I begin this thread in hope then it will very interesting for skyscraper users.
Sorry? for my English.

Maybe, you questioning me:
"What's about this thread???"
This thread about atmosphere on stadiums in various countries & various leagues. But it's not Football Fan Emotions.
It's about attendance & stadiums.
For example, football atmosphere in Russia

Russia 2008
Average Attendance - 13,634
1. Rubin Kazan
Avg. Attendance - 18,675
Highest Attendance - 28,850
Stadium - Central Stadium
Stadium Capacity - 30,133
http://www.rubin-kazan.ru/images/blobs/L2ZpbGVzL3Bob3RvLzIwMDgvMjAwODAzMjNydWJpbl9sdWNoMjAwODAzMjNydWJsdWNoXzA4.500.500.jpg
Season Open
http://fcdinamo.ru/__images/photos/f0f9fd232ae791157da811fb2015d988.jpg
Match with attendance close to average
http://cs1227.vkontakte.ru/u9152653/642001/x_e7479aa6.jpg
Match with highest attendance in season
2. PFC CSKA Moskva
Avg. - 16,243
Highest - 60,000
Stadium - BSA Luzhniki
Capacity - 78,501
http://www.cskaultras.ru/foto_news/16032008/01.jpg
http://www.cskaultras.ru/foto_news/30032008/06.jpg
3. Dinamo Moskva
Avg. - 13,067
Highest - 30,000
Stadium - Dinamo Stadium
Capacity - 36,540
http://fcdinamo.ru/__images/photos/55b8998de722573de938cf404998de5e.jpg
http://fcdinamo.ru/__images/photos/74d314c793d7ecc53be573c27dfd9e23.jpg
4. Amkar Perm'
Avg. - 16,494
Highest - 19,500
Stadium - Zvezda
Capacity - 20,000
http://fcdinamo.ru/__images/photos/113f92e3608e895b7fb83383a41b04de.jpg
http://www.cskaultras.ru/foto_news/19072008/33.jpg
5. Zenit Saint-Petersburg
Avg. - 20,825
Highest - 22,500
Stadium - Petrovsky
Capacity - 21,576
http://www.fc-zenit.ru/images/gallery/20080316_1/02.jpg
http://www.fc-zenit.ru/images/gallery/20080706/03.jpg
http://www.pfc-cska.com/files/images/press/4260/23.jpg
6. Kryliya Sovetov Samara
Avg. - 22,400
Highest - 33,000
Stadium - Metallurg
Capacity - 33,220
http://www.kc-camapa.ru/cgi-bin/photo/img.cgi?800,20080964
http://www.kc-camapa.ru/cgi-bin/photo/img.cgi?800,20081863
http://www.kc-camapa.ru/cgi-bin/photo/img.cgi?800,20081762
7. Lokomotiv Moskva
Avg. - 14,108
Highest - 23,783
Stadium - Lokomotiv
Capacity - 28,800
http://www.rubin-kazan.ru/images/blobs/L2ZpbGVzL3Bob3RvLzIwMDgvMjAwODAzMTdsb2tvX3J1YmluMjAwODAzMTZsb2tvcnViaW5fMTE=.500.500.jpg
http://www.unitedsouth.ru/gallery/albums/foto/osnovnoy/2008/3/loko_ks08_%286%29.jpg
8. Spartak Moskva
Avg. - 22,713
Highest - 49,000
Stadium - BSA Luzhniki
Capacity - 78,501
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/1553/spamp.jpg
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/6582/svin.jpg
http://www.cskaultras.ru/foto_news/12072008/41.jpg
9. FC Moskva
Avg. - 4,813
Highest - 8,000
Stadium - Eduard Streltsov stadium
Capacity - 13,422
http://www.fc-zenit.ru/images/gallery/20080323/02.jpg
10. Terek Grozny
Avg. - 8,935
Highest - 15,500 (in Makhachkala on Dinamo stadium(16,800)), 10,120 (in Grozny)
Stadium - Sultan Bilimkhanov Stadium
Capacity - 10,200
http://www.kc-camapa.ru/cgi-bin/photo/img.cgi?800,20080684
http://fc-terek.ru/index.php?option=com_datsogallery&Itemid=88888940&func=wmark&oid=361
11. Saturn Moscow Region
Avg. - 9,460
Highest - 14,000
Stadium - Saturn (Ramenskoye)
Capacity - 16,726
http://www.saturn-fc.ru/files/photos/467/17913.jpg
http://www.cskaultras.ru/foto_news/10082008/20.jpg
12. Spartak-Nalchik Nalchik
Avg. - 10,493
Highest - 14,000
Stadium - Republican Stadium Spartak
Capacity - 14,194
http://www.spartak-nalchik.ru/forum/album_pic.php?pic_id=569
http://www.spartak-nalchik.ru/forum/album_pic.php?pic_id=812
http://www.spartak-nalchik.ru/forum/album_pic.php?pic_id=610
13. Tom' Tomsk
Avg. - 12,820
Highest - 15,000
Stadium - Trud
Capacity - 14,950
http://football.tomsk.ru/fotogallery/albums/photos/142/2936.jpg
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/9952/tomj.jpg
14. FC Khimki
Avg. - 8,347
Highest - 17,000
Stadiums - Rodina Stadium (first 11 matches of season), Arena-Khimki (other 4 matches)
Capacity - 10,054; 18,000
http://www.fckhimki.ru/images/galleries/2009/tour2/dynamo-himki_01.jpg
http://www.cskaultras.ru/foto_news/06102008/3.jpg
15. Shinnik Yaroslavl
Avg. - 10,340
Highest - 19,600
Stadium - Shinnik
Capacity - 22,934 (in reconstruction time 19,000)
http://www.shinnik.com/upload/iblock/7fc/IMG_4679.jpg
http://www.fc-zenit.ru/images/gallery/20080406/04.jpg
16. Luch-Energia Vladivostok
Avg. - 8,413
Highest - 10,200
Stadium - Dinamo Stadium
Capacity - 10,200
http://www.luch-energy.ru/i/media/photo/08-luch-moscow/photo-08-luch-moscow-00841_fw.jpg
http://football.tomsk.ru/fotogallery/albums/photos/429/1.jpg

CSKA's avg. attendance is very low.As I remember at the match with Shakhtar Donieck (UEFA CUP) the attendance was something about 20.000.CSKA doesn't have more fans or tickets are very expensive?I like the most Lokomotiv Moscow stadium and Luzhniki.

CSKA's avg. attendance is very low.As I remember at the match with Shakhtar Donieck (UEFA CUP) the attendance was something about 20.000.CSKA doesn't have more fans or tickets are very expensive?I like the most Lokomotiv Moscow stadium and Luzhniki.
CSKA doesn't have more fans. Tickets in Russia, in compare with Europe, very сheap. About 50-500 roubles (2-20 euro)
Spartak is most popular team in Moscow

Have a look at this thread:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=103091

http://www.kc-camapa.ru/cgi-bin/photo/img.cgi?800,20081863


what is supposed to be fun looks rather like a real punishment for those kids :lol:

best football atmosphere on stadiums is here in Balkan countries:Croatia (Dinamo, Hajduk) , Serbia (Partizan, Crvena zvezda) , Greece (Olympiakos, Panathinaikos, PAOK, Aris..) and that's that, no discussion more. :nuts:

but these fans are the best dinamo zagreb fans Bad Blue Boys

http://www.radiotrsat.hr/imgdata/20070830141256m_bbb.jpg

http://www.lupiga.com/vijesti/slike/20050912000325bakljada_sjever_bengalke_bbb_bad_blue_boys.jpg

http://www.totalportal.hr/firedesk/Hrvatska/Zagreb/Bad-Blue-Boys_p.jpg

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/9586/dinamosvetinja7td.png

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/2563/dinamozagreb0tu.png

http://www.freewebs.com/dinamo-bbb/files/bbb2.JPG

:banana:
:banana:
:banana:

best football atmosphere on stadiums is here in Balkan countries:Croatia (Dinamo, Hajduk) , Serbia (Partizan, Crvena zvezda) , Greece (Olympiakos, Panathinaikos, PAOK, Aris..) and that's that, no discussion more. :nuts:

really?
but why in this countries avg attensdance only 2,848 (Croatia), 2,438 (Serbia), 6,671 (Greece)? but in Russia 13,634
Have a look at this thread:
it not about fans, it's about average attendance :ohno:

really?
but why in this countries avg attensdance only 2,848 (Croatia), 2,438 (Serbia), 6,671 (Greece)? but in Russia 13,634

it not about fans, it's about average attendance :ohno: bullshit on that

i'll take 15k of Dinamo or Red Star fans over 90k of Barca fans any day

btw whats the point of this thread? there is already thread like this...

bullshit on that

i'll take 15k of Dinamo or Red Star fans over 90k of Barca fans any day

but i can't see. official Dinamo Zagreb has avg. 7,615 with highest 20,000
Crvena Zvezda has avg. 5,167 with highest 8,000 (i know then in 2007/08 Derby was played without fans ;) )

Barca not a here. i know then in Spain on stadiums go very many peoples. it's 3rd in Europe after Germany & England

edit

ok. but Spartak Moscow has 15-20k fans on his matches & they have one of the most tour crew. In Eastern Europe is the best. On matches in other city they have 2-8k fans. Only in Tomsk & Vladivostok they have 300 & 500 fans. But this cities at the edge of Russia.

So it would be better to call the thread "Average attendances".
Otherwise the user will mix it with the Fan emotion thread?!

sweden got decent atmosphere at some games :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_nS4DvB8i8

Look at 2:25 were the tifo and stuff starts :P

So it would be better to call the thread "Average attendances".
Otherwise the user will mix it with the Fan emotion thread?!

I agree on that.

Avg attendance top 10 in Germany 2008/09 (Feb09):

1.
BV Borussia Dortmund 09
Westfalenstadion (Signal Iduna Park)
Capacity: 80,552
Average: 72,934
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3164/2796549440_16c32be828_b.jpg

2.
FC Bayern München
Stadion an der Schleißheimer Straße (Allianz Arena)
Capacity: 69,000
Average: 69,000
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3268/2896092224_dbf65f7400_b.jpg

3.
FC Schalke 04
Arena AufSchalke (Veltins-Arena)
Capacity: 61,673
Average: 61,401
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/133/320522782_e9307af08e_b.jpg

4.
Hamburger SV
Volksparkstadion (HSH-Nordbank-Arena)
Capacity: 57,000
Average: 54,855
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/49/132980012_bcf825bc18_b.jpg

5.
VfB Stuttgart
Neckarstadion (Mercedes-Benz-Arena)
Capacity: 55,896
Average: 50,545
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2407/2060076125_299a3b96dc_b.jpg

6.
1. FC Köln
Müngersdorfer Stadion (Rheinenergie-Stadion)
Capacity: 50,374
Average: 49,136
http://www.wh96.de/offen/fc-hoppenheim.jpg

7.
VfL Borussia Mönchengladbach
Stadion im Borussia-Park
Capacity: 54,067
Average: 45,313
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/216/476919418_1fe80e9ff3_o.jpg

8.
SG Eintracht Frankfurt
Waldstadion (Commerzbank-Arena)
Capacity: 52,300
Average: 45,264
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3395/3259744851_3898650e33_b.jpg

9.
Hertha BSC Berlin
Olympiastadion
Capacity: 74,228
Average: 45,007
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/57/222807166_088f58eecd_o.jpg

10.
SV Werder Bremen
Weserstadion
Capacity: 42,354
Average: 40,217
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/133/373138808_ffadd7a773_b.jpg

1. in the 2. Bundesliga
1. FC Kaiserslautern
Fritz-Walter-Stadion
Capacity: 48,500
Average: 34,918
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3170/2483932916_4b2dedfae2_b.jpg

1. in the 3. Liga
TSV Eintracht Braunschweig
Eintracht-Stadion
Capacity: 25,000
Average: 13,281
http://www.braunschweig1895.de/images/spiele/09/btsv-union/btsv-union-gross-20.jpg

1. in the 3 Regionalliga-Divisions (4. Liga)
1. FC Magdeburg
Stadion Magdeburg
Capacity: 27,250
Average: 9,464
http://modules.city-map.net/medium/365832/2803/show/600/450/1/070602stpauli06.jpg

1. in the 9 Oberliga-Divisions and 3 Verbandsliga-Divisions (5. Liga)
1. FC Saarbrücken
Ludwigsparkstadion
Capacity: 35,303
Average: 3,967
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Ludwigsparkstadion_Saarbr%C3%BCcken_001.jpg

So it would be better to call the thread "Average attendances".
Otherwise the user will mix it with the Fan emotion thread?!
yes. i want have union of attendance & photos with on matches

German attendance is outstanding

So it would be better to call the thread "Average attendances".
Otherwise the user will mix it with the Fan emotion thread?!

I agree
=======================================================

Croatian league

Club / total / average / home games
http://i41.tinypic.com/282e2c2.jpg
http://www.hnl-statistika.com/statistika0809.asp

1.
FC Hajduk Split
Poljud stadium
Capacity ~35,000
Average 9917

this season pictures
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/3774/hajcro01791.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/2w738g9.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3170/2483932916_4b2dedfae2_b.jpg

:eek2: What's the cap. of those stands behind the goal? Looks like 15k !

:eek2: What's the cap. of those stands behind the goal? Looks like 15k !

Yes, 14,751 (Westtribüne) and 14,959 (Osttribüne)

Yes, 14,751 (Westtribüne) and 14,959 (Osttribüne)

how much is terracing??

how much is terracing??

Total capacity is 48,500 and 16,363 of that is terracing

Home and Away stats from the Danish SAS league (07/08)
Average/Sum/Highest/Lowest
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/8853/52032331.jpg

Pics from the top 5:

FC Copenhagen
http://www.fckfc.dk/files/Billeder/tifoer/fcklens041007/_J8P6896.jpg

Brøndby IF
http://www.brondbytifo.dk/fusion_images/photoalbum/brondby_2003_4/20040509-BIF-OB-2-400.jpg

AGF
http://www.agf-fanclub.dk/components/com_ponygallery/img_pictures/originals/agf_-_randres_fc8_20090302_1217238553.jpg

Odense Boldklub
http://www.tigerburet.dk/images/tifo/4461.jpg

FC Midtjylland
http://www.black-wolves.com//images/rsgallery/display/IMG_4969.JPG.jpg

ok, something exotic :banana:

Uzbekistan 2008
Average - 5,698

1. Bunyodkor Toshkent (RIVALDO :nuts: )
Avg. - 6,902
Highest - 18,210
Stadium - MXSK Stadium
Capacity - 16,000
http://archive.fcbunyodkor.com/images/gallery/kuruvchi_navbahor_foto_5.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/47/MHSK_Stadioni_081022_183350.jpg
2. Paxtakor Toshkent
Avg. - 4,442
Highest - 24,322
Stadium - Paxtakor Markaziy Stadium
Capacity - 35,000
http://www.europlan-online.de/Asien/Usbekistan/Tashkent/Paxtakor_Tashkent/UZ_Tashkent_FK_Paxtakor_Tsentralnyj_Stadion_Pakhtakor_33.JPG
3. Neftchi Farg'ona
Avg. - 12,025
Highest - 15,380
Stadium - Farg'ona
Capacity - 14,600
http://euro-futbol.uz/_ph/3/2/708913566.jpg
4. Mash'al Muborak
Avg. - 3,842
Highest - 8,165
Capacity - 10,000
http://archive.fcbunyodkor.com/images/gallery/mash_bun_bun_riv_vil_luz_qo.jpg :lol:
5. Andijon FK
Avg. - 8,034
Highest - 14,000
Capacity - 18,360
http://www.pakhtakor.uz/fileadmin/photo/2009_mavsum/oliy_liga/andijon_pakhtakor//000_stadion.jpg
6. Samarkand Dinamo FK
Avg. - 7,695
Highest - 15,000
Capacity - 15,000

7. Metallurg Bekobod
Avg. - 4,311
Highest - 5,123
Capacity - 5,000

8. Lokomotiv Toshkent
Avg. - 2,776
Highest - 5,522
Capacity - 8,460
http://www.europlan-online.de/Asien/Usbekistan/Tashkent/Lokomotiv_Tashkent/UZ_Tashkent_FK_Lokomotiv_Stadion_Majmuasi_40.JPG
9. Nasaf Qarshi
Avg. - 5,648
Highest - 12,156
Stadium -
Capacity - 20,000
http://www.pakhtakor.uz/fileadmin/photo/matches/Nasaf-Paxtakor//Fabio-Pinto.jpg
10. OTMK Olmaliq
Avg. - 3,659
Highest - 5,328
Capacity - 6,000
http://archive.fcbunyodkor.com/images/gallery/olmalik_3.jpg
11. So'g'diyona Jizzax
Avg. - 8,284
Highest - 12,453
Capacity - 10,000

12. Sho'rtan G'ozar
Avg. - 3,868
Highest - 5,253
Capacity - 8,000
http://www.fcshurtan.uz/images/fcshurtan.uz_15.jpg
13. Navbaxor Namangan
Avg. - 8,041
Highest - 25,000
Capacity - 33,000
http://www.pakhtakor.uz/fileadmin/photo/matches/Navbahor_Pakhtakor//005.jpg
14. Qizilqum Zarafshon
Avg. - 3,343
Highest - 4,835
Capacity - 5,000
http://archive.fcbunyodkor.com/images/gallery/qiz_kur_kap_photo_4.jpg
15. Buxoro FK
Avg. - 4,480
Highest - 8,400
Capacity - 25,000
http://archive.fcbunyodkor.com/images/gallery/bukhoroliklar_3.jpg
16. Uz-Dong-Ju Andijon
Avg. - 3,486
Highest - 13,000
Capacity - 18,360

Uzbekistan is the definition of non-exotic to me ... :shifty:

I agree
=======================================================

Croatian league

Club / total / average / home games
http://i41.tinypic.com/282e2c2.jpg
http://www.hnl-statistika.com/statistika0809.asp

As much as people rave about the Bad Blue Boys, it appears as though they're the only people attending regular league games for Dinamo Zagreb

im impressed with the Bundesliga,,,, maybe the most attended european league. am i right? Because a lot of English Premier League teams have small capacities ( in the 30 - 40 range)

I read somewhere that the bundesliga is in fact the most attended league in the world :)

Yes it is, with the Premier League just behind.

Some great stadiums in Germany, especially Westfalenstadion and Fritz Walter Stadion.

dead link

are we talking football (Football) or football (Soccer)?

are we talking football (Football) or football (Soccer)? Football of course, not gridiron.

Uzbekistan is the definition of non-exotic to me ... :shifty:

Was it important for you to tell that? I thought this thread was about attendance. Anyway, I am sure you find Denmark as a very exotic country with great attendance and a fantastic football.

help, have someone Yugoslavian attendance in 1980's-1990's years?

This is the european top 10 (domestic leagues only), according to www.weltfussball.de:

1. 75292 Manchester United FC
2. 73131 BV Borussia Dortmund 09
3. 73033 Real Madrid CF
4. 69000 FC Bayern München
5. 68867 FC Barcelona
6. 61447 FC Schalke 04
7. 60027 Arsenal FC
8. 58185 AC Milan
9. 57388 Celtic FC
0. 54639 Hamburger SV

I am quite impressed by England's 2nd league (Championship), which averages at 17531 by having 24 teams in it. It is the highest value for a 2nd league in Europe. The 2. Bundesliga averages at 15099. Also the League One (3rd tier in England) must have the highest value in Europe by averaging at 7428, while Leeds Utd must have the highest avg 3rd league attendance at 22763, followed by Leicester City and 19480.

Do you know which second division club (all Euro leagues) has highest attendance?

I guess it's Kaiserslautern with 34,422 followed by Nürnberg and 30,781 because the top attendance in England's championship has Derby County with 28,850 followed by RC Lens (France) with 28,152. I didn't find current numbers for Serie B.

Coca Cola Championship is indeed very well supported. 4th highest in Europe.


Club
Average 06/07
Division
Average 07/08
Division

Manchester Utd.
75,826
Premier
75,690
Premier

Arsenal
60,045
Premier
60,070
Premier

Newcastle Utd.
50,686
Premier
51,324
Premier

Liverpool
43,561
Premier
43,534
Premier

Sunderland
31,887
Championship
43,343
Premier

Manchester City
39,997
Premier
42,126
Premier

Chelsea
41,542
Premier
41,397
Premier

Aston Villa
36,214
Premier
39,870
Premier

Everton
36,739
Premier
36,955
Premier

Tottenham Hotspur
35,739
Premier
35,966
Premier

West Ham Utd.
34,719
Premier
34,600
Premier

Derby County
25,945
Championship
30,870
Premier

Middlesbrough
27,730
Premier
26,711
Premier

Leeds United
21,613
Championship
26,545
League 1

Birmingham City
22,274
Championship
26,180
Premier

Sheffield United
30,512
Premier
25,630
Championship

Norwich City
24,557
Championship
24,527
Championship

Blackburn Rovers
21,275
Premier
23,943
Premier

Fulham
22,279
Premier
23,767
Premier

Reading
23,829
Premier
23,585
Premier

Leicester City
23,201
Championship
23,506
Championship

Wolverhampton Wanderers
20,968
Championship
23,498
Championship

Charlton Athletic
26,195
Premier
23,160
Championship

West Bromwich Albion
20,472
Championship
22,310
Championship

Ipswich Town
22,434
Championship
21,930
Championship

Sheffield Wednesday
23,638
Championship
21,420
Championship

Southampton
23,556
Championship
21,256
Championship

Bolton Wanderers
23,606
Premier
20,903
Premier

Nottingham Forest
20,615
League 1
19,955
League 1

Portsmouth
19,862
Premier
19,917
Premier

Coca Cola Championship is indeed very well supported. 4th highest in Europe.


?

