The Business of HockeyDiscuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Franchise sales, valuations, TV contracts, ratings, expansion, relocation, the CBA and work stoppage discussion goes here.
Why are Professional Sports Leagues Capped at around 30 teams?
But their attendance has increased since 1995. I canpick any random year too. Jays attendance has declined since 1992, Leafs attendance has decreased since 2004, Tfc attendance has decreased since 2010, etc. etc. etc.
I'd be curious to see a comparison of the total number of major pro sports teams in the US vs. population and the total number of major pro sports teams in, say, England vs. population. Someone far more familiar with English sports would have to do this, because I honestly don't know what constitutes major pro over there.
Here in the US, we have 1 major pro sports team for every 2,732,261 people. (30 MLB teams minus the Blue Jays, 30 NBA teams minus the Raptors, 32 NFL teams, 30 NHL teams minus the 7 Canadian franchises... 113 US major pro teams... 308,745,538/113=2,732,261)
Just the Premier league, 49m/20 = 2.45 million fans per. Very close Per capita.
No offence but it doesnt take a genius to know that the Argos attendance has drop compared to 30 years ago. The same way the Jays attendance has dropped significantly compared to 20 years ago. Just not sure what the point of mentioning something so ridiculously obvious is?
The theory in terms of the Argos and Jays with respect to the NFL is that an NFL franchise in Toronto will kill the CFL there and send the Jays packing.
This stems from the suggestion that the skydome be used for home games until a new stadium would be built.
Quote:
Originally Posted by htpwn
Arrowhead Stadium was built in 1972. If a stadium was built in Toronto, it would likely follow the lines of Lucas Oil Stadium (latest NFL stadium built, except for Cowboy Stadium and MetLife Stadium, both built 'over-spec'), which cost $720 million to build in 2008.
Why? Why does it have to be some fancy indoor stadium?
And Arrowhead didn't cost 300 Million to build in 1972. It was the projected construction cost of the stadium if it were built in 2006 or so.
A decent sized NFL outdoor stadium would be in the range of 400-500 Million and those are very solid numbers.
However it all depends on how the project would be handled.
The theory in terms of the Argos and Jays with respect to the NFL is that an NFL franchise in Toronto will kill the CFL there and send the Jays packing.
This stems from the suggestion that the skydome be used for home games until a new stadium would be built.
Why? Why does it have to be some fancy indoor stadium?
And Arrowhead didn't cost 300 Million to build in 1972. It was the projected construction cost of the stadium if it were built in 2006 or so.
A decent sized NFL outdoor stadium would be in the range of 400-500 Million and those are very solid numbers.
However it all depends on how the project would be handled.
A stadium similar to CentruyLink Field would be perfect for Toronto.
Why? Why does it have to be some fancy indoor stadium?
And Arrowhead didn't cost 300 Million to build in 1972. It was the projected construction cost of the stadium if it were built in 2006 or so.
A decent sized NFL outdoor stadium would be in the range of 400-500 Million and those are very solid numbers.
However it all depends on how the project would be handled.
No, Arrowhead was renovated between 2007-2010 for $375 million. It was built in 1972 for $43 million, or taking inflation into account, $243 million in 2012 dollars.
Either way, you do make a good point. I didn't consider that LucasOil Stadium had a roof, which obviously escalated costs. However, even the suggested CenturyLink Field or an open air stadium like Lincoln Financial Field cost near or over $500 million to build in the early part of last decade. Even discounting inflation, construction costs have gone through the roof in the last 10 years. I don't think an NFL stadium can be built for less than $700 million today, which given the stadium would have to be privately funded, puts a huge debt load on any prospective owner right from the start.
I think MLB, NBA & NHL should contract to 28 teams. It would allow revenue sharing being expanded and would make the talent pool better.
The A's & Rays could easily be contracted from MLB, the NBA has quite a few teams that could go due to poor attendance and money losses with the Kings, Bucks, Pacers, Bobcats & Hawks, then look at the NHL as some could argue about 4 to 6 teams are in trouble and could be contracted.
I even think MLS should contract Chivas USA right now and wait to expand to 20. The sports market is tapped out right now but the TV contracts are getting bigger and better. The NFL is perfect at 32 teams right now.
You're never going to get the players unions to eliminate all those positions in their respective sports. Especially when there are still viable cities that would like to have teams.
I'd be curious to see a comparison of the total number of major pro sports teams in the US vs. population and the total number of major pro sports teams in, say, England vs. population. Someone far more familiar with English sports would have to do this, because I honestly don't know what constitutes major pro over there.
