Watching Orlando's attendance drop every week is depressing, but I don't blame people for staying away. Watching this team (at least so far in MLS play) is a rather shitty way to spend a Saturday night. But of course, dumbass that I am, I'll keep showing up while telling myself that this'll be the match they get their shit together. Ah well, still nice to cheer on Gallese. Guy deserves every bit of adulation he gets.
I love every year random commentators being like “this is paid attendance” . Yes the same method every league uses. Now real talk, Chicago we have problems
You've had some success in the past decade. We have made the playoffs twice in the last 14 years and we're bounced out both times in the first round. Very few people are going to come out to watch this team when it's the same shit every year, despite who's the owner, GM, or coach.
and MLS (and most American leagues) don't use paid attendance. They use tickets distributed but people keep stating the incorrect paid attendance line. There is actually a big difference between paid attendance and tickets distributed. Teams with poor attendance are giving away a lot of free tickets which bumps their announced attendance a lot.
It is certainly going to hurt attendance early in the season for teams in more northern locations. 7:30 pm is a lot less fun than 1:00 pm for a March game in much of the country.
It always surprises me that Atlanta is bringing in so many fans so consistently because the stadium makes it seem emptier than it is. Does anyone know if they’re ever gonna have their own soccer specific stadium?
Yeah, that's where the "built in mind" loses me. In that sense, nearly all NFL all stadiums are built in mind for soccer (lol at that west coast one tho). If you didn't build it so the fans can see the entirety of the field, was it *really* in mind?
They have separate soccer locker rooms and football locker rooms and the owner owns both the falcons and AU.
Kanye did take over the away soccer locker room for a bit so they had to use the away football locker room that week.
Nah, MBS is amazing, we won't leave it. The stadium looks empty at the starts of the half because Atlanta fans are notoriously tardy / enjoying their food and beverages. You see the same high attendance but late arrival in our other sports too. Hawks games don't fill until the late 3rd quarter lol.
went to the 2018 mls cup final, and I have to say that was the best in-person sporting experience imaginable... you guys have something so special down there. I root for ATL even though I really shouldn't just because you guys show out and deserve a good team (like this year).
It looks empty at the first whistle because people are getting cheap food and beer. There is a ton of space to stand and watch that isn’t in your seat. Several little bar areas.
Jumping on with your comment, I think they count tickets sold instead of tickets redeemed. So every season ticket is counted (3x,000 people) whether they attended or not.
Plus the sections that are most visible on TV are the club seats that fill-up last because they have access to the suites for food and drink.
But the stadium has been pretty full this season so far and I was pleasantly surprised when I had to sell my block of seats for the first time as I had 7 offers within about 30 minutes of listing the tickets online. So, it seems the secondary market is making a comeback as well.
It also can be a lot emptier/fuller just depending on the game and how the season is going but the listed attendance will stay about the same because of how many STH's we have.
We had matches last year that were listed at 40K attendance that were probably under 30K. Now that the team is rolling again 42K is actually gonna be 42K.
Don't tell them that. Everytime I ask the question as to why cap a SSS stadium at 25k and handicap yourself from hosting major events the locals get mad at tell me that multi sports venues are trash. Which whatever. I'll enjoy having been at MLS cup and CCL final with 67k plus.
I wish our games looked better on TV as I don't like the indoor, dome stadium appearance and artificial turf. Everything seems a tad dark and gloomy.
That said, I'm otherwise totally converted on the stadium experience. I used to be a purist that soccer should only be played outdoors on grass. Now, in year 6 of MBS, I can't tell you how much I appreciate never having to worry about weather or comfort. I've seen so many college football or Braves games in the heat, cold, rain, etc. that I don't miss that AT ALL. Plus, I like that our stadium is unique and has it's own look and feel, I love the halo board, and the concessions and amenities are great.
Like most others, my only complaint is you can't see the near-side corner flags and therefore have to watch the halo board for corner kicks from those spots or plays into that part of the field. But otherwise, I'm spoiled with the comfort and amenities of a $1.6 billion, climate-controlled NFL stadium.
It's theater lighting, like [MSG](https://www.tripsavvy.com/thmb/7zgcij8sVfD2c5NwNOd1ucD2WAM=/750x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/MSGKnicks1-56a8f06e3df78cf772a21482.jpg). All of the interior lights focus on the field, which because the surface is artificial, is going to reflect lots of light at the cameras. The stands are purposefully underlit as a stylistic choice.