Bundesliga 41000
PremLeague 35000
PrimeraDiv 28000
Serie A 24000
Ligue Un 20000
Eredivisie 19000
Championship 17000

looks more like 7th highest which is still good. ;)

I guess it's Kaiserslautern with 34,422 followed by Nürnberg and 30,781 because the top attendance in England's championship has Derby County with 28,850 followed by RC Lens (France) with 28,152. I didn't find current numbers for Serie B.

1860 hat +40k some years ago?!?1

The Championship is 4th by total attendance of any league in Europe, as more games are played, and 9th by total attendance for any league in any sport.

1860 hat +40k some years ago?!?1

08/09 | 27,646 | 2. Bundesliga
07/08 | 34,781 | 2. Bundesliga
06/07 | 35,965 | 2. Bundesliga
05/06 | 41,932 | 2. Bundesliga
04/05 | 19,700 | 2. Bundesliga
03/04 | 28,659 | Bundesliga

I guess, in the 2005/06 season, it was the "Arena-Effect", because many people came when the Allianz Arena was brand new.

The Championship is 4th by total attendance of any league in Europe, as more games are played, and 9th by total attendance for any league in any sport.

this thread is about averages :D:D

the championship wasn't higher than 2. bundesliga last season. 2. bundesliga lost gladbach and koln and gained badly supported teams. The champ lost and gained equally supported teams.

i hate the fact that they use mean as the average rather than median. There is a reason they don't use mean in determining average house prices, as one figure distorts the rest and inflates/deflates the final figure. the best and most accurate is the median.

The championship though had a higher median in both years, the 2. bundesliga has a lot of poorly supported teams in comparison, but also a lot of extremely well supported teams, where is the champ has a pack of teams all close together.

Coca Cola Championship is indeed very well supported. 4th highest in Europe.

Average is all that counts, total supporters includes multi counting people, and as leagues play different schedules it distorts facts, so it is totally dumb to call it the fourth highest in europe as it is totally inaccurate.

ok, the median (i hope i am right) for the championship is 17,218 (12th Coventry 17,622 and 13th Bristol 16,813). For the 2. Bundesliga it is 14,052 (9th Duisburg 14,203 and 10th Osnabrück 13,900).

Last season the 2. Bundesliga averaged at 18,142 due to the big teams as bigbossman already mentioned (1. FC Köln averaged at 43,763; median for the whole league: 15,580).

im impressed with the Bundesliga,,,, maybe the most attended european league. am i right? Because a lot of English Premier League teams have small capacities ( in the 30 - 40 range)

The Premiership used to have the highest attendances but it was overtaken by the Bundesliga four or five years ago. There are a few reasons for the Bundesliga's bigger attendances:

1. Since winning the right to host World Cup 2006, there has been a huge stadium building boom in Germany. The average Bundesliga capacity is far higher than the Premiership. This may change over the next ten years or so as the likes of Liverpool, Spurs and Everton, and maybe the likes of West Ham and Chelsea all move to new stadiums. If England wins the right to host World Cup 2018 or 2022, then expect further capacity increases at a number of other stadiums.

2. Ticket prices for Bundesliga games are far, far cheaper than ticket prices for Premiership games. That's one of the reasons why the Premiership is so much richer than the Bundesliga, despite the smaller attendances (and also why the atmosphere is generally worse at Premiership stadiums).

3. Germany's population is 60% bigger than England's and Germany's lower division clubs aren't nearly as well supported as English lower division clubs.

the championship wasn't higher than 2. bundesliga last season. 2. bundesliga lost gladbach and koln and gained badly supported teams. The champ lost and gained equally supported teams.

i hate the fact that they use mean as the average rather than median. There is a reason they don't use mean in determining average house prices, as one figure distorts the rest and inflates/deflates the final figure. the best and most accurate is the median.

The championship though had a higher median in both years, the 2. bundesliga has a lot of poorly supported teams in comparison, but also a lot of extremely well supported teams, where is the champ has a pack of teams all close together.



Average is all that counts, total supporters includes multi counting people, and as leagues play different schedules it distorts facts, so it is totally dumb to call it the fourth highest in europe as it is totally inaccurate.


Here you go again!

Coca Cola Championship has the 4th highest amount of turnstyles being turned each season. Is that better for you. Yes they play more games but they still turn those turnstyles.

Some attendances for Spanish 2nd Division:

Zaragoza - 25,500
Levante - 18,000
Real Sociedad - 17,114
Hercules - 15,000
.....................
Alicante - 3,500
Eibar - 1,600
Sevilla Atletico - 800

As you see some big clubs are playing there, but others are extremely small.

This year the attendance in La Liga will go down since teams like Numancia (6,500) entered it.

Englands 2nd tier has only 4 teams out of 24 with capacitys smaller then 20,000. These are ....

Watford Vicarage Road 19,920
Queens Park Rangers Loftus Road 18,200
Doncaster Rovers Keepmoat Stadium 15,231 (Newly Promoted)
Blackpool Bloomfield Road 9,650 (16,000) (Newly Promoted)


--------------------

Home Club Stadium Name Capacity
Sheffield Wednesday Hillsborough 39,814
Derby County Pride Park Stadium 33,597
Southampton St Mary's Stadium 32,689
Sheffield United Bramall Lane 32,609
Coventry City Ricoh Arena 32,000
Nottingham Forest City Ground 30,602
Ipswich Town Portman Road 30,311
Birmingham City St. Andrew's 30,009
Wolverhampton Wanderers Molineux 28,525
Charlton Athletic The Valley 27,111
Crystal Palace Selhurst Park 26,309
Norwich City Carrow Road 26,034
Reading Madejski Stadium 24,161
Preston North End Deepdale 24,500
Barnsley Oakwell 23,009
Burnley Turf Moor 22,546
Cardiff City Ninian Park* 22,008
Bristol City Ashton Gate 21,497
Plymouth Argyle Home Park 20,922
Swansea City Liberty Stadium 20,532

enough talk, bust out some more pictures of stadiums and attendances!

4. Mash'al Muborak
Avg. - 3,842
Highest - 8,165
Capacity - 10,000
http://archive.fcbunyodkor.com/images/gallery/mash_bun_bun_riv_vil_luz_qo.jpg


Havent seen Rivaldo in a while :okay:

As for the Bundesliga: The goal should be to go up by 7-10k on average/game within the next decade. However this might proove difficult if teams like Bremen arent increasing their cap.

Havent seen Rivaldo in a while :okay:

As for the Bundesliga: The goal should be to go up by 7-10k on average/game within the next decade. However this might proove difficult if teams like Bremen arent increasing their cap.

I guess the Premiership will be looking for something similar - especially if England wins the right to host WC 2018 or 2020.

There'll be an increase of capacity at the following clubs - most of which will be able to fill the vast majority of their new capacity:

Almost certain

Liverpool - 44K to 72K.
Tottenham - 36K to 60K.
Everton - 40K to 55K.
Man City - 48K to 60K

Probable

West Ham - 35K to 50K+
Chelsea - 42K to 60K+
Portsmouth - 20K to 30K+
Man Utd - 76K to 85K+
Aston Villa - 42K to 50K

Possible

Arsenal - 60K to 70K
Newcastle - 52K to 60K
Sunderland - 48K to 60K

That's not to mention the likely improvements and capacity increases at various Championship and lower division stadiums.

Quite impressive.
Unfortunately theres not that much reason for optimism in the Bundesliga.
Leverkusen is currently going up to 30k whilst Bremen chose the worst moment for a stadium renovation and didnt expand to 50k due to high steel prices (which have now come down again).
There are a few smaller clubs who are building new stadiums, but most of the bigger clubs ended up with insufficient caps in their new grounds.

I will tell you a secret:D
Why Bundesliga has the biggest attendance in EUROPE?They have everywhere STANDING ROOMS:D.

Wolves up to 48,000. Big one in the lower leagues that although probably be in the premiership next season.

St james Park, Newcastle.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3475/3369304696_d45c8cc891_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/43/122673705_446e6b739b_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/46/145334827_7a4024a4e0_b.jpg

Molineux, Wolverhampton

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/38/122673222_e75a67ddee_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3368/3237713162_527bd70ea9_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3118/3111179270_c8cbb5810f_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3208/2982959561_df17f1881d_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3167/2982948211_b06668f796_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3222/2952994580_8fe91506cc_b.jpg

Swansea City

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3037/2914564278_6eab7df1ba_b.jpg

Motherwell (Pre season0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3124/2696307147_c0630ae41b_b.jpg

Old Trafford champions league semi-final last year

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3222/2656337195_5c6e72ffca_b.jpg

Quite impressive.
Unfortunately theres not that much reason for optimism in the Bundesliga.
Leverkusen is currently going up to 30k whilst Bremen chose the worst moment for a stadium renovation and didnt expand to 50k due to high steel prices (which have now come down again).
There are a few smaller clubs who are building new stadiums, but most of the bigger clubs ended up with insufficient caps in their new grounds.

What would be the chances of increasing capacity further at any of the newer Bundesliga stadiums?

Arsenal are apparently already looking at ways to increase capacity at the Emirates from 60K to 70K. So it's possible that some Bundesliga clubs might do the same.

What would be the chances of increasing capacity further at any of the newer Bundesliga stadiums?


Chances are very slim since there isnt enough money around.
Hertha is considering to build a new football stadium because the Olympiastadion isnt attracting enough fans with its Al-track.
There might be a slim chance that Cologne could expand in the future and, theoretically speaking, I could also imagine that Hamburg might want to do the same at some point. But that would be it I guess.

ok, the median (i hope i am right) for the championship is 17,218 (12th Coventry 17,622 and 13th Bristol 16,813). For the 2. Bundesliga it is 14,052 (9th Duisburg 14,203 and 10th Osnabrück 13,900).

Nice work sir!!

Last season the 2. Bundesliga averaged at 18,142 due to the big teams as bigbossman already mentioned (1. FC Köln averaged at 43,763; median for the whole league: 15,580).

If Gladbach come back down it will go up again as kaiserslautern might not go up, 1860 and Nuremberg look stuck and Düsseldorf and Union Berlin look like they’re gonna come up from 3. liga. All clubs which should push it up.

The Premiership used to have the highest attendances but it was overtaken by the Bundesliga four or five years ago. There are a few reasons for the Bundesliga's bigger attendances:

The premier league was only the highest for a 3 seasons 2000-01 to 2003-04. The Bundesliga has been higher for every other season the premier league has existed. And until 1998-99 Serie A was also higher than the premier league.

Obviously all these are taken on mean, so you'd have to read into them to find out if this figures hold true.

1. Since winning the right to host World Cup 2006, there has been a huge stadium building boom in Germany. The average Bundesliga capacity is far higher than the Premiership. This may change over the next ten years or so as the likes of Liverpool, Spurs and Everton, and maybe the likes of West Ham and Chelsea all move to new stadiums. If England wins the right to host World Cup 2018 or 2022, then expect further capacity increases at a number of other stadiums.

Great point, although we can still average higher than the bundesliga in theory, we have 9 stadiums with a capacity of over 40,000. And 6 clubs do anyway.

The bundesliga has 12 teams averaging over 40, but no team with a capacity of over 40 is averaging less than 40. There is the difference. The median of the Bundesliga is over 42,000.

2. Ticket prices for Bundesliga games are far, far cheaper than ticket prices for Premiership games. That's one of the reasons why the Premiership is so much richer than the Bundesliga, despite the smaller attendances (and also why the atmosphere is generally worse at Premiership stadiums).

Bundesliga makes greater profits though, no club makes a loss.

I agree that if we had their ticket prices and everyone had the right sized stadium them prem could average 50,000+. I also feel if the Bundesliga clubs had the right sized stadiums too, so could their league.

Schalke and Bayern are both wasting 15,000+ worth of extra fan support. Hamburg too are wasting a sizeable number. Not forgetting Karlsruhe who play in a joke of a stadium, and are still near enough filling it.

Hertha would probably fill a 60,000 stadium which apparently they are looking into, would be good for them they get fluctuating crowds they get at the Olympic as it is too big. There was mention on the boards of Koln expanding. So there is scope to push the averages of the Bundesliga higher.

I think it's relatively equal.

3. Germany's population is 60% bigger than England's

I don't think you can take population as a whole into account, that’s far too American. I think you have to take population of the metro areas teams play in. Because Population doesn’t correlate to fan support, clubs are inherently local and by that nature if a large population centre is out of the limelight the source isn’t going to be as tapped as it would be if they had teams in the limelight.

South West England and Eastern Germany are prime examples. These have big clubs who would fill pretty big grounds at the sniff of the top flight, or even just a new modern stadium.

Theoritically most countries all other things being equal should be able to average the same. PSG are the real crux, they have no competition and play in a 9 million+ urban area, they should have no problem filling 100,000, in theory of course.

and Germany's lower division clubs aren't nearly as well supported as English lower division clubs.

On the lower divisions that is a distorted point as well, you have taken stats on face value and not read into them.

The Bundesliga for some reason is amateur/semi pro below the 2nd tier and they have only just introduced a national third tier in which reserve teams of the big sides play and ruin averages. If you compare the mean and median averages of both third tiers not including reserve teams the Bundesliga’s averages increase as you don’t have the 709 average of Werder Bremen 2 to account for.

These are the median figures, 5,852 in league 1 and 6.378 in the 3. liga, not significant but the Bundesliga is higher none the less.

The mean average for the 3. liga is 6,383, compared to 7,572. But remember the mean is distorted by Leeds and Leicester.

Also you can hardly make fair comparisons below that as Germany football is totally regionalised. And if you look below the third tier you see that some massive clubs are lurking Carl ziess Jena, FC madgdeburg and Locomotiv Leipzig who have appeared in European finals. Dynamo Berlin, former Bundesliga clubs like Fortuna koln and stuttgarter kickers. A lot “big” and potentially big clubs lurking low and playing in crumbling stadiums infront of semi pro football. Despite that some still get good crowds.

Here you go again!

Coca Cola Championship has the 4th highest amount of turnstyles being turned each season. Is that better for you. Yes they play more games but they still turn those turnstyles.

That is a better way of putting it. Yes they have more turnstile movements in a season. They may not take more because they probably charge lower. However still not a good way of comparing. That’s the whole point of averages to compare different sized samples effectively.

I guess the Premiership will be looking for something similar - especially if England wins the right to host WC 2018 or 2020.

There'll be an increase of capacity at the following clubs - most of which will be able to fill the vast majority of their new capacity:

That's not to mention the likely improvements and capacity increases at various Championship and lower division stadiums.

What do you reckon can we fill them?? I’d say out of that list Villa surprisingly are the least likely, there crowds have gone down this season and they never struck me as that well supported for their size.

I would love to see it though. Do you think Arsenal would just increase to 70, I’ve heard much higher figures thrown about?? I think much nearer 80 to get positive results on NPV and ROCE and all that jazz

What would be the chances of increasing capacity further at any of the newer Bundesliga stadiums?

Arsenal are apparently already looking at ways to increase capacity at the Emirates from 60K to 70K. So it's possible that some Bundesliga clubs might do the same.

I mentioned earlier about some clubs, but also I think the problem is getting to a level where you know that ground is gonna be 90% full every week, your Stuttgart’s and Frankfurt’s will fill 70,000 3-4 times a season but 55,000 is probably about right so that the 50,000 crowd doesn’t make the stadium look and feel empty and damage the atmosphere.

Another problem with the Bundesliga is many of the smaller clubs are richer Wolfsburg, Leverkusen and Hoffenheim so they are near their elastic limit in terms of fan support, if they fucked off and some of the bigger clubs lower down playing in crappy stadiums came up and built modern new ones, we might see some more big new grounds. I am thinking Brauschwieg, and some of those Eastern giants.

Map of Englands 4th division and average attendences for last season.

http://billsportsmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/league_two2008-09_b.gif

The premier league was only the highest for a 3 seasons 2000-01 to 2003-04. The Bundesliga has been higher for every other season the premier league has existed. And until 1998-99 Serie A was also higher than the premier league.

You have to remember that, in the early days, Premiership clubs generally had severely limited capacities as a result of the recent Taylor report - and as a result of consequent ongoing development (eg. in 1994-95, Spurs' capacity was reduced to 25,000 while the Park Lane was redeveloped; and in 1997-98, capacity was reduced to 28,000 while the Paxton was redeveloped).

The bundesliga has 12 teams averaging over 40, but no team with a capacity of over 40 is averaging less than 40. There is the difference. The median of the Bundesliga is over 42,000.

Of the 12 Bundesliga teams averaging over 40K, almost all have capacities significantly over 40K. Of the 3 Premiership clubs that have a capacity of over 40K but who average under 40K, one (Everton) has a capacity of only a few hundred over 40K and another (Aston Villa) has a capacity of only 42K. Consequently, it is far more difficult for them to maintain an average of over 40K.

Bundesliga makes greater profits though, no club makes a loss.

That's a different matter altogether. We're talking about the significantly greater cost of attending Premiership games as opposed to Bundesliga games.

Schalke and Bayern are both wasting 15,000+ worth of extra fan support. Hamburg too are wasting a sizeable number. Not forgetting Karlsruhe who play in a joke of a stadium, and are still near enough filling it.

Agreed. In the same way, Man Utd could probably average 15K higher if they had the capacity; Liverpool 25K; Chelsea 15K; Arsenal 20K; Spurs 20K; Newcastle 10K; West Ham 10K; Everton 10K; Portsmouth 10K; Hull 5K; Stoke 5K.

I think it's relatively equal.

Agreed, though I'm not sure how well Bundesliga attendances would hold up if stadia were made all seater and ticket prices were doubled.

I don't think you can take population as a whole into account, that’s far too American. I think you have to take population of the metro areas teams play in. Because Population doesn’t correlate to fan support, clubs are inherently local and by that nature if a large population centre is out of the limelight the source isn’t going to be as tapped as it would be if they had teams in the limelight.

You have a point to an extent but, given the big difference in population (Germany 82 million - England 51 million), it will inevitably have an effect. We are not such different cultures. Population density is not so very different. Both countries cover relatively modest areas of land and both have predominantly urban populations. So the comparison is valid.

And because the lower divisions in England are better supported than they are in Germany, the pool of people who are willing and able to pay to watch live football is more evenly stretched across the divisions in England.

On the lower divisions that is a distorted point as well, you have taken stats on face value and not read into them.

The Bundesliga for some reason is amateur/semi pro below the 2nd tier and they have only just introduced a national third tier in which reserve teams of the big sides play and ruin averages. If you compare the mean and median averages of both third tiers not including reserve teams the Bundesliga’s averages increase as you don’t have the 709 average of Werder Bremen 2 to account for.

These are the median figures, 5,852 in the prem and 6.378 in the Bundesliga, not significant but the Bundesliga is higher none the less.

I'm not such a fan of median figures in this instance. As I said, we are talking about a finite pool of potential supporters. It's therefore equally important to consider the lowest and highest average attendances. All supporters who pay to watch live football must be included for the discussion to have any meaning.

Also you can hardly make fair comparisons below that as Germany football is totally regionalised. And if you look below the third tier you see that some massive clubs are lurking Carl ziess Jena, FC madgdeburg who have won European trophies. Locomotiv Leipzig, Dynamo Berlin, former Bundesliga clubs like Fortuna koln and stuttgarter kickers. A lot “big” and potentially big clubs lurking low and playing in crumbling stadiums infront of semi pro football. Despite that some still get good crowds.

That's just the way that German football is organised. It doesn't alter the fact that more people, on average, attend English football matches at a lower level than they do in Germany. You may say that it's hardly a fair comparison but it is no more unfair than comparing a league which allows standing at football matches to one which insists upon all seater stadia. Nor is it any more unfair than comparing a league in which ticket prices are comparatively cheap to a league in which ticket prices are exorbitantly expensive.

What do you reckon can we fill them?? I’d say out of that list Villa surprisingly are the least likely, there crowds have gone down this season and they never struck me as that well supported.

I don't suppose that Villa would sell out every game in a 50K stadium. But I think they would average anything up to 45K.

Do you think Arsenal would just increase to 70, I’ve heard much higher figures thrown about?? I think much nearer 80 to get positive results on NPV and ROCE and all that jazz

I've no idea, to be honest. I just saw something on another thread a while back which mentioned the possibility of increasing capacity to 70K or so.

You have to remember that, in the early days, Premiership clubs generally had severely limited capacities as a result of the recent Taylor report - and as a result of consequent ongoing development (eg. in 1994-95, Spurs' capacity was reduced to 25,000 while the Park Lane was redeveloped; and in 1997-98, capacity was reduced to 28,000 while the Paxton was redeveloped).

Yeah same with us, and the North bank bonds scandal

Although having said that until this decade, all but 3 of the regular bundesliga clubs played in old fashioned open bowl athletics stadiums with no cover and bad views, and old crumbling terraces.

Of the 12 Bundesliga teams averaging over 40K, almost all have capacities significantly over 40K. Of the 3 Premiership clubs that have a capacity of over 40K but who average under 40K, one (Everton) has a capacity of only a few hundred over 40K and another (Aston Villa) has a capacity of only 42K. Consequently, it is far more difficult for them to maintain an average of over 40K.

Villa did last season, and they went down for some strange reason. they have roughly the same capacity as Bremen who manage to...

That's a different matter altogether. We're talking about the significantly greater cost of attending Premiership games as opposed to Bundesliga games.

Yeah lol, i just wanted to mention it


Agreed. In the same way, Man Utd could probably average 15K higher if they had the capacity; Liverpool 25K; Chelsea 15K; Arsenal 20K; Spurs 20K; Newcastle 10K; West Ham 10K; Everton 10K; Portsmouth 10K; Hull 5K; Stoke 5K.

I think your selling a few clubs short, there it would on;y bump you guys up to 55,000 and porstmouth up to 30,000. I reckon both easily have another 10 in them. I also reckon fulham have at least 10 in them.