Here in the US, we have 1 major pro sports team for every 2,732,261 people. (30 MLB teams minus the Blue Jays, 30 NBA teams minus the Raptors, 32 NFL teams, 30 NHL teams minus the 7 Canadian franchises... 113 US major pro teams... 308,745,538/113=2,732,261)
Major sports in terms of like our big 4 leagues? There's only the Premier League, which was covered. The other major team sports in England (rugby union and especially cricket) only have pro leagues to feed the international circuit. Lower division football leagues are a lot like college sports. The numbers will stay roughly similar or get lower, too, because soccer is so pervasive and is really the primary sport in most countries and virtually all soccer leagues are capped at around 20 teams (though many are smaller).
Since we have no "major league" distinction, it is impossible to compare. I mean, even if the Premier League as a whole is far more popular here than the NFL is in America - and it is, revenue-per capita is twice as high - you'd hardly describe half the clubs as 'major'. Nor are they supposed to be; the Champions League is Europe's Stanley Cup and Blackburn Rovers and Bolton Wanderers are some northwest AHL sides Man Utd / Vancouver can slaughter to qualify.
You're never going to get the players unions to eliminate all those positions in their respective sports. Especially when there are still viable cities that would like to have teams.
Like where? Just on MLB alone, Other than Portland? Charlotte? Atlanta is not giving up that area.
Like where? Just on MLB alone, Other than Portland? Charlotte? Atlanta is not giving up that area.
San Antonio. If not Charlotte, Raleigh. Nashville. Indianapolis. Montreal. Vancouver. Potentially OKC, Omaha in the future.
There are plenty of areas, although unlike the other 3, the MLB has done a much better job making sure there are no huge holes, and this despite having multiple markets with multiple teams (unless you consider Portland to be major, I wouldn't argue that too much). NFL's big one is LA. NBA's big ones are St. Louis and of course Seattle. You could throw Pittsburgh in there too. The NHL's we know about.
San Antonio. If not Charlotte, Raleigh. Nashville. Indianapolis. Montreal. Vancouver. Potentially OKC, Omaha in the future.
There are plenty of areas, although unlike the other 3, the MLB has done a much better job making sure there are no huge holes, and this despite having multiple markets with multiple teams (unless you consider Portland to be major, I wouldn't argue that too much). NFL's big one is LA. NBA's big ones are St. Louis and of course Seattle. You could throw Pittsburgh in there too. The NHL's we know about.
Very good point about the holes. MLB teams are very regional. I think the Reds would have a problem with Indy though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmiralsFan24
I doubt Atlanta would have much of a choice. It's 250 miles to Charlotte from Atlanta.
I also think Tampa and Oakland can work. They just need new stadiums in better locations.
Oakland has never had good attendance and Tampa is a better hockey market then baseball. If you don't believe me compare their attendance by by year since 2000 and you will see the Lightning have been a better draw.
Very good point about the holes. MLB teams are very regional. I think the Reds would have a problem with Indy though.
Oakland has never had good attendance and Tampa is a better hockey market then baseball. If you don't believe me compare their attendance by by year since 2000 and you will see the Lightning have been a better draw.
Oakland plays their games in a football stadium. Would you want to go watch games in a football stadium? Imagine how awful the sight lines are for that.
Tropicana Field is old and is in an area where most of the population in the metro area isn't.
Oakland plays their games in a football stadium. Would you want to go watch games in a football stadium? Imagine how awful the sight lines are for that.
Tropicana Field is old and is in an area where most of the population in the metro area isn't.
The Raiders where in LA for most of the 80's and 90's but Oakland still drew bad.
Pro Sports in Florida was poorly planned. The complaining about the Panthers on here is only about 10% percent of the problem. And they actually are showing up this year as well.
Oakland has never had good attendance and Tampa is a better hockey market then baseball.
Actually, the A's have drawn decently in the past - when they were winning and the Coliseum was a decent place to watch a game. Until Pac Bell opened, they frequently out drew the Giants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmiralsFan24
Oakland plays their games in a football stadium. Would you want to go watch games in a football stadium? Imagine how awful the sight lines are for that.
The Oakland Coliseum (I refuse to call it the O.Co Coliseum - possibly the worst name in pro sports) used to be a nice place to watch a game. It wasn't a football stadium - it was a multipurpose stadium built more for baseball than football (kind of similar to Shea Stadium). It was a much nicer Stadium than Candlestick - not that that is saying much. The sight lines were good - except that the infield was a bit far from the stands, to accommodate the gridiron, giving it wide swaths of foul territory and making it very much a pitchers park. Then the Raiders came back and the '95-'96 renovations killed all the charms of the place - the ugly bulk of Mount Davis blocked what had been a scenic open view of the East Bay hills.
Once Pac Bell opened up, the Giants pretty much took over the Bay Area casual fan base. The Coliseum, the last of the old multi purpose stadiums in MLB, was not a competitive stadium (from a revenue generating p.o.v.) and as payrolls rose in the 2000's the A's stopped being a competitive team and entered their current death spiral to irrelevance.