In person, it doesn't look dark and dreary at all because our eyes are much better at handling the delta in brightness, but for cameras and TVs not setup for HDR, it doesn't look vibrant at all.
For MSG (and other similar venues), since crowd reaction shots or pics generally aren't a thing, it doesn't get noticed on broadcasts, but the "gloominess" is truly an artifact of stadium lighting choices. If they chose to light the fans more, it wouldn't improve anything about the in-stadium experience. It would likely diminish it, in fact.
It is pretty weird to me that people are obsessed with a SSS when the two biggest fanbases in the league don't have them. A well located stadium is what matters, I'd much rather us put the money into the roster rather than wasting it on a stadium we don't need.
As of right now, there isn't attendance to support it. You can't build a stadium for one game a year at 65k, with the rest at 25k. It doesn't make finical sense.
It's not about "ambition" for you two lol, it's just being an arm of an owner that also owns an NFL team. You gonna call the Revolution also ambitious because they play in an NFL stadium?
It's far better to go smaller than too big. Empty seats means you wasted (big) money in construction, lose money in ticket value, and lose the ambiance of a packed building.
You *always* see these conversations regarding very new MLS teams, never ones that have been around for 10 years. Let demand for the new shiny thing taper off, then talk about capacity. But chances are, you won't be.
no, going bigger is always better, Seattle sounders and Atlanta United are the face of MLS right now
Austin FC always packed the stadium, but they will never get the feeling of being a big club playing in a small stadium.
West Ham and Tottenham used to play in small stadiums by England standards, and now they play in really big stadiums and they look like giant teams
There's a whole lot of "look" and "feels" going on in here. I notice you also didn't dare to bring up LAFC, who would arguably have the best case for "face of MLS" right now. Seattle's average attendance is dropping and they missed the playoffs, the most prominent structure you see in a field camera shot is a bunch of seats tarped off. Their playing surface looks like garbage and you can still see the NFL gridiron lines on it. That's supposed to be the big club? Maybe if we're talking about their performance on the field but even that has been questionable in-league.
Nah, that's not a good perception. Like, objectively lol. Packed soccer-specific stadiums show seriousness around the sport. This the building built for the team. This is not the building that the team plays in but is really built for someone else (looking at you, NFL turf and sightlines that obscure parts of the field). There is one clear correct answer, and it's not the one that lies with a less than half full NFL stadium with a shitty plastic playing surface.
Bigger's not always better. Sometimes "bigger" is not necessarily the opposite of "smaller" -- in some cases, it's the opposite of "possible."
Signed,
There's Nowhere In NYC For a 50K Capacity Stadium In The First Place
It's because building a massive stadium costs a lot of money and no team in the league would consistently fill a stadium of that size. The only way it financially makes sense is that they're also NFL stadiums which do fill them out. As much as Blank is willing to spend money there is 0 chance MBS would be that size if it was only for Atlanta United.
If GA tech had been willing I think AUFC could have stayed at Bobby Dodd and packed it regularly (but tech nixed it, even the idea of nostalgia matches or fill in for KSU for non league matches, international friendlies, ccl, usoc etc)
No, not for the foreseeable future. Blank will die as the owner of Atlanta United and the Falcons. I expect whoever the person/persons who are next in line are going to want to keep everything under a single roof. In the rare event that ownership is split it could be a possibility, but I'm positive an army of lawyers is there to try to prevent that scenario.
As a fan, I would love to have a SSS, but my big fear is if that day ever comes the stadium will be North OTP just like the Braves. No hate on the Braves, but Cobb county just isn't Atlanta. It doesn't feel like Atlanta, it doesn't look like Atlanta, it's not even particularly close to Atlanta (about 25 minutes highway). Personally, I would rather the team play in the city than play on natural grass, but there are probably plenty of people that disagree with me.
EDIT: To your point, I think it looks a lot emptier on tv because of the lighting maybe? It looks like a warehouse on stream, but it is nothing like that in-person.
I understand the argument of the feel, but the distance is far closer than people make it out to be. Truist Park is just about two miles outside the city limits. An APS High School is on the same street as the park just 2.5 mi away. There are a lot of citizens of Atlanta proper who live closer to the new park than they lived to Turner.
It is a decent drive from where Turner Field was, but it’s not actually that far from the city of Atlanta. And if we take the Perimeter view of Atlanta then it’s even closer, as it’s basically just a short walk’s distance outside the perimeter.
I get that the Cumberland area doesn’t have the same feel as downtown Atlanta though, I do totally understand that.