One thing i'd love to see is a minimum stadium capacity of 30,000 in the big four leagues. I think it's what makes certain clubs look smaller and less attractive when they come up. For instance, palace sell all their season tickets, but then don't fill their ground every week in the prem because when you have choice Bolton at home is not exciting so they don't turn up. If more season tickets were sold they'd average well above 30,000 imho. Croydon is a wash with palace fans they are everywhere.

Agreed, though I'm not sure how well Bundesliga attendances would hold up if stadia were made all seater and ticket prices were doubled.

Probably would go down now, but if it had been the case since the 1990s like here probably would be similar.

You have a point to an extent but, given the big difference in population (Germany 82 million - England 51 million), it will inevitably have an effect. We are not such different cultures. Population density is not so very different. Both countries cover relatively modest areas of land and both have predominantly urban populations. So the comparison is valid.

I think it really only effects the supra regional clubs like man united and bayern.

And because the lower divisions in England are better supported than they are in Germany, the pool of people who are willing and able to pay to watch live football is more evenly stretched across the divisions in England.

I dunno, if locomotive leipzig suddenly had some success you don't think 40,000 fans would suddenly appear at the stadium?? i can't see that with rochdale or even Bradford can you??

I think the difference is many of these huge clubs have been down there for so long its engrained, it's not like Leeds who've been there two seasons, or even Napoli and fiorentina a few years back in serie C2. If they had an extended spell in the lower tiers i can see leeds slumping to under 10,000, most clubs would.

So personally i wouldn't say they are, when you have some of your biggest clubs in the 5th and 6th tier and smaller ones in the higher tiers then it distorts everything.

I'm not such a fan of median figures in this instance. As I said, we are talking about a finite pool of potential supporters. It's therefore equally important to consider the lowest and highest average attendances. All supporters who pay to watch live football must be included for the discussion to have any meaning.

I see what you are saying, but if a club averages vastly more or less than others, then surely they are not representative of the league. An average is but it's nature supposed to be what the average club gets, so in this instance for me the median is better.

Take the example of a team playing in a 100,000 stadium averaging 25,000 every week, then one week averaging 75,000. there average would pe pushed higher, only marginally but they are not averaging more than 25,000 every week that's why the median for me is best in this case. i know it's extreme but it illustrates the point hopefully.

I suppose it represents the relative sizes of clubs, but then the only way we would truely know is every club was in the league there size deserved, but then you have to take differing reactions to relegation and promotion etc etc. Lots and lots of variables.

That's just the way that German football is organised. It doesn't alter the fact that more people, on average, attend English football matches at a lower level than they do in Germany.

That is true, but how would it be if we had reserve teams in our 3rd division. And many of the clubs who are higher up now were forced down as a result?? The point is we can only really compare the top two divisions effectively as they are similar and professional, but even then as you said, german clubs have cheaper tickets, and bigger stadiums, so it's educated guess work at best.

I don't understand why germany has only a 18 team league though, and all these reserve/amateur teams it restricts a hell of a lot of clubs to the lower levels

You may say that it's hardly a fair comparison but it is no more unfair than comparing a league which allows standing at football matches to one which insists upon all seater stadia. Nor is it any more unfair than comparing a league in which ticket prices are comparatively cheap to a league in which ticket prices are exorbitantly expensive.


as i said above lol




[quote]I don't suppose that Villa would sell out every game in a 50K stadium. But I think they would average anything up to 45K.

If you increase your ground even by a little it will always increase your attendances. no doubt if Villa played in a 100,000 stadium they'd get 60-70,000 every week (based on mean).


I've no idea, to be honest. I just saw something on another thread a while back which mentioned the possibility of increasing capacity to 70K or so.

I just want it done, I really think for what it is the emirates could've been better. Don't get me wrong it's a great stadium but it so represents what the Arsenal board want Arsenal to be and not what Arsenal as a whole are aka the gucci or prada of football stylish and expensive at every turn.

Was it important for you to tell that?
No, not really important.

I thought this thread was about attendance.
Guess you are right even though it was defined clearly from the beginning of this thread.

Anyway, I am sure you find Denmark as a very exotic country with great attendance and a fantastic football.
No, not really,

What it important for you to ask that?

Football of course, not gridiron.

Well, there are many recognized football codes in the world besides association football, so his question wasn't outlandish. It's not obvious if you live in certain parts of the world. In Canada, football means Canadian football or American football, never association football. The only people that call it that are immigrants, or people who have little respect for the dominant culture here.

I will tell you a secret:D
Why Bundesliga has the biggest attendance in EUROPE?They have everywhere STANDING ROOMS:D.

German average attendance is very good. As this is your thread, I'll ask you for clarification. Are we free to post average attendance for all football codes or just association football? If you'd rather people didn't post other codes, I won't.

^^I think CFL and NFL figures can't be compared as they have short schedules and they have less professional teams for the population of their countries.

Tbf Rugby is generally called just that nowadays, Aussie Rules has that name to fall back on. It's only the Gridrirons, with the least kicking that resent not being called or referred to as football.

Well, I'll wait for likasz' wishes on this. He did ask for average attendance so that crowd size can be compared. If he wanted to extrapolate that to determine yearly attendance that's an entirely different matter. At this point, he's only asked for crowd size at games, nothing more, nothing less. 30,000 at a game is going to feel like 30,000 at a game whether there are 18 games in a season or 60.

I'll wait and respect his wishes though.

Don't muck up this thread with gridiron.

Based on information found on the website of Dutch footie magazine Voetbal International I came up with the following numbers for the Dutch Eredivisie for the 2008/2009 season:

League Average: 19672
League Median: 16553


Ajax 48,612
Feyenoord 43,732
PSV 33,107
Heerenveen 25,557
Twente 23,247
Groningen 21,892
Utrecht 20,100
Vitesse 17,785
NAC Breda 16,718
AZ 16,387
Roda JC 13,872
Willem II 13,068
NEC 12,335
De Graafschap 12,193
ADO Den Haag 10,091
Sparta Rotterdam 10,236
Heracles Almelo 8,456
Volendam 5,349

The average should be able to rise to over 20,000 in the near future and perhaps towards 25,000 in 10 years from now once all the clubs are finished expanding their stadiums or constructing new ones.

^^ apparently Ajax's figure is on ticket sold, not on who actually turns up, and is acutally below feyenoord's..

Your first statement is true, but I seriously doubt your second one. I personally belief that the Ajax' real average is somewhere around 45,000.

I hope the Swedish league will sometime follow the Eredivisie in terms of average attendances. Most clubs (which are from cities not substantially smaller than those in NL) should definitely be able to draw between 10.000 and 20.000 to their games, while the big teams should be able to have over 25.000.

Here is the 2008 average attendance of MLS

1 Los Angeles 26,050
2 Toronto FC 20,241
3 DC United 19,835
4 Houston 17,752
5 Chicago 17,052
6 New York 16,323
7 Real Salt Lake 16,314
8 Chivas USA 15,373
9 Columbus 14,421
10 New England 14,325
11 San Jose 13,755
12 Colorado 13,674
13 FC Dallas 13,097
14 Kansas City 10,673

Average Attendance: 16,310

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/stats/attendance?league=usa.1&year=2008&cc=5901

Kansas City is temporarily playing in a small baseball stadium until their new stadium is completed. Toronto's attendance would be closer to 40,000 if the stadium was anywhere near big enough. Seattle just joined the league this year and have drawn crowds of 32,400 and 24,000 to their first two games although the team is limiting capacity to ensure stadium intimacy.

Despite being a niche sport in America that is despised by much of the mainstream conservative population, the league draws very respectable attendance numbers in comparison to domestic leagues in Europe and around the world. Much like Mixed Martial Arts and extreme sports, the mainstream doesn't care while there is still a large enough minority with an appetite for the game. It will never be mainstream and rival the NFL and NBA but as long as there is a market niche with an appetite for the game MLS will be fine.

French Football League

Ligue 1 Orange :
Average attendance 2004/2005: 21,337
Average attendance 2005/2006: 21,543
Average attendance 2006/2007: 21,817
Average attendance 2007/2008: 21,804 (Paris SG made the worst season of its history, Lille-Lyon played at the Stade de France)
Average attendance 2008/2009: 20,759 until 29th Week (Lille-Lyon Played at the Stade de France, RC Lens one of the biggest Club plays in Ligue 2)

2007/2008 Average attendance by club:
http://images1.hiboox.com/images/1409/20e120121c0e941fc7871876c92d445c.jpg (http://www.hiboox.fr/go/images/sport/image-1,20e120121c0e941fc7871876c92d445c.jpg.html)

2008/2009 Average attendance by club: (until 29th Week)
http://images0.hiboox.com/images/1409/f8bddc639a6a6a4c735abfe169cecf3b.jpg (http://www.hiboox.fr/go/images/sport/image-2,f8bddc639a6a6a4c735abfe169cecf3b.jpg.html)

2007/2008 Average attendance by Percentage of Capacity:
http://images1.hiboox.com/images/1409/fd822966eec053fc9b23f2ca2ec19b05.jpg (http://www.hiboox.fr/go/images/sport/image-4,fd822966eec053fc9b23f2ca2ec19b05.jpg.html)

2008/2009 Average attendance by Percentage of Capacity: (until 29th Week)
http://images4.hiboox.com/images/1409/0c6065059e3c03c9f42133ffd5d60248.jpg (http://www.hiboox.fr/go/images/sport/image-3,0c6065059e3c03c9f42133ffd5d60248.jpg.html)



New Stadiums in building: Lille (50,186), Valenciennes (25,000), Le Mans (25,000), Lorient (extension: 25,000), Dijon (Ligue 2: 22,000).
Projected: Lyon (61,556), St Etienne (50,000), Strasbourg (42,716), Nice (40,000), Le Havre (25,000) and Clubs of Ligue 2.
Projected Extensions: Marseille (70,000 to 76,000), Lens (50,200), Nantes (45,000), maybe Toulouse (40,000 to 45,000), Rennes (35,000), Nancy (33,000), Metz (32,000), Grenoble (28,000) and Clubs of Ligue 2.

Belgian attendances 2008-2009 (first round)

club - average attendance (+percentage of total capacity) - highest attendance (only those above 10.000+percentage of total capacity)

Club Brugge KV - 26.231 (90%) - 28.180 (97%)
R. Standard de Liège - 25.780 (86%) - 27.000 (90%)
RSC Anderlecht - 23.521 (89%) - 24.297 (92%)
KRC Genk - 21.695 (88%) - 24.000 (98%)
KV Mechelen - 10.852 (77%) - 12.200 (86%)
KAA Gent - 10.100 (78%) - 12.919 (100%)
KFC Germinal Beerschot - 9.892 (80%) - 12.000 (98%)
Cercle Brugge KSV - 9.454 (33%) - 19.000 (65%)
R. Charleroi SC - 7.992 (31%) - 14.101 (55%)
SV Zulte Waregem - 6.568 (77%)
KV Kortrijk - 6.278 (67%)
KSC Lokeren OV - 5.934 (66%)
KSV Roeselare - 5.665 (59%)
R. Excelsior Mouscron - 5.266 (49%)
FCV Dender EH - 5.059 (62%)
KVC Westerlo - 4.878 (60%)
RAEC Mons - 3.905 (43%)
AFC Tubize - 3.358 (41%)

european attendances (http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm)

I hope the Swedish league will sometime follow the Eredivisie in terms of average attendances. Most clubs (which are from cities not substantially smaller than those in NL) should definitely be able to draw between 10.000 and 20.000 to their games, while the big teams should be able to have over 25.000.
Sweden have lower then in Netherlands, Scotland, Turkey, Russia, Portugal, Norway, Belgium

You should remove Turkey because we do not have off average attendances in Turkey.

http://www.stadiumzone.net

shows all average football attendances in the world. Are they up to date?

According to that site there are only two teams in the danish league so I doubt it's up to date. :)

The link "mavn" posted looked better...

That lists the average attendance of the 72,000 seater Millennium Stadium in Wales as 15,000 :nuts: That's completely wrong! It's always a sell out!

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/1073/81671632.jpg
2008
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/3134/10118389552.jpg
http://www.j-league.or.jp/eng/

Awesome

urawa red diamonds have such a good fan base.

Ongoing Eredivisie season compared with the with the horrid 87/88 edition.
It probably was even worse, the figures for Feyenoord and NEC look suspiciously rounded up.



08/09 87/88 Growth
Ajax 48612 10647 357%
Feyenoord 43732 10000 337%
PSV 33157 21529 54%
Heerenveen 25557 3278* 680%
Twente 23247 6647 250%
Groningen 21892 7647 186%
Utrecht 20136 5412 272%
Vitesse 17856 1611* 1008%
NAC Breda 16718 2222* 652%
AZ 16387 4117 298%
Roda JC 13942 5235 166%
Willem II 13068 8353 56%
NEC 12335 2000* 517%
De Graafschap 12193 3611* 238%
Sparta 10359 4824 115%
ADO Den Haag 10091 4882 107%
Heracles 8456 1056* 701%
Volendam 5349 4765 12%

Average 19616 5991 227%
Median 16553 4853 241%

*Played in a lower division.

Don't muck up this thread with gridiron.

I asked the thread starter, not you, and is it really necessary to be condescending towards other football codes?

^^ it's not a code of football, it's some bastardised version of rugby which calls itself football.

I enjoy it though, but it really needs to change it's name ;)

^^ it's not a code of football, it's some bastardised version of rugby which calls itself football.

I enjoy it though, but it really needs to change it's name ;)

It is a recognized code. If you checked the reference aisle at your local book store, Canadian football is listed as a football code, just like Australian Rules Football, Gaelic football, etc. Even wikipedia recognizes the different codes of football.

Asking Canadian football to change their culturally entrenched name to suit the wishes of fans of another code is culturally insensitive and rather arrogant. Conversely, I wouldn't expect association football to change their name to soccer to suit my nation's conventions.

Canadian football has been called football for over a century here. It may be confusing, but a name change is not a realistic expectation. It's like asking Americans to stop calling themselves Americans because America is a continent, not a country.

I have no objection to foreigners calling Canadian or American football, gridiron, but when in Canada, respect the dominant culture and call it football. Canadians have a right to call things what they want. I don't expect people in the UK to call it soccer. The same gesture should be made for us.

:| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football

Sweden have lower then in Netherlands, Scotland, Turkey, Russia, Portugal, Norway, Belgium
I know, but it has the potential of having at least as high or higher than most of those. The main problem is the state of the stadiums in Sweden, but that's about to change.

You should remove Turkey because we do not have off average attendances in Turkey.
in Turkey hasn't official attendance. But unnoficial is ~14k

?
Bundesliga 41000
PremLeague 35000
PrimeraDiv 28000
Serie A 24000
Ligue Un 20000
Eredivisie 19000
Championship 17000


Why does France (65 million inhabitans) have a low attendance in comparing with the Netherlands (16 million)? France is a strong footballnation and has big stadiums.

Because many teams in L1 has stadiums under 20k.If we will take percentage of attendance, L1 is higher than SerieA

PS.In 5 years period Polish league will be on the 4th or 5th position:D

^^ isn't it because there are lots of teams from tiny places in L1??

Like there is 1 team in each of paris, Lyon and marseille, un thinkable eslewhere in the world, no real proper local derbies (outside lille-lens)

Out of respect for the wishes of a number of people on a similar thread, I've decided to start a thread for average attendance figures for teams from all football codes. All football codes are welcome: Canadian football, American football, Australian Rules football, Association football, Gaelic football, rugby league, and rugby union. If I've missed any others, I apologize. Please feel free to add average attendance for them if that is the case.

The intention isn't to gauge overall annual support of teams around the world, but only as an indicator of crowd size one can expect when one attends home games of teams around the world.

I'm from Canada, so I'll start with ours. We call it simply by the name 'football', but to those further a field, it would go by the name 'Canadian football', or simply 'gridiron'. These are the average attendance figures for 2008 at the 8 teams in the Canadian Football League. I've added the metro population each team serves as an interesting point of interest as well as stadium capacity. Population figures are for 2006.

http://www.whitesox1.de/images/CFL-Logo-OnGrass.jpg


1. Edmonton Eskimos - 37,383
Founded - 1895, officially Eskimos since 1949
Metro Edmonton - 1,034,945
Commonwealth Stadium - 60,081
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Commonwealth_Stadium%2C_Edmonton%2C_August_2005.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/31/Commonwealth_Stadium%2C_Edmonton%2C_August_2005.jpg/800px-Commonwealth_Stadium%2C_Edmonton%2C_August_2005.jpg

2. BC Lions - 34,083
Founded - 1954
Metro Vancouver - 2,116,581
BC Place - 59,478
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/CFL_2006_West_Division_Final_at_BC_Place.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/CFL_2006_West_Division_Final_at_BC_Place.jpg/717px-CFL_2006_West_Division_Final_at_BC_Place.jpg

3. Calgary Stampeders - 32,528
Founded - 1891, officially Stampeders since 1945
Metro Calgary - 1,079,310
McMahon Stadium - 35,650
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3096/2820434846_e2eb6700e1.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3096/2820434846_e2eb6700e1.jpg?v=0

4. Saskatchewan Roughriders - 29,996
Founded - 1910 as the Regina Rugby Club, officially Roughriders since 1924
Metro Regina - 194,971
Mosaic Stadium - 28,800 (Expanded to 30,945 mid season)
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/21/31614084_84399c7d62.jpg?v=0
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/21/31614084_84399c7d62.jpg?v=0

5. Toronto Argonauts - 29,189
Founded - 1873
Metro Toronto - 5,113,149
Skydome (Rogers Centre) - 52,595
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1191/690567317_9063955e7e.jpg?v=0
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1191/690567317_9063955e7e.jpg?v=0

6. Winnipeg Blue Bombers - 27,191
Founded - 1880 as Winnipeg Football Club, officially Blue Bombers since 1936
Metro Winnipeg - 694,668
Canad Inns Stadium - 29,533 (To be demolished in 2011)
http://www.astroturfusa.com/resources/images/HPFields/Winnepeg_Canada.jpg
http://www.astroturfusa.com/resources/images/HPFields/Winnepeg_Canada.jpg

7. Hamilton Tiger Cats - 20,784
Founded - 1869 as the Hamilton Tigers, officially Tiger Cats since 1950
Metro Hamilton - 692,911
Ivor Wynne Stadium - 28,830
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2346/1765829561_7bef9ca1dc.jpg?v=0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2346/1765829561_7bef9ca1dc.jpg?v=0

8. Montreal Alouettes - 20,202
Founded - 1872, officially Alouettes in 1946, then again in 1995
Metro Montreal - 3,635,571
Molson Stadium - 20,202 (Being expanded by 5,000 seats for 2010 season)
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/120/266036812_607e19ffe7.jpg?v=0
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/120/266036812_607e19ffe7.jpg?v=0

Montreal has recorded 89 consecutive sellouts. Olympic Stadium has a far larger capacity, but fans prefer the intimacy of Molson Stadium. Molson Stadium is currently being expanded by 5,000 seats, but further expansion is difficult due to space limitations and opposition by some local residents.

Montreal holds the record for highest attendance at a regular season game. 69,093 took in a game against the Argonauts, September 6, 1977. This was achieved at Olympic Stadium. Here's what it looks like at about 66,000.

http://images.ctv.ca/gallery/photo/CGY_stamps_greycup_081125/image8.jpg
http://images.ctv.ca/gallery/photo/CGY_stamps_greycup_081125/image8.jpg

It is a recognized code.

It's a recognised code by who?? There isn't a "football" body that defines what is and what is not a code of the game. It's just convention based on the fact that they derived from the same source. The only reason you talk of codes is because they wrongly share the same name.

If you checked the reference aisle at your local book store, Canadian football is listed as a football code, just like Australian Rules Football, Gaelic football, etc.

It's funny because i have never ever in my life seen a section in a UK library or bookshop on canadian football and i've been to a fair few libraries and bookshops. I have seen small sections in some large bookshops on american football, but they are lumped with american sports not football.

Even wikipedia recognizes the different codes of football.

Even wikipedia LOL, the last resort.

Asking Canadian football to change their culturally entrenched name to suit the wishes of fans of another code is culturally insensitive and rather arrogant. Conversely, I wouldn't expect association football to change their name to soccer to suit my nation's conventions.

Canadian football has been called football for over a century here. It may be confusing, but a name change is not a realistic expectation. It's like asking Americans to stop calling themselves Americans because America is a continent, not a country.

I never said it should change it's name. I said it isn't football.

If my uncle John had a sex change, no matter what he is still won't be my aunty Joan, no matter if he called himself it.

I have no objection to foreigners calling Canadian or American football, gridiron, but when in Canada, respect the dominant culture and call it football. Canadians have a right to call things what they want. I don't expect people in the UK to call it soccer. The same gesture should be made for us.

:| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football

Respect the dominant culture?? They didn't respect our games, they bastardised them and retained the name for their sports.

At least with rounders they had the courtesy to call it baseball, but then tried to claim it as their own invention :lol:

It's not football so when in canada it should be called canadian football because that's what it is the canadian version of football. I don't know anyone who still calls rugby, football. And i've never heard an irish person (and i know a few) refer to it as anything other than Gaelic football.

Like i said i enjoy NFL (not the CFL lol), it's not football though, it's either gridiron or ameriball.

I'll just do my club. Manchester United for 2007-2008 season. I don't need to tell you what type of football it is or where its located(btw its not located in London.)
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1268/543080593_2c0ecfe324_b.jpg

Average for league games 75,691
Average for league cup 75,461
Average for FA Cup 75,419
Average for Champions League 74,806

Average Total is 75,428.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2092/2256099252_68a9d88913_b.jpg

Thanks! That looks great.

