of young fans, something they obviously don't have yet.

Fenway
10-08-2010, 12:04 PM
They were also really ****ing good.

actually they all left because of him

http://www.georgezeller.com/NIGHTGAM.JPG

soxfanreggie
10-08-2010, 01:11 PM
Some college football teams are facing the opposite:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5662189

Huskers adding on about 5,000 new seats (increasing from about 81k to 86k), but when riding a 300+ game home sellout streak and facing a huge demand for tickets, they could add another 5,000 on top of this and probably still continue their sellout streak.

After watching Michigan and Alabama add on seats, I wonder who will be next. A couple thousand more at the Horseshoe? More at Ben Hill Griffin in Florida?

Fenway
10-08-2010, 01:34 PM
Minor Leagues doing nicely

http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/

Hitmen77
10-08-2010, 02:24 PM
Washington looks more and more like a mistake....

The real test in Washington is to see how fans respond if the team ever makes a run for the playoffs. At least they have a better chance at being competitive someday being in the NL instead of being buried in the AL East.

Tampa will not draw in South St Pete, now they are looking at LAKELAND to become a regional team

I have my doubts that a "regional" team that is situated between 2 metro areas would really work for MLB. This isn't football where you just have to get people to drive out on Sundays. Are 25,000 a night really going to drive to Lakeland, Fla. worknight after worknight?

The Indians were a huge draw when The Jake opened but keep in mind one thing..... The Browns were on hitaus

I know the Browns are big in Cleveland, but other than the days that the Browns are playing, how does this greatly affect the Indians' attendance? Are people in Cleveland not going to Progressive Field in June or July just because the Browns play in the fall?

I think the Tribe was just riding the wave of a new ballpark plus an incredibly good team in the 1990s. I'd expect that wouldn't last when the team's fortunes went south. But it's pretty bad that they've plummeted that far behind even KC and Pittsburgh in terms of drawing fans.

downstairs
10-08-2010, 05:01 PM
Washington looks more and more like a mistake....

No way. Look at the attendence for the Strausburg games. The fans exist, and will come to games that matter. When they start winning, they'll sell out.

The Florida teams? Yeah, no.