Attendances at the London 2012 Olympic women's football tournament

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kat Neyer on August 1, 2012 at 15:13

It's my understanding that a lawsuit between owners is to blame for the collapse of the WPS. The prior league (WPL I believe) collapsed due to an overestimation of popularity. The original league held games in stadiums that were too large for the audience that attended. The WPS seemed to be running well in the stadiums they had, but a complicated legal issue drained the league and owners of much capital. In the end, I think they desolved the league to keep from losing more money in the process. Most of the teams from WPS are taking part in the WPSL Elite league with sell out crowds (I think the Boston Breakers had 9 out of 9 home games sold out).

Permalink Reply by Sebastian Kanty on August 1, 2012 at 16:08

@Kat - very true about the lawsuit being a big factor in the leagues demise, but wps had problems long before that...first year they had 7 teams, though they should have had atleast 8. they got some sort of break from us soccer to be allowed to play with 7 teams, and the following seasons just got worse in all aspects, attendance, money etc.

boston breakers may have sell out crowds, but when the stadium only takes ~2300* people it isn't enough. it would have been a solid number in europe, but in us it won't fly, although it is now only a semi-pro league, so moneywise it wouldn't be too bad, but they would still need outside financial aid.

*perhaps the stadium is bigger now...found the figure when googling..

Permalink Reply by 2xehxtxemyk65 on August 1, 2012 at 16:49

Richard Murray, Gromit and ego has been chewing this one over a bit. In short, to keep a decent standard on a ladies´ soccer team you are talking about 3M per year, though you might be able to manage on less, and to get decent sponsorship ideally you should get up to about 5000 per match.  

   The fact that many teams in Europe manage on less is owed to features such as many players are not paid at all and sometimes local government subsidise. Thus it is reminiscent of European soccer 30-40 years ago and the same risk applies to the ladies´ game, to wit that a few teams will be able to outspend the rest. Indeed, some would say that already is happening, the more is the pity.

Sebastian Kanty said:

@Kat - very true about the lawsuit being a big factor in the leagues demise, but wps had problems long before that...first year they had 7 teams, though they should have had atleast 8. they got some sort of break from us soccer to be allowed to play with 7 teams, and the following seasons just got worse in all aspects, attendance, money etc.

boston breakers may have sell out crowds, but when the stadium only takes ~2300* people it isn't enough. it would have been a solid number in europe, but in us it won't fly, although it is now only a semi-pro league, so moneywise it wouldn't be too bad, but they would still need outside financial aid.

*perhaps the stadium is bigger now...found the figure when googling..

Permalink Reply by Gromit on August 1, 2012 at 18:01

I think that maybe the "all professionnalized US Women soccer" is not adapted to the real situation of this sport in the country. Thinking that money flowing evrywhere will be enough is a soft illusion. The US problem is complicate because there are many things - some good, some bad - involved. For instance, the franchise system, this so typically US way of managing sports and teams. There are no clubs with all their culture (like Liverpool, Real Madrid, Barça, juve, etc.), only "teams" that are not rooted. The owner of the team can move it to the other side of the country if he prefers to have it on a sunnier spot. How about the supporters, the fans ? You can't move them with you. You know that it happened. That's ultra-liberal conceptions applied to sports. You're a player of a team, you have to move with it. You don't want it ? Ok, bye bye. That's delocalization.

The professionnal US women's league was also victim of its own ambition. Wanting to have the best players from all countries is alright but you have to be sure that you can financially manage that. But I'm afraid that the owners - who are not particularly football fans as you and me but business men, capitalists - only want to make the show and money, money, money. Or I'd rather say profits, profits, profits. As quickly as possible. Even with the risk that things can last only two or three years. It's excatly like Cinema industry. I know this topic rather well. It doesn't matter for Hollywood bosses if the film is bad or if it goes to the bin everywhere after three weeks run. The most important is the first week-end. Thanks to the buzz, you cover your expenses in two days and make your millions of dollars profits in the two following weeks.

In Football, it's not in two weeks but in one or two years. But the idea is the same. And I'm afraid that Europe has began to be contaminated by this way of thinking and acting, in Men's Football for the moment. Do you think that when US pension funds buy a famous English team, its is for Football's love ? All those businessmen don't know anything about specificity of this sport, they don't care to live on debt because that is the hardcore of Capitalism, and that's why I'm afraid we'll see more and more clubs and teams being bankrupt followed by dramatic disparitions like Glasgow Rangers recently.

Sports is a part of economy but with its specificity. Like Culture. But Cultural exception is a too much French conception for being adopted in ultra-liberal USA. ;o)

Permalink Reply by 2xehxtxemyk65 on August 1, 2012 at 18:58

The Brooklyn Dodgers: the Brooklyn Dodgers; the Brooklyn Dodgers!

Gromit said:

I think that maybe the "all professionnalized US Women soccer" is not adapted to the real situation of this sport in the country. Thinking that money flowing evrywhere will be enough is a soft illusion. The US problem is complicate because there are many things - some good, some bad - involved. For instance, the franchise system, this so typically US way of managing sports and teams. There are no clubs with all their culture (like Liverpool, Real Madrid, Barça, juve, etc.), only "teams" that are not rooted. The owner of the team can move it to the other side of the country if he prefers to have it on a sunnier spot. How about the supporters, the fans ? You can't move them with you. You know that it happened. That's ultra-liberal conceptions applied to sports. You're a player of a team, you have to move with it. You don't want it ? Ok, bye bye. That's delocalization.