2008 NFL Average
Washington 88,604
NY Giants 79,069
NY Jets 78,482
Kansas City 74,077
Carolina 73,210
Cleveland 72,778
Buffalo 71,405
Baltimore71,269
Green Bay 70,682
Houston 70,420
New Orleans 70,092
Philadelphia 69,144
Tennessee 69,143
New England 68,756
San Diego 68,138
Seattle 67,995
Indianapolis 66,378
Miami 65,489
Jacksonville 65,167
Cincinnati 64,582
Tampa Bay 64,511
Arizona 64,096
Atlanta 64,065
Dallas 63,368
Minnesota 63,267
Pittsburgh 62,890
Chicago 62,034
St. Louis 59,980
Oakland 57,850
Detroit 54,497

NCAA D1 2007 top averages
1. Michigan 110,264
2. Penn St. 108,917
3. Ohio St. 105,110
4. Tennessee 103,918
5. Georgia 92,746
6. Louisiana St. 92,619
7. Alabama 92,138
8. Florida 90,388
9. Southern California 87,476
10. Texas 85,144

2007 Washington Redskins

Average attendance- 88,934 (NFL record)
Season Attendance- 1,264,890 (NFL record)

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/08os7YV5Yn3VF/610x.jpg

and a 360

w67E7jbfvkg

Did the Redskins add more seats? I thought capacity there was about 80,000. There's nothing like 70,000 people packed in a stadium to increase the adrenaline level. Those pics make me wish Canadian metros were bigger. Going from 30,000 to 70,000 makes quite a big difference in the atmosphere.

Will Dallas have the biggest stadium once their new facility is finished?

Did the Redskins add more seats? I thought capacity there was about 80,000. There's nothing like 70,000 people packed in a stadium to increase the adrenaline level. Those pics make me wish Canadian metros were bigger. Going from 30,000 to 70,000 makes quite a big difference in the atmosphere.

Will Dallas have the biggest stadium once their new facility is finished?

FedEx has been steadily adding seats since it opened, going from 78,000 to 91,000. The only thing is they did it without adding any tiers, so the new seats are really squeezed in...some of them suck.

As for atmosphere, it sucks. It could be loud, but the seats are too spread out.

The new Dallas stadium is going to seat 80k, but supposedly will be expandable to 100k for special events.

Did the Redskins add more seats? I thought capacity there was about 80,000. There's nothing like 70,000 people packed in a stadium to increase the adrenaline level. Those pics make me wish Canadian metros were bigger. Going from 30,000 to 70,000 makes quite a big difference in the atmosphere.

Will Dallas have the biggest stadium once their new facility is finished?
The stadium opened with about 78,000 seats in 1997, and expansions (the last being in 2004) have increased capacity by around 13,000 seats.

It's a recognised code by who?? There isn't a "football" body that defines what is and what is not a code of the game. It's just convention based on the fact that they derived from the same source. The only reason you talk of codes is because they wrongly share the same name.



It's funny because i have never ever in my life seen a section in a UK library or bookshop on canadian football and i've been to a fair few libraries and bookshops. I have seen small sections in some large bookshops on american football, but they are lumped with american sports not football.



Even wikipedia LOL, the last resort.



I never said it should change it's name. I said it isn't football.

If my uncle John had a sex change, no matter what he is still won't be my aunty Joan, no matter if he called himself it.



Respect the dominant culture?? They didn't respect our games, they bastardised them and retained the name for their sports.

At least with rounders they had the courtesy to call it baseball, but then tried to claim it as their own invention :lol:

It's not football so when in canada it should be called canadian football because that's what it is the canadian version of football. I don't know anyone who still calls rugby, football. And i've never heard an irish person (and i know a few) refer to it as anything other than Gaelic football.

Like i said i enjoy NFL (not the CFL lol), it's not football though, it's either gridiron or ameriball.

I think we can call it what we want. We invented it, we have the right to name it. Cricket has nothing to do with bugs (yes i know where the name comes from), so what does it matter if we call it something that seems irrelevant?

Before you go and criticize the game, saying we "bastardized" it, maybe you should go and read up on the history of the game. As a matter of fact, everyone should. We didnt go "Presto Chango! It completely different now!" The game evolved so slowly that we didnt really realize the difference between the games. At the time there were tons of "football" organizations...you should know that. As a matter of fact, Rutgers University claims to be the home of the first college football game ever, but the game they played was basically a soccer game (yes, I called it soccer, you have your fellow countrymen to blame for that) Also, since our game was evolving at the same time as your football was, it was even harder to tell the differences between the two.

American football, football...does it really matter what we call it to you? Do you think we're going to say to our friend "Hey did you watch the American football game last night?" No, we arent going to say American, we're just going to say football. For something thats been around as long as it has, I think football is a perfectly acceptable name for the game. You expect us to just all of a sudden change the name of our national sport? Seriously? Its football, whether you like it or not.

As for atmosphere, it sucks. It could be loud, but the seats are too spread out.


Spread out in what manner? Do you mean too far from the field because they didn't add a tier?

Arsenal - Emirates Stadium - Ashburton Grove - London
Capacity - 60,335
Average Attendance 2007/2008 - 60,070
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3095/2601266703_f012667fda_o.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chris-beaumont/2601266703/sizes/o/

jttyxoSebHw

The word "soccer" was coined in England, not in America. It derives from the abbreviation "assoc." In the same way that the word "breakfast" was turned into "brekkers", or the word "cigarettes" into "ciggies", "football association" became "soccer".

^^brekkers WTF??

It's an abbreviation a nick name, as you point out there. It is not the name of the game, and was never in favour as a name

Why does France (65 million inhabitans *) have a low attendance in comparing with the Netherlands (16 million)? France is a strong footballnation and has big stadiums.
*62/63 millions
^^ isn't it because there are lots of teams from tiny places in L1??

Like there is 1 team in each of paris, Lyon and marseille, un thinkable eslewhere in the world, no real proper local derbies (outside lille-lens)


That's because football and sports in general are much less popular here than in other countries of Europe. In France the extreme majority of people isn't interested in sports and there is here a very bad caricature of football fans (something like a stereotype of average man with narrow views, drinking beer and who can be often violent).

Although France hosted/hosts some great sport competitions (Olympics 5 times, FIFA world cup 2 twice, UEFA Euro twice, Roland Garros, Tour de France....) and although, two Frenchmen created the two greatest international sport competitions : Olympics and FIFA world cup.

There is not a big football culture like in UK, Germany, spain or the Netherlands, the people here begin to be interested in football when our national team plays a half-final or a final.

Because many teams in L1 has stadiums under 20k.If we will take percentage of attendance, L1 is higher than SerieA

PS.In 5 years period Polish league will be on the 4th or 5th position:D

We will have many new big stadiums too, so French league will still have a better attendance than Polish League and maybe better than serie A.

-----------------------------

The word "soccer" was coined in England, not in America. It derives from the abbreviation "assoc." In the same way that the word "breakfast" was turned into "brekkers", or the word "cigarettes" into "ciggies", "football association" became "soccer".

Cigarette: This is a French word !

About the way to name sports, we must give priority to the UK who created many (almost all) of them.

Spread out in what manner? Do you mean too far from the field because they didn't add a tier?

Spread out meaning that the third tier is really high up and far away from the action. All that noise just goes straight up, unlike RFK Stadium.

I think we can call it what we want. We invented it, we have the right to name it. Cricket has nothing to do with bugs (yes i know where the name comes from), so what does it matter if we call it something that seems irrelevant?

Because another sport has that name... If it happened in 2009 it could be subject to all sorts of legal challenges, because it is wrong! Tort anyone?

Before you go and criticize the game, saying we "bastardized" it, maybe you should go and read up on the history of the game.

The history ok, you adopted rugby football amd changed some fundamental aspects of the rules shortly after, then persisted on called it plain football...

As a matter of fact, everyone should. We didnt go "Presto Chango! It completely different now!" The game evolved so slowly that we didnt really realize the difference between the games.

What, Football was a dinstinct sport to rugby, when you adopted rugby rules in 1876. Then as soon as you added the line of scrimmage in 1880 it was a different game to Rugby.

So in all reality you did go "Presto Chango! It completely different now!"

At the time there were tons of "football" organizations...you should know that.

Not tons there were a few, but they weren't copies of each other, they were mainly either independent creations or different interpretations of the rules of football.

Gridiron is the american interpretation/evolution of rugby football(which might i add is rarely referred to as football), it should've been called american rugby (football), not american football.

a matter of fact, Rutgers University claims to be the home of the first college football game ever, but the game they played was basically a soccer game (yes, I called it soccer, you have your fellow countrymen to blame for that)

No ignorance is to blame for that. All sports have nicknames, doesn't mean that's what they should be called

Also, since our game was evolving at the same time as your football was, it was even harder to tell the differences between the two.

what, they didn't evolve at the same time, and the differences were clear.

Football and Rugby had defined themselves as different sports in the early 1870s, before your sport came into being. By 1873 Football had the foundation for the sport we have today.

Once again your sport was an offshoot of Rugby.

American football, football...does it really matter what we call it to you?

It didn't then, it matters more now that we have this globalised world, and will matter far more in the future.

Do you think we're going to say to our friend "Hey did you watch the American football game last night?" No, we arent going to say American, we're just going to say football.

Although that is not what i am saying, as far as i know the irish do, as they call football, football.

For something thats been around as long as it has, I think football is a perfectly acceptable name for the game. You expect us to just all of a sudden change the name of our national sport? Seriously? Its football, whether you like it or not.

It's not football, whether you call it that or not. That is my point. I never asked you to change its name. The other guy said that when in canada i should call it football, and i say no because it isn't football.

Look i like gridiron, it's just not football, no matter what Sal Palaotino or Jim Rome say!

That's because football and sports in general are much less popular here than in other countries of Europe. In France the extreme majority of people isn't interested in sports

Why is that. It has always struck me about france too.

and there is here a very bad caricature of football fans (something like a stereotype of average man with narrow views, drinking beer and who can be often violent).

LOL so the stereotype transcends national barriers.

Although France hosted/hosts some great sport competitions (Olympics 5 times, FIFA world cup 2 twice, UEFA Euro twice, Roland Garros, Tour de France....) and although, two Frenchmen created the two greatest international sport competitions : Olympics and FIFA world cup.

do "fans" only care about each sport when they are on?

There is not a big football culture like in UK, Germany, spain or the Netherlands, the people here begin to be interested in football when our national team plays a half-final or a final.

It's sad that, that is the case. Surely PSG are a lot bigger than their crowds suggest. I mean they should be able to at least fill the stade de france every week with all that population at their disposal.

We will have many new big stadiums too, so French league will still have a better attendance than Polish League and maybe better than serie A.

Serie a is going up too. I have a feeling the prem will be number 3 again soon. In terms of crowds that is.

Because another sport has that name... If it happened in 2009 it could be subject to all sorts of legal challenges, because it is wrong! Tort anyone?



The history ok, you adopted rugby football amd changed some fundamental aspects of the rules shortly after, then persisted on called it plain football...



What, Football was a dinstinct sport to rugby, when you adopted rugby rules in 1876. Then as soon as you added the line of scrimmage in 1880 it was a different game to Rugby.

So in all reality you did go "Presto Chango! It completely different now!"



Not tons there were a few, but they weren't copies of each other, they were mainly either independent creations or different interpretations of the rules of football.

Gridiron is the american interpretation/evolution of rugby football(which might i add is rarely referred to as football), it should've been called american rugby (football), not american football.



No ignorance is to blame for that. All sports have nicknames, doesn't mean that's what they should be called



what, they didn't evolve at the same time, and the differences were clear.

Football and Rugby had defined themselves as different sports in the early 1870s, before your sport came into being. By 1873 Football had the foundation for the sport we have today.

Once again your sport was an offshoot of Rugby.



It didn't then, it matters more now that we have this globalised world, and will matter far more in the future.



Although that is not what i am saying, as far as i know the irish do, as they call football, football.



It's not football, whether you call it that or not. That is my point. I never asked you to change its name. The other guy said that when in canada i should call it football, and i say no because it isn't football.

Look i like gridiron, it's just not football, no matter what Sal Palaotino or Jim Rome say!

Like I said before, go read up the history.

You rally didnt post a single accurate fact in your post.

College football was in fact soccer here before it became what it is today, its a fact, you cant dispute it.

a) I enjoy a lot of you, but seriously. Do we really need to use board space bickering about such semantics as sport variations? *votes: No* Unless otherwise indicated assume a thread is sport exclusive, and while several sports share the name football they're not readily interchangeable, at least as this thread was intended. Please move on.

b) Poland will have to make HUGE strides to move into the upper echelon of avg. league attendance, for while several clubs may be at home in the 20-30k range I cannot fathom the league as a whole sustaining that over many teams and over many games. There's a reason the likes of Italy, France and the Netherlands remain at levels they're at now, and it's not entirely down to something as fixable as new venues or low ticket prices.

c) Similarly, France needs more than new digs to ramp up attendance. Yes, new stadia would help but many clubs in decent stadiums continue to avg. far less than capacity. It would help to see an end to Lyon's dominance, better still to see their teams perform better on European stages. What they truly need IMO, though, is for one or two other teams to step up their profile on the pitch and among the fans so as to become more appealing attractions. Casual fans will show up when the likes of ManU or Madrid come into town, but among French teams it seems there aren't as many polarizing clubs, or that the ones they do have (PSG, Marseille, Lyon) aren't as famous/infamous as they could be. Might also help if more of their native stars would/could stay home.

Guinness Premiership (Rugby Union)

(Current season average attendances - regular season only)

1. Leicester Tigers - 17,181
Welford Road Stadium

2. London Irish - 16,190
Madejski Stadium

3. Harlequins - 16,072
Twickenham Stoop Stadium

4. Gloucester Rugby - 14,233
Kingsholm

5. Saracens - 13,399
Vicarage Road

6. Northampton Saints - 13,213
Franklin's Gardens

7. Bath Rugby - 10,600
The Recreation Ground

8. Worcester Warriors - 10,294
Sixways Stadium

9. London Wasps - 9,206
Adams Park

10. Sale Sharks - 8,942
Edgeley Road

11. Bristol Rugby - 7,842
Memorial Stadium

12. Newcastle Falcons - 6,073
Kingston Park

Overall average - 12,025

That's because football and sports in general are much less popular here than in other countries of Europe. In France the extreme majority of people isn't interested in sports and there is here a very bad caricature of football fans

Okay, thats explain why French clubs in general hasn't won a lot cups in comparing with Italy or Spain. Nevertheless France is verry good with their national squad.

Winners
ECI - ECII
Italy 11 - 9
Spain 11 -5
England 11 - 6
Germany 6 - 6
Netherlands 6 - 4
Portugal 4 - 1
France 1 - 0
Scotland 1 - 1

Like I said before, go read up the history.

You rally didnt post a single accurate fact in your post.

College football was in fact soccer here before it became what it is today, its a fact, you cant dispute it.

Actually my "rally" IS accurate, and you saying it isn't and urging me to read up, is just ad hominem on your part, as you can't actually refute with actual facts because you are wrong.

I never said original games of college football weren't based upon real football, however when they codified Gridiron, they based it on rugby, and that sir is a fact that you can't dispute!

a) I enjoy a lot of you, but seriously. Do we really need to use board space bickering about such semantics as sport variations? *votes: No* Unless otherwise indicated assume a thread is sport exclusive, and while several sports share the name football they're not readily interchangeable, at least as this thread was intended. Please move on.

Fine by me, but we should make it clear that in international forums football should refer to real football...

b) Poland will have to make HUGE strides to move into the upper echelon of avg. league attendance, for while several clubs may be at home in the 20-30k range I cannot fathom the league as a whole sustaining that over many teams and over many games. There's a reason the likes of Italy, France and the Netherlands remain at levels they're at now, and it's not entirely down to something as fixable as new venues or low ticket prices.

They have the population, and the love of football. They soon will have the stadiums too. The thing they also have is widespread corruption, that's the problem.

c) Similarly, France needs more than new digs to ramp up attendance. Yes, new stadia would help but many clubs in decent stadiums continue to avg. far less than capacity. It would help to see an end to Lyon's dominance, better still to see their teams perform better on European stages. What they truly need IMO, though, is for one or two other teams to step up their profile on the pitch and among the fans so as to become more appealing attractions.

Europe doesn't have an effect on domestic attendances. They are separate.

Competitiveness is more important than having strong teams in Europe, Germany is the main example of this. They retain German players and their league is exciting.


Casual fans will show up when the likes of ManU or Madrid come into town, but among French teams it seems there aren't as many polarizing clubs, or that the ones they do have (PSG, Marseille, Lyon) aren't as famous/infamous as they could be.

What makes you say that. It's the same case as it is elsewhere.


Might also help if more of their native stars would/could stay home.

That i do agree with, but i doubt it will happen.

Actually my "rally" IS accurate, and you saying it isn't and urging me to read up, is just ad hominem on your part, as you can't actually refute with actual facts because you are wrong.

I never said original games of college football weren't based upon real football, however when they codified Gridiron, they based it on rugby, and that sir is a fact that you can't dispute!

Facts? Oh, I already gave you those a few posts ago.

Its nice that there are people on these boards who find it their job to talk about things that dont concern them. Good job.:applause:

^^ don't lie, anyway that is me, i'm done

Averages for National Rugby League (NRL) for 2008.....(Home & Away season only). All teams played 12 home and 12 away games.

Brisbane Broncos - Home 33,426 Away 15,104
Suncorp Stadium - 52,500

Canterbury Bulldogs - Home 15,352 Away 17,258
ANZ Stadium - 83,500

Canberra Raiders - Home 11,913 Away 13,229
Canberra Stadium - 25,011

Cronulla Sharks - Home 12,965 Away 14,053
Toyota Stadium - 22,000

Gold Coast Titans - Home 21,618 Away 15,136
Skilled Park - 27,400

Manly Sea Eagles - Home 13,694 Away 16,702
Brookvale Oval - 23,000 / Bluetongue Stadium - 20,119

Melbourne Storm - Home 12,474 Away 14,297
Olympic Park Stadium - 18,500

New Zealand Warriors - Home 11,440 Away 13,671
Mt. Smart Stadium - 26,500

Newcastle Knights - Home 18,750 Away 14,511
EnergyAustralia Stadium - 26,126

North Queensland Cowboys - Home 18,102 Away 14,222
Dairy Farmers Stadium - 25,000

Parramatta Eels - Home 13,528 Away 19,072
Parramatta Stadium - 20,000

Penrith Panthers - Home 10,899 Away 13,659
Credit Union Australia Stadium - 21,000

South Sydney Rabbitohs - Home 14,644 Away 16,819
ANZ Stadium - 83,500

St. George-Illawarra Dragons - Home 12,596 Away 17,707
WIN Stadium - 20,000 / ANZ Stadium - 83,500

Sydney Roosters - Home 13,970 Away 18,086
Sydney Football Stadium - 45,500

Wests Tigers - Home 16,386 Away 18,233
Leichhardt Oval - 22,000 / Campbelltown Stadium - 20,000

Averages for Australian Football League (AFL) for 2008.....(Home & Away season only). All teams played 11 home and 11 away games.

Adelaide Crows - Home 40,678 Away 32,325
AAMI Stadium - 51,515

Brisbane Lions - Home 28,128 Away 28,621
The Gabba - 42,000

Carlton Blues - Home 48,589 Away 48,729
Melbourne Cricket Ground - 100,000 / Telstra Dome - 56,347

Collingwood Magpies - Home 59,213 Away 54,186
Melbourne Cricket Ground - 100,000 / Telstra Dome - 56,347

Essendon Bombers - Home 46,368 Away 48,552
Melbourne Cricket Ground - 100,000 / Telstra Dome - 56,347

Fremantle Dockers - Home 35,877 Away 27,762
Subiaco Oval - 42,922

Geelong Cats - Home 29,474 Away 46,635
Skilled Stadium - 27,000 / Telstra Dome - 56,347

Hawthorn Hawks - Home 39,976 Away 42,813
Melbourne Cricket Ground - 100,000 / Aurora Stadium - 23,000

Melbourne Demons - Home 30,777 Away 29,560
Melbourne Cricket Ground - 100,000

North Melbourne Kangaroos - Home 27,667 Away 34,160
Melbourne Cricket Ground - 100,000 / Telstra Dome - 56,347 / Carrara Stadium - 18,000

Port Adelaide Power - Home 23,842 Away 26,786
AAMI Stadium - 51,515

Richmond Tigers - Home 43,548 Away 41,452
Melbourne Cricket Ground - 100,000 / Telstra Dome - 56,347

St. Kilda Saints - Home 37,034 Away 34,951
Telstra Dome - 56,347

Sydney Swans - Home 32,834 Away 30,976
Sydney Cricket Ground - 46,000 - ANZ Stadium - 81,000 / Manuka Oval - 15,000

West Coast Eagles - Home 37,653 Away 31,251
Subiaco Oval - 42,922

Western Bulldogs - Home 30,275 Away 33,173
Telstra Dome - 56,347

Averages for Hyundai A-League for 2008/2009.....(Home & Away season only). All teams played 11 home and 10 away games.

Adelaide United - Home 11,712 Away 13,652
Hindmarsh Stadium - 16,500 / Adelaide Oval - 33,597

Central Coast Mariners - Home 10,481 Away 13,652
Bluetongue Stadium - 20,119

Melbourne Victory - Home 24,512 Away 9,817
Telstra Dome - 56,347

Newcastle Jets - Home 8,134 Away 10,421
EnergyAustralia Stadium - 26,126

Perth Glory - Home 7,229 Away 12,565
Members Equity Stadium - 17,288

Queensland Roar - Home 10,738 Away 13,735
Suncord Stadium - 52,500

Sydney FC - Home 11,251 Away 15,186
Sydney Football Stadium - 45,500

Wellington Phoenix - Home 7,193* Away 9,806
Westpac Stadium - 34,500

* No crowd posted for 1 Wellington home game so averages on 10 games only.