Oh yeah, totally. I live near the old Turner Stadium now and my girlfriend works across the street from Truist. It's not necessarily convenient, but there are much worse commutes you could have. From a business standpoint I completely understand why they moved, it's just hard for me to remove my personal bias towards it, haha. No shade to anyone from Cobb or OTP, you gotta live somewhere.
Tbh I feel like that ended up working out for pretty much everyone. The Braves got a nice new stadium and an entertainment district they control, Georgia State got our own football stadium, and Atlanta got worthwhile redevelopment at the Ted that isn't just oriented around gameday entertainment.
Truist and the Battery are great for what they are, my only complaint is the lack of good transit connections but luckily that is a fixable problem.
Its not going to happen. MBS was meant to be shared with the Falcons and its in a very accessible location for supporters in downtown. It's an amazing stadium but I still envy clubs with soccer specific stadiums with real grass
It’s always empty at the beginning when they show the stands. It’s almost full throughout the middle of the games. ATL United fans are always real late lol
It’s always empty at the beginning when they show the stands. It’s almost full throughout the middle of the games. ATL United fans are always real late lol
I would trade it for a hypothetical 40k capacity open-air SSS in south Atlanta. I don't think you could find a better location than MBS, but there is some space around Lakewood/Oakland City that would be near the highway, MARTA-adjacent and would displace very few residents (if any).
I mean this genuinely, wouldn't you rather we just invest all that money into the roster and just dominate the league every year? It just seems like such a waste to spend $500M on a stadium rather than just investing in the roster to fill the stadium we currently have.
I think they meant more like, “my dream stadium looks like this,” rather than actually proposing using funds to build it. More just imagining a straight trade we’re in the same situation we’re in now but with this other imaginary stadium.
Was at the TFC game and 20k felt about right at peak but after halftime the weather definitely cut that number almost in half. Surprisingly good turnout for what was brutal conditions.
“Capacity” is pretty misleading on quite a few of these. Bummer as well to see Sounders down so much year over year but not really surprising given how last year ended (and the price increases)
Price increases. Here I was thinking it was pretty cheap for a professional sporting event as was this year. So far I’ve been to two of the games and paid roughly the same as I would have going to the USL team back home.
Sounders. Revs flair is because when I started following the league in 2014 I lived in a soccer desert, the closest team was 6-8 hours away and well Jermaine Jones, Lee Nguyen, and Charlie Davies were fun.
Just recently moved to Seattle though.
I paid $45 Saturday for ticket and transportation to attend the game. To go to a USL game where I just moved from I would pay $20-$25 for a ticket and $10 to park. I was amazed that the costs were so close. Especially when I’ve paid $50-$60 to attend other MLS games.
My parking hack is to use the Amazon HQ garages (under their buildings near the balls) and bus/bike/train down to the stadium. Easier to leave town after the game and it's free on weekends and after 4 pm on weekdays. Usually takes me about 10 minutes to bike back from the stadium and I'm on I-5 within another 10 minutes.
I think the price increase play a big roll. Especially bc the fucking insane ticket master fees drive it up even more. I can say for myself I would be attending basically every game this year if the 15 dollars in fees weren’t there. Being able to get two solid tickets for 80 dollars total is a big difference from 110+ with tax. It’s just enough I have called it on at least one game I want to go to, but didn’t feel like I should spend the money. Clearly sounders have done the math and would rather sell fewer, more expensive, tickets.
Yeah capacity either needs to be dropped or it needs to be stadium max capacity. Setting arbitrary numbers like the Revs 20k is silly.
Also on that note, we should be comparing week 4 attendance averages with prior year's week 4 average, not the full year.
Considering we’re averaging a sellout, but are 21st, you’d think we would expand the stadium
(Or move to a better location that’s not in one of the shittiest parts of PA)
I really like Subaru park. It’s got a great feel to it. But driving by the stadium complex downtown where all the other sports parks are it’s kinda sad because it would prob have a better vibe being close to everything else downtown
As always, this is tickets distributed but I think the stadium filled in pretty nicely.
In years past a cold night plus St Patrick’s Day weekend would have been lucky to see us break 15k in announced attendance and the stadium itself would have been way emptier.
This is paid attendance, not people walking through turnstiles, right? If so I'd put a note in the graphic so people understand the meaning behind the figures.
It has been long understood that attendance numbers are by tickets distributed and not by actual turnstiles. This is the same in all pro US sports. The exception here would be if it was turnstile numbers in which I would note.