The professionnal US women's league was also victim of its own ambition. Wanting to have the best players from all countries is alright but you have to be sure that you can financially manage that. But I'm afraid that the owners - who are not particularly football fans as you and me but business men, capitalists - only want to make the show and money, money, money. Or I'd rather say profits, profits, profits. As quickly as possible. Even with the risk that things can last only two or three years. It's excatly like Cinema industry. I know this topic rather well. It doesn't matter for Hollywood bosses if the film is bad or if it goes to the bin everywhere after three weeks run. The most important is the first week-end. Thanks to the buzz, you cover your expenses in two days and make your millions of dollars profits in the two following weeks.

In Football, it's not in two weeks but in one or two years. But the idea is the same. And I'm afraid that Europe has began to be contaminated by this way of thinking and acting, in Men's Football for the moment. Do you think that when US pension funds buy a famous English team, its is for Football's love ? All those businessmen don't know anything about specificity of this sport, they don't care to live on debt because that is the hardcore of Capitalism, and that's why I'm afraid we'll see more and more clubs and teams being bankrupt followed by dramatic disparitions like Glasgow Rangers recently.

Sports is a part of economy but with its specificity. Like Culture. But Cultural exception is a too much French conception for being adopted in ultra-liberal USA. ;o)

Permalink Reply by 2xehxtxemyk65 on August 2, 2012 at 10:03

Now that the 18 group matches are over, we can summarise these figures:

   Median 18 190.  Interquartile range 12 951 to 29 812.  Bottom 11 313.  Top 70 584.

   The 5 least well attended were in Glasgow 11 313 & 11 743, Coventry 11 425, and Newcastle 12 719 & 13 184.

   The 5 best attended matches were in London 70 584, Cardiff 31 141, 30 847 & 30 103, and Manchester 29 522.

   No match in Cardiff drew less than 24 200 while the best attended in Glasgow attracted 20 150.

 

It would be interesting to see the market research that justified not using more stadia in London seeing that it is London who is the host city. Maybe the predictions were worse for more matches in London than spreading them around? Also, it would be interesting to see what was predicted for Cardiff. One assumes that some logic underpinned the organisation.

 

Permalink Reply by Gromit on August 2, 2012 at 11:50

Thanks Lars fort hose figures.

I think that the choice to dispatch the matches all around England, Scotland and Wales is probably due to the will to have "Great Britain" welcoming the tournament, since the "national team" is notre strictly England but GB.

I don't know what is the real reason, just my opinion. And there is not a single international tournament who has ever been set in one city only.

Permalink Reply by Gromit on August 6, 2012 at 13:45

France-Sweden in QF attracted 600,000 TV-viewers on France 4 (4,9 % of the global audience) with a 1,2 million at the end (11 %).

Let's not forget that the match was played at 1 pm (French time) and that more than half of France is currently in holiday and not at home.

Permalink Reply by Women's Soccer United on August 6, 2012 at 13:58

Thanks for the stats Gromit.

I just asked the Wembley Stadium organisers whether there were tickets still available for tonight and whether they were expecting large crowd for Japan v France, there response was  "Tickets are on sale,arrive early" 

Gromit said:

France-Sweden in QF attracted 600,000 TV-viewers on France 4 (4,9 % of the global audience) with a 1,2 million at the end (11 %).

Let's not forget that the match was played at 1 pm (French time) and that more than half of France is currently in holiday and not at home.

Permalink Reply by 2xehxtxemyk65 on August 6, 2012 at 14:42

According to the BBC, the French consulate in London estimates that between 300 000 and 400 000 French citizens live in the British capital. Were 5% to go to Wembley, the stadium would not be empty and if 10% it would be half-full!  Let´s hope for a goodly turnout and cheerful crowd!

Women's Soccer United said:

Thanks for the stats Gromit.

I just asked the Wembley Stadium organisers whether there were tickets still available for tonight and whether they were expecting large crowd for Japan v France, there response was  "Tickets are on sale,arrive early" 

Gromit said:

France-Sweden in QF attracted 600,000 TV-viewers on France 4 (4,9 % of the global audience) with a 1,2 million at the end (11 %).

Let's not forget that the match was played at 1 pm (French time) and that more than half of France is currently in holiday and not at home.

Permalink Reply by David Peak on August 6, 2012 at 19:15

I had a discussion with a Newcastle friend about the low Newcastle attendances at St James's Park. Knowing the absolute passion in this city for football I was surprised at the low attendances. He wasn't surprised at all, his reply was that this passion was for Newcastle United Football Club. They were Newcastle fans not football in general. Sadly this is reflected elsewhere. I do think, however, that the quality of the games has won a lot of friends with those who did go to the games. I've seen thousands of games... but the women's games I saw in England will stay with me for a long time.

Permalink Reply by 2xehxtxemyk65 on August 7, 2012 at 8:42

The latest figures are in:

   QF USA - NZ in Newcastle 10 441;  Brazil - Japan in Cardiff 28 528

   SF France - Japan in London  61 482 (ie ca 10 000 or 15% short of max possible)

   SF Canada - USA in Manchester 26 630 (ie ca 35 000 or 58% short of max possible)

 

In total comparing Glasgow and Newcastle the total attendance in Glasgow has been 74 171, that is 3 500 (5%) more than at Wembley for the GB-Brazil match while in Newcastle 36 344 turned up in total. When these figures are averaged per match the mean attendances flatter Glasgow vs Newcastle with 14 834 vs 12 114 but with such small numbers it is better to work with medians which makes Glasgow 12 689 vs 12 719 for Newcastle, that is the Geordies beat the Glaswegians.  Well done, Tyneside!

   My conclusion is that these foggy islands are not a hotbed for ladies´ football.

 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Next ›
• Page