They have the population, and the love of football. They soon will have the stadiums too. The thing they also have is widespread corruption, that's the problem.

????? Maybe in Italy but not in France (not more than in UK or Germany) !!!!

The fact is in France new stadiums willl change a lot of things because a new generation of fans will go at the stadiums which will be more confortable and more "entertainment" than today, the good example is Grenoble with their new stadium (since 2008, 20K) before the average was under 8K and since the opening of the new one the average was almost 18k, even in ligue 2.

Today many people in the country (from the top of the government) try to change our football in order to make it more competitive and the beginning is new stadiums and new tax laws !!

Okay, thats explain why French clubs in general hasn't won a lot cups in comparing with Italy or Spain. Nevertheless France is verry good with their national squad.

Winners
ECI - ECII
Italy 11 - 9
Spain 11 -5
England 11 - 6
Germany 6 - 6
Netherlands 6 - 4
Portugal 4 - 1
France 1 - 0
Scotland 1 - 1

French Clubs played in history 13 european Finals (EC1, EC2, EC3) but won only 2 (PSG EC2 1996 & Marseille EC1 1993) bad luck !!!!

^^ don't lie, anyway that is me, i'm done

Tell me where i lied.

????? Maybe in Italy but not in France (not more than in UK or Germany) !!!!

i was talking about poland, not france!!

The fact is in France new stadiums willl change a lot of things because a new generation of fans will go at the stadiums which will be more confortable and more "entertainment" than today, the good example is Grenoble with their new stadium (since 2008, 20K) before the average was under 8K and since the opening of the new one the average was almost 18k, even in ligue 2.

Today many people in the country (from the top of the government) try to change our football in order to make it more competitive and the beginning is new stadiums and new tax laws !!

But will this allow you to keep your best players?? Even Germany does that, bar michael ballack...



French Clubs played in history 13 european Finals (EC1, EC2, EC3) but won only 2 (PSG EC2 1996 & Marseille EC1 1993) bad luck !!!!

I remember PSG playing milan? in champions league semi final in the mid nineties and getting very unlucky.

Tell me where i lied.

:ohno: There isn't really much point with you.

:ohno: There isn't really much point with you.

That makes sense....kind of...

Actually it sounds like someone who has nothing else to say.

That makes sense....kind of...

Actually it sounds like someone who has nothing else to say.

LOL you don't stop do you. If that's the way you want to see it, then more fool you.

The proof is there for all to see, all you have done is say "that is not right" and not back up the statement with fact or even anything resembling a point, where as I have. I am not the person with something to prove it is you sir :cheers:

LOL you don't stop do you. If that's the way you want to see it, then more fool you.

The proof is there for all to see, all you have done is say "that is not right" and not back up the statement with fact or even anything resembling a point, where as I have. I am not the person with something to prove it is you sir :cheers:

maybe you should go back to where i gave the brief explanation of why the game is called what it its. But because it seems that you cant read, I guess Ill do it again.

College football at one point consisted of many different styles of play. However you played it, it was considered football.

Despite what you might think, while modern american football is a descendant of rugby, it took time for it to evolve to where it is today. I think that its common sense that the game at one time had major association football roots, or else it wouldnt be called "football"

Because the game evolved as slowly as it did, as I said before, the game did not simply change in a day...even though for some reason you think it did. I dont know why. Every school had its own rules, every school played the game differently. As time passed and schools found more effective ways to play the game, a lot of the soccer aspects of the game were lost, but the rugby portions stayed. But, as I said before it took a while so the name "football" stuck.

Football is in fact a legitimate name for the game, whether you like it or not. It cant be changed now, nor will it ever change. I suggest that you suck it up and deal with it, I wouldnt want the name of a game from a country 3,000 miles away to ruin your day.

It's a recognised code by who?? There isn't a "football" body that defines what is and what is not a code of the game. It's just convention based on the fact that they derived from the same source. The only reason you talk of codes is because they wrongly share the same name.

You're right, there's no all-encompassing "football" body, because football goes back hundreds and hundreds of years. It's only in the last 150-200 years that formally defined games with common rules have sprung up out of it - rugby football, Australian Rules football, association football etc. All codes correctly share the name "football", since they're all a ball game played on foot, just like in the past.

I never said it should change it's name. I said it isn't football.

It's not football

Yes it is. As is rugby, soccer, etc. etc.

I don't know anyone who still calls rugby, football.

You obviously haven't been to New Zealand. There are still people who call it just "football" in the UK, mainly in traditional rugby league enclaves, also a lot of clubs just refer to "Football" in their name (Blackheath FC, Harlequin FC etc.), public schools often list the 1st XV captain as "Captain of Rugby", and you still hear commentators talking about "a talented footballer" or a team playing "an exciting brand of rugby".

The last time the Olympics was held in London, Football (Association) and Football (Rugby) were both on the schedule.

it's not football though

Saying it three times doesn't make it true!

Because another sport has that name... If it happened in 2009 it could be subject to all sorts of legal challenges, because it is wrong! Tort anyone?

When the Football Association was formed, there were at least three different kinds of football being played with agreed rules, and a lot more if you count all the traditional village and public school versions. Soccer doesn't have any special right to the word "football".

The history ok, you adopted rugby football

Or, as it was known at the time, "football".

Football and Rugby had defined themselves as different sports in the early 1870s

Yes, both called "football". The use of just "rugby" to describe the kind played by the Rugby Football Union didn't come about until a long time later.

Actually my "rally" IS accurate, and you saying it isn't and urging me to read up, is just ad hominem on your part, as you can't actually refute with actual facts because you are wrong.

I never said original games of college football weren't based upon real football, however when they codified Gridiron, they based it on rugby, and that sir is a fact that you can't dispute!

Actually, early gridiron was based on both rugby football and association football, or as they were both called by their adherents... football.

Fine by me, but we should make it clear that in international forums football should refer to real football...

No, in international fora football should be recognised as the generic term it really is - it's every bit as fine for a European to use it to mean soccer as it is for an American to mean gridiron, but people who point at a foreign sport and claim "that's not football!" are just showing their ignorance.

The proof is there for all to see, all you have done is say "that is not right" and not back up the statement with fact or even anything resembling a point, where as I have. I am not the person with something to prove it is you sir :cheers:

I must have missed the point where you posted your "proof".

Europe doesn't have an effect on domestic attendances. They are separate.You don't think Lyon would see a bump in season tickets if their club won the ECL and appeared poised to mimic ManU levels of success?

If you're talking literal calculations, then yes there's no direct correlation. But in terms of fan appeal fans respond to success, and casual fans notice La Liga, the Premiership and Serie A in large part because they recognize the names of teams and players from European competition. The perception is these leagues are tougher and/or better in part because their clubs have more success in UEFA competitions. French clubs? Not so much. However, if the French regularly saw 2, and sometimes 3, of their teams make the ECL knock-out rounds, advance further in the UEFA cup and overall earn more trophies, then more casual fans both within and without the nation will notice and ultimately that will likely bolster regular attendance, even if only by a little.
Competitiveness is more important than having strong teams in Europe, Germany is the main example of this. They retain German players and their league is exciting.But Germany regularly sees their teams advance in Europe, traditionally has the stronger national team, etc. Their overall pedigree is deeper and stronger. France is building this but ultimately they will need better success in European club competitions to overcome the stigma that they're league isn't on par with the top 3-4, and overcoming that would contribute to improved fan support.

IMO, anyway.
What makes you say that (regarding French clubs not being as polarizing). It's the same case as it is elsewhere.That's the word from my family in Metz and Nantes, that the French powers aren't viewed with the same love/hate as the likes of Milan, ManU, Bayern, etc. And that, in turn, limits the local enthusiasm that could otherwise be stirred when such French clubs (Lyon, PSG...) come to town. True there'll be some heightened attention but not always the guaranteed sell-out or overall vitriol. That's all I'm saying.

Good grief, folks. Can we end the "debate" about the use/definition of the term football?!

I suggest that at the least, as it relates to the spirit of the thread, the football referred to here is the most common and direct form many also call soccer. All other variations should be directed elsewhere seeing as such a thread has already been devised.

Seriously, any further nitpicking from either side should be viewed as detractions from the discussion.

^^brekkers WTF??

It's an abbreviation a nick name, as you point out there. It is not the name of the game, and was never in favour as a name

Brekkers WTF to you because you're young, but it used to be a slang word for "breakfast". The fact that you don't know it doesn't mean it didn't exist.

And whether you like it or not "soccer" is an alternate name for "football", in the same way that "rugger" is an alternate name for "rugby". But my point was that the word is English and not American in origin, as many people think.

Another one who selectively quotes

You're right, there's no all-encompassing "football" body, because football goes back hundreds and hundreds of years. It's only in the last 150-200 years that formally defined games with common rules have sprung up out of it - rugby football, Australian Rules football, association football etc. All codes correctly share the name "football", since they're all a ball game played on foot, just like in the past.

I have no problem with them using the name football, they developed from the folk games that existed. This is gridiron we are talking about

Yes it is. As is rugby, soccer, etc. etc.

Just because it is called football, it doesn't make it football. Surely Football by nature should involve a large amount of kicking a ball with the foot...

You obviously haven't been to New Zealand. There are still people who call it just "football" in the UK, mainly in traditional rugby league enclaves, also a lot of clubs just refer to "Football" in their name (Blackheath FC, Harlequin FC etc.), public schools often list the 1st XV captain as "Captain of Rugby", and you still hear commentators talking about "a talented footballer" or a team playing "an exciting brand of rugby".

Your point being?? I said I have never heard Rugby called football.

The last time the Olympics was held in London, Football (Association) and Football (Rugby) were both on the schedule.

No rugby wasn't on the itenary at the 1948 olympics

Saying it three times doesn't make it true!

So you feel the need to highlight three times out of context.

And the fact is, just because you say it isn't true, doesn't mean it isn't true.

When the Football Association was formed, there were at least three different kinds of football being played with agreed rules, and a lot more if you count all the traditional village and public school versions.

Yes The FA and sheffield rules which were largely foot based and you weren't allowed to run with the ball in hand. And the rugby based games which allowed it.

Sheffield and FA rules became identical in 1877.

The FA were first with the name Football as a de facto term for their association. Others had to tack on regional hints to their names, sheffield etc

Actually, early gridiron was based on both rugby football and association football, or as they were both called by their adherents... football.

No early american versions of football were similar to "association" football. When they codified the rules they based it upon Rugby.

Gridiron refers to the grid set up of the pitch, which didn't become a necessity until they introduced the line of scrimmage and downs.

Soccer doesn't have any special right to the word "football".

No Football doesn't, and i never said it does. I never criticised, rugby, gaelic or aussie rules using the name.

Or, as it was known at the time, "football".

Evidence? I have evidence of it being called rugby football or rugby version, not plain football. This is to dinstiguish it.

Yes, both called "football". The use of just "rugby" to describe the kind played by the Rugby Football Union didn't come about until a long time later.

Actually it came about when they decided the name of their association the Rugby football union, which was formed in 1871. Before the codification of gridiron rules.

The point is Rugby developed an independent name due to the fact that there were more than one version of the game within these islands.

The point is the world communications today are probably better than the national communications of 100+ years ago. Therefore it is only natural that with more than one sport claiming the name football that the dominant version will win out in it's right to be called Football.

No, in international fora football should be recognised as the generic term it really is - it's every bit as fine for a European to use it to mean soccer as it is for an American to mean gridiron,

and cause confusion


I must have missed the point where you posted your "proof".

It seems you feel i am referring to proving that Football is Football. When instead i was referring to the fact that the proof that all en1044 had said up to that point was "no you aren't right!, was there in the previous posts.

but people who point at a foreign sport and claim "that's not football!" are just showing their ignorance.

In your opinion.

I'd say they are expressing their views as to what they believe football is, as far as i know there is nothing that legally says football is any game that calls itself football. Therefore just because a game calls itself football doesn't make it football. And conversely it doesn't not make it football. It's a matter of opinion.

maybe you should go back to where i gave the brief explanation of why the game is called what it its. But because it seems that you cant read, I guess Ill do it again.

ok...

College football at one point consisted of many different styles of play. However you played it, it was considered football.

I agree to a point.

Despite what you might think, while modern american football is a descendant of rugby,

That it is

it took time for it to evolve to where it is today.

Of course because you change the rules with alarming regularity. The point is that when they introduced the downs, line of scrimmage the foundations were laid. And that was very early in it's history.

I think that its common sense that the game at one time had major association football roots, or else it wouldnt be called "football"

It had rugby football links. "Association" Football didn't involve running with the ball in arm, something which if i am not mistake gridiron had from codification.

Because the game evolved as slowly as it did, as I said before, the game did not simply change in a day...even though for some reason you think it did.

When did i say that. clearly a case of not reading what i say. I said that as soon as you introduced the line of scrimmage it changed the game. And it moved it firmly away from Rugby.

I dont know why. Every school had its own rules, every school played the game differently. As time passed and schools found more effective ways to play the game,

Yes that is true, but that was up until codification and the agreement on adopting modified rugby rules.

a lot of the soccer aspects of the game were lost, but the rugby portions stayed. But, as I said before it took a while so the name "football" stuck.

Not through evolution, through the rules making it a version of Rugby football.

Football is in fact a legitimate name for the game, whether you like it or not. It cant be changed now, nor will it ever change. I suggest that you suck it up and deal with it, I wouldnt want the name of a game from a country 3,000 miles away to ruin your day.

For the upteenth time, I NEVER SAID THAT YOU SHOULD CHANGE THE NAME OF THE GAME

Brekkers WTF to you because you're young, but it used to be a slang word for "breakfast". The fact that you don't know it doesn't mean it didn't exist.

That doesn't fit into the same context as what i am saying. I have never heard it referred to as brekkers, but it doesn't mean it can't be. And i never said it couldn't. I said WTF because it is not a term i have ever heard. My point was just because it is called football doesn't make it football. So in context it should've been, just because it's called brekkers doesn't make it breakfast, because i can call my dinner breakfast if i want to.

And whether you like it or not "soccer" is an alternate name for "football", in the same way that "rugger" is an alternate name for "rugby". But my point was that the word is English and not American in origin, as many people think.

I know it is of English origin. But it was a nickname, that has become an alternative name to people who don't know better.

please stop ruining this thread which is about attendances at football also known as soccer/Fußball/Voetbal/futbol/calcio games

Another one who selectively quotes

I "selectively quoted" your posts simply to cut them down in size and so it was clear which points I was replying to. I didn't see the point in repeating the interim paragraphs that had nothing to do with what I was saying. I'm going to do that again, otherwise I'll be here all night.

I have no problem with them using the name football, they developed from the folk games that existed. This is gridiron we are talking about

Just because it is called football, it doesn't make it football. Surely Football by nature should involve a large amount of kicking a ball with the foot...

Why? There seems to be this universally-held fallacy that the word football comes from what's used to play what. "Football" comes from the fact that it's played on foot, which was probably as much a way of describing the social class of the players (who didn't own horses for sport) as anything else. Try telling the people who played the (often highly lethal) "folk games" that they should try kicking the ball that a mob was wrestling for, and they'd think you were crazy.

Your point being?? I said I have never heard Rugby called football.

And what was your point when you said that?

No rugby wasn't on the itenary at the 1948 olympics

My mistake - I meant the first London Olympics, not the last.

The FA were first with the name Football as a de facto term for their association. Others had to tack on regional hints to their names, sheffield etc

Yes, so what? Does that mean the others shouldn't be allowed to be called "football", a name that had been in the public domain for centuries?

No Football doesn't, and i never said it does. I never criticised, rugby, gaelic or aussie rules using the name.

So why are you criticising American and Canadian football? Australian Rules is more directly descended from rugby than either, so why does that get a pass from you?

Evidence? I have evidence of it being called rugby football or rugby version, not plain football. This is to dinstiguish it.

And there's masses of evidence of people calling the round ball game "association football" or "soccer", also to distinguish it.

Actually it came about when they decided the name of their association the Rugby football union, which was formed in 1871. Before the codification of gridiron rules.

No, Rugby was just the name of the town and school - football was the name of the sport, and union the name of the organisation. Using just "rugby" to describe the game would have sounded totally bizarre at the time, in the same way that nobody says for example "a polar" to mean a polar bear, but became part of the language later.

The point is the world communications today are probably better than the national communications of 100+ years ago. Therefore it is only natural that with more than one sport claiming the name football that the dominant version will win out in it's right to be called Football.

I very much doubt that. By the same logic there'll only be one language eventually.

please stop ruining this thread which is about attendances at football also known as soccer/Fußball/Voetbal/futbol/calcio games

Right, so it was supposed to be about association football attendances. Unfortunately, nothing in the original post actually specified this - because there are lots of different types of football there's plenty of scope for confusion. If the OP had just put (association) or (soccer) somewhere or provided a bit of context we wouldn't have had all the aggro...

You don't think Lyon would see a bump in season tickets if their club won the ECL and appeared poised to mimic ManU levels of success?

No because they more or less fill their ground every week.

And they are planning to move to a larger stadium without the need for it.

If you're talking literal calculations, then yes there's no direct correlation. But in terms of fan appeal fans respond to success, and casual fans notice La Liga, the Premiership and Serie A in large part because they recognize the names of teams and players from European competition.

I disagree, to many european competitions are considered a bonus, not the main aim for the season.

European success is rare nowadyas because there are so many clubs competing. Winning league titles is the most important thing.

winning the champions league is like how winning the FA cup used to be!

The perception is these leagues are tougher and/or better in part because their clubs have more success in UEFA competitions. French clubs? Not so much.

No because they have better players who have gravitated in many cases from the french leagues and more financial muscle. That is why they are tougher.

However, if the French regularly saw 2, and sometimes 3, of their teams make the ECL knock-out rounds, advance further in the UEFA cup and overall earn more trophies, then more casual fans both within and without the nation will notice and ultimately that will likely bolster regular attendance, even if only by a little.

No, more stars would do that. And those stars would be as a result of winning or advancing further in said competitions.

But Germany regularly sees their teams advance in Europe,

What football have you been watching?? German teams have done nothing since the early part of this decade. There league has grown through a combination of cheap tickets, bigger modern stadiums and increased competitiveness. The same can be said of the dutch league were teams are in even worse shape relatively.

traditionally has the stronger national team, etc. Their overall pedigree is deeper and stronger.

That doesn't have a bearing, Germany crowds bottomed out just like everyone else, and it wasn't stars and European success which rebounded them, as i said above.

France is building this but ultimately they will need better success in European club competitions to overcome the stigma that they're league isn't on par with the top 3-4,

To market itself externally, not internally.

Internal marketing doesn't rely on European success.

and overcoming that would contribute to improved fan support.

externally

IMO, anyway.
That's the word from my family in Metz and Nantes,

you got family everywhere

that the French powers aren't viewed with the same love/hate as the likes of Milan, ManU, Bayern, etc.

And my french friends from university hate paris and everything it stands for including the football team, and to a lesser extent marseille.

And that, in turn, limits the local enthusiasm that could otherwise be stirred when such French clubs (Lyon, PSG...) come to town.

But that's not what it ever has been or ever was about ever. and i don't know where you get that that is what it should be about?

The enthusiasm you are talking about is the kind that lower league clubs get in the cup. Not two teams in the same league.

True there'll be some heightened attention but not always the guaranteed sell-out or overall vitriol. That's all I'm saying.

Nor in england, italy or spain.

Never said you shouldnt change the name of the game? From the type of argument youre giving, I would assume that it was implied. Either that or youre just arguing for the sake of arguing. I see youve been doing that a lot lately.

I'm not looking for a fight, bossman, and won't drag this out. I can agree to disagree. One of your comments, however, needs contesting:you got family everywhereDon't know if this is what you're implying but it reads to me as "You're a liar and you use this excuse a lot." As someone currently embroiled in a dispute in this thread over what constitutes facts I'd hope you could do better than this. Don't believe me if you wish, but please don't be insulting. Especially as I was responding to your question about my line of reasoning. The same level of doubt can be cast on you and your "friends at university" but I'll presume you've a basis for your opinion and wouldn't call you a liar unless I could legitimately prove otherwise. I think I deserve the same respect.

^^ That's not what i was implying, i was implying that you've got family everywhere. maybe some sort of smiley would've been a timely addition, but i didn't think you'd take it that way.

and to en1044, i am just saying i don't believe it is football, as i believe football is what you call "soccer". Remember i used to the transexual argument to explain my reasoning. This debate started as what is football between me and the canadian, and i gave my reasonings.

^^ That's not what i was implying, i was implying that you've got family everywhere. maybe some sort of smiley would've been a timely addition, but i didn't think you'd take it that way.I'm glad to hear that's the case. No, not everywhere, but I have a sizable family in France (mostly northern), the British Isles, Denmark and Sweden. Though distant in terms, I've tracked down 32 cousins in northern Europe. Most importantly I chat with several of them often thanks to the internet, especially since we share a passion for footie. They balance my news from conventional channels.

Anyway, glad there's no animosity intended. Cheers. :cheers:

For the upteenth time, I NEVER SAID THAT YOU SHOULD CHANGE THE NAME OF THE GAME

Actually you did

I enjoy it though, but it really needs to change it's name ;)

You don't think Lyon would see a bump in season tickets if their club won the ECL and appeared poised to mimic ManU levels of success?

European cups won't change attendance in France, a lot of clubs will never play in Champions League or Europa League (UEFA cup) and have a great attendance/capacity (Nancy, St Etiennes, Grenoble...), about big teams, their stadiums are already almost sold-out every weeks (Marseille, Paris, Lyon, Lens) and about the other clubs, their stadium isn't enough attractive (Lille, Strasbourg, Nice, Valenciennes, le Mans...) or there isn't a big enough football culture (Monaco, Bordeaux, Toulouse a rugby city...).