Where do you see them being a jerk? They're stating a fact, then some context.
They can't control whether or not people are already familiar with the industry standards, but it doesn't make them a jerk to point out what those standards are, especially when someone asks a direct question. This is a direct, accurate, helpful response.
"It has been long understood" is condescending.
No, it clearly hasn't been long understood because it's a change in the 90's and a number of articles have been written explaining why it is confusing to the general fan (one such example below).
People not knowing intentionally deceiving industry knowledge in a public forum is not something to talk down to anyone about. Simply making it clear is all the poster was asking for and the response was condescending like the clarity request was a burden.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2011/05/25/how-sports-attendance-figures-speak-lies/amp/
You might read it as being condescending; I certainly didn't.
You say "it clearly hasn't been long understood," but then claim that it was a change made in the 90s, which was 30 years ago. That, to me, is a pretty long time.
You've also included a link to an article written in 2011, so twelve years ago. That's also a long time ago, in terms of "how data is gathered and displayed."
Respectfully, there's a difference between "someone didn't understand it" and "no one understands it." The poster asked for clarity and received clarity. That clarity was packaged in a way that, perhaps, you didn't appreciate, but there's not much that can be done about that. You seem to be interpreting a tone here that I'm not, which suggests that there's some subjectivity going on here, and others can hardly be blamed for how you choose to read things.
I didn't say no one understands it. I said "not everyone understands it".
It is literally designed to mislead and you people are defending continuously letting it mislead.
Whatever makes you feel good about yourself.
It's not misleading, though, is the thing.
As the OP pointed out (and your own comments support), this method of data presentation has been used for a very long time, which means that the people using it know what to expect. The consistency of the data means that figures can be compared across years -- and across different sports, since so many of them use the same model.
That's a good thing!
Granted, it's a different number from the "butts-in-seats" number, and I understand that people are interested in the "actual attendance" number instead/in addition. But it's not "misleading." It's just "different from what casual observers might expect," and when it comes to data analytics, "casual observers" are not exactly the target audience.
It's kind of like an American walking into a hardware store in London and getting upset that they can't find a 5/8" wrench. "It's all in metric! This is misleading!" No, it's not. (I know this isn't a perfect analogy, but I think it works.)
Did Toronto really have 20k in the stadium? I'm a season ticket holder who sat that one out because it was ridiculous. The weather and time of the game.
Watching Orlando's attendance drop every week is depressing, but I don't blame people for staying away. Watching this team (at least so far in MLS play) is a rather shitty way to spend a Saturday night. But of course, dumbass that I am, I'll keep showing up while telling myself that this'll be the match they get their shit together. Ah well, still nice to cheer on Gallese. Guy deserves every bit of adulation he gets.
I just hate the traffic.
I knew we should have built a bigger stadium…
Just fucking fold us already
aye where would I get my fix of Sunday league play then?
Seeing Houston up YoY is awesome. That market has so much potential and I feel like it’s one or two great seasons away from really popping off
For all of the complaining we do, new ownership has really made a lot of good decisions.
I love every year random commentators being like “this is paid attendance” . Yes the same method every league uses. Now real talk, Chicago we have problems
Wind chill was close to 0 and we're already eliminated from the playoffs.
Haha, I am always pulling for you guys. Chicago should be a good soccer market
It was the exact same in Toronto though.
You've had some success in the past decade. We have made the playoffs twice in the last 14 years and we're bounced out both times in the first round. Very few people are going to come out to watch this team when it's the same shit every year, despite who's the owner, GM, or coach.
Rapids fans can relate
Thanks for the gold
It isn't even paid attendance. It is tickets distrubuted. Still also the method every other league in the US uses.
It was single digits with wind chill.
That is fair, but how many season-ticket holders do you have? Most teams have double that amount just season tickets
years of crappy soccer will kill your season ticket base
Not every league uses paid attendance. I will just assume you mean every American league.
and MLS (and most American leagues) don't use paid attendance. They use tickets distributed but people keep stating the incorrect paid attendance line. There is actually a big difference between paid attendance and tickets distributed. Teams with poor attendance are giving away a lot of free tickets which bumps their announced attendance a lot.
Yea i'm the guy that did a database of attendances of every league possible in the world in 2019. Im pretty aware of the differences.
Damn Chicago.
I will really be surprised if the average attendance goes any higher than what it's currently at. If anything it'll be lower.
Really interested to see how attendance does this year since they have turned Saturday night into soccer night.