That's the word from my family in Metz and Nantes, that the French powers aren't viewed with the same love/hate as the likes of Milan, ManU, Bayern, etc. And that, in turn, limits the local enthusiasm that could otherwise be stirred when such French clubs (Lyon, PSG...) come to town. True there'll be some heightened attention but not always the guaranteed sell-out or overall vitriol. That's all I'm saying.

Of course they are !! Don't you know about PSG and Marseille, the two greatest French clubs ?
although the French aren't interested in football, they have an opinion about these two clubs, they choose a side !

This is a big fight between two different cities, two different ways of life, two different clubs...A long story of HATE :
Paris: financial & political capital and Marseille: the Mediterranean city, 2nd city of the country, both separated by a world and 850 km (3 hours by TGV).
The game opposing Paris and Marseille is called Derby of France, nothing less, and there is a lot of troubles inside and outside the stadium every years.
This is the biggest event of the season even if the clubs aren't in the top of the league!

^^ Preach parc de princes!

Actually you did

you not notice the wink??

I'm glad to hear that's the case. No, not everywhere, but I have a sizable family in France (mostly northern), the British Isles, Denmark and Sweden. Though distant in terms, I've tracked down 32 cousins in northern Europe. Most importantly I chat with several of them often thanks to the internet, especially since we share a passion for footie. They balance my news from conventional channels.

Anyway, glad there's no animosity intended. Cheers. :cheers:

90% of my family live in London. And i am not even of European ethnicity. I feel ashamed

Carlton Blues - Home 48,589 Away 48,729
Melbourne Cricket Ground - 100,000 / Telstra Dome - 56,347

Collingwood Magpies - Home 59,213 Away 54,186
Melbourne Cricket Ground - 100,000 / Telstra Dome - 56,347

Essendon Bombers - Home 46,368 Away 48,552
Melbourne Cricket Ground - 100,000 / Telstra Dome - 56,347



So, the top 3 in attendance are Carlton, Collingwood, and Essendon? It's very impressive how many teams Melbourne supports. Top 3 and is it 4 others from Melbourne? I often look to the AFL as a structure the CFL should try and emulate. Rather than one team per city, have a few teams in the bigger cities, and 1 in the rest. Perhaps, Montreal could develop into the CFL's Melbourne, if you know what I mean. Thanks for your contributions!

Thanks for your contributions!

No probs mate :)

So, the top 3 in attendance are Carlton, Collingwood, and Essendon? It's very impressive how many teams Melbourne supports. Top 3 and is it 4 others from Melbourne? I often look to the AFL as a structure the CFL should try and emulate. Rather than one team per city, have a few teams in the bigger cities, and 1 in the rest. Perhaps, Montreal could develop into the CFL's Melbourne, if you know what I mean. Thanks for your contributions!

Yes, but what is now the AFL (Australian Football League) began as the VFL (Victorian Football League), i.e. a league for teams in Victoria. It remained that way until 1982, when South Melbourne moved to Sydney to become the Sydney Swans (meaning 11 of 12 teams were in Victoria), then in 1987 the Brisbane Bears and the West Coast Eagles (in Perth) joined (making it 11 of 14).

It was renamed the AFL in 1990, and subsequently Fitzroy was incorporated into the Brisbane team and three more non-Victorian teams joined, meaning 10 of 16 teams are in Victoria, and any future changes will surely see that proportion fall further. I think it would be very hard to go the other way as you're suggesting.

European cups won't change attendance in France, a lot of clubs will never play in Champions League or Europa League (UEFA cup) and have a great attendance/capacity (Nancy, St Etiennes, Grenoble...)I understand what you and bossman are saying, from my perspective it merely seems like a chicken-and-egg situation: If clubs win more games/compete for more trophies then fans grow more interested. But clubs on the fringe will often struggle to achieve that success without the additional boost that comes from money and increased support. Obviously my theory relies on clubs like Nantes, Auxerre and others not only qualifying for Europe but also really advancing, as well. And until that happens, it will remain but a theory. :)
about big teams, their stadiums are already almost sold-out every weeks (Marseille, Paris, Lyon, Lens) and about the other clubs, their stadium isn't enough attractive (Lille, Strasbourg, Nice, Valenciennes, le Mans...) or there isn't a big enough football culture (Monaco, Bordeaux, Toulouse a rugby city...).I know Marseille draw very well and just updated my notes on Lyon. Where I previously thought they averaged about 37k in their 42k venue I see it's most recently hovered in the 38-39k range. Fair enough, they're doing well, as is PSG. For many of the others with 30-40k venues, however, they begin to trail off at 5k short of capacity or more: St. Etienne, Bordeaux, Nantes, Toulouse... Granted, a lot of this is the culture thing you and bossman have alluded to, and I get that. And I'll concede it would help if I could view more French games live. Either way, French clubs has made nice strides the past few years and if the proposed new venues are realized that should help things evolve tremendously. Count me among those who'd love to someday see French soccer be viewed as on par with, or better than, Serie A!
Of course they are !! Don't you know about PSG and Marseille, the two greatest French clubs ?
although the French aren't interested in football, they have an opinion about these two clubs, they choose a side !...Agreed about this rivalry but what I'm speaking about is the nature of how it is when one of those clubs visit places like Toulouse, Auxerre, etc. Again, I'll preface this by saying it's what my cousins describe as the feeling in Nantes and Metz, where as you've inferred culturally there may not be the same general passion for the sport as elsewhere. As they put it there is not the elevation in atmosphere by the home fans when those clubs come to town. Not automatically, anyway. Conversely in many American sports and in many cases in England, Italy, Germany, etc, there is an enhanced electricity to the local fanbase when one of the more polarizing clubs comes to town. Please note, I'm not at all suggesting the fan response in France is bad, but am merely suggesting how I see that in other, more soccer-mad cultures, there are seemingly more opportunities to fill the stands and build the atmosphere. Heck, as it is I'm stuck here wishing US fans could match the support of our French counterparts!

Bottom line, as I see it: French fan support is good and growing stronger, but falls short by comparison due largely to cultural perceptions. Is that fair to say?
90% of my family live in London. And i am not even of European ethnicity. I feel ashamedHave you tried to explore your family roots? That's how we've discovered these connections and thankfully most of them have panned out very well. After my grandfathers passed away in '90 and '92 select relatives of mine became real interested in our genealogy. We knew of many relatives still in Europe but hadn't really talked or visited with them except on rare occasions. But persistent aunts + advancements in communications technology = expanded family circles. This also came about at a time when many of my generation were in/fresh out of college, so we were ripe for travel. Thus, Islington became base camp for those of us scouting Europe while Hartford CT served that role for visitors coming to the States.

Given the forum I'll add the architectural twist. My great, great, great grandfather was an architect from Germany who plied his trade in New Jersey in his final years. Since then many of his descendants have been in architecture or related fields like civil engineering and city planning (that's me, after struggling in architecture:(). Anyway, only one church and one house of his design remain in NJ, thus part of my Aunt's investigations in Europe also had to deal with finding out if any of his works were still standing there. To date we've discovered one other church and one modest civic structure (now a house), but did get some great photos of former homes we strongly suspect were his handiwork. If nothing else this has been wonderful learning about our heritage and other cultures.

The Swedish connections are my wife's side, who we're planning to visit in 2011. Not quite the soccer powerhouse, but man can they bake! :okay:

If you do some digging and can't find more expansive family connections then perhaps you should start visiting friends or just travel. And if you're ever in the southeastern USA I'll at least buy you a drink and guide you to some novel sites! :cheers:

Whats this home and away thing in Australia all about? I dont understand.

Soap related attendance madness?

And I'll concede it would help if I could view more French games live

Maybe not live but.....

Lille Olympique SC-Olympique Lyonnais: Best moments (Ligue 1, 03/07/2009)
Stade de France
Attendance 78,056 (visitors 737, included)
IoMkLQT494A

Paris Saint-Germain FC-Olympique de Marseille: Best moments from stands (Ligue 1, 03/15/2009):cry::cry:
Parc des Princes
Attendance 47,334 (myself & visitors 1,960, included)
qxFAK6tKJY8

I've seen Essendon play Collingwood in front of 87,000.

Nice pies too

Super League (Rugby League)

(2008 regular season only)

1. Leeds Rhinos - 16,756
Headingley Stadium

2. Wigan Warriors - 13,955
JJB Stadium

3. Hull FC - 13,432
Kingston Communications Stadium

4. St. Helens - 10,740
Knowsley Road

5. Bradford Bulls - 10,287
Odsal Stadium

6. Warrington Wolves - 9,496
Halliwell Jones Stadium

7. Hull Kingston Rovers - 8,554
Craven Park

8. Catalans Dragons - 8,488
Stade Gilbert Brutus

9. Huddersfield Giants - 7,846
Galpharm Stadium

10. Castleford Tigers - 7,501
The Jungle

11. Wakefield Trinity Wildcats - 7,000
Belle Vue

12. Harlequins RL - 3,773
Twickenham Stoop Stadium

Overall average - 9,819

Yes, but what is now the AFL (Australian Football League) began as the VFL (Victorian Football League), i.e. a league for teams in Victoria. It remained that way until 1982, when South Melbourne moved to Sydney to become the Sydney Swans (meaning 11 of 12 teams were in Victoria), then in 1987 the Brisbane Bears and the West Coast Eagles (in Perth) joined (making it 11 of 14).

It was renamed the AFL in 1990, and subsequently Fitzroy was incorporated into the Brisbane team and three more non-Victorian teams joined, meaning 10 of 16 teams are in Victoria, and any future changes will surely see that proportion fall further. I think it would be very hard to go the other way as you're suggesting.

I was aware of the AFL's roots in Victoria, but you're right that it may be hard for a league to expand in the opposite way than the experience in Australia.

One of the issues facing the CFL is that there are only 8 teams resulting in the same teams playing each other over and over again. The league isn't that interested in setting up in cities with less than 500,000 population although exceptions may have to be made. Ottawa and Quebec City represent the only untapped markets larger than this. Ottawa has been awarded a franchise, while Quebec City is rumoured to be a likely addition in the not too distant future. That would only bump the CFL up to 10 teams.

How does the CFL move beyond 10 teams and have these new franchises draw the 25,000/game deemed necessary to be profitable and competitive? A situation exists where there is one team in cities as large as Montreal, Vancouver, and Toronto competing against cities with population bases far smaller.

The CFL brand is far stronger in Montreal than in Toronto due to a football boom in Quebec. The Montreal Alouettes play in tiny Molson Stadium which is being expanded to 25,000 due to sell outs every game for many many years. The fans love Molson Stadium, but the stadium can't be expanded much further due to space limitations and opposition by some local residents.

I've advocated that a second team be put in Montreal down the road. Ideally, that template could be used in Vancouver and Toronto as well, but the CFL would have to grow much stronger in both those markets first for that to be successful. In essence, a move away from the current structure towards one that more closely resembles the AFL would solve the CFL's current limitations while maintaining attendance levels.

The Saskatchewan Roughriders sell out their 30,945 stadium despite playing in a city of only 198,000. The hope is that passion for football like exists there can be duplicated in one of Canada's 3 big cities. If this can be realized, the CFL could grow and become a far stronger league than it is today.

I know hardly anything about the CFL and I'm not an expert on the demographics of Canada, but if I had to invent a league from scratch, it would probably have teams in:

Toronto x 2
Montreal x 2
Vancouver
Victoria
Calgary
Edmonton
Quebec
Saskatoon
Winnipeg
Hamilton
Windsor
London

What do you think?

Whats this home and away thing in Australia all about? I dont understand.

Fairly simple mate. The home and away season is what you guys call the premiership. Only the champion team isn't the one that finishes on top of the table, they are just called the minor premier. The top 8 then go through the finals and the champion team is whichever wins the grand final. Home and away just means the games played at home and played away during the season, but doesn't include finals.

I know hardly anything about the CFL and I'm not an expert on the demographics of Canada, but if I had to invent a league from scratch, it would probably have teams in:

Toronto x 2
Montreal x 2
Vancouver
Victoria
Calgary
Edmonton
Quebec
Saskatoon
Winnipeg
Hamilton
Windsor
London

What do you think?

Besides the omission of Halifax and Ottawa, that's a very sensible list. Eventually an Okanagan Valley team in Kelowna and another team in the Lower Mainland in Vancouver or just outside in Abbotsford would be an ideal situation.

The Canadian Football League has always been an east vs. west showdown. 10 in the east and 6 in the west is a little lopsided, but 10 in the east and 8 in the west would be workable.

Whats this home and away thing in Australia all about? I dont understand.

Soap related attendance madness?

I'm an Essendon supporter so if I go to a match and it's Essendon vs West Coast, then it is Essendon's home match and vise versa.

If Essendon travel to Perth to play West Coast, then it is West Coast's home match as it would be West Coast vs Essendon.

The home team has full rights in terms of reserved seating for it's members and admission fees etc. Hope I explaied that ok lol

So, 'away' attendance is a good way to gauge the interest of teams in other markets in the AFL? Is there any other significance to it? What if 2 Melbourne clubs meet, it's really a home game for both if they use the same stadium. I understand the statistic, but find it rather odd that they keep tabs on it.

So, 'away' attendance is a good way to gauge the interest of teams in other markets in the AFL? Is there any other significance to it? What if 2 Melbourne clubs meet, it's really a home game for both if they use the same stadium. I understand the statistic, but find it rather odd that they keep tabs on it.

Which is why teams like Collingwood, Carlton, Essendon etc draw the largest crowds; becuase when they play a "home" match, they're playing in a city where the "away" fans can still attend in large numbers. I guess the same thing would happen in London if the big Premier League team didn't sell out with just the "home fans".

As a note, I am Collingwood supporter :)

I know hardly anything about the CFL and I'm not an expert on the demographics of Canada, but if I had to invent a league from scratch, it would probably have teams in:

Toronto x 2
Montreal x 2
Vancouver
Victoria
Calgary
Edmonton
Quebec
Saskatoon
Winnipeg
Hamilton
Windsor
London

What do you think?
I've been suggesting they put a team in Anchorage, Alaska for the longest.

Fairly simple mate. The home and away season is what you guys call the premiership. Only the champion team isn't the one that finishes on top of the table, they are just called the minor premier. The top 8 then go through the finals and the champion team is whichever wins the grand final. Home and away just means the games played at home and played away during the season, but doesn't include finals.

Ah, so it's what most sports call the "regular season".

Besides the omission of Halifax and Ottawa, that's a very sensible list.

Damn it, I could have sworn I put Ottawa on the list. Certainly meant to before the likes of Windsor and London. With Halifax too that's a nice round 16 teams.

France, Top 14 Orange (Rugby Union)

Average Attendance 2007/2008: 10,346 (Stade Français-Paris played some games at the Stade de France)
Average Attendance 2008/2009: 11,585 (until 18th week, Stade Français-Paris played some games at the Stade de France)

Average attendance 2007/2008 by Clubs:

1) STADE FRANCAIS-PARIS, 20,324 (Stade Jean Bouin & Stade de France)
2) STADE TOULOUSAIN, 19,127 (Stade Ernest Wallon & Stadium Municipal de Toulouse home of the football team)
3) CLERMONT, 14,072
4) PERPIGNAN, 12,660
5) TOULON, 12,377
6) MONTPELLIER, 12,071
7) BAYONNE, 12,060
8) BIARRITZ, 9,459
9) BRIVE, 8,682
10) BOURGOIN, 7,977
11) CASTRES, 7,418
12) DAX, 7,291
13) MONT-DE-MARSAN, 6,772
14) MONTAUBAN, 6,638

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Don't you mean rugby union or just 'rugby'.

'Rugby league' as opposed to 'rugby' is practical dead in France.

As a note, I am Collingwood supporter :)

Living in Perth, do you not go to Freemantle or West Coast games?

Damn it, I could have sworn I put Ottawa on the list. Certainly meant to before the likes of Windsor and London. With Halifax too that's a nice round 16 teams.

I assumed omitting Ottawa was just an over sight. What channel is the Grey Cup on in Australia? I heard it's broadcast on one of the pay television channels there.

I've been suggesting they put a team in Anchorage, Alaska for the longest.

I was trying to remember who I posted that idea. It's a brilliant proposal, especially due to the lack of large cities in the west. Anchorage is bigger than any of the western Canadian cities currently without a pro football team.

Not only would Anchorage be a good place for a canadian team, but it would also make for a good place for Seattle to play a couple of preseason games of the course of a few years, bringing in even more money.

Of course, theres no chance of the Seahawks ever moving to Alaska so it really wouldnt infringe on anything. Unlike the situation in Buffalo. Im sure that in Alaska, the more money the merrier.

I assumed omitting Ottawa was just an over sight. What channel is the Grey Cup on in Australia? I heard it's broadcast on one of the pay television channels there.

I have no idea - I haven't been to Australia in nearly ten years... :D

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Don't you mean rugby union or just 'rugby'.

'Rugby league' as opposed to 'rugby' is practical dead in France.

Sorry I meant "Rugby Union" I made a confusion with translation Because in France, professional championships of Rugby Union are parts of the "Ligue national de Rugby" (Rugby National league) we don't use the name "Rugby Union".
Indeed your "Rugby league" is called here "Fédération Française de Rugby à XIII".

German Football League attendances:

Braunschweig Lions: 5,560
Kiel Baltic Hurricanes: 4,133
Hamburg Blue Devils: 2,514
Cologne Falcons: 1,843
Dresden Monarchs: 1,550
Berlin Adler: 1,219
Stuttgart Scorpions: 946
Munich Cowboys: 926
Schwäbisch Hall Unicorns: 800
Marburg Mercenaries: 767
Weinheim Longhorn: 609
Darmstadt Diamonds: 390


The german teams in the last season of the NFL Europe in 2007 had these attendances:

Frankfurt Galaxy: 33,043
Düsseldorf Rhein Fire: 24,473
Hamburg Sea Devils: 20,874
Berlin Thunder: 15,710
Cologne Centurions: 14,352

^^
European teams are adopting those silly names like "Hurricanes" and "Thunder" now? :ohno:

What is the info of Liverpool FC's stadium, Anfield ? Please post them.

I'm still completely confused.

What is the away attendance figure? The average attendance at the away games in which that team plays? What is the point of that?

In england that figure would be almost identical for each team. if thats what it is.

I guess it shows how popular various teams are - for example in English soccer just about every club will have a sell-out crowd for the visit of, say, Manchester United, but empty seats for a team like Norwich...

German Football League attendances:

Braunschweig Lions: 5,560
Kiel Baltic Hurricanes: 4,133
Hamburg Blue Devils: 2,514
Cologne Falcons: 1,843
Dresden Monarchs: 1,550
Berlin Adler: 1,219
Stuttgart Scorpions: 946
Munich Cowboys: 926
Schwäbisch Hall Unicorns: 800
Marburg Mercenaries: 767
Weinheim Longhorn: 609
Darmstadt Diamonds: 390


The german teams in the last season of the NFL Europe in 2007 had these attendances:

Frankfurt Galaxy: 33,043
Düsseldorf Rhein Fire: 24,473
Hamburg Sea Devils: 20,874
Berlin Thunder: 15,710
Cologne Centurions: 14,352

That's quite impressive. Frankfurt's attendance is better than that of Toronto's football team, the Argonauts. Ontario has an abysmal record when it comes to support for their pro football teams though. I also noticed that the 12 teams in the GFL beats the 8 in the CFL, but granted, average attendance in the CFL is around 29,000. Still, when you consider gridiron's roots are in central Canada, it's an eye opener to see a form of gridiron drawing better in Germany.

I'm still completely confused.

What is the away attendance figure? The average attendance at the away games in which that team plays? What is the point of that?

In england that figure would be almost identical for each team. if thats what it is.

It's because more visiting supporters can get to see their team play away. Especially if the home team is using a huge stsdium that it would never fill on it's own.

When I saw Essendon v Collingwood it was an Essendon home game at the ground they shared with Collingwood, but the 87,000 crowd was roughly split 50/50

It also shows which teams are the biggest draw away from home.

Riiight. So this stat would be pretty much redundant in football in England seeing as no teams have that much spare capacity. And also there are almost no ground shares (are there any in the professional leagues now?).

Also are supporters not segregated?

Why isnt the stat just the average away attendance for that teams fans?

As for the Man utd example CharlieP, I get it, but i dont think it would have much of an effect. Most teams highest attendances will be in their own leagues against either their local rivals, or at the end of the season when big games are played, or if a promotion is done, such as dirt cheap tickets.

The german teams in the last season of the NFL Europe in 2007 had these attendances:

Frankfurt Galaxy: 33,043
Düsseldorf Rhein Fire: 24,473
Hamburg Sea Devils: 20,874
Berlin Thunder: 15,710
Cologne Centurions: 14,352

those numbers were actually quite impressive, considering the general hatred towards American style football in Europe. Are these numbers inflated due to American servicemen going to games while stationed in Germany or was the league that popular with Germans?

I am impressed with the Aussie Football league attendance figures.

And a bit suprised about the numbers for the rugby leagues in the U.K. Considering how popular seems to be there, those figures seem to be a bit lower then expected.

How does Rugby League compare to Rugby Union in terms of popularity in England??

Are there regions of England which are predominantly Rugby union (even over football), as there are which are predominantly Rugby League?

I am impressed with the Aussie Football league attendance figures.


It's even more impressive when you realized that it's largely on the backs of one city, Melbourne. Melbourne is smaller than Phoenix yet supports 7 football teams.


Also are supporters not segregated?


I realize segregating fans is common in some parts of the world, but the practice is an eye opener to a Canadian. I remember during the FIFA U-20 World Cup that Canada hosted, some of the fans from other countries were surprised that all fans were mixed together. We have intense rivalries in Canada, but fans from opposing teams seem to get along fine with one another. You even find fans of different teams within the same family.

And a bit suprised about the numbers for the rugby leagues in the U.K. Considering how popular seems to be there, those figures seem to be a bit lower then expected.

The national sides have always been very well supported, especially in the Six Nations competition, but club attendances were historically very low in comparison, as the game used to be amateur. When the game turned professional there was a surge in popularity at the club level that the stadia couldn't handle - clubs with their own grounds can't expand them quickly enough to meet demand (Bath, Gloucester, Leicester and Northampton are sold out every week), and some of those that have moved to soccer stadia are still finding them too cramped (cf Sale and Wasps). Average attendances would be a lot higher if the grounds could hold more...

How does Rugby League compare to Rugby Union in terms of popularity in England??

Are there regions of England which are predominantly Rugby union (even over football), as there are which are predominantly Rugby League?

Rugby union is more popular when you take the country as a whole, but in the areas where rugby league is predominant (parts of West and East Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cumbria) it's a lot more popular compared to other sports. Rugby union is most popular in the West Country, but not massively more so than soccer.

Think of country music and alternative rock as analogies for rugby league and rugby union (bear with me here!) - you get regions of the US where country music is the biggest ticket in town, everybody's immersed in the culture and doesn't understand how the rest of the world can't see it's the best thing ever, and just about everywhere else alternative rock varies from mildly to very popular. Overall alternative rock is more popular, but doesn't have the "hotspots" that country music does.

Rugby union is more popular when you take the country as a whole, but in the areas where rugby league is predominant (parts of West and East Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cumbria) it's a lot more popular compared to other sports. Rugby union is most popular in the West Country, but not massively more so than soccer.

Think of country music and alternative rock as analogies for rugby league and rugby union (bear with me here!) - you get regions of the US where country music is the biggest ticket in town, everybody's immersed in the culture and doesn't understand how the rest of the world can't see it's the best thing ever, and just about everywhere else alternative rock varies from mildly to very popular. Overall alternative rock is more popular, but doesn't have the "hotspots" that country music does.

So that's Wakefield, St Helens and possibly Hull. Everywhere else the football clubs are a hell of a lot bigger than the RL teams, even Bradford! Before you ask I'm from Huddersfield, you couldn't pay me to watch the Giants and most people feel the same way.

Melbourne is smaller than Phoenix yet supports 7 football teams.

It is actually 9 in the Melbourne metropolitan area (Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Hawthorn, Melbourne, North Melbourne, Richmond, St Kilda, Western Bulldogs).

It's even more impressive when you realized that it's largely on the backs of one city, Melbourne. Melbourne is smaller than Phoenix yet supports 7 football teams.


wow, that is pretty impressive that so many teams could get that much support in a city that size.

The national sides have always been very well supported, especially in the Six Nations competition, but club attendances were historically very low in comparison, as the game used to be amateur. When the game turned professional there was a surge in popularity at the club level that the stadia couldn't handle - clubs with their own grounds can't expand them quickly enough to meet demand (Bath, Gloucester, Leicester and Northampton are sold out every week), and some of those that have moved to soccer stadia are still finding them too cramped (cf Sale and Wasps). Average attendances would be a lot higher if the grounds could hold more...


ah, I see. I figured they played in larger stadiums, similar to size as those in the Premier League.

Think of country music and alternative rock as analogies for rugby league and rugby union (bear with me here!) - you get regions of the US where country music is the biggest ticket in town, everybody's immersed in the culture and doesn't understand how the rest of the world can't see it's the best thing ever, and just about everywhere else alternative rock varies from mildly to very popular. Overall alternative rock is more popular, but doesn't have the "hotspots" that country music does.

Thats a great analogy! thanks :)

So that's Wakefield, St Helens and possibly Hull.

There are probably a lot more Leeds United fans than Wildcats fans in Wakey! :lol: I was thinking more along the lines of Castleford, Featherstone, Workington, Whitehaven etc. Possibly Wigan in the 1980s too.

ah, I see. I figured they played in larger stadiums, similar to size as those in the Premier League.

Of the 12 Guinness Premiership teams, eight have stayed in their old grounds (Bath, Gloucester, Harlequins, Leicester, Northampton and Worcester fill theirs all the time though Bristol and Newcastle don't get as good crowds), and the other four have gone to share with soccer teams - London Irish and Saracens have available capacities over 20,000 that is more than enough, although they pull in a bumper crowd now and again (Irish have a big "party" for the game closest to St. Patrick's Day and get 21,000+), and Sale and Wasps constantly fill the 10,000-seater grounds they're using.

Apparently there will soon be a minimum capacity of 15,000 for Guinness Premiership clubs, which is going to cause a problem for a few of them...

It is actually 9 in the Melbourne metropolitan area (Carlton, Collingwood, Essendon, Hawthorn, Melbourne, North Melbourne, Richmond, St Kilda, Western Bulldogs).

Thanks for the correction. I've done a little bit of researching around the world, and no city seems to come close to Melbourne in this regard. It would be like Toronto supporting 14 football teams, each with average attendance of about 30,000 or better. Toronto barely manages to support one.

Even in football mad Ohio, could you imagine 4 teams in Cleveland drawing 60,000 each? That's what it would take to match Melbourne. See below:

Adding up the average attendance at the 9 Melbourne football teams gives you 363,447 people; that's in a city of 3.8 million. Cleveland is about two-thirds the size of Melbourne, so that would translate into about 240,000 people attending football games in Cleveland, or 4 NFL teams drawing 60,000 each!

Doing a similar calculation for Toronto would mean that about 550,000 Torontonians would need to attend their own football teams, or put another way, 9 CFL teams drawing over 61,000 each on average!

To increase demand and ticket prices. If a 60k stadium was built that would likely not be possible. Just like if Man United had a 80k stadium 30 years ago they wouldn't have the match day revenue they have today. They expanded it little by little to keep demand at a peak.

Rubbish!!!! Manchester U could EASILY fill in a 80k stadium!!!

It's the most INAPROPRIATE answer i've heard :lol:

It's not because you can't that everybody can't!! :cheers:

^^ i don't think you understand, what they are saying is if you build a stadium with a capacity under the peak of demand it can create more demand, so all future expansions wouldn't take the stadium to the demand limit.

Juventus may have the demand for 50,000 but building 40,000 is safe as they know they can fill it, if the demand goes to something like 60,000, they can increase again to maybe 50,000 as they have that buffer.

The difference with manchester united was the demand was probably 80,000 when they increased to 55,000. The difference being that manchester united increased incrementally when the money came available.

Yaha?

In theory you should always build a stadium slightly too small for yourself so you can guarantee it is always full. That's why i am worried about valencia surely 75,000 is right at their limit. (irrelevant in this thread i know)

But 30 years ago?

yeah that was probably a slip up there, it's irrelavant as it was a different era without luxury seating, large scale season ticket sale etc. You have to comapre from when English stadiums compulsarily became all seater

Rubbish!!!! Manchester U could EASILY fill in a 80k stadium!!!
Not 30 years ago.

Not 30 years ago.

You're wrong !
Especially, 30 years ago, stadiums in Europe were bigger than today, but nowadays, I agree it's better to rebuild smaller, for being sure to fill it, and then extend, for follow the demand (not precede it).
And, you already know, in Italy, where stadiums are too big and, like ours in France, very dilapidated, it is better to have new ones smaller but more suitable.

Why would they want to expand it to 70k when they hardly ever need more than 40k seats?

yes, you made my point.

i still ask then: Why they don't build right now a 50k or 60k stadium?? :lol:

Too big ? :lol:

yes! they must have been doing some research while drawing their business plan, found out how many will go seeing matches at a given price level, and found out how big the stadium will be.
prices, i'm afraid, won't be lower than today, maybe they'll even rise up, since the stadium will be filled with things "normal" stadiums, here, can't even dream of.
so, higher prices will mean less people willing to go there. those who use to go to matches are, here and everywhere else I think,are mostly working class males. the strong industrial crisis which hit Torino from the late '80s also affected stadium's attendance: less cash in, less people in town, lower attendance. So I'm thinking Juventus is planning to have a stadium for middle class and for families, which is not a bad idea. don't call me classist, but i wouldn't take my loved ones to a stand packed by a weed smoking, brainless crowd.
been there a couple of times, there was a nice smell I have to say, but people was quite intimidating.

anyway, can you please stop being so snobbish 'bout this stadium? it's clear you don't like juventus and the serie A as a whole.

Actually on Manchester United, I can recall in the mid 1980s that they would get less than 50,000 and there were noticable gaps in the terraces. It was the days when there were still troubles and hooligans. I am sure there was occasions in the old First Division that only 30,000 were turning up. Actually, if you think about it there is a lot of parallels with the current situation in Italy and how it was in England up to the late 1980s around the time of the Hillsborough incident when authorities said enough was enough. You cannot do that in Italy because the place is so chaotic it is hard to enforce the law.

That era pre dated pay television mega tv contacts and there was even a season around the time Ferguson took over the reigns that there was a good chance Man U were going to be relegated.

You're wrong ! I'm not wrong. It's only the last 20 years that Man United have had a need for a major expansion.

^^ i don't think you understand, what they are saying is if you build a stadium with a capacity under the peak of demand it can create more demand, so all future expansions wouldn't take the stadium to the demand limit.

But a new stadium only increases demand by itself in the beginning after it has opened (usually quite heavily so). Afterwards its down to the performance of the club and the league.

Juventus may have the demand for 50,000 but building 40,000 is safe as they know they can fill it, if the demand goes to something like 60,000, they can increase again to maybe 50,000 as they have that buffer.

Well it can be quite a waste of money to have a number of extensions instead of going bigger right away.

Actually on Manchester United, I can recall in the mid 1980s that they would get less than 50,000 and there were noticable gaps in the terraces. It was the days when there were still troubles and hooligans. I am sure there was occasions in the old First Division that only 30,000 were turning up.

Hooliganism was largely outside the grounds by the mid 1980s. The stadium only held around 55,000 in the 1980s, and as season ticket sales were a lot less attendances duly went up and down based on who you were playing. When Arsenal won the league in 1989 we our crowds ranged from 29,000 to 45,000 because of this.

Actually, if you think about it there is a lot of parallels with the current situation in Italy and how it was in England up to the late 1980s around the time of the Hillsborough incident when authorities said enough was enough.

Hillsborough was nothing to do with hooliganism!!!!!

Italian averages haven't gone down to the levels they scraped in England and Germany in the mid 1980s, and are now back on the rise. The italian attendances problem is partly down to television which takes fans away from live games.

You cannot do that in Italy because the place is so chaotic it is hard to enforce the law.

do what?? reform stadium quality principles. I think you can if UEFA steppped in and made it compulsory if competing in european competition.

That era pre dated pay television mega tv contacts and there was even a season around the time Ferguson took over the reigns that there was a good chance Man U were going to be relegated.

since when has 1986 been 30 years ago. And since when has having a bad start and finishing 11th with your new manager a good chance of being relegated.

If you are trying to suggest relegation would effect their crowds then you are mistaken, they averaged the hihest in 1974/75 when they were in the second division.

You're wrong !
Especially, 30 years ago, stadiums in Europe were bigger than today,

30 years ago was 1979. Englands grounds weren't that much bigger than they are now for most clubs.


but nowadays, I agree it's better to rebuild smaller, for being sure to fill it, and then extend, for follow the demand (not precede it).
And, you already know, in Italy, where stadiums are too big and, like ours in France, very dilapidated, it is better to have new ones smaller but more suitable.

those same stadiums in Italy weren't to big 20 years ago. it's television i tell ya!

I'm not wrong. It's only the last 20 years that Man United have had a need for a major expansion.

About Man Utd they already had attendance of 75k in the 30's.

Anyway, I meant all stadiums in Europe were bigger in the past, than today, and attendances bigger especially due to terraces:

Old Stamford Bridge:
http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1039/010268369300200.jpg

------------------

Old Hampden Park:
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/6609/fil2883copie.jpg

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/3460/vcopie.jpg

------------------

Old Ibrox Park:
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/395/fil2937copie.jpg

http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/3254/fil13920copie.jpg

But a new stadium only increases demand by itself in the beginning after it has opened (usually quite heavily so). Afterwards its down to the performance of the club and the league.

Yeah but the length of "hangover" varies from club-to-club. Also not all clubs need a well performing team to maintain good attendance.

I'd hope the new juve stadium is so amazing that it creates unprecendented demand and they have to increase and other clubs begin to see the value of modern club owned football only stadiums and it sparks the revival of Italian football.

Well it can be quite a waste of money to have a number of extensions instead of going bigger right away.

That was a crude example.

Man united have increased old trafford 5 times in the last 17 years. And i think that model has worked best for them

roughly
30,000 > 44,000 > 55,000 > 63,000 > 68,000 > 76,000

About Man Utd they already had attendance of 75k in the 30's.

no they didn't man united's record crowd at old trafford was only 70,000. The record attendance at old trafford was for a cup semi final and was 77,000.

Also those pictures are a small selection and the massive crowds were pre 60/70s.

no they didn't man united's record crowd at old trafford was only 70,000. The record attendance at old trafford was for a cup semi final and was 77,000.

Ok, I thought it was for Man Utd games but other clubs had really impressive attendances even in the 70's/80's like Benfica, Real Madrid or Schalke !

OK, but take a look at the average attendances of serie A for 2008/2009 :

Average attendance by Percentage of Capacity:

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/4396/image2ast.jpg


Average attendance by club:

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/9358/image1ltr.jpg



Anyway it's not only due to live games on TV (I saw audiences and they aren't so big). The main reasons, IMO, are the very dilapidated state of stadiums and security troubles, that's why people (especially families) stay at home.

Italian League: Lega Calcio, Serie A TIM :

Average attendance by club 2008/2009 :
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/9358/image1ltr.jpg


Average attendance by Percentage of Capacity 2008/2009 :
http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/4396/image2ast.jpg

OK, but take a look at the average attendances of serie A for 2008/2009 :

Average attendance by Percentage of Capacity:

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/4396/image2ast.jpg


Average attendance by club:

http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/9358/image1ltr.jpg



Anyway it's not only due to live games on TV (I saw audiences and they aren't so big). The main reasons, IMO, are the very dilapidated state of stadiums and security troubles, that's why people (especially families) stay at home.

1. An audience of 10,000 stops 10,000 people going to the game.
2. Those same stadiums used to be full
3. The stadiums are the right size for the clubs in the right circumstances, the same thing happened in England and GErmany in the 80s, half empty dilapidated stadiums and a fear of violence, all it took was modern stadiums to bring most fans back. Same can be said of Italy.
4. Showing current stats doesn't prove anything, all it shows is right now people aren't attending and that's it, it doesn't prove that people will never attend, especially as history tells us they will.
5. If you are arguing that it's the stadiums then all you need is to give teams modern safe stadiums with the same capacity and they'll fill them. It's a no brainer really.

Yes ! But the topic here is about Juventus and NO, as I already told, they don't need a 70k stadium, for the moment, like the old one (even if I miss it)...

I also told , in France, Germany, Spain and even in UK, the stadiums were bigger in the past, than today !

Wolves are taking thier 5th, 5,000 + away support this season for the trip to Oakwell, Barnsley.

All 5,790 away tickets were sold before general sale and 12 days before the match.

http://www.freewebs.com/tims92/Barnsley/Oakwell%20Panoramic%201.jpg


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3496/3456693166_123360596e_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3631/3455856965_feaab004a0_b.jpg

Here are portuguese average attendances, on our "Liga Sagres" (our top-flight division):

http://i43.tinypic.com/98u3h1.jpg

Unfortunately, the numbers are not good at all. My club (Vitória de Guimarães) is an honorable exception besides the "big" three, but the vast majority of clubs have very low attendances.

You can see the current official data here: http://www.lpfp.pt/futebol/pages/espectadores.aspx?epoca=20082009&info=Clube&competicao=Liga_sagres

It was pretty much the same stadia 15 years ago. A little wear and tear isn't gonna stop someone from going to the game. But when you have a stressless, 50 inch tv and cold beer two feet from you it's not easy to get sold on going to games any more.

exactly for once i agree with the duck.

they need the same mentality on football on telly as we over here. We still manage bumper TV contracts without every game being broadcast live!

I'm not so sure !

For many stadiums in Italy it's more than "a little wear and tear", this is the same problem with the Stade Vélodrome in Marseille (rebuilt in 1998) and most of stadiums in Italy have useless athletics tracks.

:ohno:



Stadiums generally don't stop you going to a stadium, especially if you have a good team or are playing a good team.

As mentioned many times the reasons why attendance is down is a combination of the Safety (threat of violence), comfort, television and cost. The former two can be remedied with new high quality, well maintained stadiums, the latter two are cultural and would need a major overhaul to change.

And tbf the averages aren't that bad in these bad stadiums. Which points to the fact that if teams had good stadiums, averages would be comparable with at least the premier league!

^^
Damen, there's a huge difference in the average attendance in the portugese league.

I'm not so sure !

For many stadiums in Italy it's more than "a little wear and tear", this is the same problem with the Stade Vélodrome in Marseille (rebuilt in 1998) and most of stadiums in Italy have useless athletics tracks. The tracks were there before as well. That's no excuse for the drop in attendance. What really has changed since the mid 80s? TV. That's it. The stadia sucked back then too. People didn't care back then. Today it's more difficult to sell the experience because of TV.

^^
Damen, there's a huge difference in the average attendance in the portugese league.

I wonder if people talk about Benfica and Porto joining La Liga the same way they talk about the Old Firm joining the EPL...

I wonder if people talk about Benfica and Porto joining La Liga the same way they talk about the Old Firm joining the EPL...

I know there's been talk of the Portuguese big 3 joining the superclubs of Scotland, Belgium, Netherlands and Scandinavia to form an "Atlantic League". UEFA doesn't want it since it will devalue European competitions.

Here are portuguese average attendances, on our "Liga Sagres" (our top-flight division):

http://i43.tinypic.com/98u3h1.jpg

Unfortunately, the numbers are not good at all. My club (Vitória de Guimarães) is an honorable exception besides the "big" three, but the vast majority of clubs have very low attendances.

You can see the current official data here: http://www.lpfp.pt/futebol/pages/espectadores.aspx?epoca=20082009&info=Clube&competicao=Liga_sagres

Thats amazing. I know Portugal is only a small country but the fact probably about 20 clubs in England have a higher average away attendence then all but 6/7 off Portugals biggest clubs home and away support is amazing.

The occupation off those stadiums must not be very nice for the players to play in.

All but 91 our of Englands 92 league clubs would make it into that graph. Bradford in Englands 4th division manage on average 12,659 this season and thats down 7.6% this season.

^^ Ok but how do you explain the attendances are growing up in France since the refurbishment of stadiums ????

Grenoble is a great example, before the new stadium, their average attendance was 9,000/match and with the new Stade des Aples (another one with Delle Alpi :)) their attendance is more than 18,000/match (even in Ligue 2) ????

Same in others cities in France....

I think, in the past, people didn't care about Athletics tracks, for example, but today they care, and want confortable stadiums, people and times change !

^^ Ok but how do you explain the attendances are growing up in France since the refurbishment of stadiums ????That's my whole point! Attendance isn't down because the stadiums are crap, they're down because people now have a better alternative. Before people didn't care that the stadiums were crap, they went anyway because that was the only way they'd get to follow their team. Today it's different because every game is on TV. Now it's difficult to sell the experience of a crap stadium with poor facilities and even worse view of the action. Now teams need to give people a reason to attend games. Not the die hard fans, they'll show up anyway. But they're not the ones who are the target here. I'm talking the €2000 season ticket chairs on the main stands and the luxery boxes. That's where the money is made. A top of the line intimate and safe stadium with catering, cold beer and a great view of the action is the only way to do it.

^^ england has 5 times the population, don't try and compare them.

I know there's been talk of the Portuguese big 3 joining the superclubs of Scotland, Belgium, Netherlands and Scandinavia to form an "Atlantic League". UEFA doesn't want it since it will devalue European competitions.

actually UEFA/Platini for regional leagues now as they see it as the only way to close the gap between the leagues. And it won't devalue european competition

An iberian league has definately been talked about as far as i am aware

a benelux league

a scandanavian league

celtic and rangers joining the prem.

a Balkans league

The atlantic league is not radar anymore

The problem in Portugal is that most of people prefer to support the so called "big three" (B3 )instead of the local teams. With the exception of Vitória de Guimarães and, in a smaller scale, Braga, the "big three" always "play at home" even when playing away.

Dis is due to may factors, but one of them is without a doubt the press. They give 99,9% of their time and focus to the B3. Half of the pages in sports newspapers is dedicated to the B3, they make plenty of programs with commentators only from the B3, they present half an hour highlights of the B3 games, intercalated by 2 minute highlights of the other clubs and I could go on and on. You can see that for yourself seeing, for example, the main portuguese websites:

http://www.abola.pt/ - look to the upper side, there are the B3 symbols and none of the others - their news are always more updated, more noticed and even in the right you can see a small table with the last updates from only the B3.

http://www.ojogo.pt/ or http://www.record.pt/ or http://www.maisfutebol.iol.pt/- look at the menu and you can see the B3 team names and just one "category" for the "others".

I could show you even more but you get the picture. Compare for example with http://www.francefootball.fr/ or http://www.marca.com/ (all 1st division teams with links on the first page) to see the HUGE difference.

This is something I really despise, the complete focus only on the B3. I am fortunate enough to support the biggest menace, by far, to this monopoly. My team, Guimarães, has an average attendance of 18,069, we have 20120 annual seats sold, we have 31341 registered fans and we always have a big following away. This coming from an area with a population of about 150,000 and in the context of Portugal is something extraordinary and only possible because people really love Vitoria and are "bairristas", that is, they really love and are involved in all that concerns its city. This big following extends to any sports being practiced by my team. For example, on Saturday there will be 3,000 filling up our gym to the the 2nd game of the National Volleyball final.