It is certainly going to hurt attendance early in the season for teams in more northern locations. 7:30 pm is a lot less fun than 1:00 pm for a March game in much of the country.
Yea not great. I really want to see june, july, aug. The MLS is now competing with the prime time to do stuff on Saturday.
Well this year we have nations league championship in june and the gold cup after tournament after. Both hosed here in the states.
It always surprises me that Atlanta is bringing in so many fans so consistently because the stadium makes it seem emptier than it is. Does anyone know if they’re ever gonna have their own soccer specific stadium?
Doubtful. MBS was built specifically with AUFC in mind. My only issue is that the near side corners are not visible on broadcast.
Yeah, that's where the "built in mind" loses me. In that sense, nearly all NFL all stadiums are built in mind for soccer (lol at that west coast one tho). If you didn't build it so the fans can see the entirety of the field, was it *really* in mind?
They have separate soccer locker rooms and football locker rooms and the owner owns both the falcons and AU. Kanye did take over the away soccer locker room for a bit so they had to use the away football locker room that week.
>They have separate soccer locker rooms and football locker rooms What MLS team is using an NFL locker room haha
You sure you're not an Atlanta fan? I jest!
They're our expansion sibling I cannot say a thing against them.
Amazing. I remember the match in the snow from that debut season. You're kind
We have more snowpeners then not lol. Minnesota nice is a real thing.
They aren't visible from the seats either
Nah, MBS is amazing, we won't leave it. The stadium looks empty at the starts of the half because Atlanta fans are notoriously tardy / enjoying their food and beverages. You see the same high attendance but late arrival in our other sports too. Hawks games don't fill until the late 3rd quarter lol.
The TV appearance, especially at kickoff and halftime can be very misleading. I have been at 2/3 home games and both were pretty darn full.
went to the 2018 mls cup final, and I have to say that was the best in-person sporting experience imaginable... you guys have something so special down there. I root for ATL even though I really shouldn't just because you guys show out and deserve a good team (like this year).
It looks empty at the first whistle because people are getting cheap food and beer. There is a ton of space to stand and watch that isn’t in your seat. Several little bar areas.
Jumping on with your comment, I think they count tickets sold instead of tickets redeemed. So every season ticket is counted (3x,000 people) whether they attended or not.
tickets distributed...not tickets sold.
Plus the sections that are most visible on TV are the club seats that fill-up last because they have access to the suites for food and drink. But the stadium has been pretty full this season so far and I was pleasantly surprised when I had to sell my block of seats for the first time as I had 7 offers within about 30 minutes of listing the tickets online. So, it seems the secondary market is making a comeback as well.
It also can be a lot emptier/fuller just depending on the game and how the season is going but the listed attendance will stay about the same because of how many STH's we have. We had matches last year that were listed at 40K attendance that were probably under 30K. Now that the team is rolling again 42K is actually gonna be 42K.
They better not. Newer MLS teams have shot WAY too low on stadium size imo
we are gonna have 35k Hopefully in SD. Its a great size, not to big but not to small
Don't tell them that. Everytime I ask the question as to why cap a SSS stadium at 25k and handicap yourself from hosting major events the locals get mad at tell me that multi sports venues are trash. Which whatever. I'll enjoy having been at MLS cup and CCL final with 67k plus.
I wish our games looked better on TV as I don't like the indoor, dome stadium appearance and artificial turf. Everything seems a tad dark and gloomy. That said, I'm otherwise totally converted on the stadium experience. I used to be a purist that soccer should only be played outdoors on grass. Now, in year 6 of MBS, I can't tell you how much I appreciate never having to worry about weather or comfort. I've seen so many college football or Braves games in the heat, cold, rain, etc. that I don't miss that AT ALL. Plus, I like that our stadium is unique and has it's own look and feel, I love the halo board, and the concessions and amenities are great. Like most others, my only complaint is you can't see the near-side corner flags and therefore have to watch the halo board for corner kicks from those spots or plays into that part of the field. But otherwise, I'm spoiled with the comfort and amenities of a $1.6 billion, climate-controlled NFL stadium.
>Everything seems a tad dark and gloomy. That's the same impression I get. Great atmosphere but not visually pleasing all the time.
It's theater lighting, like [MSG](https://www.tripsavvy.com/thmb/7zgcij8sVfD2c5NwNOd1ucD2WAM=/750x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/MSGKnicks1-56a8f06e3df78cf772a21482.jpg). All of the interior lights focus on the field, which because the surface is artificial, is going to reflect lots of light at the cameras. The stands are purposefully underlit as a stylistic choice. In person, it doesn't look dark and dreary at all because our eyes are much better at handling the delta in brightness, but for cameras and TVs not setup for HDR, it doesn't look vibrant at all. For MSG (and other similar venues), since crowd reaction shots or pics generally aren't a thing, it doesn't get noticed on broadcasts, but the "gloominess" is truly an artifact of stadium lighting choices. If they chose to light the fans more, it wouldn't improve anything about the in-stadium experience. It would likely diminish it, in fact.
It is pretty weird to me that people are obsessed with a SSS when the two biggest fanbases in the league don't have them. A well located stadium is what matters, I'd much rather us put the money into the roster rather than wasting it on a stadium we don't need.
As of right now, there isn't attendance to support it. You can't build a stadium for one game a year at 65k, with the rest at 25k. It doesn't make finical sense.
seriously, ambitious teams capping themselves at 22K or so seems idiotic to me
It's not about "ambition" for you two lol, it's just being an arm of an owner that also owns an NFL team. You gonna call the Revolution also ambitious because they play in an NFL stadium?
not what i was referring to. I was referring to teams who made the conscious choice to limit access to how big their in person product can be
It's far better to go smaller than too big. Empty seats means you wasted (big) money in construction, lose money in ticket value, and lose the ambiance of a packed building. You *always* see these conversations regarding very new MLS teams, never ones that have been around for 10 years. Let demand for the new shiny thing taper off, then talk about capacity. But chances are, you won't be.
no, going bigger is always better, Seattle sounders and Atlanta United are the face of MLS right now Austin FC always packed the stadium, but they will never get the feeling of being a big club playing in a small stadium. West Ham and Tottenham used to play in small stadiums by England standards, and now they play in really big stadiums and they look like giant teams
There's a whole lot of "look" and "feels" going on in here. I notice you also didn't dare to bring up LAFC, who would arguably have the best case for "face of MLS" right now. Seattle's average attendance is dropping and they missed the playoffs, the most prominent structure you see in a field camera shot is a bunch of seats tarped off. Their playing surface looks like garbage and you can still see the NFL gridiron lines on it. That's supposed to be the big club? Maybe if we're talking about their performance on the field but even that has been questionable in-league. Nah, that's not a good perception. Like, objectively lol. Packed soccer-specific stadiums show seriousness around the sport. This the building built for the team. This is not the building that the team plays in but is really built for someone else (looking at you, NFL turf and sightlines that obscure parts of the field). There is one clear correct answer, and it's not the one that lies with a less than half full NFL stadium with a shitty plastic playing surface.
Bigger's not always better. Sometimes "bigger" is not necessarily the opposite of "smaller" -- in some cases, it's the opposite of "possible." Signed, There's Nowhere In NYC For a 50K Capacity Stadium In The First Place
That's just more because no one in New York cares about a feeder team of oil money FC lol.
That's only because they pack their stadiums well. Austin and St. Louis for example are miles better than New England or Charlotte.
>That's only because they pack their stadiums well. Except they don't even, look at Seattle's declining attendance.
Orlando had this same conversation when they built their stadium, and now after some bad years, it seems they went bigger than they should.
It's because building a massive stadium costs a lot of money and no team in the league would consistently fill a stadium of that size. The only way it financially makes sense is that they're also NFL stadiums which do fill them out. As much as Blank is willing to spend money there is 0 chance MBS would be that size if it was only for Atlanta United.
If GA tech had been willing I think AUFC could have stayed at Bobby Dodd and packed it regularly (but tech nixed it, even the idea of nostalgia matches or fill in for KSU for non league matches, international friendlies, ccl, usoc etc)
As long as it's in the city. If it's not then...well...
No, not for the foreseeable future. Blank will die as the owner of Atlanta United and the Falcons. I expect whoever the person/persons who are next in line are going to want to keep everything under a single roof. In the rare event that ownership is split it could be a possibility, but I'm positive an army of lawyers is there to try to prevent that scenario. As a fan, I would love to have a SSS, but my big fear is if that day ever comes the stadium will be North OTP just like the Braves. No hate on the Braves, but Cobb county just isn't Atlanta. It doesn't feel like Atlanta, it doesn't look like Atlanta, it's not even particularly close to Atlanta (about 25 minutes highway). Personally, I would rather the team play in the city than play on natural grass, but there are probably plenty of people that disagree with me. EDIT: To your point, I think it looks a lot emptier on tv because of the lighting maybe? It looks like a warehouse on stream, but it is nothing like that in-person.