That's my whole point! Attendance isn't down because the stadiums are crap, they're down because people now have a better alternative. Before people didn't care that the stadiums were crap, they went anyway because that was the only way they'd get to follow their team. Today it's different because every game is on TV. Now it's difficult to sell the experience of a crap stadium with poor facilities and even worse view of the action. Now teams need to give people a reason to attend games. Not the die hard fans, they'll show up anyway. But they're not the ones who are the target here. I'm talking the €2000 season ticket chairs on the main stands and the luxery boxes. That's where the money is made. A top of the line intimate and safe stadium with catering, cold beer and a great view of the action is the only way to do it.

Wrong all the line!! :lol: Germany shows that all new stadiums raise more crowd because they are very comfortable!! You don't only go to look at the game but you buy foods, and other things like in America!!

And tv audiences still great!!

You're totally wrong man :ohno:

You know nothing about the culture of entertainement today but still approach things with an fan eye!! :lol:

It's not your fault

actually UEFA/Platini for regional leagues now as they see it as the only way to close the gap between the leagues. And it won't devalue european competition

An iberian league has definately been talked about as far as i am aware

a benelux league

a scandanavian league

celtic and rangers joining the prem.

a Balkans league

The atlantic league is not radar anymore


I wouldn't mind seeing a Balkan league. The old Yugoslavian league was highly competitive with big crowds. Now it's so splintered that each domestic league is a total farce. A balkan league would really drive attendance, sponsorship and TV revenue through the roof. Balkan clubs would be able to hang on to their best players and get back to challenging in Europe.

I wouldn't mind seeing a Balkan league. The old Yugoslavian league was highly competitive with big crowds. Now it's so splintered that each domestic league is a total farce. A balkan league would really drive attendance, sponsorship and TV revenue through the roof. Balkan clubs would be able to hang on to their best players and get back to challenging in Europe.

maybe not throught the roof, but it will push it up to a higher level, as there would be more big teams in it. Allow teams to keep players, and at least send teams regularly into the champions league, as the environment would be far more competitive.

Obviously the threat of violence would be a problem, but so would it be if they are drawn together in Europe, they can't pussyfoot around it forever.

Current average attendances in the Swedish top league. More evenly distributed than the Portuguese, but without any real "big ones":

Malmö FF 21 728
AIK 19 401
IFK Göteborg 17 979
Hammarby 12 833
Helsingborgs IF 10 689
IF Elfsborg 9 900
Djurgården 9 346
Örebro 8 432
Örgryte 8 118
GAIS 5 812
Halmstads BK 5 266
Kalmar FF 5 238
Gefle IF FF 4 398
IF Brommapojkarna4 087
BK Häcken 3 209
Trelleborgs FF 2 717

VVV Venlo just won the Dutch Eerste Divisie and thus will play in the Eredivisie next year.
Since their stadion is tiny (only 6000 seats according to their website, altough official match statistics say 6500 attended their last game, down from 24500 in the 70s), Eredivisie average attendance will probably decline a little for the first time since 03/04. NAC Breda will be adding around 1k capacity, maybe other clubs will also do some small remodeling, but that probably won´t be enough to compensate. Seems the only way to avoid a decline is FC Volendam (stadium capacity only 6260, but strangely not sold out every match) finishing last, but they´ve gotten some great results lately. Hopefully no other small clubs will enter via the relegation playoffs.

VVV sell out every match, even in the Eerste Divisie. They want to build a new 20k stadium, which in some ways is rather sad, since their current home is full of odd charm (note the stands being interrupted halfway down by grass)

http://kepek.eufoci.hu/stadionok/ssdk.jpg
http://www.soccernews.nl/uploads/de%20koel%20%5Bgroot.jpg

A League, Australia. 2008/2009 season.

Adelaide United - 11,712
http://www.pitchcare.com.au/image/L/FlCBELIkdw.jpg

Central Coast Mariners - 10,465
http://www.oleole.com/media/main/images/member_photos/group1/subgrp256/bluetongue-stadiam_90258.jpg

Melbourne Victory - 24,516
http://images.theage.com.au/ftage/ffximage/2009/02/28/soccer6_gallery__600x367.jpg
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200902/r337219_1529723.jpg
http://http://farm1.static.flickr.com/137/394768186_a2f6aba1e4.jpg?v=0

Newcastle Jets - 9,729
http://au.fourfourtwo.com/images/aleague/stadiums/newcastle.jpg

Queensland Roar - 12,995
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f0/Qld_roar_suncorp.jpg/500px-Qld_roar_suncorp.jpg
http://mikelward.com/news/uploaded_images/suncorp-stadium-inecita-2-761377.jpg

Sydney FC - 12,375
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2017/2219961536_2cb3b1ab4d.jpg

Wellington Phoenix - 7,193
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YNki2QgoMJI/RqPOPCDfWZI/AAAAAAAAABg/tfJDLm9P404/s200/phoenix+crowd.jpg

very appropriate image for Melbourne FC woozoo :)

^^ Oh F*ck I forgot Perth lol. thanks for reminding me :)

Perth Glory - 7,942
http://www.sportingdaily.net/images/a-larger-than-expected-crowd-was-at-central-coast-1.JPG

I love it when someone manages to sneak a flare or two into the dome :D

I wonder if people talk about Benfica and Porto joining La Liga the same way they talk about the Old Firm joining the EPL...

You're talking about a country that is part of the UK. It's easy imagine things like that when you talk about Scotland.

Obviously that could never happen between Spain and Portugal. There are some talks about creating an Iberian Cup. But that's all, a league would never be accepted.


And why the hell are leaving Sporting out of that talk?
In this century they finish above Benfica 6 times in 9 seasons (we could add this season already and make it 7 times), and won 2 leagues while Benfica won 1. This is just because of Benfica's past glories?

In my opinion the three countries that have contributed most to the world game of football both on and off the field since the games invention are the three countries with the highest attendances historically.
ENGLAND
BRAZIL
GERMANY

Let the arguments begin:lol:

^^erm Italy has had higher attendances historically than England up until this decade that is.... and Brazil??

Brazil is the home of beautiful football and where you rob talent. :)

^^erm Italy has had higher attendances historically than England up until this decade that is.... and Brazil??

Do you have stats to back that up?

Do you have stats to back that up?

why yes sir, as i said up until this decade you will presume we will stop at season 1999-2000. Also italian stats only go back as far as 1962-63

Well anyway

between 1962-63 and 1999-2000, the italian league was higher than englands for every season from 1972-73-until 1998-99, as well as 1970-71. England was only higher from 1962-63 until 1969-70 and 1971-72

italy England
2000 29.908 30.757
1999 30.841 30.588
1998 31.160 29.213
1997 29.476 28.463
1996 29.447 27.570
1995 29.154 24.294
1994 29.884 23.022
1993 32.607 21.140
1992 34.204 21.710
1991 33.254 22.766
1990 27.133 20.776
1989 29.454 20.561
1988 30.633 19.273
1987 33.086 19.777
1986 35.882 19.563
1985 38.872 21.080
1984 36.552 18.834
1983 33.019 20.127
1982 31.942 22.555
1981 27.646 24.682
1980 30.983 26.327
1979 32.858 27.428
1978 34.154 28.692
1977 32.316 29.389
1976 32.177 28.333
1975 31.258 27.239
1974 34.914 28.294
1973 32.176 30.257
1972 29.559 31.324
1971 30.805 30.205
1970 30.134 32.074
1969 28.410 31.421
1968 26.507 33.020
1967 23.818 30.770
1966 24.524 26.899
1965 20.321 27.508
1964 21.617 27.029
1963 22.363 26.952

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/attnhis/attnhisita.htm

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/aveengall.htm

I do not want to be padantic and i concede recent stats based on div 1, but i am talking about all divisions and all years from basically sheffield fc onwards!
In that respect its as i mentioned those 3 countries with Spain a close 4th.

^^what??

1. Italian stats only go back as far as 1962-63, when there is evidence of massive crowds way before that, but nothing concrete so how can you compare and therefore how can you make that statement...?

2. You said

are the three countries with the highest attendances historically.

You don't have evidence to back that up, and what evidence there is refutes the statement.

3. Where do you get spain from, germany from, and brazil from... Germany didn't even have professional football or a national league until 1963.

4. Sheffield FC, "the f*ck?" why are you moving the goalposts, and what does the 19th century and amatuer football have to do with the 20th century and professional football

5. I re iterate, you have no evidence to back up your statement.

^^what??

1. Italian stats only go back as far as 1962-63, when there is evidence of massive crowds way before that, but nothing concrete so how can you compare and therefore how can you make that statement...?

2. You said



You don't have evidence to back that up, and what evidence there is refutes the statement.

3. Where do you get spain from, germany from, and brazil from... Germany didn't even have professional football or a national league until 1963.

4. Sheffield FC, "the f*ck?" why are you moving the goalposts, and what does the 19th century and amatuer football have to do with the 20th century and professional football

5. I re iterate, you have no evidence to back up your statement.

Regardless of average attendances in the top divisions, I think you'll find that, thoughout the divisions, more people have, on average, followed English football than Italian football - this despite England having a population of getting on for 10 million less than Italy.

Ah jimB it's been a while... i don't understand why you are quoting a post and arguing something different...

Regardless of average attendances in the top divisions, I think you'll find that, thoughout the divisions, more people have, on average, followed English football than Italian football -

1. can you actually prove it?? if so what does that prove?? where do you draw the line?? have you got stats from every italian division going back??

2. More people may watch now that we have statistics for a lot of the divisions in each country, but you can't make wide sweeping statements like that without proof...

3. If you argue that league A has a better supported top division than league B, but league B has better supported lower divisions, then all that proves is that the peak of League A is higher than the peak of league B and the depths of League A are lower. In italy top division football is near enough the be all and end all, in England top division football is massive but for many clubs it doesn't change much. So it doesn't really prove anything.

4. Hence why you get such a massive drop off between serie a and serie b, Two different cultures that you can only really compare at top flight level if anywhere. And at top flight level serie a invariable comes out on top.

this despite England having a population of getting on for 10 million less than Italy.

That doesn't mean much, as we have debated before having a larger population doesn't mean you should get larger crowds as it depends on where teams are located, how many are located in large population centres etc etc

And JimB this isn't an England vs Italy argument, he brought in Spain, Germany and Brazil with no basis. I don't disagree lower league football in England is more popular, but i don't believe it proves anything, I just don't believe that he can make wide sweeping statements with no evidence.

1. can you actually prove it?? if so what does that prove?? where do you draw the line?? have you got stats from every italian division going back??

2. More people may watch now that we have statistics for a lot of the divisions in each country, but you can't make wide sweeping statements like that without proof...

I didn't make any wide, sweeping statements. I wrote: "I think you'll find that.....". In other words, if you were to do the research (and I know that you love that sort of thing and have a seemingly unlimited amount of time to do it ;) ), I think you'll find that, overall, more people have, on average, watched football in England than they have in Italy.

3. If you argue that league A has a better supported top division than league B, but league B has better supported lower divisions, then all that proves is that the peak of League A is higher than the peak of league B and the depths of League A are lower. In italy top division football is near enough the be all and end all, in England top division football is massive but for many clubs it doesn't change much. So it doesn't really prove anything.

4. Hence why you get such a massive drop off between serie a and serie b, Two different cultures that you can only really compare at top flight level if anywhere. And at top flight level serie a invariable comes out on top.

Indeed. Two different cultures. One which demonstrably has a love of football at every level and another which, as you say, is only really interested in watching football at the highest level. However, given the finite pool of potential attendees at football matches in either country, it wouldn't be representative to judge attendances purely on top flight figures - reason being that the relatively high attendances and unswerving passion for the lower divisions in England has inevitably had a negative impact on historical attendances for English football's top flight - a phenomenon not experienced to any great degree by the top flight in Italian football.

Merely to cite, in isolation, the historically bigger attendances in serie A tells only half the story and is therefore worthless in a discussion such as this. You either have to look at the whole picture or none at all.

Someone on here is very upset, when the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown in to the sea.:lol:
If I had an argument with a player we would sit down for twenty minutes, talk about it and then decide I was right!

More sweeping statements for your pleasure-

England-worlds oldest football team, Sheffield fc, worlds oldest football ground, Hallam, currently worlds most popular league, credited with inventing game.
Brazil- worlds most succesful national football team, arguably worlds best player, pele, arguably have produced majority of worlds most gifted players.
Germany-worlds most consistent team and majority of fifa organisation has been german nationals for past 25 years (yes i know hq is in switzerland) thus fifas influence on world game has been predominantly german.

I didn't make any wide, sweeping statements. I wrote: "I think you'll find that.....". In other words, if you were to do the research (and I know that you love that sort of thing and have a seemingly unlimited amount of time to do it ;) ), I think you'll find that, overall, more people have, on average, watched football in England than they have in Italy.

1. You assume I research most of this…

2. Are you insinuating (I sound like lampard d'oh) that I have unlimited free time? If so I’d implore you to look at my post times of late (except today of course) and understand I am deeply intelligent and type like at the speed of secretary... (the last two points may be subjective and untrue)

3. I still think that is a wide sweeping statement as the evidence isn't there. There are only Serie A and Serie B figures down to 1962. And lower than that is only from this decade, where I will concede.

Indeed. Two different cultures.

And thus two different ways of viewing football

I am under no illusion that loyalty is much higher in England, but you must see that loyalty is sometimes irrational. I'd recommend the Italian job by Gabriele Marcotti and Gianluca vialli, it real gets under the skin of the difference between our football cultures. And it really hits home that in England we are motivated by effort, so we'll keep turning up to see clod hoppers trying hard, and in Italy it's by the result, and obviously the higher the level the better, hence why unsuccessful teams get a drop off, as why would you want to associate yourself with inferiority.

One which demonstrably has a love of football at every level and another which, as you say, is only really interested in watching football at the highest level.

I didn't really say that. I said that the power of Serie A is greater than that of the premier league (within each country) and you can argue that that is to the detriment of the lower leagues. There are still very well supported lower league clubs and there always will be, but those very well supported lower league clubs are extremely well supported within Serie A that was the point aka The drop off. In England man united will (as proven) get the same crowds in the top two divisions, whereas in Italy Man united may lose half their fan base, until the promotion party of course.

However, given the finite pool of potential attendees at football matches in either country, it wouldn't be representative to judge attendances purely on top flight figures -

For me in a way I agree, but I’d disagree on how to analyse. The way to do it is maybe to look at every clubs peak average since 1963, and lowest average. Then you can see who is better supported at their peak and at their lowest ebb. The point being that at your peak that is likely you tapping into the fullness of your potential and for me it seems potential in Italy for many clubs is greater, and at your lowest ebb that are you scrapping the barrell.

I do think we have the same north/south schism in football. Smaller northern clubs are smaller than smaller southern clubs but smaller northern clubs seem to do better, hence why when smaller southern clubs are in Serie A and The Prem their average crowds tend to be far bigger than smaller northern... bit of a digression

reason being that the relatively high attendances and unswerving passion for the lower divisions in England has inevitably had a negative impact on historical attendances for English football's top flight - a phenomenon not experienced to any great degree by the top flight in Italian football.

Can I first clarify that this hasn't always been the case, in the 80s Serie A had better lower division support than most of our top flight it's all swings and roundabouts.

You are assuming that by Serie A having higher attendance figures it is leaching potential fans from lower league football and that in England it is the other way. I disagree with that, I would argue that the difference is that fans stick around for lower league football in England and not Italy. Look at Palermo, Napoli (for the most part) etc, when not in Serie A their crowds disappear, but when in Serie a they generally reappear.

The point being that we have the same supporter base, but in Italy this generally only manifests in the upper reaches of Serie B and Serie A in Italy before tailing off sharply, and tailing of much more slowly in England.

Like I said previously I think it all stems from Italy’s league having capitalist leanings earlier than ours. From the onset it was a win Serie A league at whatever costs in England it was play hard and if you win and the end then great, some would argue it wasn't till the 1960s that we truly got a cutting edge and started to demand winning football and that was when the crowds generally went down. The point being that in England we go to watch our team try and win and in italy they go to watch their team win and who they are playing has a bearing on the satisfaction of the win hence why a team who gets poor crowds all season will see legions appear for the big derby or against the big clubs. This is because the result in beating them matters. This is the "casual" fan, of which there seem to be more in Italy than in England.

I think a point needs to be raised about population to team ratio the point being that If you have more population than capacity possible then of course you will lose attendance value, i.e. if your country has 2 million, 1 million people in 1 city and the rest scattered around 7 cities. Each city has 1 team, and each has the support of 50% of their city. The team from the 1 m city has 500,000 fans but realistically can't play in a stadium more than say 100,000 meaning that attendance value is lost and it looks like the league is worse supported. Relating that back Naples has realistically one team for nearly 1 million people. You could argue that they should sell out every week and until the mid 90s they did more or less. If Naples has 2-3 teams then maybe the attendances would be more spread out and the averages would be larger but they don't. Leeds is in a similar situation but football isn't for my money as big in leeds as really most of England. Therefore I would disagree with any assertion that if you have more fans spread over more clubs it affects the growth potential of clubs’ when having fans centred on less clubs does also in a different way. However I would argue that in italy they have similar sized clubs to us.

Merely to cite, in isolation, the historically bigger attendances in serie A tells only half the story and is therefore worthless in a discussion such as this. You either have to look at the whole picture or none at all.

But what is the discussion??

You seem to be trying to assert that football is more popular in England because lower league football has bigger attendances?? I would assert that football is EQUALLY popular in both nations but the way the popularity manifests is different. In Italy it is the result and attendances are linked to that, in England it is the performance and trying hard. This is seems to be why lower league football seems to be more popular.

Someone on here is very upset, when the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown in to the sea.:lol:

If you're assuming i am upset, then i can assume your aim was to upset somebody, which is very adult of you.

anyway I am preturbed by the ignorance and arrogance of a lot of English football fans.

If I had an argument with a player we would sit down for twenty minutes, talk about it and then decide I was right!

Brian Clough quoted myself on that one.

More sweeping statements for your pleasure-

England-worlds oldest football team, Sheffield fc, worlds oldest football ground, Hallam,

do you expect to find disagreement??

currently worlds most popular league,

define popularity, i'd say the bundesliga is more popular in real fan numbers, i don't count Barry in Bangkok as a real fan.

credited with inventing game.

codifiying

Brazil- worlds most succesful national football team, arguably worlds best player, pele, arguably have produced majority of worlds most gifted players.

1. In world cup terms, but i don't think we can ever truely identify which national team is the best at any given period because of the transcient nature of the teams and the unpredicatable knock out nature of the tournaments.

2. how does producing the worlds best player make you the best??

3. argentina for me produces more great footballers per head than brazil, it has less than 4 times the population after all. Give England, Italy, spain etc 150 million and you wouldn't expect to see their players everywhere...


Germany-worlds most consistent team and majority of fifa organisation has been german nationals for past 25 years (yes i know hq is in switzerland) thus fifas influence on world game has been predominantly german.

1. what has consistency got to do with anything?? and surely Brazil is as consistent if not more.

2. majority of the FIFA organisation what?? that is the most bull crap statement i have ever read and shows what scraping the barrel is.

Your german arguments are laughable bruv!!

Look Europe and south american have equal love for the game, no country loves the game more than another, it is just manifested in different ways. What in England we might consider an indicator of love for the game, in another country they might not consider it that way.

most countries have contributed a lot to the culture and game play since the war, and for me out of the major nations England has probably contributed least, afterall it has taken the foreign invasion for our league to gain top spot.

most countries have contributed a lot to the culture and game play since the war, and for me out of the major nations England has probably contributed least,

Who do you qualify as 'the major nations'?

afterall it has taken the foreign invasion for our league to gain top spot.

What and it didn't take foreign players to make Spanish and Italian leagues gain top spot in the last 20 years? Remember when English teams (Liverpool, Forest and Villa) dominated from the mid 70's until the Heysal tragedy, they were probably 95% British players if not higher. So what's your point with the above statement?

Who do you qualify as 'the major nations'?



What and it didn't take foreign players to make Spanish and Italian leagues gain top spot in the last 20 years? Remember when English teams (Liverpool, Forest and Villa) dominated from the mid 70's until the Heysal tragedy, they were probably 95% British players if not higher. So what's your point with the above statement?

Quite right.

English clubs also had a very good record in the UEFA Cup and Cup Winners Cup prior to Heysel. In fact, prior to Heysel and prior to the big influx of foreign talent, English clubs were significantly ahead of any other nation's clubs in terms of European trophies won:

Total European Cup trophies, by nation, up to and including 1985 (year of Heysel and England's ban from European club competitions):

England - 8
Spain - 6
Italy - 5
Germany - 4

Total UEFA Cup / Fairs Cup trophies, by nation, up to and including 1985:

England - 9
Spain - 7
Germany - 3
Italy - 2

Total European Cup Winners Cup trophies, by nation, up to and including 1985:

England - 5
Spain - 4
Italy - 4
Germany - 4

Total European trophies, by nation, up to and including 1985:

England - 22
Spain - 17
Italy - 11
Germany - 11

As to culture and game play, I suspect that European teams learnt an awful lot from English clubs' dominance in the 70's and early 80's. Most notably, they learnt the importance of pressing opponents.

Back in the 70's and 80's, continental European teams were accustomed to having plenty of time on the ball. They therefore found the intensity and athleticism of English teams a rude shock. They couldn't cope with the speed that they had to release the ball and how quickly space was closed down.

However, during English clubs' enforced five year absence, continental teams learnt the art of pressing. And now you see clubs all over Europe closing down space. Ironically, you notice it especially when they play against English clubs or the England national team. That's because continental clubs (usually correctly) reckon that English teams aren't especially technically accomplished or comfortable on the ball and will therefore easily concede possession if put under pressure.

^^ i wil reply to you Jimb and you kiwibrit a bit later on... Let me just clarify i think you are both wrong but i will explain later... and i love how you left my last post alone jim!!