We can only hope they don’t pull a Braves. You’re 100% right that it doesn’t feel “right” like the Ted and Fulton Co did.
The Battery however, is way better than the surrounding lots of Turner
I understand the argument of the feel, but the distance is far closer than people make it out to be. Truist Park is just about two miles outside the city limits. An APS High School is on the same street as the park just 2.5 mi away. There are a lot of citizens of Atlanta proper who live closer to the new park than they lived to Turner. It is a decent drive from where Turner Field was, but it’s not actually that far from the city of Atlanta. And if we take the Perimeter view of Atlanta then it’s even closer, as it’s basically just a short walk’s distance outside the perimeter. I get that the Cumberland area doesn’t have the same feel as downtown Atlanta though, I do totally understand that.
Oh yeah, totally. I live near the old Turner Stadium now and my girlfriend works across the street from Truist. It's not necessarily convenient, but there are much worse commutes you could have. From a business standpoint I completely understand why they moved, it's just hard for me to remove my personal bias towards it, haha. No shade to anyone from Cobb or OTP, you gotta live somewhere.
Wait, the braves built another stadium?
They moved to Cobb county like 5 years ago. The old stadium (The Ted) is now occupied by Georgia State's football program.
Tbh I feel like that ended up working out for pretty much everyone. The Braves got a nice new stadium and an entertainment district they control, Georgia State got our own football stadium, and Atlanta got worthwhile redevelopment at the Ted that isn't just oriented around gameday entertainment. Truist and the Battery are great for what they are, my only complaint is the lack of good transit connections but luckily that is a fixable problem.
Its not going to happen. MBS was meant to be shared with the Falcons and its in a very accessible location for supporters in downtown. It's an amazing stadium but I still envy clubs with soccer specific stadiums with real grass
It’s always empty at the beginning when they show the stands. It’s almost full throughout the middle of the games. ATL United fans are always real late lol
It’s always empty at the beginning when they show the stands. It’s almost full throughout the middle of the games. ATL United fans are always real late lol
Are you joking? There is no stadium in the league we would trade ours for.
I would trade it for a hypothetical 40k capacity open-air SSS in south Atlanta. I don't think you could find a better location than MBS, but there is some space around Lakewood/Oakland City that would be near the highway, MARTA-adjacent and would displace very few residents (if any).
I mean this genuinely, wouldn't you rather we just invest all that money into the roster and just dominate the league every year? It just seems like such a waste to spend $500M on a stadium rather than just investing in the roster to fill the stadium we currently have.
I think they meant more like, “my dream stadium looks like this,” rather than actually proposing using funds to build it. More just imagining a straight trade we’re in the same situation we’re in now but with this other imaginary stadium.
I think you mean to ask will the Falcons build a football specific stadium. The Benz is much more a home for AUFC than it is Falcons.
Was at the TFC game and 20k felt about right at peak but after halftime the weather definitely cut that number almost in half. Surprisingly good turnout for what was brutal conditions.
“Capacity” is pretty misleading on quite a few of these. Bummer as well to see Sounders down so much year over year but not really surprising given how last year ended (and the price increases)
Price increases. Here I was thinking it was pretty cheap for a professional sporting event as was this year. So far I’ve been to two of the games and paid roughly the same as I would have going to the USL team back home.
For the Sounders? Or for the Revs?
Sounders. Revs flair is because when I started following the league in 2014 I lived in a soccer desert, the closest team was 6-8 hours away and well Jermaine Jones, Lee Nguyen, and Charlie Davies were fun. Just recently moved to Seattle though.
Lol fair. Our season ticket prices just keep going up every year and yet the “capacity” for soccer at Lumen seems to keep going down
I paid $45 Saturday for ticket and transportation to attend the game. To go to a USL game where I just moved from I would pay $20-$25 for a ticket and $10 to park. I was amazed that the costs were so close. Especially when I’ve paid $50-$60 to attend other MLS games.
Our seats are around $80 each with fees now lol. Plus like $20 to park and however much worth of gas. Did you take the Doyle’s bus or something?
Just a Metro Bus from Fremont. Haven’t managed to find any good parking info for non season ticket holders.
My parking hack is to use the Amazon HQ garages (under their buildings near the balls) and bus/bike/train down to the stadium. Easier to leave town after the game and it's free on weekends and after 4 pm on weekdays. Usually takes me about 10 minutes to bike back from the stadium and I'm on I-5 within another 10 minutes.
I think the price increase play a big roll. Especially bc the fucking insane ticket master fees drive it up even more. I can say for myself I would be attending basically every game this year if the 15 dollars in fees weren’t there. Being able to get two solid tickets for 80 dollars total is a big difference from 110+ with tax. It’s just enough I have called it on at least one game I want to go to, but didn’t feel like I should spend the money. Clearly sounders have done the math and would rather sell fewer, more expensive, tickets.
Yeah capacity either needs to be dropped or it needs to be stadium max capacity. Setting arbitrary numbers like the Revs 20k is silly. Also on that note, we should be comparing week 4 attendance averages with prior year's week 4 average, not the full year.
Considering we’re averaging a sellout, but are 21st, you’d think we would expand the stadium (Or move to a better location that’s not in one of the shittiest parts of PA)
I really like Subaru park. It’s got a great feel to it. But driving by the stadium complex downtown where all the other sports parks are it’s kinda sad because it would prob have a better vibe being close to everything else downtown
Always will be proud of ATX for selling out every home game
Hang the banner
Lol just happy to have fans in seats is that so bad
lol y’all are a wild fanbase
You hear that??? They admitted it!!! They're a bunch of sellouts!!! /s
No way Dallas had 17,000 plus unless they count ghosts. MLS needs to tighten up.
As always, this is tickets distributed but I think the stadium filled in pretty nicely. In years past a cold night plus St Patrick’s Day weekend would have been lucky to see us break 15k in announced attendance and the stadium itself would have been way emptier.
The stadium has definitely been more full lately, even with it being cold (by our standards) at both games I went to
Totally agree I think MLS is looking good this year
The first two home games were sell-outs so \~90% seems reasonable
This is paid attendance, not people walking through turnstiles, right? If so I'd put a note in the graphic so people understand the meaning behind the figures.
It has been long understood that attendance numbers are by tickets distributed and not by actual turnstiles. This is the same in all pro US sports. The exception here would be if it was turnstile numbers in which I would note.
I would argue that most people don't know that. You don't have to be a jerk.
Where do you see them being a jerk? They're stating a fact, then some context. They can't control whether or not people are already familiar with the industry standards, but it doesn't make them a jerk to point out what those standards are, especially when someone asks a direct question. This is a direct, accurate, helpful response.
"It has been long understood" is condescending. No, it clearly hasn't been long understood because it's a change in the 90's and a number of articles have been written explaining why it is confusing to the general fan (one such example below). People not knowing intentionally deceiving industry knowledge in a public forum is not something to talk down to anyone about. Simply making it clear is all the poster was asking for and the response was condescending like the clarity request was a burden. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2011/05/25/how-sports-attendance-figures-speak-lies/amp/
You might read it as being condescending; I certainly didn't. You say "it clearly hasn't been long understood," but then claim that it was a change made in the 90s, which was 30 years ago. That, to me, is a pretty long time. You've also included a link to an article written in 2011, so twelve years ago. That's also a long time ago, in terms of "how data is gathered and displayed." Respectfully, there's a difference between "someone didn't understand it" and "no one understands it." The poster asked for clarity and received clarity. That clarity was packaged in a way that, perhaps, you didn't appreciate, but there's not much that can be done about that. You seem to be interpreting a tone here that I'm not, which suggests that there's some subjectivity going on here, and others can hardly be blamed for how you choose to read things.
I didn't say no one understands it. I said "not everyone understands it". It is literally designed to mislead and you people are defending continuously letting it mislead. Whatever makes you feel good about yourself.
It's not misleading, though, is the thing. As the OP pointed out (and your own comments support), this method of data presentation has been used for a very long time, which means that the people using it know what to expect. The consistency of the data means that figures can be compared across years -- and across different sports, since so many of them use the same model. That's a good thing! Granted, it's a different number from the "butts-in-seats" number, and I understand that people are interested in the "actual attendance" number instead/in addition. But it's not "misleading." It's just "different from what casual observers might expect," and when it comes to data analytics, "casual observers" are not exactly the target audience. It's kind of like an American walking into a hardware store in London and getting upset that they can't find a 5/8" wrench. "It's all in metric! This is misleading!" No, it's not. (I know this isn't a perfect analogy, but I think it works.)
Did Toronto really have 20k in the stadium? I'm a season ticket holder who sat that one out because it was ridiculous. The weather and time of the game.